A First Order Problem

2011 September 28
by drdog09

Steyn is always stating that demographics are futures. Well here is a rather unusual, and likely controversial review of the situation from a Geek —

The first difficult thing to accept, after the sexual revolution, is this: sexual repression and the double standard weren’t arbitrary forms of cruelty that societies ended up with by accident. They were functional adaptations. By raising the clearing price that women charged for sex, they actually increased female bargaining power and raised the marriage rate.

Most people can process that one without wincing. But this next one is a hot potato: the ideology of sexual equality made the problem a lot worse in two different ways. The obvious one was that it encouraged women to believe they could and should be able to act like men without negative consequences – including rising to male levels of promiscuity. The less obvious, but perhaps in the long run more damaging consequence, was that it collided with hypergamy.

Women are hypergamous. They want to marry men who are bigger, stronger, higher-status, a bit older, and a bit brighter than they are. This is massively confirmed by statistics on actual marriages; only the “a bit brighter” part is even controversial, and most of that controversy is ideological posturing.

OK, so what happens when women get educated, achieve economic equality, etcetera? Their pool of eligible hypergamic targets shrinks; the princess marrying the swineherd is a fairytale precisely because it’s so rare. More women seeking hypergamy from a higher baseline means the competition for eligible males is more intense, and womens’ ability to withold sex vanishes even supposing they want to. Thus, college campuses today, and plunging marriages rate tomorrow.

The question becomes: what are we going to give up? Family formation? Sexual equality? Sexual liberty? (By sexual equality I mean the presumption that women should be legally, economically, and educationally equal to men. By sexual liberty I mean both an absence of formal legal sanctions and an absence of guilt and psychological repression.) It looks very much as through we can’t have all three of those sustainably, and (this is the thought that really disturbs me) we may not even get to have more than one.

If we give up family formation it’s game over; we’ll be outbred by cultures that don’t. So that’s off the table. Following out the logic, the demographic future will belong to cultures that give up either sexual liberty or sexual equality, or both.

Source

I won’t ascribe a moral view on it. But it is an interesting observation. If the analysis rings true then there is a unsettling outcome —

The promiscuous idiots shall inherit the earth.

11 Responses leave one →
  1. 2011 September 28 1:56 pm
    [1]
    justrand permalink

    wow, this is thought provoking…

    and here’s another angle on the importance of families and FEMALES within the families…

    I read a study/analysis a few years that tried to postulate why it is that women have longer lifespans than men. They took into account the tendency over time for men to have more dangerous jobs, be the ones who primarily fight, etc. And they STILL wound up with women living longer…by a significant amount. So the question was: WHY?

    A theory they put forward was this: GRANDMOTHERS! Because women were the ones who primarily passed on tribal knowledge regarding essential survival skills (other than hunting) such as what foods could eaten (and how they must be prepared), how to make clothing, etc, the longer they lived the more knowledge they could pass on. And since mothers were busy with the very young, grandmothers were the ones who housed and passed on so much knowledge. Grandfathers would have…but they tended to die while hunting or fighting.

    So (his theory went) tribes with naturally longer living women would tend to be more successful. Sadly, he concluded, once a man had, um, planted his seed (so to speak) he had already done his part.

    I don’t remember the rest…just the grandmothers part and the basic logic.

    Just more food for thought…

  2. 2011 September 28 2:25 pm
    [2]
    JustMary permalink

    To take this further, I think we need to look at the impact of women acting like men- economically.

  3. 2011 September 28 2:37 pm
    [3]

    ~~~and metro sexual males wanting to be women psychologically.

  4. 2011 September 28 2:41 pm
    [4]
    JustMary permalink

    #3 For a few reasons. Where was Dad? Absent? Where was mom? At work? Was mommy a “teach your boys to play with dolls and teach your girls to change tires” kind of parent? Lots of things contributed to that.

  5. 2011 September 28 2:44 pm
    [5]
    JustMary permalink

    IMHO- welfare and women in the workplace made divorce much easier of a thing to turn to when couples hit rough patches in their marriages, if they married at all. Everything is more expensive, because typically both parents work. It is HARD to have the mom at home now, unless you make the salary of two people. With both parents dumping their kids off with a sitter just to earn a few extra dollars, now the raising of the child is done by someone other than the parents. What kind of people are you entrusting your children to, America? Is it worth it?

    I am noticing more and more moms opting to stay at home these days. I know they struggle, WE struggle, but- we are happier though we have less. Homeschooling is a growing movement, because FINALLY parents are recognizing the faulty line of thinking that allows someone else to influence your children. Schools are just daycare centers where they teach your kid about Johnny’s two mommies, instead of “archaic” things like math and science.

    I wonder if the prices will fall, or if people will just make due with less; my guess is the latter, but that is my family’s personal “price of freedom”.

  6. 2011 September 28 2:53 pm
    [6]
    JustMary permalink

    BTW- Women who want equality in the workforce should be the first in line to DEMAND that they be treated equally in the hiring process as well. Equality that comes after you were given the job solely due to your gender, is not equality at all. Same goes for race. You want equality? Instead of affirmative action, try this- change the rules so that in the application process, all the employer will be privy to- is your experience. No name or race shall appear on the application. Now, all they know is who is qualified and who is not. Done.

  7. 2011 September 28 3:00 pm
    [7]

  8. 2011 September 28 3:40 pm
    [8]
    judyt2012 permalink

    I don’t know where to begin…

  9. 2011 September 28 3:52 pm
    [9]
    judyt2012 permalink

    I thought the root cause of our current problems was because the promiscuous idiots were already well on their way.

  10. 2011 September 28 4:06 pm
    [10]
    MI Conservative permalink

  11. 2011 September 28 4:12 pm
    [11]
    judyt2012 permalink

    Sabato was always a Democrat cheerleader

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.