Charlize Theron and Evolution Save for later Reblog
Actress Charlize Theron is now ready for love. She said so. She has been single for over a decade, despite killer good looks. Why is that? She has her career, her money, is now past 40, but finds there are few men who are willing to “step up” and marry her, now that she is past 40, can’t have children. Is this the men’s fault? No…. Charlize is an example of the foolishness promoted by feminism. She seemingly broke all the rules of nature, but in the end nature is taking it’s revenge. Father Time always win. The Wall remains undefeated.
By the standards of evolution, Charlize Theron is a failure. She did not reproduce. Young and beautiful and desirable for a long time, she is now a genetic dead end. Why is that? Why are so many Hollywood actresses like that? Is Jennifer Anniston still trying to get pregnant? She is past 50 now….well, well beyond The Wall.
Why are all these A-list women genetic failures? It has to do with, what I call “Feminist Rules of Mating”. They are a new thing on the evolutionary stage.
So, Charlize’s failure , and the current biological failure of so many beautiful women, it’s complex and it revolves around feminism and technology, which has set up new, what I call “Feminist Rules of Mating”, which is attempting to replace the old, time tested rules of mating. My question is, will the new rules work?
And this failure doesn’t just affect Hollywood. A large swath of the male population in America, are now genetic dead ends. Why? Let’s have a look at Feminist Rules of Mating, for an answer…..
What are the new feminist rules of mating? It’s simple: sexual freedom, delayed mating, economic empowerment for women, which is now possible with modern technology…..jobs, birth control, longer education for women. This all gave rise to feminism and new social and sexual norms. All this profoundly changes human mating patterns. I question whether this is a good thing, or can even survive.
Women are starting to notice young men are not quite up to their standards, any more. Women are noticing that many men “lack confidence.” I contend that this just means, many men are no longer meeting women’s mating standards and that is why there is so much news about young men having less sex than ever before. I agree that the standards women have for men, have been increasing. But why? What is driving this? And is this a good thing? And is this sustainable?
Young men are becoming far less confident, than previous generations of men. And they are having less sex than previous generations of men. What’s my take on that?
Women might have higher standards, more choice now in modern life, that’s true, but in the long run, I contend that’s not even a good thing for women. Yes, women might select out for “confidence” in men and find many men now lacking. This selection pressure is happening because women are no longer seemingly bound by the old rules of evolution, which revolved around limited sexual choice, sexual restraint and early motherhood. I contend that lack of confidence in young men, this is a sign that we are toying with the rules of evolution and this is new Feminist Mating Pattern is unlikely to work. I contend this new pattern will hurt women. Let me explain.
How this lack of confidence in young men, is a sign of an underlying trend, that actually will hurt both women and men, in the long run:
Every society in human history has followed the old basic formula, of men and women having a general social division of sexual roles, women not competing economically with men, with women concentrating on being young mothers, in young adulthood. All successful societies followed this basic model, with great success, in the past. These have been the basic rules of human existence, till now. Every race, every religion has followed this basic formula and it works every time. This old formula of women marrying or mating young works because it takes women out of the economic competition against men. This allows men more time to acquire status and resources, which makes men attractive to women…which aligns with natural evolved female tendencies towards hyper-gamy. Female hyper-gamy is of course, the basic reason, for these rules. Women select out men in evolution, men are evolved to compete for women, women get pregnant. Raising a baby takes a lot of work, women need security, they need the best mate. Female hyper-gamy evolved because babies take a long time to raise, humans evolved to mostly die young, and for this reason, female eggs don’t last long….But in a genetic twist and complication to the egg story in evolution, sperm lasts much longer than eggs. This is likely because man more men died off in evolution, than women. Nature needed spare sperm around, in case there was not enough young males around to keep the population going. These are the reason for these old rules.
In the same way that gravity governs physical objects, these biological rules govern your life. You can try to defy gravity temporarily, but gravity always wins in the end. Simple logic and game theory is the best way to understand this. Playing out the simple rules of nature: Since there is about 1:1 ratio between the sexes, under these conditions, where women have a limited time to make a choice due to a short shelf life for eggs, and men don’t, because sperm lasts a long time, I contend this new game of sexual freedom is a game that women are bound to lose, in the long run. Time is the Master of this game, not women, not men.
Our current sexual game, sexual rules, seem to favor women. Young women are having more sex than young men, and are earning their own money and earning just as much money as young men. That’s the new social pattern. But I ask: Does this mean women will win, under this new sexual pattern? I contend: no, women will lose.
Women appear to be winning this game between the sexes. But in the long run, women will lose. I contend that when one sex wins, the other loses, then both lose in the end. Remember, there is a game of nature going on, behind the scenes. It’s a short-term illusion to think women or men are the masters of this game. I contend that many women will lose under our new rules of sexual freedom.
Why so? Because women are not playing this game, against men, or even against other women. Women are playing this game against Time. And in the end, Father Time beats Mother Nature every time.
UL in her video talks accurately about the lack of confidence in young men and the disinterest women have, in men they perceive to “lack confidence”. Why is that? Partly because: The school system was taken over by feminists, 40 years ago, and they have built up the confidence of women for decades, while beating down the confidence of men for decades, so I’m not surprised that many men now lack confidence, after being beaten down by the school system all their lives. The key thing to realize in this, is that this lack of confidence in men means that women lose, as well as men lose, when men lack confidence. The lack of confidence in men is caused by feminist indoctrination at school, as young men were beaten down by feminist who run schools. Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers explains this well in her book “The War on Boys.” Dr. Warren Farrell explains this further in his book, “The Boy Crisis”.
How both sexes lose in this new Feminist Mating Game: there won’t be enough suitable men for women to marry, as time goes on. It’s just a numbers game, based on mating rules.
So under feminism, women lose. Here’s how: One of the basic rules of nature, as stated previously, is that all women evolved as “hyper-gamous”. This means women all seek men who are higher in status than them. Feminists changed society so that men and women under 35 are now roughly equal in status. (women under 35 make slightly more money than men under 35). This has never happened before, in human history and evolution. It’s a new thing in the world.
It means for any random woman now and any random man now, due to the increased status of women, there is now a 50% chance, that SHE will be higher in status than HE. Since women are not interested in men with less status than them, this new feminist arrangement means it is now a mathematical certainty: there will not be enough men around, with enough status, to interest most women. With enforced monogamy, both sexes mathematically win more often than in this new Feminist Mating Game. Mathematically, under this new feminist system of equality, there is a far higher percentage of both women and men, that lose at the mating game…than under the old system of early mating, early family, early marriage.
A few women women gain a lot under these new feminist rules of mating, mostly upper-middle class women who have access to high value mates at university, as those men are generally withdrawn from most women competing for them, as these men are sequestered at university during their sexual prime. Indeed, capturing high value males and physically immobilizing them in a school setting when these men are in their 20s, is one of the primary reasons women support universities and brighter women flock to them when these women are in their 20s: they wish to capture high value male mates. However, this is a minority of the female population who are at university, most women don’t have much access to these men, most women cannot therefore play this mating game, so most women are shut out of the competition for these men. Upper middle class women have been pretty effective at shutting out other women from competing for these men. And since most women, who don’t go to university can’t compete for high value men and are earning their own money, often more than the men around them, their mate selection for a man that by definition must earn more than them, that mate selection for most women, is worse now that women are economically competing with men, than under the old system of enforced monogamy. So many more women lose in the long term, under these new feminist rules, compared to the old rules. How are women starting to perceive this reality of a lack of suitable men? That’s easy: Women interpret the men around them as “lacking confidence”, …..which is exactly what is happening, as UL says.
Feminism is a game whereby high status upper-class women sequester high value men, remove them from the dating pool, shut out lower class women, so they have exclusive access to these men. However, in a twist, there are too many women now competing for these men, now that women are flooding into university. So in an ironic twist, feminism, which set out to help women, ends up destroying their mating chances. So now even most women who go to university will lose at this mating game. At Jordan Peterson’s university, the student body is 33% male, 67% female. How can women not lose, at this game? The numbers game is now stacked against upper-middle class women, who are the main source of the student body. Under Feminist Mating Rules, most of these women will lose. No wonder women are unhappy. Most don’t yet realize it is feminism itself, which most support, which is ruining their odds of life happiness.
If you are a young woman who supports feminism, sorry to have to inform you, but feminism is a joke and the joke is on you.
Under our new feminist mating rules, women have more social status and are sexually free and often with no children, while women are still bound by their own internal laws of hyper-gamy, while they are economically competing with men. What happens under these conditions is women reject a large segment of men…causing many men to biologically lose. We see this evidenced in women now claiming that 80% of men are “below average” in looks. Obviously, this is a mathematical impossibility. However, despite women appearing to win at this new game, meaning they are in general having more sex than young men, I contend that nature is playing a joke on women, for all the men that they reject, will reject them down the road, when the women are ready to settle down. Again, this is because women are playing against Time itself, not men, not other women.
And this female blindness to their own folly is causing most women to lose the new feminist mating game as well as men to lose. I’ve seen this game played out in real life, many times. Women are definitely losing, long term. The evidence for this is that marriage is very stable for the upper middle class, as females want these high status men in the top 20%. Remember though, that 20% is only a small part of the population, it’s not the majority. Marriage as a stable institution has basically fallen apart for the bottom 80% of women. Jordan Peterson talks about it in this video:
Other evidence includes rapidly declining birth rates in advanced countries that are only at about half the replacement rate. All this flows from the new basic feminist mating pattern that arose from changes in technology and from feminism…..delayed mating and marriage, sexual freedom, economic empowerment for women. This new feminist pattern does not appear to be biologically working. Societies that embrace it, seem to be demographically disappearing very quickly….most European countries, Japan, China, Korea. Elon Musk explained this in his video “No More Kids”.
Of course Hollywood and Charlize and her crowd, they embrace every delusion that is at odds with the natural world. Hollywood is a sick cesspool of bad evolutionary ideas. The Hollywood Disease has spread to the rest of society. Charlize is a symptom of that disease.
Younger people have been fed a fairy tale: that we can integrate the sexes, we can make them equal in economic status, we can have them work together in their 20s, under these conditions of equality and delayed marriage, and that human mating and human healthy family life will continue normally. It won’t. It can’t. Marriage rates, birth rates, are at an all time historic low in advanced countries, under these new Feminist Rules of Mating. The amount of sex young people are having, is at an all time low, under these new Feminist Rules of Mating. Because of the rules of nature, it is impossible for normal family life to continue, under these new feminist rules.
Women lose under these new feminist rules, but you have to be socially subtle to perceive this, because the illusion is, that women are winning. That’s only short term. Long term, women lose under feminist mating rules. This feminist fairy tale is unraveling before our very eyes, if we only open our eyes to reality.
The only way to avoid this, is to accept nature: Women were meant to have children when they are young, in their 20s, marrying men that are older than them. Jordan Peterson said as much, when he said that women all want men who are higher in status than them, and about 4 years older. That is a stable and healthy social pattern, and we are not following those natural rules any more.
So: What is the best way to understand the decline of sex, the decline of male confidence and what it means? These things must be understood, within the basic rules of evolution. The main important thing is this: In the long run, women get old quick. Men don’t. Men increase in status over time, women don’t. That’s how human societies work, it’s how they thrive. And it’s all based on a few natural principles. Those are the basic rules of nature, of sexual selection. Nature really can be understood as a game system, with a few simple rules you must follow through to their natural conclusions, to see if a new sexual pattern like feminism will work for society. Biological beings really do have natural rules they must obey, just like physical objects obey rules of physics.
Looking into the future, once society collapses from this new Feminist Mating Model, we must bring back the old ways, to have a functioning healthy society. Part of this means we must eventually make it socially unacceptable again, for women to be sexually promiscuous. Religions have always known this. Feminists are opposed to all this, because they want endless sexual freedom for women. Endless sexual freedom seems attractive at first, but in the end it destroys an individual’s life, as it destroys the basic sexual mating patterns in humans, so in the end feminism destroys society. Feminists think they can avoid and circumnavigate the laws of evolution. No they can’t. I contend: They are fools who are destroying the lives of women. Nature itself will destroy the feminist model of mating patterns because it is biologically unsustainable, as it contradicts the laws of evolution.
Understand the rules of nature, obey them or die. That is the choice before us.
Milo Yiannopoulos once claimed that “feminism is cancer”….He could not be, more right….
Leave a reply
4 comments on 'Charlize Theron and Evolution'