Feminism, Technology and Evolution Save for later Reblog
Strap yourself in. Let’s go for a ride, in your mind. I’ll show you a new way of looking at the world, that ties much together, of what you see every day. Let’s make sense of it. I hope to make the time it takes takes to read this, worth your time…..
Starting with immigration, I’ll tie a bunch of things together, centered around feminism, technology and evolution…stuff you see all around you, in the world. The things I’ll tie together are listed on my Long List.. I’ll show how they relate, how they are inter-connected and are re-shaping the world around you, reshaping for future, for good or bad.
Heart of the Matter: I’ll show you how feminism, technology and evolution are all connected, how feminism is misguided, how feminism is destroying much of the modern world, and how we can fix feminism, so it’s a force for good, not destruction.
I’ll draw into this mix, gender studies at university, economics both local and global, the history of transportation, the history of technology, demographic changes, changing gender roles, biology, gender differences, American history, globalism, open borders, other immigration models, human fertility, political stability, Neo-liberal economics, the rise of Donald Trump, a very smart comment by Elon Musk which reveals much about what feminism got wrong, multi-culturalism, education for women, the rise of Islam in Europe, the population collapse of Europeans and it’s Geo-political implications, the feminist theory of history, the political choices we must make for our future, where things are headed, potential problems down the road and how to avoid them for the human race, how religion ties into this, past thinkers like J.D. Unwin who much of this coming long before I did, why women are so unhappy, why marriage is falling apart and your relationships are so unstable, class and wealth polarization in America, why only rich people in America get married, why globalization and technology changes have destroyed the marriage prospects for a lot of American men, questions about sexual freedom and does it work to keep a society stable, what evolution can tell us about how to re-shape our society, to keep everybody happy with a good life, how religion and evolution often tell the same story and reflect the same wisdom we need to think about, what incels can teach us about the flaws of feminism, new ways to look at economics to show us the true value of women, what new attitudes are useful, how women can have their cake and eat it to, with men benefiting at the same time, and a few social models that can show us, the way forward, to a better world for both genders.
These things are all linked, so yes I believe in consilience…
All these topics can be tied together and understood, from the point of view of feminism, technology and evolution. It’s a new way of looking at these things. I came up with this theory, looking around the internet, reading other people’s stuff and tying it together. I pick up ideas, from reading thousands of other commenters and you-tubers online. Most of these ideas, other people have had in bits and pieces, but no one has put it together, as I have.
You will start to recognize the pieces fitting together.
That’s my only claim to originality: putting together in a somewhat coherent pattern, what a lot of people on the internet have already figured out. You might have been one of those people. If you are, thank you.
I’ll show how all these topics on my “Long List” above, how they tie together, to feminism, and how feminism as presently constructed, has a fatal flaw that will destroy the modern world…..and how we can fix it.
We need a feminism 4.0 to fix all the flaws.
Tied in with my presentation, are a bunch of links, to other related posts of mine, that tie into these topics and give it more detail and more links to sources, to facts I base my arguments on. Click away for more details, as you see the links. They are like branches on a tree….
Enjoy. Please feel free to leave a comment. Thanks.
Let’s start with the Japanese and immigration.
The Japanese are doing an amazing thing on immigration. Watch the BPS video above, for details. The world should pay attention. Particularly the advanced technological nations should pay attention. Faced with an aging workforce, the need to import more labor, but looking at the immigration disasters in much of Europe, Japan has chosen to avoid the foolishness of Europe and to try to build a better immigration system….Immigration 2.0
It’s based on importing a lot of labor to help with the economy, but it’s different from what Europe is trying. The Japanese have no intention of turning people from around the world, into “The New Japanese” as the Swedes are trying to turn African refugees into “The New Swedes”.
It’s all about letting people freely into your country, welcoming them, letting them earn money and contribute to the economy and then letting them return home. This makes sense today. After all, every where in the world is only an airplane ride away now. In the 18th, 19th, even much of the 20th Century, going anywhere on the planet was very difficult. No wonder those people made immigration a one way model back then: You went somewhere, you stayed. It was the difficulty of human transportation in the past, that made permanent immigration, the correct model…..for the past. That model of immigration is out-dated. Times have changed.
In days of yore, in 1492 it took Christopher Columbus 10 weeks to cross the Atlantic. That must have been a nerve-wracking trip, as many told Christopher than his boat would fall off the edge of the world. It took the Pilgrims 66 days to cross the Atlantic. Again, the Pilgrims were many frail humans shivering in a tiny vessel, being tossed about in storms, praying for warm weather. Eventually thanks to technology, the trip across the ocean started to improve. By 1898 it took 20 days to sail from London to New York…..that was a big improvement, down from the 70 days it took Columbus. That big improvement in Trans-Atlantic travel, it ran on steam……And then flight magically happened, a few decades ago. The Academy Award winning actress Olivia de Havilland is still alive at 103, as I write this. She was one of the lead actresses in the Hollywood Golden era film, Gone with the Wind, in which she played Melanie Hamilton. When we first crossed the Atlantic in an airplane, it took Charles Lindbergh 35 hours to fly across the Atlantic Ocean. That happened in 1927, when Olivia was 9 years old……Now it takes 3 hours to fly across the Atlantic in a 747 leaving Newfoundland, for England….so, not long ago.
So we humans have improved out ability to get around the planet. A few centuries ago, it took 70 days to cross the Atlantic ocean…..that’s 1,680 hours. Now we routinely do it, in 3 hours.
My point is, this technology change is all very recent and should change the way we look at immigration. We no longer have to cross treacherous oceans, brave mountains, fight grizzly bears, go to school in blinding blizzards, uphill both ways, build railroads and take months to go anywhere. John Wayne is no longer with us, but our immigration model is still in the past. The immigration models in our minds, were built in the age of sail: You went somewhere. It took forever. Many died along the way, and walking across a continent was difficult. That was the past. It was unaffordable beyond belief, and very very difficult. You learned a new language and stayed forever, because your investment in simply going to a new place was so high, that permanent citizenship was the way it had to be, in most cases. But the good news is: We don’t have to follow that model any more. We now have airplanes, indoor plumbing and have no need to go to the washroom shivering in an outhouse, as I did, as a youth.
Today, a Filipino temporary worker in New York City can watch a Filipino movie on her smart phone and talk to friends at home, back in Manila, where she might like to return after a stint in Tokyo or Seattle. Labor mobility is a good thing. It creates a lot of wealth. But there is no need to make it permanent. We could be just living together instead of getting married for life, as the Japanese have figured out.
We now have the technology to make immigration both temporary and a two way model. As the Dali Lama pointed out, people can return home. It’s not that hard to sit in an airplane and ride for a few hours in air conditioned comfort, to be served a nice meal, and a Mister Bean film, before returning home. We are in that new world. This means a new immigration world. We need to get our minds, out of the past, on immigration. Embrace the future.
Dubai has the right idea. It’s a global city. It’s rich, it’s prosperous, it’s beautiful, it has only 15% of it’s residents, who are actually citizens of it’s country, the United Arab Emirates…..the rest are migrants from around the world. Dubai was built by English, European and American ex-pats, many of them professionals. I know a few. It’s a major global transportation hub, for goods and services. The Arabs who run it, they own it, they rule it, they are very open to the world, they welcome foreign workers, they are good people to know, and their friendly attitude has made them very rich. I have a nice dish-dash from that city, in my closet. My friends call me Osama Tim Laden when I wear it to costume parties. The leaders of Dubai knew they could never have built the city, using local talent, so they opened up to the world, while retaining citizenship only for local Arabs. That’s very smart. They have very little oil now, but they are rich because they embraced the world, smartly…..so they will continue to be rich. Wisely, they did not do the foolish thing, the Swedish thing, of trying to turn Europeans or Japanese, into Arabs. They are too smart for that. So if you want to go work there, as several friends of mine did, they will welcome you with open arms, you’ll enjoy yourself, lend your professional skills to the economy, make lots of friends, built it up, make a lot of money yourself, learn about the positive side of Islam, and then return home. This seems the model for the future.
So it’s possible to be open minded, to welcome people from around the world, to cooperate with them, enjoy their company, exchange ideas, make it beneficial for both parties……and then when the time comes, the people can return home. There is no need to make everyone a citizen of your country.
Hillary’s model was “open trade and open borders” and giving everyone who showed up, citizenship. Democrats want to let hundreds of millions of “refugees” and “immigrants” into America, because they want their votes. It’s all about political power for them. And it’s based on a permanent immigration model, which is a model of the past. And this of course, would eventually ruin America. Let’s not ruin ourselves through permanent immigration.
People in advanced countries are starting to see through this con, realizing the liberal elites would like to end America and Europe, they want open borders, citizenship for everyone in the world. Liberal Democratic ideas are insane, unstable, designed to destroy the West. People are embracing nationalism not because of some prejudice, but because open borders, globalization based on permanent immigration, no longer works and is impractical for the world we now live in. Permanent immigration is a thing of the past. When America was a vast open frontier, with primitive technological and transportation alternatives, then permanent immigration made sense. It no longer makes sense and is in fact, very destructive to the social and economic fabric.
This new Japanese Immigration Model of temporary immigration is a good idea and will give Japan time to sort out the essential dilemma, which is driving the need for immigrant workers: Falling Birth Rates in Advanced Countries….leading to labor shortages in advanced countries. But a deeper question is: Why is this happening? Why are birth rates in advanced countries falling so rapidly? What does it mean?
In short, to understand this, how it works, and how to adapt, we need to understand the relationship between feminism, technology and evolution! I beg your indulgence, when I discuss the “f” word…..
So, immigration: Why are massive waves of immigrants moving about the world? Lots of reasons. One of the main ones has to do with the changes technology brings to birth rates. But how does this happen? And what does this have to do with feminism and technology? What are the underlying drivers, what does it mean for our future and how do we deal with this in a sensible way?
Birth rates plummet as women get educated. Some societies on earth are more advanced than others…..Europe, The United States, China, Korea, Japan…..all have highly educated populations, and therefore very low birth rates. This has caused a baby shortage in places like Japan. This low birth rate has been going on so long now, it’s causing a labor shortage in advanced countries like Sweden and Japan. In response, governments are bringing in immigrants, to do a lot of jobs.
And a vital component in this is that we all benefit from labor flowing around the world. Great cities like Dubai get built on foreign labor. Terrific British engineers and workers show up and built livable cities for everyone. But the key is, it must be done right.
This drop in birth rates are falling in advanced countries, belies a much deeper problem, of a conflict between evolution and technology…..which threatens the long term stability of advanced technological countries, according to Elon Musk.
It starts with evolution. It’s really quite simple: Women evolved to have children mainly when they are in their 20s. Modern life gives women the option of either school and education and jobs during this time, or else the other choice of having children and family.
Many women chose the first choice, of jobs and career over children and family during their 20s, and that choice radically reduces the birth rate. That basic conflict between technology and evolution is causing the demographic collapse of advanced nations….as Elon points out.
Elon Musk thinks this trend, if not reversed, will eventually lead to the collapse of modern technological civilization itself. This is a man whose warnings it is best, not to take lightly…..especially about trends having to do with numbers: where things are headed, based on the numbers. Elon knows numbers.
This problem of population collapse is compounded because feminists refuse to address the issue, or talk about it. That’s a shame, because the leading voice of social theory, when it comes to the role of women in the modern world, is feminism….and women make babies. It’s their role, in human survival.
The trouble is, feminists deny the problem and and think advanced countries can just keep importing replacement babies for the ones they avoid having, or the ones they abort, from the Third World. Feminists are mostly all radical left wingers and will tell you that if you don’t want endless waves of Third World Immigrants pouring in to replace the existing populations, then you are a “racist”. Tick tock:
Don’t despair: In, in the end, the feminists will lose.
The reason feminism will lose in the long run: feminism works against evolution. What happens at a local level , of the individual woman, eventually reshapes society. The hand that rocks the cradle, ultimately rules the world. Societies and cultures that don’t genetically reproduce themselves, they go extinct. Sweden has a feminist government. Feminism leads to extinction, unless it changes. Countries that listen to feminism go extinct quickly. Are you listening, Sweden?
Societies that don’t resolve this conflict between technology and evolution will go extinct. Importing replacement populations eventually sends your culture into the dustbin of history.
Elon is right.
If the evolution-technology conflict is not solved, countries like Japan and other advanced countries like Sweden and much of Europe will eventually disappear, and will be swallowed up by more technologically primitive populations from Africa and other Third World Countries. This is a “shit-test” for advanced technological societies, from evolution: solve it, or die off. Changes in global patterns of populations, due to technology, is re-shaping our world. This may cause massive racism and racial conflict, if we don’t handle this properly. We want to avoid that. There is such a thing as smart immigration. Just look at Dubai and Japan. No need for racial conflict in the future, if we are open and embrace their ideas on immigration. It’s time for Whites to learn from Arabs and Japanese. They have things to teach us, about “multi-culturalism” and races and cultures peacefully co-existing. If we don’t listen?….then: We are headed to a very racist divided future if we don’t solve the immigration and technology-evolution dilemma. We solve it, or we will continue to see the rise and eventual victory, of the alt-right:
Technology is the core reason, the root of the issue…But it’s not that simple. Human beings must understand technology, understand it’s effects, if we are to survive…. we must have the proper human response to technology. That’s true with all technology and it’s certainly true with changing birth patterns, brought on by technology changes. We must embrace immigration patterns that forward the notion of peace and mutual happy co-existence. If we listen to the radical left, we will be in trouble. Hillary Clinton and the Democrats are fools on immigration. They mask their stupidity, cloaking themselves in the self-proclaimed moral virtue that is false. To understand why fairly closed borders now make sense, why nationalism now makes sense, we need to see, how we got here. The modern world came into being, only a few generations ago. We have not had time to adapt, to sort things out.
First we need to understand: What happened to us in the past few generations? Where did the modern world come from? How is it different than the past? This ties into feminism, evolution and our demographic future. How did creating the modern world collapse the population of the people who created it?…European peoples. Where did feminism come from? Why was it possible? What made it possible?
In a word: technology
First, let’s dispense with the whole feminist theory of history, mired as it is in historical ignorance. Jordon Peterson does a nice job, on that:
” “The narrative that we are fed now is that, up until 1960, and the enlightened feminists developed their egalitarian doctrines, men had kept women down, and they finally rose. The truth of the matter is, from about 1895 onward, there was a series of technological revolutions, that were extraordinarily powerful, in their impact, that allowed women to step forward, free of many of the burdens which had kept them back in the past. Birth control, being one of them. But only one. Sanitary facilities of all sorts, plumbing had a huge role to play. Tampons had a huge role to play, as did sanitary napkins”…
Gregory Goodwin Pincus, member of the Scientific Patriarchy, who invented the birth control pill, making life easier for women.
Science and capitalism and technology combined to create modern life. Starting about 1895 there were a few key inventions that made the modern world possible. Things like Maxwell’s Equations, Tesla’s work on AC, the invention of radio, the invention of the internal combustion engine combined with gasoline, Quantum Mechanics and things like that, turned the world from a primitive place where women could not go out in the world, to the modern world you see all around you.
Life in America before the Scientific Patriarchy had invented the modern world:
Nicholas Tesla, leading member of the Scientific Patriarchy, who invented much of the world of technology around you, making life easier for you.
Caution: If you are a feminist, staring at his picture or reading about his amazing accomplishments may inspire gratitude towards men. View with caution.
We humans invented a lot of technology, and most of it very recently….so recently that it is within the living memory of people who are old but alive today, like Olivia de Havilland. This gave us new social options we are still grappling with. Science invented key things like birth control and tampons, and made modern education and a modern economy possible, for women, as Dr. Peterson points out. It’s for these reasons that feminism arose, to take advantage of these things. It’s also the basic reason for the drop in birth rates in advanced technological countries.
And that progress brings with it, a new problem and dilemma: Evolution wants women to have families between the ages of 14 and 30, roughly speaking. Technology gives women the option, to not have families, so the birth rate collapses because of that.
Intellectuals like Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem saw the world that modern life and science had created, understood how this could change women’s options, then they created the modern thought system known as feminism. But that creation would not have been possible, without the creation of the modern world first.
Feminism as presently conceived is incredibly destructive and may destroy modern civilization, as it collapses the birth rate in advanced countries, as Elon Musk suggests, but the social intellectuals who invented feminism didn’t pull feminism out of thin air….so you can’t really blame the feminist, on this one. They are not really at fault, for any thinking person. Science and capitalism and technology combined to create modern life. Science and thinking men created the conditions for feminism and a better life for women to arise, so it’s up to us, to come up with solutions, brought on by feminism.
Feminism was a response to technology, not the cause of technology. One thing I do definitely blame feminists for, is screwing up the narrative of the past. What is taught at university now is mostly man-hating bunk….a Post-thinking Fairy Tale. But in order for a proper picture of the role of women in history to emerge, Feminists need to realize, they didn’t invent the modern world, and quit their resentment, about that. It was men who did. Women had more important things to do: Such as keeping the human race alive, in a low-tech primitive society.
As much as men should be credited for our survival, so should women. It was no small feat, keeping the human race alive, and it was a joint venture between men and women.
But the modern world was created for women and men, by men. Women chose who to mate with. And some of them chose very intelligent men to mate with. So in that sense, women created smart men, who became the ‘Scientific Patriarchy.’ One of the reasons it was men who created the modern world, was that there are more male geniuses than female geniuses. Again, science.
If any feminist is reading this and would like a list of all the things that men invented, here is a short list: everything….
Feminism was a response to the new world, that men created for them. Scientists created the modern world, this created a new social and economic and cultural world, where women had options and choices, they didn’t have before this…..starting in the 20th Century, they could get educated, have careers, have fewer children, spend less time pregnant etc….
A little gratitude might be in order, as a way forward. We have to start with facts of history, not insane theories based on paranoia of men….which is the feminist stock in trade. To me, feminism sounds too much like antisemitism, which I dislike. The structure of their thought, how both see the world, is too similar to each other:
Feminists: “The Patriarchy! The Patriarchy! Men conspire so they get all the money!”
Anti-Semites: “The Jews! The Jews! They conspire so they get all the money!”
I guess, with feminists around, men are “The New Jews”….
A little pushing back on feminist ignorance on the facts of history are in order. Both are based on paranoia and villainizing one group, thus avoiding the need for reason and evidence.
However, feminists are not the enemy…..not even BIG RED…with her raging hormonal problems. And women are certainly not the enemy of men. But the past was certainly a struggle. As Professor Peterson put it:
“So what happened through, most of the history of the world, is that men and women struggled mightily together, sometimes at each other’s throats, but mostly cooperatively, to keep the wolf from the door, and the tyrant at bay. Life was very, very, very, very difficult. And the fact that we survived at all meant that fundamentally, we cooperated, despite the fact that we are rife with stupidity, ignorance and malevolence.”
However, now that men and women struggled and survived in evolution….thus far….we are now faced with new problems, new dilemmas which arise out of technology….the very thing we created, to help ourselves, has created new problems. The trouble is, there is a basic conflict between human biology and evolution on the one hand, and technology on the other hand….which feminists have not yet dealt with. That is, evolution wired into humans, are a number of variables in human males and human females, which act as constraints and guides to our behavior, which we must understand and live by, if we are to survive as a species.
And these restraints and variables are different for men, than women……sorry to any one reading this, who believes in “equality” between the sexes, but evolution itself is fundamentally “sexist”. We evolved for each other, men and women. we mutually compliment each other, we could not have survived evolution without the other half, but that does not make us the same, in every way. Dr. Helena Cronin of the Darwin Center in England, gives a good, but brief introduction to the science of sex differences between men and women:
Eve was the other half of Adam. The Bible has the basic narrative on evolution and the relationship between men and women, in evolution….the Bible had that surprising right, for a book that expressed those truths in fictional narrative form. I wrote about it, here:
But maybe you prefer a more “scientific” explanation of the differences between the sexes? OK….I wrote about that point of view here:
So what are these biological restraints in men and women, which differ? What does that have to do with feminism and technology? Here goes. Let’s look at our basic biological, evolved gender differences.
Such as: Human females evolved to have children, when they are quite young, for most of evolution, most women were pregnant by 20, having spent at least some of their teen years pregnant, and certainly their 20s they spent mostly pregnant.
Evolution made women spectacularly beautiful to men, primarily between the ages of 15 and 30. This corresponds perfectly with female fertility. That’s a signal from nature, that human females are in their prime breeding years, between the ages of 15 and 30. Female beauty evolved as an attractant to males, so evolution would continue.
After age 30, female fertility starts to slow down, and then after age 35, it basically falls off a cliff. At the same time, female attractiveness declines after age 30, and after age 35, very few females are attractive in the same way women in their 20s are attractive. No woman likes to hear this, but it’s the truth. I’m not trying to be unkind here, just to uncover the truth, which is often hiding in plain sight. Oprah would not approve, as she trained a couple generations of women, to believe they were young at any age. Self-flattering delusion is a lucrative thing to sell. Oprah cleverly monetized female vanity, making herself a billionaire in the process. The social narrative says we must lie to women. “Be nice”….says the politically correct narrative. I’m done with nice, if it interferes with truth and hurts women, in the long run. Aspects of feminism are dumb, but worse than that, they hurt women.
The evidence for female humans to have children when they are themselves young, is irrefutable. Just look at female eggs: They are best and freshest, most viable, having the fewest genetic defects, basically from age 15, till age 30, and then defects start to show up, in higher numbers.
Sperm had a different evolutionary path. Old male sperm is still viable. Larry King impregnated his wife, when he was an old and very rich man, over 70. The lessons in this, from nature, are pretty clear and self-evident: Females should breed while young, with males age is not really the factor that is important. Resources are more important, for a male. Again, science. Not a conspiracy against women, unless evolution itself is a conspiracy.
The care of offspring is tremendously taxing on a woman and a man. Having children, is best done, when women are very young. They should start in their late teens or early 20s, when they are their strongest and healthiest.
I call these things, “Rules for Mammals”
Evolution wants women to have families between the ages of 14 and 30, roughly speaking. Technology gives women the option, to not have families, so the birth rate collapses because of that.
So what does this have to do with feminism?
Feminism works against all these evolutionary principles, in how they encourage society to be organized. Feminists tell women to be sexually promiscuous, to spend their 20s avoiding pregnancy, practicing monkey-branching, not having children, not get married till later, and for women to spend their energy of their 20s having careers, not children.
This feminist advice is insane…..and out of step, with evolution. A society that follows it, finds that birth rates fall, marriage rates fall, and societies de-stabilize….all this is exactly what has been happening since 2nd Wave Feminism….which is when women started entering the labor force in large numbers, and pursuing post-secondary education at universities.
I claim no originality in this view, that feminism and women ignoring their natural biological role, quickly destroys society. The brilliant Oxford educated anthropologist J.D. Unwin, saw this coming long ago:
My problem with feminism is it is out of whack with evolution, and feminist theory does not take evolution into account, as to how we should organize our societies, what our proper behavior of men and women should be, based on evolutionary principles, to allow our civilization to perpetuate itself, flourish and keep the population going, and arrange things so that women can have families, when they evolved to do so.
Feminists need to first understand that. Then they need to figure out, there is an inherent conflict between technology and biology…we humans evolved to have families, when we were young, but technology gives women all kinds of incentives to avoid what nature wants them to do…have children when they are young…and that screws up modern life….for both women and men eventually.
And this leads to a lot of female unhappiness. Since Second Wave Feminism, females have abandoned their natural role as Mothers in all advanced countries. They embraced sexual freedom and the pursuit of money…..and now they are miserable. the evidence is overwhelming:
Thanks to relying on feminist ideas, we also ignored the evidence that hyper-gamy is natural, and we tried to arrange economic life between the sexes based on “equality”….again, more foolishness. When women earn more than men, marriage generally doesn’t happen. So naturally feminism set as it’s goal, the eradication of group differences in income, between men and women…groan…. Then feminism made sure that there were far more women than men, at university. Since most women look to marry across and up, this means there is a very large shortage in marriageable men for women at university, thanks to feminism. And this of course means far fewer reliable partners for women to marry. Hyper-gamy is natural. Why fight it? Women want men with resources. Male sperm’s longevity was in part, nature’s way of getting men to spend time going after resources, to help the woman…..because biologically, men really are women’s sidekick in evolution, which tends to be mostly about the female mammal. That’s part of the reason sperm took a different evolutionary path, than eggs. Resources take longer to acquire, so sperm lasts longer than eggs. That’s why the most successful marriages are between older men, younger women. I once walked through a graveyard and I counted the age difference between men and women. These are the successful couples who made it to the end. The men averaged 7 years older, than the women. It’s a natural pattern. We should arrange our economic system to reflect that. Men need resources to impress women. It’s wired right into women. Don’t fight evolution. Building economic policy based on feminism means trying to attain gender parity in wages. That destroys the human pair bond, as women have no reason at that point, to want to marry. Don’t listen to feminists on that one, because their advice hurts women. We have been pursuing basically a feminist economics for some time now, pushing the idea that women should earn as much money as men. This is foolish, in light of female choice in mating. By following feminist economic principles, our economic policy has stripped much of the economic power of the American middle class male away from him. It’s part of the reason Donald Trump was elected…..men do most physical jobs, and globalization shipped American jobs overseas, weakening the middle class American male in his earning power, which has not seen an increase in 40 years. In fact, it has seen a 10% decline. No wonder marriage is in the toilet: many men don’t earn enough money to start a family and interest women. Following neo-liberalism and globalism has meant a severe eroding of the economic power of middle class men in America, which results in fewer marriage partners for women.
Feminist ideas, mixed with economic trends, mean that marriage is screwed up in America, and only the upper classes now get married, while most people wallow in the social devastation feminism and economic changes have wrought. I discuss that here:
We need to figure out: what are the natural, biologically complimentary patterns that nature wants us to pursue, in arranging our society? What are those patterns, based on evolution? Evolution should be informing our social and economic policy. We must figure this out, or we might destroy advanced technological civilization.
Here are a few of my criticisms of our current social patterns, based on feminism:
But you might ask, isn’t female freedom at university a good thing? Isn’t it wonderful that the universities are full of young women? No….actually. Not the way it is currently set up. It’s a train-wreck for young women. I explain here:
Scientists created the modern world, this created a new world, where women had options and choices, they didn’t have before this…..starting in the 20th Century, they could get educated, have careers, have fewer children, spend less time pregnant etc… …and by the way, I support women’s options, in these new features of life. I just prefer to do it, not in a stupid destructive way, which is how we are doing it, right now. If we are to have peace and cooperation and mutual respect between the sexes, it must start with understanding the facts of history, the facts of science, the facts of evolution, and how feminism, modern life and technology, must all work together, for social harmony….based on science.
We must figure this out, or we might destroy advanced technological civilization according to Elon Musk. So how do we understand all that, but plan a human response to all that?
So how do we understand all that, but plan a human response to all that? Well, that has to do with the role of women in society. And this must include understanding technology, how it affects our lives, then planning feminist theory and social policy, so that women can both fully participate in modern life, while at the same time have their children, when they evolved to do so…..and guess what?
I have never heard any feminists talk about this sort of thing. That’s a shame….for everyone.
Feminism is supposedly the intellectual leader, telling women what their social role is, in modern life. We spend a lot of money supporting public universities, which teach “gender studies”…..so far all the public got out of it was a generation of mindless SJW activists, without a clue about life.
Feminists are letting women down, doing great harm to Western civilization, by lack of understanding of biology, technology, and evolution, social planning, and how it all must work together.
So what should our basic social pattern be?
And this basic social pattern must include understanding technology, how it affects our lives, then planning feminist theory and social policy, so that women can both fully participate in modern life, while at the same time have their children, when they evolved to do so…
My basic view: Biology sets basic social structure under which all human societies organize, particularly sexual dimorphism sets social structure and the relationship between the genders. Patriarchy is natural. Men protect women. Women have babies when they are young. Social structures that promote these values survive. Current Feminist cultures die. That being said, when feminists complain about any sort of cruelty or unfairness, to women, I listen. Bad things happen. And I believe in being kind to women. But my general view: Patriarchy is good. Patriarchy that harms women, is bad. Much of what feminists write about, is nonsense and lacking in comprehension of both human genders. The key is to make distinctions on the male use of power. Most of it is good, most of what men do, goes unnoticed or not credited by feminists. For instance: The heroic deed of inventing the modern world, which made the lives of women better, gets twisted into a lie-filled feminist tale of “oppression”. Men did a lot. For instance, inventing everything in the modern world, making women’s lives easier than ever before. Anyone who has watched even 1 Episode of “Modern Marvels”, knows this negative feminist view of men, to be nonsense:
Later addition: But it might be much worse, than this. Edward Dutton has a new book out, called “At our Wit’s End….Why we are becoming less Intelligent and what it means for the Future” Link:
Interview on Red Ice: He discusses feminism between 24:24 and 26:12
From the Amazon Review:
“We are becoming less intelligent. This is the shocking yet fascinating message of At Our Wits’ End. The authors take us on a journey through the growing body of evidence that we are significantly less intelligent now than we were a hundred years ago. The research proving this is, at once, profoundly thought-provoking, highly controversial, and it’s currently only read by academics. But the authors are passionate that it cannot remain ensconced in the ivory tower any longer. With At Our Wits’ End, they present the first ever popular scientific book on this crucially important issue. They prove that intelligence ― which is strongly genetic ― was increasing up until the breakthrough of the Industrial Revolution, because we were subject to the rigors of Darwinian Selection, meaning that lots of surviving children was the preserve of the cleverest. But since then, they show, intelligence has gone into rapid decline, because large families are increasingly the preserve of the least intelligent. The book explores how this change has occurred and, crucially, what its consequences will be for the future. Can we find a way of reversing the decline of our IQ? Or will we witness the collapse of civilization and the rise of a new Dark Age?” end of review….
The key is the fact that we are animals in evolution. For 99.9% of our evolution we were subject to Darwinian natural selection……till quite recently, in the Industrial Revolution. Humans evolved with large brains and lots of intelligence. Using our large brains, combined with opposable thumbs and upright bodies allowed us to explore the world, invent technology to keep us alive……everything from fire to steam engines to computers. All of that technology helped us survive, but took us out of the winnowing power of Darwinian natural selections. The weak, the unfit survive. Anti-bio-tics and medicine itself keeps us alive, while keeping out genes alive…..mutant genes, really. The author conjectures that the population of England, before the Industrial Revolution, was about 1/10th what it is today. Which he speculates, means that roughly 90% of us would be unlikely to be able to survive evolution without our technological cocoon. The technology improvements of this past century, including birth control, are an extension of all that increase in technological prowess. The long and short of it is, the long term trends for advanced human societies, is the advanced ones are going extinct……or at minimum in demographic free-fall.
Feminism is not the root cause of this, but a developed consequence of technology changes, as humans advanced, this allowed us humans to tinker with new roles for women. And that’s fine, we can tinker with new roles if we like, except we did not think through the evolutionary consequences of those new choices we have already made, which often turn out to be disasters for the population. The mistake feminists made was to encourage the more intelligent women, to stop breeding. Feminists for instance told intelligent young women to ignore biology, ignore that women evolved to have children when they are quite young. And rather to focus on money and education, rather than children. This of course, is counter-evolutionary and increases the number of stupid people in the population, while decreasing the the population of smart people….so we get dumber. For most of our evolution, it was a distinct advantage for a woman to be intelligent. This is because for almost all of evolutionary history, evolution itself put tremendous pressure on our species…..so the intelligent tended to survive more often. Technology shields us from nature, changing who survives and who breeds. In the past, the intelligent woman, she would be more likely to have her genes get into the next generation. That helped the human race to survive. Now it’s the opposite: the more intelligent she is, the less likely she is, to have offspring. The modern intelligent woman tends to be at university, delaying having children, focusing on education and eventually making money, then perhaps one child, once she is past age 30. This is not a good trend, for the human race, if we hope to survive. It’s a disaster.
Dutton is quite clear in this: Feminism makes us dumb. It does so because it encourages the most intelligent women to follow a pattern in their lives, which precludes them having children when nature intended. There is now an inverse mathematical relationship between intelligence and fertility: The smarter a woman, the less likely she is, to have children. The less intelligent a woman is, the more likely she is, to have children. This is a building disaster for the human race.
One of the ways we can slow down the decline of Western Intelligence, is to reform feminism. Let me explain:
Feminists have a theory about the world: In the past, women were oppressed because men organized society, for the benefit of men, not allowing women’s full participation. This is supposedly why men dominated science, for example. If women are allowed full access to modern life, can compete with men economically, control their own birth choices, we will have a much better world…..so the story goes. But is it true?
I think this theory is rubbish for many reasons. Here’s just one: The idea that it is men alone who created science and the modern world, is absurd. What actually happened is that intelligence rose, just like The Jolly Heretic said it did, due to evolutionary pressure over time. As part of this, women are the ones in nature that decide who to have sex with. Women tended to chose intelligent men to have sex with, because this helped women survive. So what happened in time was that males, more than females, tended to have high IQ individuals in their population, as men were selected out over time, for their intelligence. Remember: it was women who selected men out, for intelligence. So it was women who actually created male intelligence. Over time this led to the creation of science and the modern world.
One of the things to note about this, is that we humans evolved with a few biological constraints: Rule 1: Like all mammals, as I have said, it is the human female who picks out, who she wants to have sex with. Rule 2: She does this within some time constraints, set out by nature: Basically, she can have children between the ages of 15 and 30. Within those 2 rules, males compete for her affection and potential mating opportunity.
Now what happened recently in our evolutionary history, is that our intelligence, having evolved, it created the modern world. As part of this, the modern world meant the creation of things like birth control, modern education and jobs that females could do, so she could be independent of the male, compete for resources and social status. Before the creation of the modern world, there was no birth control, modern education did not exist, there were few or no jobs for females to do on her own, to exist economically independent of the male.
This new situation of the modern world, which we humans created with our intelligence, it produces something which threatens the continuation of human intelligence itself. Do you see it? It’s obvious: Feminism arose, women started using birth control and getting a modern education, competing for jobs and social status. Ask yourself: which human females are statistically the most likely to use birth control, get a modern education, successfully compete for jobs and social status? Obviously it is our most intelligent and healthy human females…..over times this means fewer and fewer intelligent human females are having children.
We have effectively reversed natural selection in humans. Natural selection created intelligence, which created the science and technology, which allowed the best human females to stop having children, which in time is something that threatens to destroy modern technological civilization itself. The way this happens is that over time, there is a decline in intelligence, which is the foundation of modern civilization.
And how feminism plays into this problem is that feminists pushed all these trends along. They said that girls should indeed focus on school, focus on jobs, focus on economically competing with men, at the very time in their lives, when they are the most fertile, the most beautiful, the most desired by men, the most able to have children. We can see this played out in the data if we look. The smartest women, they have the fewest children. The least capable ones have the most children. Over time, the long term effects of this are likely to be disastrous for the human race. It’s biological suicide for us, long term, to continue this behavior.
A better course would be to get rid of feminism, or at least reform it so feminists accept biology, accept the laws of biology, which dictate that human women were meant to have children when they are young, that human women should be Mothers and have children till they are 30, rather than prioritizing money, rather than prioritizing females academically and economically competing with males. That society should deliberately set economic and social policy, so that intelligent women are encouraged to have children when they themselves are young, so we can maintain our population of capable people.
Our entire long term survival of our civilization depends on us doing that.
There is an old saying that says: “The hand that rocks the cradle, rules the world.” That is precisely right, in what that says about evolution and human history. ln point of fact, feminism in it’s view on history, is exactly wrong: Women and men both created the modern world, and created science. Humans are biologically inter-dependent. Women make babies, including men. Without babies, there is no human population. Without babies, we are dead as a species. Feminism looks at men and women, too much emphasizing their separateness from each other. That view is very unrealistic. There is no such thing as separate men, as a group and separate women, as a biological group. We are entirely intertwined, genetically, entirely intertwined in our history. It’s perfectly reasonable to say that a realistic view of history is that intelligent Victorian women, who today would be getting advanced degrees at university, those are the people who created science and the modern world. They did so by having a lot of children, many of them the very men who created men and created technology and the modern world, we all seem to take for granted.
So due to technology changes, feminist policies and ignoring human evolutionary cues, advanced societies are now in demographic free-fall. What to do? What are the solutions?
Hints to solutions can be found, by taking a close look at the data, of who has kids, who does not. For instance, Elon Musk said that there is a roughly inverse relationship between religiosity and the birth rate. That is, the very religious tend to breed, much more than the non-religious, and atheists and well educated breed the least. This is true, around the world, apparently….every race, every religion, every country, within different countries etc.
(it’s in this video below, ‘Having Kids is a Social Responsibility)
Israel already has a workable solution. If you look up all the advanced technological countries, only Israel is the only advanced technological country, which has a birth rate that is growing, beyond replacement level. (3.1 kids per woman….and it’s true in the Jewish population as well as the local Arab population) All the rest of the advanced countries are in demographic free-fall: Korea, Japan, China, most of Europe, Canada, the U.S., Australia, New Zealand. But the reason their birthrate is growing in Israel, despite it’s embrace of modern life and technology and even feminism, is entirely because of a small, very conservative and religious Jewish community, that has a lot of kids. They make up for the fact that the average Israeli women has a low birth rate, much like women in Europe…..proof in link below
So the principle here, based on the Israeli example, is that targeted help is important. Some people want a lot of kids, others don’t want any. Deeply religious people live with a community that gives them lots of social cues and rewards and supports, to have a lot of kids. In that, there is hope. In that is our solution: I think the same basic formula would work for all kinds of women, not just religious ones. We can stop demographic collapse by doing what the Israelis are doing.
I discussed this previously, here:
To understand how we might do this, let’s start with facts: Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers….”Base Mom”…. said that about 20% of American women would prefer to not be in the work force, but to be full time Moms instead. And about 20% of American women prefer to work full time. And about 60% of American women prefer to work, part time….I call it the 20-60-20 Rule…..
So we need to create new social structures, to influence women to chose family over career. How do we do this? In a variety of ways. So how does this work, with the 20-60-20 Rule? It’s actually pretty simple:
My choice would be: give all women, their choice of which of the 20-60-20 option, they prefer. If a woman wants to stay at home, have 3 or 4 kids, let her……I know a few women like this, and their kids do well in life. My preference is to only financially help women who are married and want a lot of kids, because I think Dads are important. And if a woman wants to just work full time, let her. She will have few kids, perhaps none, and that’s fine. Some women are just not cut out, to be Mothers. I know quite a few of those.
And if most women want a couple of kids and to work part time, set up social policy to help them……that will create a financial social structure, that women will respond to.
My general rule is, the more kids a woman wants, the more society should help her, financially….just as long as she is married, and the dad is fully involved in his kids life.
And changing the way we organize our cities might help: I have lived a lot in suburban America and I don’t like the way we organize our cities. It seems out of step with evolution. It feels unnatural. I have lived also in a variety of small communities of various sizes, many in rural and isolated wilderness based places, far from “civilization”. These places feel natural to me. We evolved in small, tight communities of about 30-100 people, far as I know. I prefer we start building small villages, essentially, in cities, that are self-contained, which would allow a collection of women to have children at the same time as their friends, and have a lot of other female support around…..and their kids grow up and play together, instead of sitting in isolated suburban boxes on their computers.
As to many people who now say “Bringing back traditionalism”, I doubt that will happen, but if traditionalists want to organize local communities in the patterns I suggest, and have a lot of kids, I’m fine with that. I just don’t think it’s a “one size fits all” solution, for most people. Remember, about 20% of women want to just focus on career. They don’t need to have kids. Just help out the women who want to stay home, have a lot of kids.
That village life we evolved for, seems normal and healthy to me. The shape of our current city patterns, does not seem healthy, nor normal, to me. In it’s form, the village we evolved in, seems the social form we as humans are most comfortable with. And note that it does not have to be a religious community. But I would guess that small villages where women are incentivized to have a lot of children, would likely have high birth rates, similar to that in small Jewish religious communities. It’s all about setting up a favorable pro-natalist community. I think many would be happy with this choice. The internet and social media is driving us all apart, and I think we must react to that, by re-arranging our architecture and community planning, to make it more interactive and local, with a lot of social interaction. That too, would help the birth rate.
Women are communal creatures, who prefer other Mothers around, when they raise young. Lots of women say they feel very isolated in the suburbs. So I prefer tax advantages for builders and architects who build new communities, around these principles. In time, healthier communities would emerge. For many women, this would be closer to what they want in life. Remember: 20% of women would prefer to be full time moms…..and a small portion of the Jewish population is producing most of the kids. Not a lot of women have to have large families, for this to work.
From wiki on Israeli demographics: “While the ultra-Orthodox, or Haredim, represented only 5% of Israel’s population in 1990, they are expected to represent more than one-fifth of Israel’s Jewish population by 2028.“
Relate this 5% figure, to the 20/60/20 rule. If 5% of Israeli women can cause the population of Israel to grow, then 20% of the population of advanced technological countries, can cause the population to grow….if given the right incentives.
I go into more detail on how to stop demographic collapse, here:
Does this sound expensive? Yes, it is….However, “expensive” has to be considered, in the long run: The thing to keep in mind is, women who have a lot of kids, create future economic value for society. So it’s not just about subsidizing women, without getting money back. It depends on who is being subsidized, though. Just giving money to women in ghettos, with no dads around, leads to bad social outcomes, whatever the race of the person. Women who produce children that contribute a lot to the economy, those women actually produce a whole lot more economic benefit, than high end career women. It’s poor and unimaginative accounting, to think the only way a woman can economically contribute, is by getting a job.
But subsidizing married women who might have a professional career, to instead have 4 or 5 kids, instead of having a career, that would lead to a much better outcome, whatever the race of the woman. Most married women who could have professional careers, that have kids when they are young, the kids turn out pretty well, and it’s a huge, huge economic net gain for society, long term, as her 4 or 5 kids will be a very large economic net gain for society, as the kids will likely have successful careers and contribute much.
In Victorian England, upper class women often had large families. These women, if they were alive today, would be getting medical degrees, or a PhD and such…..and not having any children. Since intelligence is largely hereditary, these women had a lot of very intelligent babies…..who created science, created the modern world.
Intelligence in human females used to be an evolutionary advantage. That is no longer so. Because of modern life, modern technology, the smartest women women generally have the fewest children, as Elon Musk pointed out in his video, Having kids is a social responsibility. What will the long term effects of this be? It will make us dumber. A lowering of human intelligence is a side-effect of feminism, when combined with technology. The future effects of feminism:
Even the left-wing, pro-feminists newspaper, The Guardian, is starting to catch on, this is happening:
The Parsees of India are the most educated group in India. the same thing is happening to them: they are going extinct. That’s a shame, as they are some of the most intelligent people on the planet, and some of the very best. We need them. But high intelligence means most of the Parsees women spend a very long time in school, to use their considerable talents….then they don’t have children, as this short clip shows:
I promised you a better way. Here it is:
Women who want careers, can have careers. They contribute a lot, that way. And women who want a lot of kids, can have a lot of kids. They contribute a lot that way. And if we plan it this way, we keep our population stable and growing. This is the best option. It’s the win-win-win option. I call it the “Have our Cake and Eat it too!” option.
The best and simplest line I heard on this concept was:
“She has one kid, she gets 1/4 of a home paid. She has 2 kids, she gets 2/4ths of a home paid. She has 3 kids, she gets 3/4ths of a home paid. She has 4 kids, the home is fully paid off.”
Women crave security and family, many of them. That might just work. Crisis ended.
This would tilt the labor force to something more natural, more in line with evolution. Remember, we evolved in small groups, with women focusing mostly on people and caring for children. All female mammals evolved this way, with the male helping out.
And pretty much in every race and religion, the men tended to stick to their own group of men, often in hunting parties. The labor force should reflect hunting party formation. It should be mostly a male thing.
Capitalism should reflect evolutionary principles, as far as division of labor is concerned. It should take into account natural principles of evolution, like hyper-gamy, male competition and the limited biological clock of women, the value that women bring to economics when they forego career and focus on raising high quality children, and the female need for financial security.
We need to build a capitalism where most of the work, is done with men. And where women focus much more on family and community….especially during their 20s and some of their 30s….after which the children are generally in school and looked after, if she had her children when she was young. And no, this is not the plan for all women. Yes, there are 20% of females who are very ambitious, so let them compete. I have no problem, with the choices of the 20% who just want to compete with men.
But it’s a fairy tale to think that women evolved to compete with men, for economic dominance….and we bought into that silly illusion, when we embraced feminism, and grafted it onto capitalism. Most women didn’t evolve to compete with men in the labor market. A few did. It’s like war. We have encouraged women to join the military for decades now. After all our efforts, in volunteer armies, we can only get to 10% of the military being female…..and many bring headaches with them and are not suited to it.
It’s as unnatural for most women to fight war, as joining a hunting party. Most women evolved for family while they are young. Not for hunting and not for competing with males for economic dominance. We could have gender integration on sports I suppose, because sports is a subconscious replacement for war, but some estimates say that in a gender-free Olympics, men would win 99% of all medals. That’s why the social form of all past societies was to separate the genders into mostly non-competitive social hierarchies.
Males evolved for hunting. That’s why, at 1 day old, a female baby will tend to stare at faces, while a male baby will tend to stare at things. That’s why, after decades of effort in Scandinavia, to make their societies “gender neutral” in occupational choices, women still prefer people oriented work, males prefer thing oriented work….that’s called “evolution”….
While about 20% of women would chose to work full time, most would end up working part time, while 20% would be full time Moms. This should be our social and economic goal, as it is in line with evolution, and it’s what women want… It’s what women evolved for, it’s what makes many women happy.
Men need to call “bullshit” on the whole feminist agenda of integrating the sexes on equal terms, in the labor market. That all needs to be rethought.
Then there is the future. Technology is evolving very, very quickly. This will change everything, including gender roles. Since the long term economic and technical trend is for most of the economy to be automated in a few decades, we won’t need women to work anyway, so this is a realistic social goal, and the way society will tend toward anyhow. Feminists should embrace that goal. I’m all about giving women more choice, not less. I don’t want to take away a woman’s need to work, if she enjoys it. I just want women to easily have the option of being a Mother full time, if that’s what she wants. And women need to think about what kind of lives they want, when that arrives, what kind of communities they want….men will respond to those pressures.
Technology can free women up from most of the often tedious “work” they do today, and soon we will look back on the brief time in history, when women “worked” in a capitalist economy, as a quaint historical relic of a bygone era of primitive capitalism. Surely we can live better than this. We now have a society of stressed out women, doing things they did not evolve for. Let’s change this. Give women better options.
We will have to reinvent our whole society to do this, reinvent how we live, how we organize economics….but as usual, we as men, we are up to it. Women evolved to crave security and people. We can do that for them. We can create a society for men and women and family, that makes everyone happy. The one we have today is a train wreck…..so it’s back to the drawing board, as technology evolves.
Just to be sure there is not confusion: My comments on feminism is NOT that they are the root cause, driving this situation….not at all. Clearly they are not. But feminism has an impact on Western society, in that feminist thinkers grapple with issues of, what is the role of women in society? It astounds me a bit, that clever women have not grappled with this issue, of the conflict between technology and evolution, for it’s at the root of our dilemma, which is obviously re-shaping our world, right now and in the foreseeable future.
What I hear from feminists is they are telling women things like “you can have it all” and “you can have a career and be a mother at the same time” and “you should get an education while you are young”…..all the attitudes that basically tell women, nature does not exist, you can avoid having children, a woman’s role is in the workforce etc…..and all this thinking, is pretty much destroying society.
My guess is, there is a real problem we have to deal with. A conflict between evolution and technology. Let’s try to do the right things to survive it.
Choose your opinions and your behavior, carefully. My guess is, many of those reading this will say, “well, I kind of knew all this already, but thanks for tying it together.” Thank you for your time.
Leave a reply
There are no comments yet on 'Feminism, Technology and Evolution'