Something is Afoot Save for later Reblog
Something is Afoot: Neo-liberalism, Corporate Feminism, Evolution and the Decline of the West:
Executive Summary: Neo-liberal economics has a fundamental flaw in it, that has economically damaged the United States, particularly the Middle Class, particularly White men. At the same time Neoliberal economics enormously benefits the American elite. It did this by globalizing labor, putting the American middle class White male at a disadvantage. The effect of this was to lower the Sexual Market Value of the middle class White male. Corporations colluded with feminism and introduced large numbers of female workers in the the workplace…..”Corporate Feminism.” This changed the sexual market place in the United States, with many negative effects for social stability and family life, destabilizing the United States. The same thing is happening in Europe, which is being de-stabilized by neo-liberal economics and feminism. There are underlying evolutionary drivers which have been ignored, to our peril. Feminism and neo-liberalism works at odds with our evolutionary drivers and norms, de-stabilizing society. We are now a culture that is so out of whack with evolutionary norms, we will quickly perish if we don’t correct these norms.
Something is afoot in the world. Many in America are still baffled and over-whelmed by the election of Donald Trump. They are afraid. They fear the rise of White Nationalism. Trump has a Nationalist/Populist message. President Trump keeps talking about Economic Nationalism. Many distrust that message. All over Europe the same thing is happening. Nationalism and Populism seem to be the wave of the future. Ethnic nationalism seems to be the wave of the future, in Europe as well. Why is that? A new concern for governments looking after their own citizens, making them a priority over foreigners; that is the central idea that is on the move around the world. That is the central idea that is slowly taking over the governments of Europe. Some people are terrified of Economic Nationalism. Others say it’s a great idea.
Why does that idea have such appeal to so many people now? Why is this happening? Why did so many of my fellow Americans vote for a man that so many in the elite consider uncouth? Why did so many American vote for Donald Trump? This question still thoroughly baffles most of the elite. They have no answers. They wonder: Are we missing something here? Is that even possible? What do Trump voters know that the elite don’t know?
Well, yes, the Trump voters know something that the elite don’t know. In a nutshell, what Trump voters know is this: Neo-liberal economics didn’t work, for most Americans.
What is neo-liberal economics? Bear with me, those readers who already know the answer to that, but here is a brief summary:
After the carnage of World War II, most of Europe stood in ruins and so by default America was far and away the dominant economic and political power in the world. American leaders used that advantage and imposed a new economic order on the world. This was the old Bretton Woods post-World War II order. It set the financial rules of nations trading with each other. It is a global economic theory about the financial arrangements in the economy of a country, and between nations. It now includes central banks and things like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. It is a series of rules and arrangements by which economies function internally and trade with each other. One of the central rules of the old Bretton Woods agreement was that investment capital had very strict rules about its global mobility. Investment Capital was more or less kept in place, in its country of origin. If money was made in America, that is where it generally stayed. The idea was, if wealth was created in one country, such as the United States, the wealth created would more or less stay in place, in the United States, where it would be invested in other things in the United States, to create even more wealth. This would have the effect of more and more wealth creation for the citizens of the United States, who would benefit more and more, from the wealth that they created. From the 1940s till the 1980s, under Bretton Woods, these capital mobility restrictions were kept in place. However, even though there were capital movement restrictions, the old Bretton Woods economic order was basically about facilitating trade, so it allowed free flow of commerce around the world. It’s just that investment money was hard to move around the world. It mostly stayed put, by design and by technological implications, as the internet had not yet been invented….which made capital transfers technically easy to do. Countries were free to trade with each other, just keep your money in your own country for the most part, to grow your own economy.
This arrangement had some strong benefits for the ordinary American man. As part of this arrangement, labor was protected in the United States. Since capital could not easily move around the world, businesses could not pack up and take their jobs with them and leave the United States, looking for a newer, cheaper source of labor, to increase their profits. This rule certainly advantaged American labor and the American White male. It meant American labor did not have to compete with labor in China. Since money tended to stay in its country of origin, the money that was made was invested locally, creating more local wealth. So if a billion dollars in profit was made in the United States, back then that billion dollars did not rush off to China. It stayed in the United States, was invested there, creating more wealth, more jobs for Americans.
One of the natural features of capitalism is its tendency to concentrate wealth into a few hands. We see that today, with Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook….worth an enormous amount of money. We see that in Google, which monopolizes the web, controlling and restricting free speech, and creating unparalleled amounts of wealth for the shareholders of these companies. Americans in the 1920s and 1930s were faced with similar problems of enormous concentrations of wealth into a few hands, the net effect of which tends to be, if left unchecked, it destabilizes democracies. The rich simply buy the government, and then set all the rules, to make themselves even richer. The Bretton Woods agreement was an extension of the New Deal that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt brought in, to protect the average American against the ravages of capitalism, when it goes too far. The New Deal meant that American labor earned a larger share of the economic pie. This was supposed to stabilize American democracy. The idea being, if a large and stable middle class was created, then a large segment of the population would have an economic vested interest in stability and democracy. Guess what? It worked. For 40 years, that deal worked like a charm. The years of 1940 till 1980 were the best, the most stable and prosperous years, for most Americans of any of our history. (But not for black Americans, obviously.)
This Bretton Woods arrangement was a stable set of rules that lasted till about the 1980s, when it started to be changed. This was the change, from the old rules of Bretton Woods, to a new neo-liberal economic order, that we are currently in. The change had to do with loosening up restrictions on the movement of capital around the world. This weakened the basic power of American labor, which is what most people sell in order to create wealth. It made the average American white man weaker in his power. When I say “labor” I mean that anyone with skills of any kind, which they sell to make a salary, is “labor”…whether they are in a union, or not. Here’s how the value of every man’s labor was weakened:
Today, in the neo-liberal economic order, money is free to flow around the world. The Bretton Woods Agreement restricted money from moving quickly around the world, but neo-liberalism changed all that. Beginning with President Reagan and with President Clinton finishing the job, the new neo-liberal order meant that money could easily move around the world. This meant the value of labor and unions in America was radically reduced, because jobs could just leave for better places to invest, in other countries. Jobs could leave because capital was now free to leave the United States. This meant that American factories could simply be shipped off to foreign countries, where the labor was cheaper. Under the new rules, American workers in the United States now had to compete with workers around the world….on the price of labor. The heart of the new neo-liberal economic order was centered on getting labor to be more competitive by having everyone in the world compete against everyone else. The idea was, if we can reduce labor cost, everyone in America wins; everyone gets to buy cheaper goods and services.
So, the neo-liberal economic idea was, we get more and more labor available to us globally, then the labor around the world has to compete with each other, for the work. This will reduce the cost of labor and the price of goods and services sold to the public. It will be win-win. This new neo-liberal economics will work out in economics as eventually those American workers whose jobs are lost in America, when they are shipped overseas, those American workers will find better paying jobs, which will always be created by the economy. That was the story the elite sold to the public.
The neo-liberal story says that since the labor cost of producing and making everything will drop due to lower labor costs, then all Americans will benefit from the lower cost of everything manufactured. This will work hand in glove with the free movement of investment money around the world. Capital will be free to seek the highest rate of return, anywhere in the world that it can find it.
That was the story, sold to the public. It’s a fairy tale that the elite still says, that it believes.
That neo-liberal theory is still the dominant economic theory of our times. It is the intellectual template which the financial and business elites have bought into, as to how economies should work, how to arrange the economic world, to create a better, more prosperous future for all us humans.
Neo-liberal economics favors open borders, free flow of commerce around the world, the free flow of investment money around the world. This means that labor is also mobile, in a sense. It means businesses can shop around the world, for cheaper labor to do work for them. It’s a fundamental change to economic theory, brought to you by the elites.
It means labor around the world has to compete with other labor around the world, for work. For anyone who has been around the world, has seen the vast disparities in standards of living, in the cost of things around the world, in many differentials which could affect business cost, the potential problems with this economic philosophy are already obvious to you: Someone in Gary Indiana may be competing on labor cost with someone in Vietnam….and Gary Indiana is a very different place than Hanoi….in many ways.
Now the average Trump voter may not be able to articulate what neo-liberal economics is, but they do have a story about something very real that is happening in the world. Mark Blythe, a very liberal Democratic economics professor from a very liberal American university explains that story:
So….how did neo-liberal economics work out for Americans? How did that work out for America? How did making capital unrestricted and free flowing and unrestricted work out? How did making the American Middle Class compete on labor work out for Americans? Here’s what Mark Blythe has to say on that:
Mark Blythe video 6:18 to 7:30:
“There’s an economist out there called Branko Milanovic. He’s produced this wonderful graph that’s called The Elephant Graph. You can google it. <below> And what it is, it is basically where you are on the global income distribution….from the poorest to the richest. Versus how much growth in income you’ve had over the past 25 years. And what you find is, the very poor, all the way up to China, have done extraordinarily well. Not because you are simply transferring jobs. But because you are actually creating wealth in those economies. And those economies buy stuff from us as well. Volkswagen’s biggest market is not the United States. It’s China. Right? So there is a global plus to this. But here’s where it sucks: Beginning at the 67th percentile, and up to the 87th percentile, that is the skilled working classes and middle classes of the developed world, their incomes HAVE fallen. They HAVE been hurt in real terms. And why is it an elephant? Because it goes up like that…and that’s your 1%. So, the poorest of the globe and the richest of the developed made out like bandits. It’s not necessarily at the expense of everyone in the middle, but it kind of is…..and that’s why people have a right to be pissed about this”
So, in short, neo-liberal economics worked out great….for China, for poor people around the world, including China. Neo-liberal economics worked out great for the top 1% of Americans. But for the great middle swath of Americans….what used to be the middle class…..it was a complete and utter disaster.
This in no way invalidates the laws of supply and demand. In fact, it confirms those laws are accurate. Lowering labor cost does in fact, decrease costs. But the catch is, the world is divided up into teams. These teams are called “countries”. Free trade and open borders and mobile capital and labor competing with labor around the world does lower cost. But the catch is, who benefits from that new economic sorting out? Who wins? Which team? America is a capitalist country. Competing with other people doesn’t guarantee you will win. Making capitalism global, competition for labor work global doesn’t guarantee American workers will win. They didn’t. Chinese workers won. In this case, China benefits the most, by far. China wins. The American elite won. The American elite benefits. They win. And middle class Americans lose, very badly. American White men lost, badly. That’s what this is all about. The fairy tale the American public was sold was, since the laws of supply and demand are real, if we make all labor in the world compete with each others, America will win.
Not true. Overall, America has been losing. Americans in general were tired of losing, so they voted Trump, hoping they would win again.
Starting in the 1980, occasionally in newspapers I would see a story about how American standards of living were stalled. For most Americans the standard of living was not rising. It puzzled me. These stories would pop up occasionally in newspapers. I was an avid newspaper reader so I would notice them, from time to time. Lots of wealth was being created globally, but American standard of living for a large portion of the public was not going up. That was peculiar. I had no explanation for that. Now I do. Not an explanation I particularly like, but one I think is true.
So, in regards to the election of Donald Trump, to the half of America that voted for Hillary Clinton I’d say: The reason half the country voted for Donald Trump, is they are not stupid. They know the economic order is out to get them. The Deck is stacked….against them. That’s why the approval rating for Congress has been extremely low, for decades. Americans intuitively know they have been betrayed by the elites. They don’t understand every single detail, but neither do I. But they know that Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents have made a series of almost fatal national mistakes that have destroyed the American Middle Class. They know that the financial elite in America are making money, hand over fist. They know that their parents and grandparents had better lives in the Leave it to Beaver era, than their grandchildren are now having. They know that under the old economic rules, life was more affordable for the average American. They know that a generation ago a man of age 21, with a high school diploma could get married, buy a house, the man would get a good job, the wife didn’t’ have to work, he could have a family, perhaps a strong union job and he would have a comfortable secure retirement. He knows all that and he senses something is very wrong in America…..so he voted for Donald Trump.
He may not have a coherent articulate explanation for all this, but he knows something is wrong.
By the way, in terms of partisan politics, I don’t think this should be a partisan political issue. Both political sides have been malicious to the public interest, these past few decades. Both sides….Republican and Democrat….have made drastic economic policy mistakes. The neo-liberal economic philosophy has been pursued by both Democrats and Republicans, for decades….with disastrous results for most Americans. Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney both supported it, as did Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama. It meant shipping high paid American manufacturing, mostly done by men, to low wage countries. That’s how the American Middle Class got destroyed. That explains why Ohio voted for Donald Trump. That explains why there are so many angry white men in America.
The American White man has plenty of reason to be very, very angry. The consequence of neo-liberal economics over the last few decades have been a disaster for him: If the economic elite in America want to encourage White Nationalism in America, want to cause it to grow, my advice is to keep on doing, what you are currently doing. From my observation, it seems to be working well. Keep current neo-liberal economic policies in place. Resist President Trump.
And if the American elite want to grow racism in America, then for Heaven’s Sakes….don‘t build a Wall. Up to 30 Million undocumented migrants have flooded into the United States, suppressing wages for the American Middle Class white male. Building the Wall will only slow down migration into American, causing average White male wages to rise. This would decrease racism in the United States. You would not want that now, would you? …..
That would only slow down the growth of White Nationalism. Unending migration has the effect of suppressing wages for the White middle class. If the American elite want to grow racism in America, the best thing to do is what the Democrats are currently doing: resist building a wall. Resist Trump.
To turbo-charge racism and White Nationalism, here is the plan the elite need to follow: Screw over the White American male. Keep pushing his buttons. He has not been screwed over enough by the last 40 years of neo-liberal economics, to become fully radicalized, fully racist….but he is surely getting there, if comments on the internet are any indication. This Koch Brothers Republican economics….which the Democrats supported…. destroyed Middle America and led to the rise of Donald Trump, when a politician finally came along, telling us the truth on how the American elites were screwing the American middle class over.
The jig is up: There were two big winners in the neo-liberal economic gain. The biggest winner was the American elite, who invested heavily in China, after Nixon opened up China and they embraced capitalism.
A generation ago China was almost entirely a peasant society of rice-paddies. Today it has a very large middle class and does sophisticated manufacturing. So obviously there was a lot of money to be made. Mitt Romney made off like a bandit, while he shipped American companies overseas, while destroying American jobs. And China won, under the rules of neo-liberal economics. Most Americans lost….especially American White men, since men did most of the jobs that left. But of course, to re-state the obvious: It’s not just about jobs being shipped off. Jobs leaving are coupled with capital mobility. Changing the financial rules, bringing in neo-liberal economic policy made it easier for investment capital, to leave America. Sure, it meant jobs leaving, but more than that: Vast quantities of American money no longer were being re-invested in America, after it was created here. It left. It was invested elsewhere: like in China. This set of new neo-liberal economic rules created enormous wealth in China. It turned a poor country of rice paddies, into an economy that rivals our own in size now. Well done, neo-liberals, you made China rich while bankrupting the American Middle Class….particularly the White American middle class man.
After all that our American elite has the gall to ask why Trump won?
China itself was a biggest winner of all of course. Particularly the low income Chinese, were very big winners in the globalism neo-liberal Economic game. They were more than happy to compete with the middle class White man in the mid-West. They could work as hard as him, for a fraction of the wage, and they would still come out ahead. Jordan Peterson has pointed out that the largest decrease in global poverty in human history; it took place in the last few decades. It took place largely in China. Poor people in China benefitted enormously by neo-liberalist economic policy of labor and capital mobility, free movement of goods and services across borders.
Winners and losers:
Winners: Poor Third World people, particularly in China
The American Financial elite
Particularly the White American Middle Class
And one more set of losers I would add to my list: Middle Class American White women were big losers in the new economic world we live in. How so? Women get pregnant. Now, their men don’t earn enough to comfortably support a family. So sorry girl, you lose, because China won.
What academics are starting to suspect, to talk about, is that neo-liberal economics itself is a deeply flawed economic theory. Of course, the fact that it is the American economic elite that also won in the game of neo-liberal economics, this fact blinds our elite. Out of protecting their own self-interest, they don’t want to be honest with the public, about who wins, who loses, under these neo-liberal economic rules. They have avoided telling the American people the truth, for over 50 years. If the public understood how badly they are being screwed over, there would be riots in Washington D.C. tomorrow morning.
Neo-liberal economic theory is a faulty economic theory. But at the same time, it works well. What do I mean? As the Germans say, it’s a “Yein”….half yes, half no…half nein, half ya…. It works for some, destroys others. It depends on whose bread is being buttered….and whose ox is being gored.
The basic theory, it says that an American father of two in the mid-West, with a wife and a mortgage, must compete on wages with someone from the Third World. On the face of it, that policy is asinine and borderline treason….so it is finally failing, right before our eyes. That’s why Economic Nationalism is on the rise. The American elites are engaging in a War on Middle Class White Men…..to enrich themselves. Our financial elites are mostly White. They are race traitors, against their own race. We can only hope it doesn’t turn into full blown racial nationalism…..but I would not be too surprised if that eventually happened, based on the foolishness of most of our elites. The Chinese elite have no trouble looking after the economic interests of Chinese people….Chinese men in particular. China is right. Every nation should look after the interests of their own citizens. We should follow China’s lead on that.
So then, what does this neo-liberal economics have to do with feminism? And what exactly is Neo-liberal corporate feminism?
Feminism itself fits in neatly with corporate Neo-liberal Economics, which says the price of labor is the thing we need to drop, for everyone to have a better life. Feminism merges with neo-liberal economics in this roundabout way: Women are half the population. Modern life includes the birth control pill; invented quite recently….when Donald Trump was 14 years old. This pill and abortion gives women reproductive freedom. They no longer have to have babies, if they don’t want them. Around the time of World War II, the men were off to war, manufacturers started to notice that because of the evolution of technology, it was becoming easier and easier to do many jobs. This meant that women could do a job just as well as a man could. So then we had “Rosie the Riveter”….building aircraft to defeat the Nazis. By the 1950s, many functions in the home were so free of labor that those women had a lot of time on their hands. It takes very little energy to throw a load of laundry into the washer and dryer.
These technological facts of indoor plumbing and washing machines may seem unremarkable to most people under 60 who grew up with modern technology, but it has always seemed remarkable to me, as I grew up in a pretty technologically primitive American sub-culture.
Comedian Louis CK is one of the people who understands people who don’t appreciate technology:
The effect of all this recent technological change is that women, for the first time in human history, could economically compete with men, on labor….for economic and social status and for money. Businesses quickly realized women were good workers. Since 50% of the population is female, given these technical changes and freeing up of a lot of time for women, all this meant the pool of labor available in the economy could be effectively doubled…..if women started to enter the modern economy in large numbers. Remember: the modern economy is a really new thing. This is all new for humans. In 1870…..100 years before 2nd Wave Feminism pushed women into the workplace, none of this would have been even remotely technically possible. Slowly over time, in the 20th century, this new role for women became gradually possible…thanks to men inventing the modern world.
Betty Freidan had written “The Feminist Mystique” in the early 1960s, telling women at home how boring their lives were, how mundane life at home was, how exciting it was, outside the home in the world of work. In these new social conditions, the large corporations all realized there was money to be made, putting women to work. So, for anyone with inkling about economics, here’s a softball question for you: What happens to the cost of labor if you double the number of workers? It’s obvious: the cost of labor will drop. Next question: Who benefits? Business does, for one. Since most money in the economy is generated by corporations, this means corporations figured out, they could drop their labor costs, they could increase their profits, by hiring women….just like Coach Red Pill talks about in his video.
From the standpoint of the 1970s…these changes meant, from the point of view of business: Women would now compete with men, on the cost of labor. Women would challenge men for jobs, challenge men for promotions. Women would flood the market with cheap labor, competing against men. This would drop the cost of labor for business, increasing their profits.
It worked like a charm. Business supported feminism. Corporations supported feminism, as they still do, not because they care tinkers damn about women, not because they care tinkers damn about the ideas of feminism. Businesses support feminism simply because they wanted cheap labor, so they could earn more money. Feminism was all about money back then; it’s all about money today. That’s what corporate feminism is. It’s about business realizing what side of the toast their bread is buttered, for them. It’s about hiring and using women, to increase productivity, for increasing corporate profits. Doubling the number of workers in the economy, it does that for them. Doubling the number of workers in the economy means supporting feminism, in order for corporations to make more money. It’s as simple as that.
The effect of elite men and feminists turning women, who were Mothers, into workers for corporations, has been pretty awful in some ways. Looking back at how feminism developed and where it is at today is pretty depressing:
First wave feminism were looking for the vote for women, they were looking for legal equality for women, but these women, the suffragettes, they also had a heavy emphasis on looking after the needs of Mothers. They were quite pro-family.
By 2nd Wave Feminism, that started to change. It was starting to become far less about supporting Mothers, more about sexual freedom, more about being able to make money and competing for jobs. Burn the bra and get a job. That’s when abortion came in and the baby killing started. After Roe vs. Wade in 1973, women were now free to kill their children, encouraged by radical feminists, encouraged by Big Business, who wanted reliable workers, which meant Mothers with no screaming children.
By 3rd Wave Feminism, all pretenses about caring about life, caring about Motherhood, caring about children and family, that was all stripped away, from feminism. Seventy million American abortions later, the stigma of killing children was completely gone and feminism dropped into the moral abyss….perhaps a bottomless pit of moral depravity. Now feminists are starting to speak of post-birth abortions being needed. Men have been stripped of most legal rights regarding family, by feminists. Women have been freed up to be good workers for their corporate masters. Welcome to Corporate Clown World.
The 3rd Wave Feminists today, the SJWs, the social justice warriors, are the worst of the lot, by far. They are full of contradictions. Some wear pink hair and are extremely vulnerable snowflakes; many of them are mentally deranged. The pink hair and extreme vulnerability should be understood for what it is. It’s a sign of normal femininity and emotionality, waiting to get out….but badly morally deformed by feminism and modern life. Pink is a feminine color. It’s a girl color. It’s about being a female. It always has been a feminine color.
Notice the emotional outrage of SJWs. This is actually a sign of an underlying emotional, nurturing quality that all women have. Where does this come from? It comes from nature: It’s biologically normal for women in their 20s to be with child. It’s biologically normal for them to be with child in stable relationships. The pink hair is an expression of Motherhood and femininity, waiting to get out. But out it does not come, because we have turned normal women into feminist baby-killing machines in their 20s. They are devastated and confused, and their normal female nature has been twisted beyond recognition and suppressed. Pink hair and moral outrage means they wish to be Mothers. They turn their confusion and emotionality outwards, projecting their own internal guilt onto the world. They find vulnerable things to protect, everywhere. Immigrants? They are like vulnerable children, to these women. Mothers protect the young and vulnerable. That’s the same thing SJWs do. Coincidence? I think not. We see this everywhere: Illegal migrants? They are vulnerable children to the SJWs to be protected by these women. Protecting pets? But of course. A modern woman, influenced by feminism, will have an abortion one day, then go home and be nice to her cat, and fail to see the contradiction. She seeks out vulnerable life to protect because this is what her instinct tells her to do this. However, the direction of her sympathies, where they focus their energies, that is set by the feminist/postmodern ideology cohorts at The Academy, which sets up an intellectual narrative which appeals to her instincts. The narrative says there are oppressors in the world and victims in the world. The oppressors are naturally white men; the victims are most everyone else. So feminists and post-modernists and intersectionalists train young women to hate men, especially to hate white men. If you listen to Alexandria Occasio Cortez for 5 minutes, you’ll figure this out. She is the sort of woman that feminist training produces: An anti-American hater of men. That hatred of men and America is standard university training for women now. This all has a political aim of manipulation: Feminists take natural and good instincts in young women, manipulate them in order to further radical left-wing political causes.
The estrogen charged SJWs find offense everywhere, because offense is emotional and women are wired to be emotional by nature. That emotionality was evolved to be directed to children and family, but we as a culture have suppressed those normal female instincts….by doing stupid things like telling them to work for corporations and go to school in their 20s….instead of having families. We have ruined women. Part of this is, we have allowed post-modernists, abortionists and communists and intersectionalists to take over the universities, indoctrinate young women in the cult of hating men…especially white men… while denying their natural instincts for family. We encourage them to kill their children and work for corporations instead. Then we wonder why so many young American women are obese, confused and violent. Maybe corporate and social leaders…mostly men…should look in the mirror to see where this feminist clown world freak show has evolved from: You buddy. That’s where we are at as a culture now.
Participating in the de-humanization of women has been what the corporations and the economic elite in America have done, by luring women into the workforce and not giving them a better option, more suited to their nature. If you want to know why so many young women have turned so crazy, look to corporations. Corporate feminism is really just an addition to neo-liberal economic theory. Both are about decreasing costs, increasing profits, for businesses….especially for large corporations. It’s all about the money, honey….even if it means destroying the lives of women. Both corporate feminism and neo-liberal economics increases business profits by increasing the number of workers available for business to hire. That’s all these men care about: their money. What most men never clued into, though, was that for most men, corporate feminism works against their financial interests, as men.
So the main point about neo-liberal corporate feminism that is rarely if ever mentioned is the obvious:
Having women economically compete against men is to the financial disadvantage of most men.
We made the same basic economic mistake with feminism and labor that we made with neo-liberal economics which was supposed to be a good thing that lowered the cost of labor. People who push Neo-liberal economics push the idea that if middle class American men compete against low wage 3rd world labor, they benefit. That’s absurd….and not true. Our ruling class has given middle class American men 3….(2by4s) to the side of the head. The triple economy whammy: the elite in America made the middle class American male compete with very cheap Chinese labor…this destroyed the economic strength of many middle class men in America. Then corporate feminism came along, encouraged women to enter the workplace, competing with men for jobs…which lowered the wages for those jobs. Then for decades, the neo-liberal elites let in tens of millions of illegal’s from the south of us. These Mexicans and Latinos are good workers, they competed hard and by their hard work, they lowered wages for White middle class American men. So all in all, the White American middle class male has been totally screwed over by his elites, for decades. And he is starting to figure it out and get very angry. That’s why Donald Trump had such great appeal as a candidate: He told some of the horrible truth, on how the elites in America, have betrayed White males. To make matters worse, White males have been betrayed by other White males….elite white males. Think about that and it might take a bit of the wind out of some of White nationalism. Is just having a White country the answer to everything? No of course not. If it was, the White males who lead us would never have betrayed other White men, with knives in the back, for decades. However, let’s set that particular bit of insanity aside for a moment and concentrate on gender politics and how the economic betrayal of American men, by its elites, is destroying family and marriage….for most Americans….men and women. This betrayal by the elites was short-sighted and is also destroying America….because:
-With the extra competition from women, that meant male wages in America were lowered
That single fact of lowering male wages alone is enough to ruin a culture, ruin family and marriage in America. Here’s why:
The world was a different place before neo-liberal economics: A generation ago women stayed at home. At that time, one man with a high school degree could buy a house, get married, and have a family. He could have a decent retirement. I lived through that era. Since then, between automation, increased competition from women, increased competition from overseas, all which lowered male wages, many men can’t afford families any more. The single income family is dead. Feminism, cheap Third World labor and letting in tens of millions of illegals have killed it. That is the new economic order, brought to you by neo-liberalism and its side-kick feminism. Tell me: How is our new economic order, how is it actually progress, other than for the elites, who made truckloads of money?
Why are women working in their 20s potentially a bad for men and women?
Part of the problem, when women work, is that suddenly there are two incomes, not one. This means the couple buys a larger home. What’s wrong with that? There is nothing wrong with that. But it’s not all good. For one thing, it does mean for women, choice has been taken away. One thing this new economic order means is that, while in the past all women had a choice to work or not to work, now that freedom has been taken away. Feminists say women are now free to work. Yeah but most women are not free anymore, to stay at home. They are not free, to not work. Only elite women, who have husbands who earn a lot of money, are free to not work. There is no choice for most women now, to not work. This is freedom? Our new economic order means that, now women MUST work. In the old days, it was a choice. Not anymore. Women were lied to, by corporations. Working to make the rich even richer was sold to women as “freedom”….pure doublespeak.
Women’s working in their 20s also means women’s standards are raised. What’s wrong with that? Nothing….but it’s complicated. The devil is in the details: Standards for women are different than standards for me. Men marry women mostly for looks and youth and beauty. Women are hyper-gamous….they only marry up. This means female expectations for what they want in men rises, as women earn more money. Since women are now economically competing with men, they will often out-earn men. This means that the general trend is for fewer and fewer men who are acceptable for marriage, to women….all because females marry up and many women are outcompeting many men. All women feel they need to economically “win” in order to get serious about a long term relationship. This means they want an increase in their standard of living. The more women work, the harder this goal becomes….because fewer and fewer men can satisfy her, as she becomes more successful and out-competes men.
That’s what women and men economically competing against each other does….it changes the entire social and romantic fabric and it decreases a woman’s chances of success at the mating game.
It’s similar to what happens on dating apps. Independent researchers have found that on dating apps, 80% of young women are chasing the top 20% of all men. Who do women go after? Only the most attractive men and the men who it’s obvious are the highest status men. So in a culture where we are sexually free, where acquiring status takes a long time, where women compete for status against men, where women prefer the top men, where women have increased standards for men because they are earning their own money….and where men’s wages relative to women’s is falling because of a triple-whammy from the elites and abortion is legal….under those conditions, human mating and having children slows down, so under these conditions we have designed a basically unsustainable culture. In the end, biology rules: Women have a short time to have children, but if they are too busy economically competing with men, they won’t have children. Then in time, eventually your culture will collapse under those conditions.
The problem and solution is obvious: Having women economically compete for status with men, during women’s 20s, will never work. It’s insanity. Nature set up men and women to complement each other, not to be each other’s direct competitors. This arises out of sexual dimorphism in humans; women are smaller and physically weaker than men, they get pregnant and have children, they evolved with a very short breeding season. What works best is if females chose among men who compete with other men, then select the best man they can get. That’s the common pattern in every culture, for all time. What is not the common pattern is our pattern: Women avoid breeding in their 20s; they economically compete for status with men. The reason our pattern has not been the lasting basis of any previous culture: because it won’t work. It goes against the biological norms of evolution. No culture has ever had such a pattern. In practical terms, this cultural pattern for one thing, produces a birth rate that is too low to sustain a culture….so it will fail. Women should not be economically competing with men, during their 20s. No culture can survive such a cultural pattern. It’s unnatural. It destroys family and marriage and having children.
And this unnatural pattern is the pattern that our economic elite have embraced, in supporting corporate feminism. It’s insane.
Do I really have to say it? Isn’t it obvious? It is the biological responsibility of women, to produce offspring, to sustain a culture. This is where female leadership comes in. They set the agenda, biologically, for a culture. They decide if a culture lives or dies. They decide if a culture has babies, or not. All these things are not the male role in nature, which is to compete for women, then when the woman has decided about family and offspring, the male role is to cater to those feminine demands….for what kind of family she wants, what kind of culture she wants, what the physical shape of her community should be…housing etc. Men are there to give the woman what she wants, provide for her needs and the needs of her children, once those needs are articulated. Feminists have abandoned their primary role, to guide the female half of the human equation. Instead, they try to turn women into men. Second rate men, at that. This insane female jealousy of men has to cease and desist. Feminists have abandoned leadership for the primary role for which nature evolved females in the first place: family and children. Feminists have abandoned leadership for the central role of females, in human life. This is insane. Feminism says that it is the female who must control her own body. I have no argument with that. As part of feminist dogma, they omitted the conjoined obligation, that with the control over her own body, the women must assume responsibility to have enough babies, to keep a culture sustainable. It is a comment on the insanity of feminist theory that the sustainability of Western Civilization, which produced the culture where women have more rights and comfort than any other, is not a concern of theirs, as if they simply float along like leaves blown about in an autumn wind, as if they play no role in that story, despite the fact that women are the central character in that human drama. Despite the fact that in mammals, it is the female who has the offspring, and in modern life it is the female who has full and complete control of that birthing process. Creating an ideology for women, which neglects the consequence of that ideology demographically destroying the society around them is as insane as constructing Corporate Capitalism, with no mention of family or birth or biology in the theoretical structure of the rules of Capitalism.
Men leading capitalism and women leading feminism are both quite insane.
So, against reason and nature, the elite men in corporations support feminism. They have done so since the beginning of feminism. They did so by convincing women to go to work, so they could earn more profit. By doing so, they set in motions changes in society that are ruining America. By supporting feminism, they supported policies which also lowered the value of most men….but not the value of elite men. By having women compete with men, this pushed down the wages of most men. This lowered the value of most men to women, and this had the effect of lowering the birth rate. Economic neo-liberalist globalist policies did the same thing. The long term consequences of all this for America and Europe are going to be tragic. Lowering the value of men is a quick way to destroy a country…or a civilization.
But surely this new “freedom” is making women happy, right? Think again. That’s not what the data says. Since 2nd wave feminism came in the 1970s, along with neo-liberal economics, in our new globalist neo-liberal corporate feminism, female happiness has been steadily declining. I guess living by an ideology that destroys the lives of women at the same time as destroying the society around you, does that…..But don’t take my word for it. Ask women. This has been done. Women have been asked. The data is in: The largest study of female happiness in human history was the global study done in advanced countries, called “The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness”….link below
Basically it says women are miserable. This new economic and sexual freedom that feminism and neo-liberalism economics brought in, it doesn’t work for women, if you want a happy population. It doesn’t appear to make women happy. In fact, it makes them miserable.
Why is that? Here’s a guess:
In a nutshell:
-Women working means that many times women economically out-compete men.
What’s wrong with women out-competing men? Nothing at all….except it is paradoxically very, very hard on women. How so? Jordan Peterson has explained many times that women only marry a man who earns at a minimum, the same amount as she does….but she has a strong preference for men who earn more money than she does. This is of course “hyper-gamy”…. It’s hard wired by evolution. Hyper-gamy comes from deep biological roots: we evolved as a sexually dimorphic species. Women have wiring which predisposes them to mate up the Dominance Hierarchy. This includes the financial hierarchy implicit in any capitalist system. With corporate feminism, women are now working and competing with men, women are often winning the economic competition. So as society moves towards economic equality between men and women….then mathematically, statistically, logically….this there are fewer and fewer men available for those women to marry and start a family with.
When women win, they lose. Turd’s Law.
Once women as a group earn as much as men as a group, that means for any random woman in the population, there is a 50% chance, she earns more than a random male. And that makes the woman higher ranking than the man. And women don’t want to marry men who earn less than them.
For our corporate masters, feminism worked. They got steady workers, lowering the cost of labor for business. That increases profits. Women are by nature more agreeable then men. This makes them good workers. Overall, countries that support feminism lose, long term:
As feminism pushes society towards equality, the birth rate drops so much, eventually the society goes extinct. That’s Turd’s Law. That’s why we have to import massive numbers of immigrants. That’s why Europe and America to some degree, has been flooded with massive number of economic refugees. The low birth rate in advanced countries, due to women competing economically with men, this also has the effect of lowering the social resistance to open borders….which is right in line with neo-liberal economics. Corporate neo-liberalism and its sidekick corporate feminism has pushed the birth rate down, so very low, we are running out of people. Corporations tell women to work, make money for their corporate masters…..and kill their babies….abortion.
So in short, in the long run, feminism won’t work, because it destroys a society foolish enough to embrace it. In the long run, neo-liberalism is behind feminism. I blame greedy rich businessmen for getting us into this mess. Feminists were “useful idiots”, being used by the corporate elite, to increase corporate profits for the elites. There is a very famous quote that explains this: Karl Marx once said, paraphrasing him: “Capitalists are so greedy, that if you rounded them all up and wanted to hang them all…..capitalists are so greedy, they would sell you the rope needed, if you wanted to hang them!”
I hate communism, but Karl Marx was right.
I’m a big fan of capitalism. But it needs a re-boot, to stabilize the demographics of nations, to keep populations stable and in place. This means women shouldn’t work or go to school in their 20s. We need a cultural reset to get rid of this foolish idea, which is so cut off from biology, from what is natural. The economic order must be in alignment with nature and with evolution….or it won’t survive. Next the mobility of capital must be questioned, the whole agenda behind the globalist neo-liberal economic set of rules, need to be redrawn to protect national interests. Immigration should be slowed down or stopped. We can make our own babies. We don’t need to import millions of babies. This means a new role for women, new social rules….or we perish, pretty quickly. The purpose of government and democracy is not to serve the interests of the global elites. It’s to serve its citizens. That includes the interests of its families.
As Elon Musk says in his video “No More Kids”….all advanced technological capitalist societies will become de-stabilized in a few decades and will crash. The present social and economic order is unsustainable. Feminism, women working, corporate capitalism, neo-liberal economics, they all push the birth rate in advanced countries, so low, modern neo-liberal feminist societies will eventually demographically collapse. Check out the Elon Musk video. Women have been pushed into the work place, to make the rich even richer. Women in their 20s in advanced countries now compete for money and status with men in their 20s. This cultural pattern will never survive. It just means a quick death of a culture. We are not immune to the laws of evolution. If women in advanced countries continue to forgo having children, we die off. Nature is not mysterious in this regard: female mammals have babies, or the groups die off. Men don’t have babies. Women forgoing nature, this feminist nonsense eventually destabilizes advanced technological capitalist societies. Women who are feminist keep talking about “My body, by choice”. To which I say: The hand that rocks the cradle, rules the world….or destroys it. We will be dead in a few decades if we don’t come to our senses. We do not have a long time to straighten this out. We could go back to being crude like the Islamicists and simply control our women with a “pimp hand”….and if it comes to that, we must to survive. But I’d rather not. Surely we are better than that? We need to ask, why is this happening? It has something to do with the invention of technology and the invention of the modern world….a very recent occurrence in the history of humans. That is a very, very recent change in human affairs.
The pattern is the same in all advanced countries: Women in advanced countries don’t have a lot of children. Female labor globally is now in direct competition with male labor. And stable pensions, a stable social order, they depend on more new people coming along. More people coming along, it used to be a given norm. That’s what Thomas Malthus thought. He was wrong. Till now in human history, population always increased. It was inevitable. Not anymore. The more educated a country, the more women compete with men for money, the lower the birth rate.
Everywhere in this process, strip away at things, you often find biology at the root of things: Once democracy is brought in and women vote, this skews culture in a certain way. Evolved biological differences between men and women are the key drivers. It turns out, women evolved slightly differently than men. For instance: Women are more likely than men, to vote for politicians who vote for open borders, for welfare. Combined with Third World Poverty and a low birth rate in advanced countries….the net migration of humans escaping Third World misery is having a very destabilizing effect on Europe. The root of this, no one seems to notice, is capitalism itself, and is neo-liberalism, with its false biological assumptions, which pushes women to economically compete with men….which drastically, lowers the birth rate in advanced countries. In an ironic twist of historical irony, the most capitalist of men are the ones who are destroying capitalism itself. Marx was right.
Capitalism and the globalist corporate elite, they act like humans in all nations are interchangeable parts in a global supply chain. The global elites seem a lot more liberal, open minded and in favor of open borders, than are most of us. Perhaps being top dog does that to a person’s mind. For these financial elites, with few if any nationalistic ties, they are quite happy to bring in boat loads of migrants into advanced countries, to make up for the workers not being born. I think this is suicide level foolishness.
In the end, it may be biology itself that corrects the foolishness of the neo-liberal rich financial corporate elite who support feminism:
Neo-liberal economics assumes that men and women can live and work together, in a work or corporate environment, with no negative implications. The assumption in corporate neo-liberalism is that men and working together in this setting, is a good or at least workable idea. But is it? One problem we are trying to work through, on the long term viability of neo-liberal economics, is the role of evolution and the question that evolution throws up about men and women working together. Corporations evolved as essentially male power hierarchies. They bear the strong resemblance to other male power structures. They are based on authority, competition and cooperation. Men invented corporations, men still dominate them. The human corporation was successful in part, because it is patterned after instincts that are more common and stronger in males, then females: Males like competition more than women do. That’s why men pursue sports of all kinds more than women do. Men like the idea of winners and losers, more than women do. Put women in charge, everyone gets a participation trophy, just for showing up. Put men in charge, some men win, others lose. The roots of this male behavior is in male competition for females in nature, which is brutal. In nature the male must compete for the female, much more so than the female must compete for the male, in order to sexually mate. This fact arises out of natural biology. Another fact: Many more women are successful biologically, than men, in nature. This is because the cost of pregnancy is higher in females than in males, so females chose from among men. Women pick the best men in nature. That’s why men compete so naturally. It’s not socialization as the feminists claim. In nature 80% of modern females have left offspring, since modern humans evolved. But only 40% of human modern males have left offspring. Nature has been selecting out the quality of competitiveness in males for a long time. Not so much, for females. So men evolved to compete for females, but females didn’t really evolve to compete for males. They didn’t need to. Does anyone really think these strong male traits suddenly disappear in modern life? I don’t. They don’t disappear in corporations, either. Men compete harder than women in corporations, because men don’t care about every other man in the group succeeding. Men compete to get ahead of that other sonofabitch man that he wants to get ahead of. Men do this because they know that women control sex, women chose men who succeed in the competition in the Dominance Hierarchy….which is hidden in plain view, in every workplace…including corporations. So corporations are natural social vehicles based on male competition and power hierarchies.
The interesting thing about power hierarchies it that generally speaking the pattern for most human societies in the past, was that the male and female power hierarchies was essentially non-competing against each other….for all time. Till now, that is. Women had their world. Men had theirs. Camille Paglia discusses that in the video below. I come from a similar old-world agrarian culture, so I remember the past, the separate world of two genders….as she does. Feminists really do have a point that in the past, when they say that women were excluded from power hierarchies in society. They really were. But there is another way of looking at that simple fact: Maybe this was for a reason? Maybe humans naturally evolved separate Dominance Hierarchies for men and women? Perhaps humans did this because they found over time, that men and women competing for power with each other, was not a stable power pattern in society? Why else would only patriarchal societies…which have separate dominance hierarchies for men and women….why were they the only societies to survive evolution? Surely if mixed dominance hierarchies containing both men and women were useful and successful social patterns, surely humans would have tried them in the past and they would have succeeded? If they were tried in the past, they left no record, which means they all failed. Why did they all fail? Why did women in the past have their own world? Why were men and women kept separate in the past? Why did that work? I wonder: was it just “sexism” in the past that fueled this trend?…. I doubt it. More than likely it was practicality. People over time, they tend to do, what works….that’s a reflection of evolution, which is about functionality at it’s core…about what works. So what worked in the past, for pretty much all human societies, of all races and religions, what worked in the past was separation of genders, what worked was having distinct gender roles, what worked was having distinct and separate male and female power hierarchies. The reason all these different races, religions, ethnicities, all subscribed to the same basic pattern of separation of gender power structures? They did so because that’s what worked, over time. All humans, of all races and religions, must have figured this out independently.
Conspiracy? Give me a break. Most human societies did not even know about each other, till fairly recently. Quite independently, Amazonian Indians….many of them only contacted for the first time a few decades ago….figured out the same thing that Europeans in the Middle Ages had long figured out? Conspiracy of men against women? Or simply humans everywhere arriving at a common solution to social organization, based on wise intuitive reading of male and female nature?
So of course, this observation on gender separation and roles is really referring to my previous comments on male wages declining, relative to female wages. And it’s referring to men and women now economically competing directly with each other. We now have set up a culture where women economically compete with men during their 20s, often foregoing Motherhood as their primary social role. ….in order to increase corporate profits. My suggestion is that other humans have long figured out that men and women should not compete for power that we are not meant to be each other’s direct rivals. The illiterate Amazonian Indians are smarter than our corporate chiefs: Our current pattern won’t work for long.
But now of course, “in the current year”…. we supposedly know better than that….or so the feminists tell us. Now they say, blending male and female power structures will work. But I have to ask: Will it?
We don’t know, but my guess is: No….
My guess is: Men and women cannot work together, in male hierarchy power structures. Here’s why:
First of all, as Jordon Peterson points out, this has never been done before. That alone should give us pause and deflate our egotistical assumption of victory, before this drama has even started. It’s only since the mid-70s that we have had been trying this out. That’s when women started going to post-secondary institutions and entered the male world of work. In all of human evolution, in every culture, every race, every religion, going back to when modern humans arose, a couple hundred thousand years ago, this complete merging of the male and female social hierarchies, was never done before, in any culture…as Camille Paglia points out, below. Patriarchy and separation of genders is the de facto evolutionary pattern in humans. That fact alone should give us pause and doubt. Nature tends to try a lot of things, throw a lot of things out, when they don’t work. And most often, things don’t work out.
Why not? Why was it never done before? Perhaps it’s because it does not work. Or perhaps it was tried, but it failed. You would think that if it actually worked, there would be some trace of it in the historical or evolutionary record, of long standing societies where women and men worked together in harmony, in power structures….with women fully integrated into the male power hierarchy. But guess what? There is no such thing. The feminists are right in that: Women were excluded from male power hierarchies, in the past. Other than a few Queens, I would guess that 99.999% of the time, men and women have never had integrated power hierarchies. Instead, they all had male things, male hierarchies….and they had female things, female hierarchies…..and female hierarchies that were more or less separate. All cultures formed social and work worlds, with pretty clear and specific boundaries, between men and women, so most men and women, they did not mix too much and men and women did not directly compete with each other too much, for power.
Don’t the feminists wonder why that happened? The ones that give it a bit of thought naturally ascribe all this to “The Patriarchy” and some sort of an evil male conspiracy to “oppress women”…feminists look for cause in all this, and they find male malice. I look for cause and see practicality.
My guess as to why mixing genders does not work:
Men and women evolved slightly differently. Women have babies. They take up a lot of time and effort. Men don’t have babies. For practical reasons, in all mammal species this means that it has to be females who choose their mates. Men are willing to mate and have sex, a lot more than typically are females. Not opinion. Fact. But: Why is that? Don’t women enjoy sex equally? Sure they do, but for a woman, before Birth Control, the potential cost of sex is much much higher than it is, for a man: she must raise the baby if she gets pregnant, this will economically and physically incapacitate her, to some degree, so she needs to find a male to bring her resources, so that she can survive. And men? They don’t really need to stick around, they get 20 minutes of pleasure in a sexually unregulated environment.
To solve these basic biological problems, in the past every culture, every religion, every race, came up with basically the same solution: Separate the genders, have males compete for females, have males form separate power hierarchies, have males compete with other males, for status within those male power hierarchies, have females form separate power hierarchies and then let females pick males, from the male power hierarchy.
And females tended to pick males within that power hierarchy, males that were fit and strong and smart. Females did this because they needed help in raising babies. This was a biologically healthy pattern. So by keeping the genders separate, this social form has kept societies more or less stable. Men evolved to be slightly more competitive than women, lots of research supports this, so having men compete against other men fits well with natural evolved average inclinations within men. You see this even today, as men love competing against other men, in sports. And from a female perspective, this separation of genders worked, because it allowed them to pick from the best men….and to have their needs for living taken care of, by men. That was the deal, based on nature. And since nature arranged the female mammal body so that she needed the extra help in surviving, after she had offspring, this gender separation worked for females as well….she got to pick the healthiest males.
And now we want to throw all that common sense out the window?
I can already tell that it’s not working.
What are some of the problems with it?
Well for one thing, when females start competing directly with males, for resources, then some of those females will win and beat the males, in their quest for resources. So that means some males will lose. In fact, a lot of males will lose, because a lot of females can out-compete many males. So a lot of males lose, but losing for males is far different, than losing for females. When a male loses, then he loses something very important for him: Since he wants access to sex with females, since females are the ones doing the sexual choosing, and since females judge males largely on how well the males do in acquiring resources, this means when a male loses, he loses some of his ability to compete sexually. Suddenly it is females themselves, the people he is wants to impress, that are sexually neutering him in a way. By beating him in the status game, when they compete with males and win, they are taking away the resources the male needs, to impress those same females.
In such a relatively new sexual game, males must compete against the very thing he desires: females. In the old male vs. male competition, males had to compete with 50% of the population who were males. Under our new feminist rules, males must now compete with 100% of the population…both males and females.
For females, the sexual mating game is played slightly differently. For her, if she loses, men will not lose their desire, to sleep with her. So female can’t really lose when they compete against men….whereas men can lose. This is because of nature: In the sexual mating dance in nature, she is the desired one. That’s how the Dance of Nature evolved. Her biological future does not depend on one male. If one male is not interested, chances are she will find another male to mate with her. But there are complications to any singular cause: Men and women use different metrics for mate desirability. Men do not judge females on the basis of “Does she have enough status and money to impress me?”…that doesn’t happen. But it happens for men, all the time. Women judge them every day, whether women admit it or not, based on how well he is doing, in status acquisition. So when male and female dominance hierarchies merge, this becomes highly problematic for males, as many of them lose out as women become more dominant…The exception to this is really high status males, who are always sought after by females, regardless of the status of the female…in hyper-gamy, the top males always win. That’s a basic rule.
That’s why for marriage today, high status men….top 20% men….are highly sought after by women. Marriage rates for high status men are very high, because they have status…and the most desirable females seek them. But for the bottom 80% of men in advanced countries, the marriage rate is plunging.
Females in general support gender integration, a lot more than males. This is because in bringing the genders together, females win more…..and never lose….since winning or losing does not affect their sexual desirability. What males are starting to figure out is that in gender integration, a lot of males lose, while most females win. This is a rigged game, against most men. That’s why mgtow has emerged, as a cultural phenomena. That has a lot to do with why men are bailing out of university, as Professor Peterson noted.
It’s similar to Boys Scouts and Girl Guides. Why is it we have no problem with girls joining Boy Scouts and lots of girls want to join…..but boys joining Girl Guides seems strange to us?
There are lots of other problems with bringing the genders together to work, but gender integration means women win a lot, male and female hierarchies merge. This screws up mate selection, the heart of male-female relationship, and that is enough to eventually kill gender integration. Already, marriage is at an all-time historical low, in numbers. What is the future? “Equality” as the feminist says? I don’t think so. I don’t’ think feminists even understand what is going on, biologically.
My prediction: We will see a cultural shift. The future is gender segregation and strict and separate gender roles….just like the past. It will be a return to the pattern of the past. Why? Because: That’s what works. The evidence is in: the past was entirely gender segregation. That is what has always worked. It has been tested many times, by many cultures, many races, many religions, over hundreds of thousands of years. It works. We are now in the middle of a brief social experiment to figure out if the genders can work together, can economically compete against each other, to see if that is a viable economic and biological option for male-female social arrangements. And in trying out this experiment in our current neo-liberal corporatist environment, we are trying to integrate male and female power hierarchies. So far, it has not worked well at all. We are finding out we were wrong, for throwing away the wisdom of our ancestors. This experiment has only gone on a brief time, since the 1970s as Jordon Peterson points out. Already, the experiment has failed.
There are other biological problems with neo-liberalist economics and corporate feminism:
One is that human female breed at a relatively young age. That conflicts with the corporate desire to enslave women, to increase profits. Perhaps enslave is a strong word. Women don’t need to be enslaved. It is remarkably easy to manipulate women. They evolved as group oriented and to be people pleasers. In psychology that trait is known as “agreeableness”. It means women want to fit into the dominant voice consensus. It means women want to please those higher up in the Dominance Hierarchy….especially higher up men. Since feminist opinions of the proper role of women in society are now supported by the dominant male economic elite, while simultaneously being pushed by feminists in the media, the corporatist neo-liberal stranglehold on the minds of women is now complete. The best form of slave is one who does not know he or she is a slave and will defend their master’s right to their labor. Women obey, they work, and they keep the society humming, for the elite.
The old-guard legacy media is now nothing more than a lackey for the economic elite. Under these conditions it was not too hard to convince women to forgo their natural instincts, forgo their own personal happiness, which evolved for children and family and long term relationships with men….and replace them with endless work and a social consensus to work hard for the economic betterment of top men…and their wives. Since women evolved as hyper-gamous, they are all pre-wired to try to please dominant men, so when the Alpha economic men say, go to work, the women comply. They always do. They don’t want to feel they are rocking the boat. Women want to fit in, not stick out. The biological reason for this is: Female evolutionary survival depended on their social compliance to dominant males. The male elites realize this and they easily manipulate women into doing things that actually make them miserable. (The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness)
The elite men in corporations should be ashamed of themselves for supporting things that lead to women being miserable, just so they can earn more money. But of course, they are not ashamed of themselves. They have no scruples.
Women are encouraged by the financial interests of business, to delay or avoid family life. Corporations and capitalism destroyed the incentives for women to pursue their natural roles as Mothers. This was done in order to increase corporate profits. So feminism was supported by the neo-liberal economic order. This new feminist corporatism and neo-liberal economic order means re-ordering modern life, so women now mostly work or go to university in their 20s. Women working for the financial benefit of elite men and their wives were sold to the public as “progress” and “freedom for women”. Part of this was supporting the feminist agenda on abortion. There is nothing more injurious to the bottom line economic margins of the elites, than a living human baby, which takes time away from work, for the Mother. So the baby must be killed. The baby must be killed, to increase profit margins of the elite. They don’t do this directly of course. There is no need for something so crude, so obvious. Instead, radical feminism was supported, because radical man-hating feminists wanted to kill babies and wanted to convince other women to be like them and kill their babies. From a neo-liberal point of view, this baby-killing makes sense: A Mother is much more productive, if she has no children to look after. She can work harder, make her boss, and make the corporation more money. This policy of course meant a drastic decline in the birth rate….which has disastrous long term consequences for a civilization.
Neo-liberal economics and corporate feminism assumes that it lives and exists and will perpetuate itself into the future, having no intertwined cause and deleterious effects with the society around it. It assumes its theories are good and correct and are for the social good. I beg to differ. Nothing could be further from the truth. I would recommend this book for them:
Looking at the big picture, by supporting feminism and abortion, what happens over time, is the demography of an advanced capitalist country is destroyed, thanks to corporate greed and bad economic policy. Women must be coerced into work to increase productivity, kill their children, so the elite earn even more money than they already do. We now have an economic system where families are too expensive, but consumer crap is cheap. Too many abortions, not enough new citizens, say the neo-liberal corporatist elites? No problem, say the neo-liberal globalists. There is no such thing as a country they say, no such thing as its history and traditions, say the neo-liberal globalists. Many cannot afford families? Men and women cannot have families at the time normal for nature…in their 20s? That’s too bad for them, say the neo-liberal elites. No problem: We simply need to import millions of people from the Third World, as new workers, new replacement consumers, for the ones aborted, to increase our financial bottom line. We are happy to replace whole races if need be, all in the interest of keeping our corporate profits up. If the white race has to go, in order to protect the financial dominance of the mostly white male elite, then so be it…. say the white male financial elite. So neo-liberal economics, with its open borders and free flow of capital and labor, and women working instead of having families, our current economic order, has the effect of destroying the national fabric, destroying the family, destroying the economic and social position of most men, makes them unattractive to females as life partners. Over time neo-liberalism destroys the nation state.
The reason this has not been publically talked about, has to do with who runs society and who has won the neo-liberal economic game: the Upper Classes. This is a class war, mostly. It’s the American elites vs. everyone else in America. The same pattern showed up in Britain during the Brexit vote. To change this, we need to start looking beyond the prejudice of class, in order to see this as a problem. It is mostly the Upper classes that are the problem here, mostly failing to perceive this as a problem. That is why NBC, CBS, CNN and the liberal American elite hate Trump, don’t understand the President, hate their fellow Americans who voted for Trump, don’t understand them. Why this is so: Much like neo-liberal economics has its winners and losers so does corporate feminism. It’s mostly the upper classes that benefit from feminism…not the lower classes. The reason for this is subtle: Because the upper classes are the economic elite, they win the hyper-gamy game. Marriage is very common and stable in the Upper Classes. That’s’ who all the women want to marry. They win all the marbles and have the best wives, best lives. The pattern is very different in the Lower Classes: Marriage is infrequent and unstable….and often unhappy. Divorce is far more common in the Lower Classes, than the Upper Classes. The Upper Classes perceive the world, through their own economic interests. As part of this, it means ignoring the reality of the consequences of its beliefs…such as a belief in feminism…. for other social and economic classes. This makes the upper classes almost blind to the injurious nature of feminism for most Americans, in the same way the 1% are nearly blind to how badly flawed and unfair neo-liberal economic is….because they are its main beneficiaries. We need more insight and better morals, than this. Jordan Peterson explains this well, in video below, how the economic order affects different segments of society. Charles Murray also explained a similar concept in his book “Coming Apart”.
It’s about how in our new economic order, the top 20% or so, get all the money. The bottom 80% doesn’t do well at all. That’s a large change, from the old social order. Basically, as Murray explains, it is mostly the top tier Upper Class women who are going to university now, marrying the top Upper Class men. The Upper Class women get to play lawyer for a few years, till they get pregnant. Then their high earning men will look after them. Lower Class women do lousy jobs their whole lives. There is no corporate Prince Charming for these women. The men around them cannot raise their standard of living. Many of these Lower Class women out-earn the louts they briefly breed with, so marriage is uncommon. And where marriage results, often divorce is not too far behind, because men in those classes bring too little to the table, to make him useful to keep around. So the women…and men sometimes….have miserable lives. To make matters worse: Today, unlike the past, the various economic classes do not socially l mix. They don’t understand each other, as a consequence..
Things need to change, for the bottom 80%. We need a new social order, where all women of all classes, have the option of a good life and being mostly a Mother in her 20s, if that’s what she wants. Marriage and the safety and security of a stable life should not only be for the Upper Classes. We need to get back to what America was, when women could stay home and have children, back in the 1950s and 1940s. I don’t propose bringing back that whole social and economic order because that’s impossible. But the essential ideas of that era are still valid and can be brought back in a new economic order that gives women the freedom to work if she wants, and the freedom to be a Mother, if she wants. The insane idea of women working and going to school in their 20s being the top objective for women, should be replaced by a more natural order, of most women spending most of their 20s in family settings having children. We need to build a new social order, on the foundation of sound evolutionary and biological principles. That means that new social and economic rules must evolve, that take evolution and biology into account. It means an end to feminism as we know it, an end to the raging pink and blue haired lunacy on campus, it means removing the rotten tree stump of post-modernism and feminism and communism from campus life, it means an end to neo-liberal economics, an end to corporate feminism. We need a new economic and social deal for women, a new economic and social deal for men.
We need women to come to their senses and speak up.
Camille Paglia says that around the world, wherever she travels, rich successful, accomplished women, are miserable.
I think I know why….
Leave a reply
There are no comments yet on 'Something is Afoot'