On feminism

Since the fall of man, women have been entirely dependent on male validation for their mental health. “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” Girls who don’t get loving attention from a strong father figure grow up with a craving for sexual validation. In slang terms, we refer to this as “daddy issues”.

High status amplifies the effect of a man’s attention because, tautologically, his time and attention are more scarce than his sexual options. If he is paying attention to a girl, it indicates that she has a higher value than the other things he could be paying attention to, especially other girls. A crude example I’ve used before is that there’s no greater valuation than a psychopath sharing his cocaine with you, because it indicates that he enjoys your company more than that amount of cocaine.

Since there isn’t enough high-status male attention around to make up the difference in daddy issues, market dynamics kick in. The definition of status as the “tendency to receive a greater share of group resources in the future” works well enough for our purposes here. As discussed previously, women cannot survive outside of a tribal context the way a man might. Therefore, when a woman fails to attach herself to a high-status man it produces an existential dread about her ability to survive even a brief moment of social upheaval.

When the supply of high-status male attention drops, either due to relatively fewer men (as in the aftermath of WW1 in England) or due to lower median male status (as in the modern West), this increases the existential anxiety in the pool of women.

In that day seven women will take hold of one man and say, “We will eat our own food and provide our own clothes; only let us be called by your name. Take away our disgrace!”

As a last-ditch effort to assuage their angst at the oversupply of women and the observed inability of men to make them feel safe and sane, many of these women develop masculine qualities and attempt to make up the difference in masculine attention supply between themselves. That is, careerism and lesbianism are the female version of black pilling, or emotionally checking out of society.

The skew toward these masculine qualities can reach a critical mass where a political ideology becomes viable to advocate for the new identity group. We can use the common figure of 10% to illustrate: 20% of the female population can radicalize the resentment of the remainder to achieve a society-wide sexual revolution, even if many of the 80% remainder are not resentful. This tendency to political advocacy is because women are more k-selected than men in general. (In contrast, they are R-selecting in their choice of mates, whereas men are R-selected and k-selecting.) The desire to remake society to be more personally nurturing is a form of “perseverance in ecological niche construction”. A k-selected person, being dependent on the group to survive and thrive, is more restricted to this choice.

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to On feminism

  1. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    It takes a wealthy and successful society to support feminism. Curiously, this is what makes it self defeating.

  2. Obadiah says:

    Women are more instinctual and emotional than men, but they represent the civilizing and calming element for mankind. Women ‘civilize’ men.

    Men are more rational, reasonable and “intelligent” than women, but are ferocious and have engaged in huge bouts of violence at all levels historically.

    >Women are more k-selected than men in general

    They’re not. Men and women each have different altruistic traits that manifest differently. Species, not genders, are r or K-selected because species adapt to environmental carrying capacity and stability (rather than the different genders of individual species). This may be different for species who are not large mammals.

  3. glosoli says:

    A poast I understood and mostly agreed with the points made.

    So I have to give it 1/10 Aeoli, you’re losing your touch.

  4. Fox says:

    “Therefore, when a woman fails to attach herself to a high-status man it produces an existential dread about her ability to survive even a brief moment of social upheaval”
    Hence the hyper-sensitivity to anything that might be a sign of social upheaval – normal confrontations between men, rare violent events (like all the f4lse fl4gs), the existence of unbridgable camps on any matter (“why can’t you two just get along?”). In the extreme (way past extreme now), the existence of any controversy on any matter as well as any kind of action, reaction (or lack thereof) that isn’t friendly and cuddly enough (“microaggressions”).

    “When the supply of high-status male attention drops …”
    That’s “Where have all the real men gone?”

    “many of these women develop masculine qualities”
    This is deep. They try to become the men they want to attract. Likewise, the feminization of men.

  5. bicebicebice says:

    the american media is ran by jewish trannies, if trump strongarmed them they would respect him but he never does and instead uses it as tweet-ammo aka “the media called me bad but they are the real dumbdumbs” ad infinitum. also, it is not a “media” when the (((media))) is advocating american genocide all damn day long inb4 muh democracy.

    same thing in CHYNA?!? not so much no

  6. Chase says:

    I think that this is a lot less about dependency and a lot more about necessity. Although I can’t say this for myself, I think a lot of women tend to have their real-world priorities a lot more intact than men, and are generally less consequence-blind. Therefore, changes in behavior are not reliant on the supply of men, but rather on the change in the personal sense necessity that the women feel (meaning, since there are less ‘high value men’ women are presenting as more masculine because the need to be stable financially and otherwise is not being filled by anyone else.)

    I know it’s a lot easier to just imagine that women are completely mentally dependent on men, but, surprisingly enough, women have brains too? And if you took a second and thought, ‘hey, what if a woman thought exactly the way I did,’ you might realize that the concept of any HUMAN BEING being completely mentally dependent on another for their mental health is completely absurd, much less half of the HUMAN population.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s