Female hypergamy is real and the psychology thereof results in a deadly embrace between high sociosexual value men and the general population of women to create various perverse forms of de facto polygyny. Women’s suffrage is driven by this but so was the sexual revolution and its follow on phenomena that have now resulted in a generation of INCELs that the military has targeted as a major domestic threat. The longer people deny this, the more people are going to suffer the decline of Western civilization.
Once people get out of denial, they’ll start taking seriously options that are unthinkable at present. But one of the main barriers to getting out of denial is the appeal of self-deception among those participating in this deadly embrace – because short of massive breakdown of technological civilization as we know it, they are relatively happy, in control and view with contempt all those loser INCELs.
What does this mean: women vote for men they’d like to marry?
And the INCELS? You mean like the Proud Boys or sump’n? They can’t get women cuz all the women are in love with public office holders?
Even if these things are true, how would they be different if women didn’t have the vote?
Think about it more like the Africanization of society than any single relationship choice. See my 1992 essay “Race, Gender and The Frontier”, Part I and Part 2 for my somewhat out of date 40,000ft view of human ecology. (Today, I’d place more emphasis on the evolution of eusociality vs the evolution of individuality.)
Traditional Bantu cultures are characterized by polygyny with women harvesting the ecological potential calories.
In civilization, the ecological potential can be thought of as positive network externalities (rent seeking such as land rents aka “economic rents” aka “monopoly rents”) that during civilizational decline, are centralized by corrupt authorities to insulate them from competition. This permits them to “turn out” women by depriving them of access to that potential unless they serve the corrupt authorities in some sort of monopoly – government or commercial. In the case of government, one form of service is the vote. It is in the different predisposition of men and women that this then turns into a tendency toward centralization or toward decentralization of the “ecological potential”. The corrupt authorities don’t want the competition from the men and will therefore buy the votes of the women.
@jabowery, thank you for sharing your essay. It was prescient of you to provide an explanation for the incel phenomenon (whom you describe in your essay as “marginalized males”) as early as 1992. But only recently has mainstream society begun to acknowledge the existence of incels.
This chart illustrates how dating apps have intensified de facto polygamy in the past few years:
And, in keeping with “The Crazy Years”, our legal system is starting to recognize polyamorous relationships as legitimate:
Regarding women’s suffrage, I agree with @Gavin that there has been an excessive extension of suffrage to both women and men. However, women’s suffrage is especially bad, even compared to the suffrage of propertyless men, because women’s voting patterns reveal a strong preference for the centralization of power in the hands of the state. Therefore, the federal government has grown steadily larger, and our constitutional rights steadily eroded, since the ratification of the 19th amendment.
…”women’s voting patterns reveal a strong preference for the centralization of power.” THAT is so succinctly fascinating!
And I reckon, if we women as a sex didn’t believe in the essentially benign nature of the Leviathan, we wouldn’ta wanted the vote in the first place.
I have been reading “Bronze Age Mindset” by Bronze Age Pervert (hereinafter “B.A.P.”) for a few years now. The reason it’s been taking me so long is that I dissolve into helpless giggles every couple pages. No no I mean in a pleasurable way; it just tickles me, the combination of the points he’s making with the telegraphic “Me Tarzan” style he adopts. It is a laffriot!
Spoiler alert: I’m about to reveal what the eponymous “mindset” is, according to B.A.P:
That every man wants to be worshipped as a god!
And all gods, even the female ones, are pretty violent and bloodthirsty, of course. Goddesses don’t really behave much like human females, or rather, they’re kinda like drag queens: their behavior grossly magnifies, and parodies, stereotypes of female behavior.
B.A.P. doesn’t say, so far, what the female Bronze Age Mindset is or was. But, with all those individual deities raging around on the Earth, endowed with the superior bulk and strength of the human male morphology, it’s not surprising the human females woulda developed a more supplicatory, propitiatory kinda worldview: “ ‘ But thou art the same Lord whose property is always to have mercy’…so, um, throw me a haunch of that elk you just brought down, there’s a good lad!” Human infants have a looong dependency period and that ties the females to the den, they would be better off if some central power, human polity or divine fiat, decreed that the males had to take some responsibility for the offspring they had sired as they roamed about taking their pleasure with any female they encountered—after, like we hear the lions do, casually killing and devouring the infant offspring of the mom’s last gentleman caller!
But, if centralization of power serves the interests of females, it also necessarily means that the majority of the Lords o’ Creation will themselves be subjects rather than rulers. What mean? as B.A.P. would put it. I reckon he doesn’t care that one male will subject the others, the point is that can all enjoy competing for Leader of the Pack.
Gotta go (and not a moment too soon…)
I am trying to reconcile that to the spreading prevalence of Involuntary Celibates – which are apparently more numerous among young males than young females … if one can believe anything that a human being reports to a poll taker. There are not many Involuntary Celibates among the gods in Greek mythology.
Getting back to the suffrage issue – the problem is that we have an uncontrolled experiment. Women were granted the vote, mostly worldwide, mostly starting in the 1920s. Then we had the Great Depression and World War II – but very few among us would ascribe those disasters to the fairer sex voting.
Things really started to go progressively off the tracks (see what I did there?) beginning in the 1970s. Today we have a dangerously difficult situation in the West, and now many of the levers of power are held by women. But correlation is not causation.
Some have speculated that it is all the fault of that handful of men who developed birth control pills for females. Beyond contraception’s impact on female sexual behavior (arguably self-destructive), there is the seldom-discussed issue of the consequent contamination of the water supply in Western countries with excreted female hormones. That might seem like a more probably cause of the infestation of Involuntary Celibates and the general emasculation of the males. But again, there are too many other possible causes in our giant uncontrolled experiment.
Look on the bright side! After the coming thermonuclear war and/or financial collapse, there won’t be any more birth control pills, and the West will return to a state in which the males who can provide a haunch of elk to a female will be the ones who father the next generation.
Yes, but consider the chart in comment #25, which says that around the time that Tinder came on the scene, the number of men who reported no sexual activity began to rise linearly, while among females there was little change, with random fluctuation continuing as before.
This is consistent with Tinder having made the dating market more efficient in the economic sense, broadening the base of participants much more widely than found in the workplace or singles’ bar, and thus creating the classic preconditions in which a power law distribution tends to express itself. (“Once Pareto gets into your head, you’ll never get him out.”).
Assume the dating/casual sex market to which Tinder caters is populated by males and females whose attractiveness to the opposite sex follows a Pareto distribution: for example, 20% of males are unusually attractive to females while the remaining 80% are rated much lower. Think of the 20% as “Greek Gods”. All females will compete for them, and some fraction of the 20% will be, as males are wont to do, willing to oblige, even if the females aren’t in the top 20% of their cohort. This means the remaining 80% of males, many of whom (at least until they get discouraged and drop out entirely) don’t consider themselves unattractive, face daunting competition and the choices remaining to them unappealing. It’s good to be a Greek God; a lowly pleb, not so much.
The asymmetry between male and female results may be nothing more than the eternal (and now career-limiting to acknowledge) differences in the mating behaviour of the sexes. Why is it easier for lower-ranked females to get some? Because even high-ranked males aren’t that discriminating when it comes to one night stands, while females are more likely to seek longer-term relationships and aren’t willing to “settle for less” in choosing a partner.
While the availability of dating apps might be the explanation, there are potentially others. And of course there is no need for any of the possible explanations to be mutually exclusive.
How about this for an alternative explanation: we are seeing shifts in what young people understand to be socially admirable – and that affects what they tell pollsters.
Young women watch a lot of TV, and TV for decades has encouraged an image of young women bed-hopping like bunnies. Thus a young woman is going to feel she should tell a pollster that she is an active member of the sisterhood – whether or not that is indeed the case. In parallel, young males in more recent years have been heavily indoctrinated in the educational system that they are evil predators and need to keep their hands off females. Thus a young male is more likely to tell a pollster that he respects women too much to sully them with sexual advances – regardless of his actual activities.
However, to muddy the waters a little more, there may be some evidence that women are indeed indulging in less sexual activity, which of course means that men also are less active: The Mystery of the Declining U.S. Birth Rate | Econofact
“The sustained decline in U.S. births since 2007 has been driven by declining births among many demographic groups, rather than by changes in population composition. Births have fallen among women in their early 20s, late 20s, and teens (in fact, the teen birth rate in the U.S. has been falling steadily since the mid-1990s).”
Obviously, abortion plays a role, along with easier access to contraception. But it is at least suggestive of a general decline in frolicking.
Borat! Yes I agree the book isn’t big on ideology. It’s kinda Whitmanesque. Maybe it IS a parody. All I can say is I find it very funny. Acc. to my Kindle I’m over 70% through it. Can’t imagine how he’s gonna end it!
BAP System, a point system for chess. Bali Action Plan. Black American princess. Bronze Age Pervert, pseudonymous neoreactionary writer. Browning Automatic Pistol is another name used to describe the Browning Hi-Power pistol. BAP ( Buque Armada Peruana ), the prefix for ships of the Peruvian Navy. Or my favorite, the Backhaul Adaptation Protocol, but that doesn’t work in this context.
Edit: I should have clicked on the link just above this. Bronze Age Pervert was my second favorite name off the list, without knowing the association and regrettably I didn’t pick up on “pseudonymous neoreactionary writer”. Too tuckered out from cutting down and hauling off Ian damaged fishtail palms, with more help from the neighbors, today.
Hope this isn’t too much off topic. Surprised I couldn’t find a pic of our 3 fishtails, and it’s dark now, but here’s one that’s similar to what they looked at before Ian. Their leaves look like a fish tail, if you squint a little. The second pic’s a leaf close up, also from online. Before Ian they were around 25’/8m tall and from the taxman’s old photos planted around 2009. Lots of strange stuff growing in SW Florida when you’re used to northern hardwood forests, and it grows at least 4x as fast as up north. I was cutting out dead trunks (they grow in clumps) and our neighbor took pity, dug out his 28" Stihl, and in half an hour did what would have taken me several days. His helpers then hauled everything up to the road to add to the 6 million cubic yards (4.5 million cubic meters) of debris already picked up in our county.
And since the sun showed up again today here’s what’s left of ours, look closely and you can see the aforementioned current debris pile. Our professional landscaper neighbor with the big chainsaw says they’ll come back. There should be some quip to tie this to universal suffrage but I can’t think of it.
Personally, I’m happy to be off the subject.
I wonder if the courageous Mr. Walsh would have the chutzpah to write an article titled, “To Save America, Repeal the Fifteenth Amendment” ? Betcha he wouldn’t “go THERE”….
Michael Walsh does anticipate your objection regarding the 15th amendment in a parenthetical:
(There is no comparison between the extension of the franchise to African-Americans via the the 15th amendment and women’s suffrage. Once legal slavery was abolished there was no philosophical or historical reason not to allow black men to vote; many of them had, after all, fought heroically for their freedom in the Union Army. By contrast, there was no historical precedent for allowing women to vote.)
However, he concludes his essay with a consequentialist appeal:
Based on current voting patterns, if women didn’t vote, there would never be another Democrat president. Now, who wouldn’t make that trade? Come on, ladies, do your duty to God and country, and give it up for America. Otherwise, a Jacinda Ardern looms in your future, too.
If the reason for advocating the repeal of the 19th amendment were only to bring about better election results (for the sake of argument, let’s use a Republican victory in the 2020 election as a proxy for this) then @Hypatia is right, and we should also entertain the repeal of the 15th amendment since that might have had the same result. Consider this hypothetical electoral map from “2020 electoral map if only ____ voted.”:
Evidently, restricting voting rights to those with the least education is nonsensical, so the consequentialist argument only goes so far. Then there must exist some other principle whence suffrage originates. Walsh recognizes this, which is why most of his essay is spent arguing that there is something about the nature of women that makes them unfit to participate in the political process.
For my part, I am not sure what the principle whence suffrage originates is or whether it even exists. Perhaps democracy is not all it’s cracked up to be. I do not vote, in part because it represents the tyranny of the masses, but also for the selfish reason that I am more likely to be struck by lightning on my way to the polling booth than to cast the tie-breaking vote, which, in the end, is the only vote that counts.
No historical precedent for women voting before 1920?
That is not true. England did it in 1918. Plenty of U.S. states had it for awhile, on and off. There was usually a property or economic qualification, but that was true for men, too.
Nuh-uh. I see why Walsh wants to say there’s no comparison, but I don’t buy it.
Everybody knows the truth about the black vote. Biden came right out and said it: vote Dem, or you ain’t black! Black people say it too, Blacks who do not support the Dems are not, really black.
Get real. Walsh’s article is very insulting to and dismissive of women (which is why I said I’d be happy to leave the subject.) if stereotyping is no longer ok with regard to race, why is it ok for him to talk about fat unattractive women sitting home alone drinking white wine, guzzling ice cream and looking only for a man to take care of ‘em?
Oh I love men , like ‘em better’n women, and I’m a good sport, as you have to be if you don’t wanna be called a “Feminazi”, but….there comes a time when the worm turns.
(Oh and maybe the Walshers think that time has already come—and gone. How much more extreme could things get than those harpies marching at Brett Kavanaugh’s house with their pants painted red? But those women re the lunatic fringe of the sex. Wait’ll you rouse the sleeping giantess of the (truly) well-educated, hardworking, successful and articulate professional women. Y’ cant talk this way about us. )
Borat! Yes I agree the book isn’t big on ideology. It’s kinda Whitmanesque. Maybe it IS a parody. All I can say is I find it very funny. Acc. to my Kindle I’m over 70% through it. Can’t imagine how he’s gonna end it!
