or
How hypergamy and the women’s right to vote may cause the apocalypse of western society
Democratic governments must be elected by the people. The elected must either do what the majority wants, or use efficient propaganda methods to make the populace believe so.
Regarding the demands of the women, it seems the western governments bend over backwards to fulfill them. In part probably because the rulers want the constant whining of the women-folk to cease and have a bit of peace, but mainly because they want to be re-elected by them. Women also have the advantage that they are in the majority, not only in the population, but especially in the electorate. The younger folks rarely vote, but retired people do. And since women on average die 5 years later than men, they always have an absolute majority of votes. A party or candidate who speaks against women’s rights or wants to take away some of their privileges has zero chance to win an election.
Women want many things, but first place takes to be provided for. First by daddy, then partially by the boyfriend(s), later by the husband and finally by the state (by everyone else). As soon as daddy refuses to support snotty little madam, or when her ex-husband had enough, or if her own kids later think that her pension or benefits should be a bit more modest, you can hear her ear-splitting shrieks for government support. The ‘daddy-state’ shall force her father or husband or kids or all taxpayers to provide for her in perpetuity. The government fulfills her wishes, because they want to be re-elected.
What’s interesting is, that this entitlement to maintenance has been satisfied for centuries, if not millennia, even without a state. With one exception I’m not familiar with any society that let it’s girls starve, didn’t provide for their women, or killed their grandmothers after their menopause. Everyone always knew, the there will be no reproduction if women suffered from malnutrition or bad health. The one exception is China, where female fetuses were often aborted and even after birth, female babies sometimes were thrown in the river (as if this ‘custom’ has descended through thousands of years from old Egypt). The reason is/was the one-child-policy combined with the tradition that only male children are obliged to provide for their parents in old age. The gender ratio in rural areas could reach 2 boys per one girl, which leads to serious demographic problems. See how one gender quickly becomes worthless, if social politics and traditions don’t align.
Female suffrage has not lead to to better maintenance for women, because they always have been provided for. But having achieved equal rights to vote, they also wanted equal rights to education and to enter the workforce like men (but shamelessly not accepting equal duties). The last decades, women have been all around provided for and advanced, gaining more and more privileges, in the meantime constituting over 50% of university graduates. Unfortunately that doesn’t lead to to a higher real economic performance of any country, because the majority of women choose “non-productive” majors, like the humanities, liberal arts degrees; I call most of it ‘unscientific baloney’. So, the socioeconomic status of the women graduates has risen enormously. But women have a problem that’s either innate or has survived thousands of years of different cultures. The name of the problem is : hypergamy.
Hypergamy means that women are attracted to men who have a higher socioeconomic status, want to marry and have kids with them. The men should be taller, a bit older, more intelligent, have a better education and (at least potentially) be richer. Equal status men are barely tolerated, lower status men are thought of as “creepy”. Men, on statistical average, are taller and more intelligent, no problem there. To choose a partner who’s a bit older is easy. Problems arise as soon as ‘better educated’ and (potentially) richer comes to the equation. The (few) economically successful women don’t want to marry a poorer man; the young female academics look down on anyone without a college degree. Men don’t exhibit hypergamy and can choose among 100% of available women, female academics are limited to 10%, maybe 20% of available men.
Not only the divorce injustice, that leads to marriage strike and procreation strike by men, but increasingly the hypergamy in combination with gender equality measures by governments and institutions causes the birth rates to plummet even further. The Wombzillas and afternoon-tv couch hillbillies, without plan or though, will make two or more uneducated kids with “Al Bundy” types. Miss professor of sociology or madam senior admin official however, may still have a chance to get preggy in her mid 30’s, but that often doesn’t work out. Not only because there would be too few high status men available, but also because most successful men of that age, who are willing to marry and have kids, would rather select a much younger and very attractive women than an average looking high status women with rapidly declining sexual market value.
Female academics are often doubly expensive for society. First she has to get a bachelor’s degree (4 years), then maybe a master’s degree (another 2-4 years), all paid for by daddy and/or the government. After graduation they usually need a state financed job as a public servant, teacher, or the like, because she got a liberal arts major (‘unscientific baloney’, like early christian archaeology, which is fun if you have lots of time and money, but is IMHO a hobby and not a profession). If she can troll a male colleague to marry her and has two kids, she’ll either be not working in her job for the next 10 years or will be of limited use for her employer, since she’ll always give preference to her kids and not her job. It’s the same as when she was in her late teens. She can choose if she’s sponging off a man or the state. Doesn’t this look like parasitic behavior from cradle to grave?
I really can’t understand men who applaud and promote such policies. Our feminist rulers force all men to pay for this female education hype which never puts money back into our coffers. They indirectly promote that the laziest, most stupid and ignorant people procreate ten times more than the (already too few) smart and industrious people. In order to compensate for the plummeting birth rate, they let immigrants from vastly different cultures flood our western countries. Is that to govern “by the people, for the people”? Some politicians in Germany recently said that if the people don’t like the immigration politics, they can emigrate any time. Well, thanks for the hint, I’ve done this already 10 years ago. Such a government doesn’t make sense for the citizens. That’s also not due to some sole president or leader. Western countries have a broad apathetic electorate who holds dear its religious ideals, its religion-like feminist and gender mainstreaming ideals, and some religion-like super-socialist ideals about equality and kumbayah. Biological, sociological and economic reality is simply pushed aside. (Religion-like super-capitalist ideals are just as bad, but that’s off-topic for this article).
Wikipedia about the Baldwin effect: “In brief, James Mark Baldwin suggested that an organism’s ability to learn new behaviors (e.g. to acclimatize to a new stressor) will affect its reproductive success and will therefore have an effect on the genetic makeup of its species through natural selection. Though this process appears similar to Lamarckian evolution, Lamarck proposed that living things inherited their parents’ acquired characteristics. The Baldwin effect has been independently proposed several times, and today it is generally recognized as part of the modern evolutionary synthesis.” That means, parents who have come to depend on the state for food, shelter and other benefits, teach their behavior inadvertently to their children. There are more and more government employees, civil servants, long-term unemployed, single mothers, etc., who demand ever increasing privileges from the governments. The rugrats learn early on, that the state is the ever giving super-daddy and adjust their behavior to optimize their benefits. The number of benefit recipients increases and they have on average more kids than the productive members of society. If the benefits recipient group manifests itself over several generations, their learned behavior may become their genetic marker.
I have no bias against people who study music, dance, fine arts or poetry and so forth. But they should bear the costs of their education 100% by themselves. They must also not require state sponsored jobs in order to make a living after their graduation. 100% of all engineers can sustain themselves AND give back to society; only 1% of the “artists” can feed themselves, 99% are on the take from the government most of their lifes and will never balance the budget.
The hypergamy of women cannot be changed, they also won’t give up their right to vote. Regress cannot be enforced and is not desirable for most people. But a majority of women, even including some feminists, should push for parties and laws that do not lead to the extinction of western societies. If this feminist politics continues, the western societies will be replaced by immigrants over the next 2-3 generations. Well, maybe it’s all fine and dandy in the end and will solve our global warming problem?
luisman's blog 