There is another factor, which is not often noticed: Success unites. Failure divides. We see this in many fields - party politics, ideology, sport, et al. When people see that things are going well for their group, everyone pulls together. Let's keep this going. But when people see that they're not doing so well, cracks appear. Rival factions, rumours of contenders for the leadership role, that kind of thing. Some will simply lose interest and retire to private life, or switch to a rival - and more successful - side. So: Success unites. Failure divides.
Fascinating - thanks Tom. As it happens, I'm currently putting together an essay on what makes feminism dangerous that will cover some of the same territory, but from a different approach. (And I may even steal some of your ideas. Sorry! ;-)
I find it interesting that the birth rate has dropped with the rise of the competitive female. Making her way in a career generally takes a few years which means that without any anti male bias at all, by the time she is ready to settle down it is often noted that her fertility has decreased and the longed for family is out of reach or only attainable with medical help. This whole male female thing is a tragedy, compounded by the common habit of just living together instead of making a real commitment. I was opposed to same sex marriage and made my views known to my gay friends. Until, one day a lovely lad explained to me that marriage is a public declaration of love. A statement that you love this person and Intend to spend the rest of your life with them. Then I understood. I also realised that much of the feminism independence stance today is caused by the insecurity engendered by that lack of public declaration. It is an essential part of the female makeup, totally unconsciously, to seek security so that she will be safely protected emotionally and physically when she has children. The relentless drive for commercial success. The psychological insecurity of partnering with a man who does not assume proper responsibility for her happiness, safety and emotional security is at the heart of the male/ female problems. Biologically women are far more important than men. One man and fifty women can build a population,fifty men and one woman is extinction assured. Women need to be valued more as women, to realise how important they are to the man in their lives, to be treated with kindness, honesty and good mannners. Although it is true that some women need to learn how to be mannerly themselves. Commitment, love and joint care for one another is undoubtedly the way forward.
It is surely true that women are an important part of the reproductive process but so are men. What would happen if you had one man and fifty women? The world would fall apart. One man cannot protect 50 women. Those women are disinclined to do the hunting, plumbing, sewage, building etc. In the days of hunter/gatherer cultures a one man fifty woman group would be shortlived as would a one woman fifty man group. Both sexes are important and it is nearly equal IMO. Gynocentrism keeps telling people that women are important, and men, well, not as much. That is propaganda.
Ha ha ha . I am so sorry that’s the impression you got. I was merely pointing up that men in nature’s complex arrangements are not as important as to quantities as are women. I thought that was plain but obviously not. Socially men and women are of equal value, but equal does not mean the same. We have differing capabilities and differing physical and psychological needs
What i was trying to say was that if you have too many of either sex you are doomed. We are all needed but in today's world men are seen as not needed. This is profound stupidity. (I am not saying you said or implied that, just ranting!)
I need men. I like most of the men I have ever met. I married a man. My father, grandfathers ad infinitum were men. If it were not for a man I wouldn’t be here, but neither would I be here without my mother and grandmothers also ad infinitum. Male and female are of equal value but we are not the same. We need each other and not only for biological reasons. We each add different ingredients to the wonderful mix of living. As I continually say, let us listen to each other and cherish our differences. Male and female together make a whole unit. Love and understanding should be a part of the essential pairing. I do not understand why demonising male or female happens. Why the current misogyny and misandry?It needs to stop.
You said that "Biologically women are far more important than men", which is ignorant female-supremacist nonsense. For most of history, the ability of men to protect and provide for their families directly determined the survival rate of their offspring. You can have all the babies you want but if you can't protect and provide for them and they die before they can reproduce then you're back to square one and headed for extinction. Women are the primary limiting factor in reproduction but not the only factor.
Men as a group have been so spectacularly successful at protecting and providing for the rest of society (especially through technological innovation - geniuses are overwhelmingly male) that our species is the dominant species on the planet, but you take all that for granted. If men went on strike, civilization would rapidly collapse and women would be back to directly relying on men to protect and provide for them, instead of relying on the state, which is overwhelmingly paid for by men through their taxes.
Did you ever stop to think why males exist at all? One leading theory is that intrasex competition between males act as a 'genetic filter', purging the species of accumulated deleterious mutations. Without this genetic filter our species would have gone extinct a long time ago. From that narrow perspective you could argue that males are biologically more important than females, however that would ignore the primary limiting role of females in reproduction. The obvious conclusion is that neither is biologically more important than the other, but that is not what you said.
In regards to Fear and something close to my heart is that pertaining to the 'Fear of missing out' can also be huge.
What I say here is only small but we are bombarded from many directions that we can have everything but the reality is not possible. This creates such a tension in our societies that it slowly becomes unbearable.. My personal opinion.
Good point. If we are repeatedly told that you should "have it all" then anything less than that could be seen as failure....and who would get the blame? LOL
"It can be understood as an extreme form of in-group preference and out-group hostility—mechanisms that have historically helped human groups compete for resources and maintain social cohesion.
ChatGP is intrinsically artificial and only marginally intelligence. In the quote from your first quote from said AI, It is obvious that AI hasn't thought for itself, rather it has borrowed from the all-invasive 'science' of evolution. Please bear with me. If we actually knew what it was like in ore-historic times, a common sense observation would indicate that Malthusian scarcity would not exist. According to supposition, population was thin and therefore food would be plentiful. Reproduction would have been at much higher rates than now, so women were as plentiful as men. In fact, if warfare was common then, women probably have been more plentiful than mem, who would be killing each other off.
Wouldn't it be much more likely that, if warfare were common, it would originate in the nature of humanity that a learned behavior from competition for food and women? Instead of Marxist theories about class warfare, the Biblical account of the first murder being about jealousy that God preferred Abel's sacrifice over Cain's makes more sense. Anger, then, more likely originated from human nature than from survival instincts.
I would encourage you to read David Geary's amazing book, Male Female The Evolution of Human Sex Differences. One of the things he observes is the research that has been done on early groups of people in South America. In the three studied groups, one group lost nearly two thirds of their men in inter tribal raids. The other groups seemed to have lost about a third of their men to the raids from other groups. It is a fascinating and sobering read that dispels the bucolic dreamlike ideas around early human groups.
It’s not fear it’s the absence of courage, which is the sole source of self respect . Which is an inside job. Pun intended . Yet outsourcing self respect is ubiquitous . The recognition rort. Rotary have a comprehensive price list.
"If someone wanted to fracture a society, to turn one group against another, they wouldn’t need armies or violence at first. They’d just need to instill fear." There's probably something to this-- and I also wonder if this instinct toward hate is just something that exists, and needs a target. If something really has strong evolutionary/survival advantages, such as in-group preference or hatred, it's not going to go away when we "don't need it anymore." Our genes don't care.
What's intriguing about the fear sown these days is that it's not protecting the in group -- it's attacking an in group. When Democrats wail over ridding the country of illegal alien gang members, ostensibly preferring them over native-born Americans, they're actually promoting their own demise. The same with their "Protect Trans Kids" T-shirts. The out group who sees that transing kids is a form of genocide are the enemy, and yet transing kids sterilizes them.
A couple of years ago I passed a fat millennial woman standing on the corner wearing a T-shirt that claimed immigrants were better people than native born Americans. I don't recall the exact phrasing, but that really stuck with me. Imagine being proud of hating your own country's people, and preferring the drunken hispanics that taxpayers fund the ambulance for on a regular basis. That's right. These migrants stumble drunkenly through the park, pass out, look dead, and we get to pay for their medical treatment, while it's not covered for us unless we have insurance.
And this Useful Idiot emblazoned that hatred on a shirt.
There is another factor, which is not often noticed: Success unites. Failure divides. We see this in many fields - party politics, ideology, sport, et al. When people see that things are going well for their group, everyone pulls together. Let's keep this going. But when people see that they're not doing so well, cracks appear. Rival factions, rumours of contenders for the leadership role, that kind of thing. Some will simply lose interest and retire to private life, or switch to a rival - and more successful - side. So: Success unites. Failure divides.
And we only celebrate “winners.” Therein is the rub.
Fascinating - thanks Tom. As it happens, I'm currently putting together an essay on what makes feminism dangerous that will cover some of the same territory, but from a different approach. (And I may even steal some of your ideas. Sorry! ;-)
PS: If you are interested, I recently wrote about hatred against men as a warning sign that feminism is dangerous: https://critiquingfeminism.substack.com/p/we-need-to-talk-about-feminism
It's rather satisfying that our paths are crossing though we are heading in somewhat different directions. Keep up the good work!
Looks like a good article. Thanks. Seems like we are on the same page. Feminism is dangerous.
I find it interesting that the birth rate has dropped with the rise of the competitive female. Making her way in a career generally takes a few years which means that without any anti male bias at all, by the time she is ready to settle down it is often noted that her fertility has decreased and the longed for family is out of reach or only attainable with medical help. This whole male female thing is a tragedy, compounded by the common habit of just living together instead of making a real commitment. I was opposed to same sex marriage and made my views known to my gay friends. Until, one day a lovely lad explained to me that marriage is a public declaration of love. A statement that you love this person and Intend to spend the rest of your life with them. Then I understood. I also realised that much of the feminism independence stance today is caused by the insecurity engendered by that lack of public declaration. It is an essential part of the female makeup, totally unconsciously, to seek security so that she will be safely protected emotionally and physically when she has children. The relentless drive for commercial success. The psychological insecurity of partnering with a man who does not assume proper responsibility for her happiness, safety and emotional security is at the heart of the male/ female problems. Biologically women are far more important than men. One man and fifty women can build a population,fifty men and one woman is extinction assured. Women need to be valued more as women, to realise how important they are to the man in their lives, to be treated with kindness, honesty and good mannners. Although it is true that some women need to learn how to be mannerly themselves. Commitment, love and joint care for one another is undoubtedly the way forward.
It is surely true that women are an important part of the reproductive process but so are men. What would happen if you had one man and fifty women? The world would fall apart. One man cannot protect 50 women. Those women are disinclined to do the hunting, plumbing, sewage, building etc. In the days of hunter/gatherer cultures a one man fifty woman group would be shortlived as would a one woman fifty man group. Both sexes are important and it is nearly equal IMO. Gynocentrism keeps telling people that women are important, and men, well, not as much. That is propaganda.
Ha ha ha . I am so sorry that’s the impression you got. I was merely pointing up that men in nature’s complex arrangements are not as important as to quantities as are women. I thought that was plain but obviously not. Socially men and women are of equal value, but equal does not mean the same. We have differing capabilities and differing physical and psychological needs
What i was trying to say was that if you have too many of either sex you are doomed. We are all needed but in today's world men are seen as not needed. This is profound stupidity. (I am not saying you said or implied that, just ranting!)
I need men. I like most of the men I have ever met. I married a man. My father, grandfathers ad infinitum were men. If it were not for a man I wouldn’t be here, but neither would I be here without my mother and grandmothers also ad infinitum. Male and female are of equal value but we are not the same. We need each other and not only for biological reasons. We each add different ingredients to the wonderful mix of living. As I continually say, let us listen to each other and cherish our differences. Male and female together make a whole unit. Love and understanding should be a part of the essential pairing. I do not understand why demonising male or female happens. Why the current misogyny and misandry?It needs to stop.
You said that "Biologically women are far more important than men", which is ignorant female-supremacist nonsense. For most of history, the ability of men to protect and provide for their families directly determined the survival rate of their offspring. You can have all the babies you want but if you can't protect and provide for them and they die before they can reproduce then you're back to square one and headed for extinction. Women are the primary limiting factor in reproduction but not the only factor.
Men as a group have been so spectacularly successful at protecting and providing for the rest of society (especially through technological innovation - geniuses are overwhelmingly male) that our species is the dominant species on the planet, but you take all that for granted. If men went on strike, civilization would rapidly collapse and women would be back to directly relying on men to protect and provide for them, instead of relying on the state, which is overwhelmingly paid for by men through their taxes.
Did you ever stop to think why males exist at all? One leading theory is that intrasex competition between males act as a 'genetic filter', purging the species of accumulated deleterious mutations. Without this genetic filter our species would have gone extinct a long time ago. From that narrow perspective you could argue that males are biologically more important than females, however that would ignore the primary limiting role of females in reproduction. The obvious conclusion is that neither is biologically more important than the other, but that is not what you said.
Very interesting! Looking forward to reading part 2!
In regards to Fear and something close to my heart is that pertaining to the 'Fear of missing out' can also be huge.
What I say here is only small but we are bombarded from many directions that we can have everything but the reality is not possible. This creates such a tension in our societies that it slowly becomes unbearable.. My personal opinion.
Good point. If we are repeatedly told that you should "have it all" then anything less than that could be seen as failure....and who would get the blame? LOL
Exactly.
When I first started, what became, a long term therapy I was told: you can do anything you want.
His idea was that I could be a photographer or travel agent or anything one could imagine!
My biggest problem was: I didn't know what I wanted and more importantly how I was going to attain it??
Thus, started a cycle of rejecting his ideas, not understanding myself any better and what my basic needs were.
"It can be understood as an extreme form of in-group preference and out-group hostility—mechanisms that have historically helped human groups compete for resources and maintain social cohesion.
ChatGP is intrinsically artificial and only marginally intelligence. In the quote from your first quote from said AI, It is obvious that AI hasn't thought for itself, rather it has borrowed from the all-invasive 'science' of evolution. Please bear with me. If we actually knew what it was like in ore-historic times, a common sense observation would indicate that Malthusian scarcity would not exist. According to supposition, population was thin and therefore food would be plentiful. Reproduction would have been at much higher rates than now, so women were as plentiful as men. In fact, if warfare was common then, women probably have been more plentiful than mem, who would be killing each other off.
Wouldn't it be much more likely that, if warfare were common, it would originate in the nature of humanity that a learned behavior from competition for food and women? Instead of Marxist theories about class warfare, the Biblical account of the first murder being about jealousy that God preferred Abel's sacrifice over Cain's makes more sense. Anger, then, more likely originated from human nature than from survival instincts.
Just saying.
I would encourage you to read David Geary's amazing book, Male Female The Evolution of Human Sex Differences. One of the things he observes is the research that has been done on early groups of people in South America. In the three studied groups, one group lost nearly two thirds of their men in inter tribal raids. The other groups seemed to have lost about a third of their men to the raids from other groups. It is a fascinating and sobering read that dispels the bucolic dreamlike ideas around early human groups.
Thank you, I will read it.
It is a massive read and covers a huge amount of ground. Geary is a hero of mine.
It’s not fear it’s the absence of courage, which is the sole source of self respect . Which is an inside job. Pun intended . Yet outsourcing self respect is ubiquitous . The recognition rort. Rotary have a comprehensive price list.
"If someone wanted to fracture a society, to turn one group against another, they wouldn’t need armies or violence at first. They’d just need to instill fear." There's probably something to this-- and I also wonder if this instinct toward hate is just something that exists, and needs a target. If something really has strong evolutionary/survival advantages, such as in-group preference or hatred, it's not going to go away when we "don't need it anymore." Our genes don't care.
What's intriguing about the fear sown these days is that it's not protecting the in group -- it's attacking an in group. When Democrats wail over ridding the country of illegal alien gang members, ostensibly preferring them over native-born Americans, they're actually promoting their own demise. The same with their "Protect Trans Kids" T-shirts. The out group who sees that transing kids is a form of genocide are the enemy, and yet transing kids sterilizes them.
A couple of years ago I passed a fat millennial woman standing on the corner wearing a T-shirt that claimed immigrants were better people than native born Americans. I don't recall the exact phrasing, but that really stuck with me. Imagine being proud of hating your own country's people, and preferring the drunken hispanics that taxpayers fund the ambulance for on a regular basis. That's right. These migrants stumble drunkenly through the park, pass out, look dead, and we get to pay for their medical treatment, while it's not covered for us unless we have insurance.
And this Useful Idiot emblazoned that hatred on a shirt.