I live in a rural area and it is even prevalent here. I am a mother of both a teenage girl, an adult boy and a teenage boy. What I noticed was the idea of women actually replacing men is in the popular music these young women listen too. The songs talk about doing it on their own, having metaphorical male body parts and men having girls parts (I refuse to date men with a pu***, referring to men with traditional values.) and to being king and occupying male positions, effectively replacing them. Despite the denial of the situation and the extra protection afforded the boys in this area, it works against them and no one wants to listen to me. They hide and deny the fact that the teenage boys in the area prefer to sleep around as opposed to a real relationship and the rampant drug use even among the good boys. Trying to push the young women back into their place in the past is ineffective and it should be dealt with head on by the adults in area. Denial is much easier and when these boys leave the area it leaves them vulnerable and ill equipped to deal with our present culture. Any thoughts?
"An increase in the influence of women in public life has often been associated with national decline. The later Romans complained that, although Rome ruled the world, women ruled Rome. In the tenth century, a similar tendency was observable in the Arab Empire, the women demanding admission to the professions hitherto monopolised by men."
From "The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival"
There is probably no way to stop what is coming. The solutions are in the hands of men who are required to serve a minimum 15 year sentence in the educational-correctional system. There, traits like conscientiousness and agreeableness are favored over competence, and most importantly, truth.
Western men, aside from notable exceptions at the tails of the income distribution are total herbivores. Religion has mostly been discarded and what remains, even in its more "conservative" forms, often fails even in a rear guard action. The best men I know are still uxorious to a frightening degree, and struggle to maintain order in their own households; it is only inertia and selection effects that allow them to project a verisimilitude of the civilization of the past.
Aside from their roles as mothers and wives, are women necessary to the function of a society? Can you answer this in public?
To me, where we have been and where we going are encapsulated by two semi-oft posted charts by Covfefe Anon on Twitter. One, is that of Japanese fertility during the 20th century. Upon their being conquered and having women emancipated by a benevolent US, fertility collapsed; birth control was not even legal until decades later. The second chart shows the obliteration of Y chromosomes(I believe circa 10k years ago) while the population of women remained stable. When the wheels come off, it will be the men who are sifted.
Only when the Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return will relations between men and women normalize, the rise of the oceans begin to slow and our planet begin to heal.
When you hear about train derailments, plane crashes, diaper shortages and pipeline shutdowns, you will know they are knocking at the door.
I feel like this may eventually end in a "Rape of the Sabine Women" in one or many of these drastically polarized regions. Like if Southern U.S. men started en masse male ordering the hispanic women the "migrants" left behind.
Somebody is going to figure out this puzzle, and that country is practically going to rule a much diminished world.
"What happens when a society not only loses its will to survive, but men and women diverge so wildly in terms of how they view the world. Cohesiveness becomes impossible. Cohesiveness is needed for trust; without trust, societies become dangerous and socially Darwinistic, where predators dominate and the weak are effectively slaves."
Women derive a disproportionate share of the benefits of civilization. Why? Because the alternative to natural law is jungle law. Women don't do well under jungle law. In the jungle, might makes right. The majority of men can overpower almost any woman and make her do what he wants. An old joke comes to mind: "God created men and women; Smith and Wesson made them equal." We laugh because we know it's partially true.
Sexual equality is a function of natural-law philosophy (the innate dignity of every human being) and industrial technology (the separation of personal strength from economic and physical safety.) Break either of these and women may not suffer first, but they will suffer most. Those women who are leading the charge to undo Western civilization are sawing off the branch they are sitting on. As you said: 'many of the progressive values we regard as sacrosanct today don’t survive in more feral environments."
"I can’t think of another moment in history in any civilization where men and women were each other’s primary competitor."
Another point rarely acknowledged -- you're on a roll today, Max. The most basic job of every society (even animals) is to "produce, raise and acculturate the next generation". Fail at this and your society dies. This requires cooperation between the sexes, which the the Mars/Venus thing makes challenging at any time. Placing men and women is direct economic competition for a limited pool of resources (a pool which may even start shrinking soon) makes that needed cooperation far harder.
Whether sexual reproduction (and therefore society itself) can survive sexual equality is very much debatable at this point. As the father of 3 girls, I lament this but still must accept its potential veracity.
"the left turn for women began in 2014"
2014 is a critical year for another reason. It is the year that smartphones achieved 50% teen market penetration -- more teens had them than didn't. Jonathon Haidt has documented that 24x7 social media in your pocket had radically different effects on girls and boys (negative for both, but VERY negative for girls.) I can't help but wonder if this political shift isn't a parallel of the same thing. Haidt runs a substack; you ought to take a look at it.
"people’s politics are 'stickier' than conventional wisdom suggests"
Until SHTF. Then they change very rapidly. I suspect that's what it will take to make educated women remember that bit about "deriving a disproportionate share of the benefits of civilization" I mentioned earlier.
"In the past, without all these distractions, we could’ve very well have seen a violent revolution by now."
So maybe banning PornHub wouldn't be sch a good idea right now? (Yes, I'm kidding.)
Your distinction about what differences are possible between couples I think can be broken down to a simple dichotomy. Political disagreements are bridgeable; theological ones are not. That's what I think you're going for when you say 'you cannot be in a relationship with someone whose sense of right and wrong is in direct conflict with yours." Politics is arguing about tax rates; theology is arguing about what it means to be human.
I live in a rural area and it is even prevalent here. I am a mother of both a teenage girl, an adult boy and a teenage boy. What I noticed was the idea of women actually replacing men is in the popular music these young women listen too. The songs talk about doing it on their own, having metaphorical male body parts and men having girls parts (I refuse to date men with a pu***, referring to men with traditional values.) and to being king and occupying male positions, effectively replacing them. Despite the denial of the situation and the extra protection afforded the boys in this area, it works against them and no one wants to listen to me. They hide and deny the fact that the teenage boys in the area prefer to sleep around as opposed to a real relationship and the rampant drug use even among the good boys. Trying to push the young women back into their place in the past is ineffective and it should be dealt with head on by the adults in area. Denial is much easier and when these boys leave the area it leaves them vulnerable and ill equipped to deal with our present culture. Any thoughts?
What do you think the future holds?
Collapse, which is going on now, but will intensify.
Do you agree this crisis could lead to something like civil war or violent revolution?
Yes, but only after there has been sufficient collapse. It may be a squabble over ashes.
Society is gravely disordered, we see the symptoms everywhere. Have you read Glubb?
https://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf
"An increase in the influence of women in public life has often been associated with national decline. The later Romans complained that, although Rome ruled the world, women ruled Rome. In the tenth century, a similar tendency was observable in the Arab Empire, the women demanding admission to the professions hitherto monopolised by men."
From "The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival"
There is probably no way to stop what is coming. The solutions are in the hands of men who are required to serve a minimum 15 year sentence in the educational-correctional system. There, traits like conscientiousness and agreeableness are favored over competence, and most importantly, truth.
Western men, aside from notable exceptions at the tails of the income distribution are total herbivores. Religion has mostly been discarded and what remains, even in its more "conservative" forms, often fails even in a rear guard action. The best men I know are still uxorious to a frightening degree, and struggle to maintain order in their own households; it is only inertia and selection effects that allow them to project a verisimilitude of the civilization of the past.
Aside from their roles as mothers and wives, are women necessary to the function of a society? Can you answer this in public?
To me, where we have been and where we going are encapsulated by two semi-oft posted charts by Covfefe Anon on Twitter. One, is that of Japanese fertility during the 20th century. Upon their being conquered and having women emancipated by a benevolent US, fertility collapsed; birth control was not even legal until decades later. The second chart shows the obliteration of Y chromosomes(I believe circa 10k years ago) while the population of women remained stable. When the wheels come off, it will be the men who are sifted.
Only when the Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return will relations between men and women normalize, the rise of the oceans begin to slow and our planet begin to heal.
When you hear about train derailments, plane crashes, diaper shortages and pipeline shutdowns, you will know they are knocking at the door.
Will discuss the consequences more in the next few entries.
I feel like this may eventually end in a "Rape of the Sabine Women" in one or many of these drastically polarized regions. Like if Southern U.S. men started en masse male ordering the hispanic women the "migrants" left behind.
Somebody is going to figure out this puzzle, and that country is practically going to rule a much diminished world.
"What happens when a society not only loses its will to survive, but men and women diverge so wildly in terms of how they view the world. Cohesiveness becomes impossible. Cohesiveness is needed for trust; without trust, societies become dangerous and socially Darwinistic, where predators dominate and the weak are effectively slaves."
Women derive a disproportionate share of the benefits of civilization. Why? Because the alternative to natural law is jungle law. Women don't do well under jungle law. In the jungle, might makes right. The majority of men can overpower almost any woman and make her do what he wants. An old joke comes to mind: "God created men and women; Smith and Wesson made them equal." We laugh because we know it's partially true.
Sexual equality is a function of natural-law philosophy (the innate dignity of every human being) and industrial technology (the separation of personal strength from economic and physical safety.) Break either of these and women may not suffer first, but they will suffer most. Those women who are leading the charge to undo Western civilization are sawing off the branch they are sitting on. As you said: 'many of the progressive values we regard as sacrosanct today don’t survive in more feral environments."
"I can’t think of another moment in history in any civilization where men and women were each other’s primary competitor."
Another point rarely acknowledged -- you're on a roll today, Max. The most basic job of every society (even animals) is to "produce, raise and acculturate the next generation". Fail at this and your society dies. This requires cooperation between the sexes, which the the Mars/Venus thing makes challenging at any time. Placing men and women is direct economic competition for a limited pool of resources (a pool which may even start shrinking soon) makes that needed cooperation far harder.
Whether sexual reproduction (and therefore society itself) can survive sexual equality is very much debatable at this point. As the father of 3 girls, I lament this but still must accept its potential veracity.
"the left turn for women began in 2014"
2014 is a critical year for another reason. It is the year that smartphones achieved 50% teen market penetration -- more teens had them than didn't. Jonathon Haidt has documented that 24x7 social media in your pocket had radically different effects on girls and boys (negative for both, but VERY negative for girls.) I can't help but wonder if this political shift isn't a parallel of the same thing. Haidt runs a substack; you ought to take a look at it.
"people’s politics are 'stickier' than conventional wisdom suggests"
Until SHTF. Then they change very rapidly. I suspect that's what it will take to make educated women remember that bit about "deriving a disproportionate share of the benefits of civilization" I mentioned earlier.
"In the past, without all these distractions, we could’ve very well have seen a violent revolution by now."
So maybe banning PornHub wouldn't be sch a good idea right now? (Yes, I'm kidding.)
Your distinction about what differences are possible between couples I think can be broken down to a simple dichotomy. Political disagreements are bridgeable; theological ones are not. That's what I think you're going for when you say 'you cannot be in a relationship with someone whose sense of right and wrong is in direct conflict with yours." Politics is arguing about tax rates; theology is arguing about what it means to be human.