Roissy Declares Link between Gender and Society
Roissy posted this declaration concerning how gender roles sustain societal stability.
Steven Goldberg expounds on this issue in The Inevitability of Patriarchy, concluding that male dominance is a reflection of biological imperatives, not cultural subjugation of women.
The crumbling of America — of every great empire — has at its core a retreat by men from stoic masculinity and a retreat by women from submissive femininity. All other reasons for cultural dissolution can be distilled to this essential treason against human nature.By challenging the natural gender structure of human communities, feminists and their enablers are willfully risking their society's efficiency and its' very existence. Women use the male's persistent sexual urge as blackmail in attaining unjustified power. The male becomes insecure in his ability to obtain sexual pleasure if he opposes the irrational female paradigm. Thus, men blindly yield to this movement in a misguided attempt at attracting women.
Steven Goldberg expounds on this issue in The Inevitability of Patriarchy, concluding that male dominance is a reflection of biological imperatives, not cultural subjugation of women.
12 comments:
Is Roissy a historian? I enjoyed his anecdote, but the only conclusions I can draw from it are: he writes very well, and he spends time with people he doesn't like.
The observation of the decline of the West is one thing, but the primary causality is another. Nothing has been *caused* by any kind of 'retreat' - things must be way deeper than that.
At root there will probably be something genetic.
My guess is that the cause of Western decline is a later phase of the cause of Western rise - high IQ.
First high IQ gave us modernity (long term growth of science & technology, economic growth etc.) - then, in this complex new world, high IQ people progressively took over the ruling class (as described in the Bell Curve).
But high IQ carries with it a bunch of personality attributes which tend towards political correctness ( eglitarianism, atheism, pacifism, lifestyle libertarianism etc).
These PC tendencies are then amplified by the concentration of IQ in the IQ meritocracy (which is why it took until the 1960s for PC to do real harm - although the pacifism of the 1920s and 30s probably made WWII much worse than it otherwise would have been).
Among the high IQ elite, there is now a great deal of IQ signalling behaviour - indeed there is not much else.
High IQ is biologically maladaptive - higher IQ equals lower fertility - and this sterility and suicide is _chosen_.
When the lower IQ are correct, then high IQ people will nearly-aways be wrong about nearly-everything - because they just hafta be different.
The sillier the idea, the better an advert for high IQ, because only smart people can defend the indefensible (endless mass immigration, race preferences, socialism, political destruction of the family).
Solution? It has to depend on a Great Awakening, a Christian revival among the elite. A GA is not sufficient, but it is necessary - maybe something as radical as another Reformation.
This means big restrictions on elite behaviour and lifestyle (including sexual freedoms) - which is why they will fight it tooth and nail, which is why it will not happen, which is why the decline will continue...
"Roissy" is the problem, not the solution.
Even intelligent liberals like Philip Longman of the New America foundation recognize that the core of the family, including mother, father and children is absolutely necessary for functioning societies. Feminists characterize patriarchy as abusive to women which is false.
Solution? It has to depend on a Great Awakening, a Christian revival among the elite.
As they say, "the sillier [and more indefensible] the idea"....
I propose, instead, a Flying Spaghetti Monster revival among the elite. That will at least solve the problem of atheism in those circles. And only good things can follow from that!
"The crumbling of America — of every great empire — has at its core a retreat by men from stoic masculinity and a retreat by women from submissive femininity. All other reasons for cultural dissolution can be distilled to this essential treason against human nature."
This is idiotic. Only societies that rise to great heights can decline and the societies that did so in the last century were those with the most feminism. On the other hand, societies which adhered to patriarchy won't decline because they can't. They are third world shitholes that can't get off the ground.
Feminism, like welfare or other entitlement programs, is a luxury afforded by a decadent society.
FeministX's comment is laughable. Yes, modern science (discovered by men) has made biological reproduction nearly "obsolete". The technologies that made men "obsolete" are only a few years ahead of those that are making women "obsolete". However, that doesn't mean that it's possible to form a functional single-gender society, as FeministX proposed (female-only, with a few token breeder men) not so long ago.
Those "third world shitholes that can't get off the ground", societies that maintained the "patriarchy" and traditional gender roles (Latin America and the Muslim world) are now conquering the feminized Western world without a shred of resistance. Women have become a massive Fifth Column operating to destroy Western society, and yet indoctrinated womyn like FeministX still have the audacity to claim that feminism is a force for success.
FeministX
Those societies had been on top for centuries before feminism you fool. Who in their right mind would say that Great Britain, Germany (Prussia before unification of the various German states), Russia, France, Spain, Austria, Portugal, hell even the USA, Ottoman Turkish Empire and China were nothing before the last century?
Damn it if it isn't true that feminists are a bunch of useful idiots for Marxism.
"Those societies had been on top for centuries before feminism you fool."
Those societies were also comparitively far more kind to women on average. And then they did not prevent women from participating in industrialization, politics etc, which correlated with the advancement and increased prosperity of those societies.
This social decay that misogynists warn will come with women's increased liberation never comes. Women keep getting more liberated and the standard of living keeps improving.
"Women keep getting more liberated and the standard of living keeps improving."
Current great depression notwithstanding, am I right?
I would never want a single gender society, I'd lose my mind around all those women!!
To touch Mike's comment--
What you're forgetting is that Roissy's post is both biologically and anthropologically incorrect. Meaning there is no actual fact behind his accusal.
Neither male nor female "naturally" inclined to be SIGNIFICANTLY more submissive (in the modern sense of the word) and especially not in the way of "monogamy" either.
His opinions are based on what he is accustomed to because it's a view society held for so long, but in actuality there's no Scientific fact behind it at all. It's no more than "social opinion".
Even if you look to the animal species, it varies very much as to who is the hunter/huntress and who is submissive.
It's because "nature" does not intend either one for men or women and forcing a sex into one of those roles is actually going AGAINST nature in some respects.
That is why there will always be rebellion on the part of both men and women from whatever roles they have been forced into.
Roissy isn't pointing out any truths, he actually just elaborating on social opinion and calling it "factual truth".
Lady Raine, I don't really see what your rant has to do with what I wrote in my comment. You actually seem like kind of a sweetheart based on what you write, but your life story makes me wonder if you really practice what you preach.
Anyway, regarding your comment, I don't think either of us is really qualified to say what is and isn't "natural". Let's speak instead of what is possible. I assume there is no dispute over which gender possesses more testosterone on average, and what effects that testosterone tends to have on our behavior. In this light, how can you say that there are no "natural" behavioral differences?
I understand your point that there are other species for which sexual dimorphism operates in the other direction - where females are bigger and more aggressive than males. Those species evolved that way over thousands of years, just like humans. Feminists, and pseudo-feminists like yourself, seem to think that this reality can be nullified or even reversed within a single generation. It's an utterly ridiculous idea. You cannot "convince" men to be less aggressive any more than you can "convince" them to be shorter or weaker.
Your "gender is a social construct" idea of "no natural difference" between men and women results in psychological abuse of men (and women as well) who are told that they must become something other than what their genes and their hormones tell them to be. And when you yourself have reproduced with an aggressive man and now use feminized men as servants, your view of "how things ought to be" is profoundly hypocritical.
Although I don't doubt there is a biological element to behaviour and social structures, it's also quite possible that (like egalitarian and conformist sentiments) these trends have a negative impact.
On top of that, there is more difference between two random people than between sexes on the average.
I am amazed at the kind of stuff men will put up with from women, though. And there is definitely a progressivist tendency to reject all 'heirarchy', real and imagined.
There seems to be a common human prejudice in this, though, which is the immutability of humanity's intellectual and psychological life. While I totally reject the tabula-rasa nonsense we get in the Enlightenment (also, middle-ages Christianity), arguing over things like 'traditional' human societies seems kind of ironic given that human beings are very likely on a path which will allow them to alter the substance of human beings altogether.
Post a Comment