sábado, 15 de octubre de 2011

More on the Feminization of the West

There are many authors that speculate about the feminization of the West. The mention of this topic is a sure guaranty of deserving the label of right wing extremist, that very fact is, indeed,  no more no less than a hint about the deep feminization of our societies.

However the feminization phenomenon is treated tangentially, among other traits in the contemporary West. There is no focus and no deep analysis of what feminization means. Here I will speculate based on the insights given by Evolutionary Psychology (EP) to asses what the predominance of femenine psychology in our society , what are their effects, and why.

With the exception of the hardworking ideologues of the ruling class, every one know that men and woman are different. This is universal across cultures and times. Because the human child is born defenseless and women invest 9 months in giving it birth, women are the ones that loose disproportionately more invested effort than men when a son die. This makes women to focus on child care. child care imposes strong requirements and determines the rest of the woman psychology. Due to the very long time that child rearing requires upto the puberty, the age at which the child naturally detach from the mother, woman must avoid their own death at all costs. This makes  risk avoidance an universal trait of woman in relation with men. This is true even if she does not have children, since she must be alive to have them in the future. In the other side, a man can have children even 9 months after its own death. A risky man can have many children in a short period of time before dying. A woman could have at most a dozen children in its entire reproductive period. In the primitive conditions this number would be much less. Risk avoidance is the most importan trait in woman psychology determined by child rearing, other minor traits are associated with rish avoidance: Dirt is a serious risk for humans because it spread illnesses. This is specially true for children. Dirt avoidance and cleaning in women is a consequence of child rearing and risk avoidance.  Gathering of vegetables instead of hunting is the feeding strategy preferred by ancient women, imposed by risk avoidance. Gathering imposes other trait as well: discrimination of colors and other visual system specializations. Orientation based on hints in the terrain is another trait.  Men in the other side has lower risk avoidance. A good hunter and/or warrior can have many women that would give birth to many children even if in the course of his live it is wounded many times and die. Men run along larguer territories for hunting and war. There are other traits in men that help them to secure its kin and it is politics. A good organizer would have more women and children. But this is not the only thing.  Preservation of the group is the main purpose of the political instincts. Selection operates across generations. There's no success in a man who have many children but these children do not survive to be parents or if their sons or if so, they don't survive to be parents as well.  The group is the safe haven where future generations of kin will live: sons, small brothers, nieces, grandsons and so on. The strength of the group is the purpose of the political-religious instinct. And this is a very strong instinct. This is rather a trait of men rather than of women.  Men are in disposition to give its live for the group. Women not so much . The reason is simple.

 War among primitive people is about obtaining women and territory. And is abut keeping its own woman and territory from the attack of other men. kidnapping is no the only reason why women move from its home group; genetic variability gives stronger children. This is is also a reason why women move to other groups. For this reason women prefer foreign people over the locals. Finally alliances of groups is another reason why women abandon their home group. All these reasons are present in chimpanzees. In the other side, men are not kindnapped but killed in war. The net effect are two very different political psichologies in men and woman:  Men are very long term oriented when thinking about its group. Their biological investment, that is, their masculine kin and most of the femenine, stay in the group where it has born. The current and future strength of their group is a guarantee for current and future strengh of their biológical investment. Most of their concerns are about politics, ideology and/or religion, all related with their group present and future. They will risk their lives in actions that would preserve the group.

Women are not political animals. When Aristoteles said its famous phrase, he was talking about males. Woman are not group oriented. Specially in the early years after puberty. As I said, the femenine psychology was shaped in a primitive past where they were born in a group but probably they moved to other group with other culture probably other religious rites. Even today, she will marry with a man with different religion/ideology. So they must  absorb and accommodate fast and acritically. Fashion-sensibility is the psychological mechanism that woman have to assimilate a change in culture. Under fashion-sesibility, only external signs of sucessful people are imitated. Modern commercial centers are an exploitation of femenine traits of risk avidance (indoor), gathering behaviour (supermarket style stores, colors) and fashion sensibility. It can be observed that  the fashion sensibility in women declines not with age exactly but more so with the number of children while their political awareness increase at the same time. This may be due to the increased biológical investment that the woman deposit in the group with each new family member.  The more kin the woman have, the more the long term interests of women will be similar to men. Even in these circunstances, Men invest more in the big group. They are more prone to fanaticism in one side or rational criticism of the organization of the group, while women are more shallow supporters. Both sexes have a division of labor in managing goals: Men usually are very shot and very long term goal managers, but they are very bad with medium term goals. Men, when alone, live in risk, disorder dirt and improvisation, while at the same time invest a great effort in group activities such are football club, politics and  philosophy. Women excel at what men lack. they invest more in practical short to medium term goals in the care for their men and kin.  For this reason the human couple and the human family is itself a adaptive unity.

Now, let´s return to the question of feminization . The feminization happens via two main mechanism, first the increased political power of woman trough universal sufrage and due to the feminist ideology in power. The Feminism is a consequence of the marxist mindset that put the concept of liberation of the forefront of the western trough. As I have show this concept of liberation is a perverted vision of society, since society is a consequence of human nature and the natural differences between men and women. It is not an artificial enslavement of anyone. Liberation mindset aims naturally at the destruction of the current society, and feminism is, among others, its stronger tool.

The other mechanism is the increased buying power of childless working woman that buy mainly for themselves with its compulsory gathering behaviour. The market reinforces these femenine lifestyles trough advertising. This reach all the society. The marketing amplifies whatever mainstream mindset, in this case, Cultural Marxism and feminism. The consequences of the advent of women to power in a context of low birth rate are the traits of childless woman: risk avoidance, lack of awareness for the future of the society, unwillingnes to protect it, shallow minded living, triumph of aesthetics, random changes in attitudes, open borders, multiculturality Rejection of long term political and religious ideals. All of this makes us an easy target for the predation of men dominated groups.

5 comentarios:

  1. hahahahahahahaha, really,no wonder psychology is not taken seriously by scientists.I think you should really study animal behavior before you write such a bunch of nonsense like you did.The female sex as a group is hundred times more reproductively successful that males,the whole risk behavior in males is a fallacy,nature's mechanisms ensure reproductive success to the female sex as a whole,and lower the reproductive output of the male sex as a group.In nature, motherhood is a right,fatherhood is a privilege.The chief of the herds in mosts species are all females.if males and females were to live as mammals do,females would live totally separated from males since sexual segregation is the NORM in nature.
    i wouldn't be so worry about feminizing society,rather than the hermaphroditization of males.Let's see,males are encouraged to have sex with females and reject their own,and still believe the crap of being a real men.Swallowing female hormones and being submissive to female sexuality(lesbianism) which is only sporadically experienced by male mammals and for the sole purpose of insemination.Accepting to co-sense and co-feel vaginas,uterus,etc as if they were born with one.Being the providers,and working like slave just to get from the females what they are themselves so disgusted with,their fucking cunts.you see,careful,careful with psychology,psychophysics is a science and it doesn't waste time in stupidities.

  2. Anonimous, Your comentary is so idiotic that I don´t know even how to start.

    I recommend you to learn something about the theory of Natural Selection. Even a left liberal like Dawkins can help you on it. You will enjoy it.

    Second, learn something about Evolutionary Psychology. "The blank Slate. The modern denial of Human Nature" , fron Steven Pinker would be appropriate for your wreid , fanatic homo-lesbian mindset.

  3. Long answer to Anonymous:
    Animals which have weak newborn, incapable of living for themselves have biparental families because the females can not rear them alone.

    This happens in flying birds for example; To reduce weight female birds reduce the size of eggs to the minimmun, thus they produce very weak offspring. both parents are needed to rear them. In the case of human beings the defenseless newborn is a result of our big brain and the requirements for walking and running in bipedal position that tend to make the birth canal in woman as strech as possible. the compromise in woman is a wider hip not optimal for running in one side, and on the other the conception of premature newborns with the head flexible enough to pass, not without a great effort, trough the birth canal. The weakness of newborn make completely impossible for the primitive woman to rear it. For this reason the biparental family of man and woman exist and it is a psichological human adaptation for reproduction.

    It is important to note that both in flying birds and humans, this imposes to males severe changes in behaviour. to be biologically sucessful, males must survey their females to make sure not to rear the child of other males. You may have observed male doves close after female ones. They survey them. In the other side, males copulate frequently, more than the strictly needed for reproduction. this is a preventive strategy for displacing possible semem of other males that may have copulated with its female by force or with agrement. In Females have other psichological adaptations for biparental child rearing: Theyu select men not only taking into account its objective qualities, but also their commintments to share their time and resources with them and their future children. Love is the proximate feeling resulting from the instinctive, long term bond stablished in order to rear children.

    Do you understand, stupid left-liberal homofanatic?

  4. I enjoyed your blog post and you have unique insights on human evolution.

    No one really understands how humans evolved and all opinions should be considered. I believe human evolution is not a physical but a social phenomena and traditional theories of evolution fall apart trying to explain human behavior. Natural selection has nothing to do with modern human evolution.

    I liked your insight into why women take less risk then men which seems to make sense. There are usually rational reasons behind evolution. Human evolutions has so many mysteries.

    1. Hi


      Really it doesn not matter if something is cultural or genetic. social traits, like personal traits, are gene-cultural, they are a product of both, since genes do not operate in the vacuum and the environment can not be dealt with without a set of pre-programmed strategies( with many parameters that can be adjusted to particular environments) and a set of genetically pre-programmed goals. The important fact is that this genetic component implies an universal (we are extraordinarily similar) and stable (genetic code change very slow) human nature. This human nature produces universal responses to different environments. In the social environment, these responses produce conflicts of interests until an equilibrium is reached. The social institutions are the product of these equilibriums (Nash equilibriums).