As much as most of society, including large numbers of women, opposes modern feminism and view it as the absurd and destructive social engineering experiment it is, there is tremendous value in this ideology existing. In this post, I will elaborate on this claim and show why modern feminism can be expected to have a significant positive long-term effect.
The angle I am going to pursue is based on evolution. The main idea behind evolution is survival of the fittest. That catchphrase is often misunderstood. It does not mean that the tallest, strongest, or richest have the most evolutionary success. Evolutionary success means that you can exploit your current environment better than your competitors, meaning that you have more children who survive to have children, and so on. Of course, to fully assess evolutionary success, one would have to take a long-term perspective. To hammer home the point, consider the following: somewhat recently, an immigrant to Denmark made headlines for bringing three wives and 20 children into the country. He was unable to work and thus he was forced to live off welfare benefits instead of supplying society with his most definitely highly useful skills. If you were a law-abiding Danish engineer who is working hard to get ahead, dutifully paying off your mortgage and raising one or two children, how would you compare to that immigrant? Looking at the number of children the immigrant is able to feed, albeit with the help of the welfare state, his evolutionary success is far, far greater than Knud the hapless engineer’s.
With the basics out of the way, let us now look at how feminism interacts with evolutionary fitness. A young girl who falls for the false prophets of feminism might make life decisions that severely undermine her evolutionary fitness. Of course, all people are different, and all women are special snowflakes anyway, but I would say that among ‘woke’ women the traditional role division among the sexes is not overly popular. Instead, there are two very tempting alternative paths to go down: First, she could try to have it all, enjoy her youth, date around in her twenties, and settle down with a successful man in her 30s, who is of course willing to have kids right away. Second, she could be even more empowered and be a strong and independent tax-payer supported single mother.
Let’s look at why both decisions are absolutely disastrous from an evolutionary perspective. Also, keep in mind that the standard model sees a committed couple raising successful kids. That is the benchmark we have to compare feminist lifestyle choices with.
The first case is easier to deal with: a young, empowered woman partying it up in her 20s, living the life of a female cad, will have a very hard time attracting a desirable man once her looks have faded. In all seriousness, why would a guy who is in demand with the ladies settle for a woman in her 30s who has been around the block countless times when he could as well get a woman ten years younger than her who comes without emotional baggage? Certainly, a high partner count is highly unattractive in a woman. For the sake of the argument, let’s assume she gets some guy to have kids and a relationship with. Likely, it will be a guy of a lesser quality than she could have landed ten years ago, but that is beside the point. Instead, the point is that her remaining fertile years are rather limited. This means that the number of children she can have will be small. She may even have to resort to in-vitro fertilization. Assume a few generations like that and compare the outcomes of that strategy to the number of children a conservative couple could have, and you’ll quickly realize that the aged empowered feminist will have a much smaller number of great-great-great-grandchildren, and it will furthermore take many more decades until her family tree reaches that point.
The second case is a bit more difficult to unravel as there is another very prominent actor: the welfare state. Let’s say little washed-up Suzy decides to get two kids from two men and has the taxpayer fund her ‘woke’ lifestyle. Study after study affirms what common sense already tells you: single mothers can’t cut it and their children face abysmal prospects in life. Thus, even though a woman leading such a morally decrepit lifestyle would be able to have more kids than a conservative woman, the long-term benefits are dubious. If you assume that the welfare state can be kept up ad infinitum, then she may win out as she has dozens upon dozens of completely useless great-great-great-grandchildren. Yet, it is much more sensible to assume that the welfare state will eventually hit its breaking point. Once that happens, her unproductive offspring will simply be unable to survive as they aren’t productive members of society. Should society collapse completely, then it won’t be rebuilt by unproductive leeches. Consequently, the empowered single mom has only temporary evolutionary fitness. These days, with our exuberant welfare state in the West, it seems she is winning, but that party may come to a sudden end.
In summary, feminism is an evolutionarily questionable choice for a young woman. She will lose out either way. In the case of the desperate cat lady who is trying hard to get pregnant with donor sperm, it is clear already in the present that she has screwed herself over. On the other hand, the ‘woke’ single mom may comfortably ride out her life on welfare benefits. Heck, we now have families who have been living off welfare for generations. (Imagine growing up in a family in which the concept of working for a living is perceived as a societal hoax.) That whole charade will come crashing down sooner rather than later. In the end, women who have bought into feminism will end up being less successful in evolutionary terms. In the worst case, though, we will have to rebuild society anew.
Did you enjoy this article? Excellent! If you want to support what I am doing, then please consider buying my amazing books or donating to the upkeep of this site. If you want tailored advice, I am available for one-on-one consultation sessions.
18 thoughts on “Why there is great value in feminism”
The only question is whether Western civilization can sustain itself during the transitional period, which has been and will continue to be characterized by an egregious mis-allocation of collective resources.
There could be also great value in feminism for the top 10% good looking men: 80-90% of men (doesnt matter if mgtow or beta) are working , paying taxes so women can follow a worthless job or collect welfare and pursuit getting fucked by the top 10% men who are good looking and even support them financially like toyboys.
In order this operates you have to define rules that the other 90% of men are not insurging.
Your long term view, albeit fully spot-on, can be longer than a human’s life expectation.
While it’s comforting to know that these cunts will fail AT SOME POINT, I have to live with supporting these bitches EVERY DAY.
And that’s a source of pain I don’t see why we should be shouldering.
By the time the pendulum swings we might very well be not around anymore to tell the story of how we got there and the whole shit show will just keep on repeating itself decade after decade.
If the boom-bust-cycle is longer than a humans life (and governmental money printing to fund all that garbage can be “sustainable” for quite some time), then we simply don’t learn.
Heck, the Romans fucked with their currency, but hey, we can do it again, because this time it’s different.
Different my ass.
I agree with the last commenter… While it’s comforting to know things will work out in the long-run… It’s not much comfort to know that I am getting fucked in the meantime. I know my equivalent in the future will have a good life because of it… It’s small comfort to know how much of my 20s was fucked up due to this transitionary period we’re going through… and that I was a young man during the transition.
What do you think about the common comment by liberals that the rich aren’t paying their fair share in taxes? Please elaborate.
How about you elaborate on your question first?
I was asking whether you like or dislike higher taxes for the rich and why? I personally don’t.
Present a clear and thorough argument for one position or the other, and I may chime in. On the other hand, what you are doing, i.e. formulating a vague and open-ended question as well as telling me to elaborate, reeks of laziness and entitlement.
Netting the wealth received by people and what is paid by them to the government (i.e. society) poor people actually receives more tax dollars than they pay into the system. While wealthy people are net payers of all taxes in every form. In light of those statistics (by Antony Davis, Feb 2017) I think its unfair to say the wealthy/rich don’t pay their fair share. They are only payers fair or otherwise. The left usually makes an argument on the use of offshore tax evasion when hearing this kind of argument which, I think is quite unfair. I would like your informed opinion on this though since I think it is going to be interesting to hear.
http://www.antolin-davies.com/presentations/yalmsu.pdf (presentation slides)
If you don’t know already I urge you to look at the Hauser’s Law of taxation as well.
You’re a retard for even asking this question.
That’s what I think.
Indeed they aren’t Don. Which is why the USA economy will decelerate next year and we will see less inflation, we can thank the tax bill and Trump for not understanding how economics works(the economy needs to be a meritocracy and not reward the lazy rich capitalists, although im simplyfying too much). Sometimes I feel like we need full blown communism to rectify the situation, but I have hope we can do without a major revolution. I like cryptocurrency. The little guy will beat the rich at their own game. We should all buy some altcoins and ICOs. Everybody rich!
Neutralrandomthoughts, if you call me a retard, what do you call Jon?
Don, youre a certified troll. You have this tendency to want to stir up conflict for no reason. Please stop and leave neutral alone. He’s my bro. We have both been through alot and survived.
Also I assume you wanted neutral to call me an idiot with your rhetorical question. He’s better than that though. In fact if you wanted to call me an idiot you could have done it directly instead by deconstructing my comment. Instead you try to do it indirectly via my bro Neutral, why is that?
Some kind of inner need to play Machiavellian games? That really pisses me off (ppl without integrity)
Sure feminism is a crock. But I don’t want to go to the bad old days either. Traditionalism isn’t good for men either. I am not interested in making sacrifices for “civilization” or “society.”
I think Barborosa got it right in his video “Traditionalism and chivalry = the other feminism”:
Is something wrong with this woman or is it a joke. https://www.quora.com/I-sent-my-12-year-old-son-to-school-in-a-dress-to-combat-gender-stereotypes-and-now-he-doesnt-want-to-go-to-school-anymore-What-should-I-do/answer/Elena-Ledoux?srid=3tke
She sent her son in a dress to school to combat gender stereotypes. WTF?