Q&A: Position on Feminism and Patriarchy?


 

(Note: Impulsive boys demand certainty – patient men understand human determinism)

—“Where does P stand on feminism and patriarchy”—

1) “FEMINISM”

Feminism: the advocacy of women’s rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes.”

EQUALITY IN THE LAW:
The only equality is in our necessary equality before the law, in matters of dispute resolution. This is the only equality that does and must exist.

OTHERWISE INEQUALITY
“Males and females divide the reproductive, sensory, perceptive, cognitive, advocacy, and labor of a civilization by population and time, with females in the shorter term and between individuals, and males in the longer term between polities.”

This division of labor is rather obvious because men generally allow women to control their female relative’s reproduction, and men’s reproduction is limited by the pool of available females in the polity, and the male polity’s ability to maintain a quality stock of females, who will happily defect to other men or polities (hypergamy) if it’s in their individual advantage, regardless of the cost to the polity (males).

CONSEQUENCES
We demonstrate inequality in our abilities, preference, and interests, and this inequality of ability, preference, and interests favors empathy, consumption, the interpersonal, and social among females, versus empiricism, capitalization, the economic, political, and military among males – and the more liberty we have to express those inequalities in our abilities, interests, and preferences the more we bias to pursue them.

The evolutionary and competitive value of adversarial competition is demonstrably a majority male bias, reinforced by loyalty at the cost of adaptability to different groups.. The evolutionary and competitive value of consensus-seeking internally to any group is demonstrably a majority female bias – though lacking any loyalty, but grater individual adaptability to different groups.

Men and women coddle women for evolutionary reasons. And Women drive down adversarial competition in all organizations so that they can tolerate participation. This is why women drive down the competitive advantage of innovative and capitalizing organizations, and drive up the uncompetitive costs of accommodation and consumption. This is why any industry women enter into and become a majority declines in innovation, income, and associated prestige.

It’s why women are generally put in charge of organizations where the men can’t agree on a direction (holding place), are or in organizations in decline (provide cover), or are purely symbolic (appearances). And so few women (though they do exist) are at the top.

In the military, in any non-administrative, non-medical role – women drive down adversarial competition, largely put men at risk in combat, in jobs better done by men, have more job opportunities elsewhere, and so consume resources and jobs for men without those opportunities, and are wasting prime reproductive value. (period).

CONCLUSION
Forced integration prevents market from doing its job of teaching us the truth. The market solves these problems just fine if we let the market solve them. Forced integration of the sexes has been as damaging as forced integration of the races.

Equality under the law is the only necessary or desirable equality.

2) “PATRIARCHY”

Patriarchy: a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line. Or, a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.”

My position is well documented, that there is value in a ‘house’ for any class with divergent interests, and that military, economic(biz, industry, capital), labor(salaried, hourly), and reproductive (female) houses force exchanges between the classes.

So we identify the political problem of enfranchising both labor and women without providing them with separate houses, so that the classes can negotiate trades, rather than parties which race to the bottom.

And that these differences are common sense and there is little evidence that constitutional monarchies hiring a professional cabinet, with voters limited to veto of appropriations, aren’t better than democracies – which as always, crash and burn.

In our constitution, we lay out the options for government given the demographics and economy and the polity can choose.


Leave a Reply