Why are women often portrayed as symbol of evil or weakness?
Philosopher: Truth, Natural Law, Economics, Politics, War
April 25, 2017
(repost b/c censored)
TRUTH IS VERY OFTEN OFFENSIVE. WHICH IS WHY WE MUST SEARCH FOR IT – BECAUSE WE HIDE IT. BUT HERE IS THE ANSWER.
Women (females) evolved gossip, rallying, shaming, trading of care-taking, sex and affection, as a means of manipulation (power), by which to gain control over (much) more powerful males.
Women (females) are not loyal to the tribe (males), as they could be easily stolen by one group or another, and have to survive within that group. Female choice arose late (after pairing-off). For much of our evolutionary history, women were property. To no small degree, our domestication of animals by taking over their dominance hierarchy and controlling their reproduction, followed the domestication of women by the same means. (If that isn’t upsetting to your high mindedness little will be.)
Women can (and often did, and still do) bear one man’s offspring at the cost of another man, thereby depriving him of the ability to trade his productivity for sex, affection, care-taking, and offspring. As many as one third of children ‘appear’ to have been the product of ‘sleeping around’. Our understanding of this number will improve over time. Around 70% of women reproduced in history, but only about 30% of men. Our understanding of this number will improve over time. However, men (out of evolutionary necessity) will demonstrate violence over women first and foremost above all other factors. (yes really). The vast majority of male impulsive violence is somehow connected to females. So female ‘wandering’ is the most dangerous to the tribe of any activity including theft and murder.
Women evolved a very short term set of impulses (low risk tolerance) in order to limit their own cellular damage, and to protect the fragility of children that take so many years to mature into self-sufficiency. Women possess less ‘agency’ because of it. Despite our status as super-predators, or apex predators, Humans are frail and especially frail until maturity. Ergo, women ‘feel’ impulsively and cannot suppress their impulses as easily as men can. Nor are social structures to contain women’s impulses as severe as those of males. The reason being that an impulsive woman can be ignored or beaten,while an impulsive male can be sent off to fight or hunt, but may become too dangerous in the tribe or polity.
So, because of high impulsivity, short term bias, the ability to sway men with sex, affection, care-taking, and the ability to sway men with gossip, rallying, and shaming, women were (and still are, to be honest) considered to be ‘troublemakers’.
We tend to think of taming violence among men as the chief achievement of civlization, but that is not what the evidence tells us. It was equally the use of property and marriage to tame women’s gossip, reproduction, and impulsivity that built civilization. Even today, the root cause of central political conflicts is whether (a) women have a ‘right’ to bear children that they cannot create a family or career to support without forcing others to pay for their ‘freedom’, because the only remaining problem facing mankind at present is population. all problems today are reducible to population problems. (b) whether we advance universalism and dysgenia (the female and underclass reproductive strategy), or particularism and eugenia (the male and upper class reproductive strategy).
Western women have always been ‘freer’ that other women, and we are not exactly sure why. It appears that whites are less clannish (at least circumpolar whites, if not anatolian/iranian). Whites have less testosterone than all but east asians. There is some evidence that white female traits were especially desirable and spread quickly through selection and were integrated through selection into white males. There is some evidence that the scarcity of people in the northern climes, the value of ‘others’ in northern climes for survival; the ‘homogeneity’ of the three or four major waves of europeans plus the limited clannishness simply created a less hostile environment for mate selection. (This is the current hypothesis). It will take another generation of work on genetics before we know the answer for certain. But needless to say, whites (at least northerners) are less ‘clannish’ than all other races and sub-races. Conversely, africans, desert, and steppe peoples appear more clannish and more aggressive than far east and far west peoples. This appears to be due to little more than the scale of the underclasses in warm climates. Without selection pressures the median behavior evolves into a general rule.
So history is hard on women because women in fact are (a) physically weaker, (b) emotionally more impulsive and possessed of less agency (weaker), (c) the cause of hidden constant conflict, if not constrained, (d) un-loyal to the tribe.
Education and participation in the work force has done quite a bit to solve women’s impulsivity but women have, since the introduction of socialism, and the feminist movement as a proxy replacement for socialism, worked consistently to vote (a) to destroy the requirement to form a family (corporation for the production of children), prior to bearing offspring, (b) impoverishing men and causing vast increases in suicide through no fault divorce, alimony, and child support, and heavy increases in taxes that consume 100% of the revenues produced by the addition of women to the work force. (c) harm to the ‘tribe’ by making possible the immigration policies since the 1960’s that achieved through underclass immigration what could not be achieved either through advocacy of socialism, or advocacy of feminism.
The West survived the European civil war we call the World Wars. Yet the West will not likely survive the enfranchisement of women without equal investment in the constraint upon women’s behavior that was developed to constrain men’s behavior over the past 10,000 years.
Pandora deserved her reputation. The question is. Men admit their history. Can women admit theirs? History, biology, and evolution are against it.