Sunday, 17 October 2010

The Answer to a Long-Asked Question

For a long time I am vaguely thinking about the reasons for the obvious gap between what I perceive as justified complaints from American men about the corrupting effect of feminism and women's "sexual liberation", about the disastrous consequences it has for their lifes and society in general, and what I see here, at my end. "Hypergamy" is a concept I always understood only theoretically and which I did not consider part of my culture. Now, at the most interesting Australian blog The Social Pathologist, which I found by chance, as one does, in the Internet, and specifically at the entries The Virgin Bride and The Programmable Sex (including the comments) I found at last an explanation that makes actually sense (plus an interesting sideline about the nature of Islam).

The Social Pathologist, who is a doctor, has a matter-of-fact attitude towards the female nature, backs up his points with a lot of data and is lacking the sneering, cynical and contemptuous attitude of Roissy and his ilk, something I find unsavoury and hard to tolerate.

Here is where I come in:
The_Editrix said...

"Some [pissant artist] burns a koran and it's art, some [non-Christian preacher where Christians are a minority] puts a crucifix in urine and that's a hate crime."

Point taken and yes, there are two sides of that matter -- theoretically. However, the fact remains that no embassies burn and no people die if somebody puts a crucifix in urine. Maybe it's a conservative thing to understand that "equality" isn't the answer to everything.

"The whole divorce end point is complicated by a whole host of variables."

SO true!

IQ (at least occupational status correlated to IQ) does decrease divorce rate........... in America. In other countries it increases it."

I'd wager that is, because American society is in many things lower middle class (or petty bourgeois, if you like that better) in its VALUES. ("What WILL people say!") From my experience -- I am a German who was partly socialised in England -- people above a certain stratum simply don't care what others say about them.

Fascinating discussion. Keep up the good work!

8:09 PM

The Social Pathologist said...

The Editrix, thanks for dropping by.

However, the fact remains that no embassies burn and no people die if somebody puts a crucifix in urine.

That's because Christians don't care. If they did the embassy's would burn. The only reason why the towelheads burn embassies if because they love Allah, we give God lip service.

I'd wager that is, because American society is in many things lower middle class (or petty bourgeois, if you like that better) in its VALUES.

It is both American society's strength and weakness. America probably cannot scale the heights of European glory, nor can plumb the depths of European wickedness.

people above a certain stratum simply don't care what others say about them.

So true, but it's a fatal flaw to have when the criticism leveled against one is legitimate. Sometimes its most beneficial to care about public opinion, most times its not.

11:52 PM

The_Editrix said...

"It is both American society's strength and weakness."

Indeed! I was trying not to be judgemental, just stating a fact. A lot of American traits we tend to sneer at are really strengths.

I find this blog most interesting because it seems to deal with the facts of female nature, different from the Roissy-ites, in a matter-of-fact and non-contemptuous way. Many of the complaints of American men, of which I have no doubt that they are justified, I find as exotic as I might find the the mating rites of some Australo-Papuan tribe.

To make an attempt at putting the problem, as I see it for the European society in which I live, into words: Women are not able to live their sexuality in a self-reliant and responsible way. They simply don't possess the ethical and moral fibre necessary for that and need the confinements of a TRADITIONAL marriage. The most destructive single cause for the decline of our civilisation is the sexual liberation of women. I see a woman at the root of virtual each and every marital and familial failure I am watching. I see sluttiness, idleness, vanity, lack of backbone, morals and common decency. What I do NOT see is "hypergamy". But then, when I first came across the American wedding cult, five-figure wedding dress, diamond ring, the lot, more than ten years ago in the Internet, it was one of those Australo-Papuan culture shocks as well. I am not saying that we are any better in Europe or Germany, we aren't, and the outcome for marriages and families is just as disastrous here. All I am saying is that the underlying motives are different, and that wouldn't be so if "hypergamy" were really a biological given.

I see this as food for thought and further discussion, not as the ultimate truth.

However, and on a different note: I'd like to strongly contradict your statement about Muslims. I don't think Muslims love their Allah, which is not the God of the Bible, as we love the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They just hate everything and everybody that doesn't fit into their debased world view. I strongly deny that we can learn anything from them. Any similarity with a traditional Christian view, be it the love of God, women's modesty or whatever, is purely pheno- not genotypical.

Off my soapbox now. ;-)

1:49 AM

The_Editrix said...

It seems I ought to have read your entry "The Programmable Sex" first. It goes a long way towards explaining the differences. If one assumes that women's sexuality does indeed reflect societal norms and peer group pressure, it is not so amazing anymore that American woman go for material gain and a diamond ring when looking out for a mate, and German women for (far more frightening) idealistic reasons. Don't take that as a flattering description. Germans are at their most obnoxious, even dangerous, when their sense for idealism is tickled. If I think of the failed marriages within my circle of friends and acquaintances, I'd wager that the adulteresses are very sure that they really "love" that man, "deserve" him and can make him SO much happier than his wife can, in brief, that they are doing actually a good and meritorious, even noble, thing. Few of those I have in mind right now have gained much financially, but, again, that doesn't make them in the least better than any American gold digger and the marriage and family they broke up is just as broken.

The same applies to the wives who leave their husbands because they are bored. They usually don't improve their financial status.

Reversely, you would be amazed for what German men are exchanging attractive, charming and even rich wives. The Roissy-ites with their scale of female attractiveness would be stunned. I am not a man, so I can only say that I haven't a clue what makes them tick. Admiration from the cook or groom they don't get from their wives? Maybe, but why MARRY them?

I have been thinking for a while now rather sketchily in that direction because the differences are so obvious to me when I have no reason to doubt the complaints of the American men. Thank you and this blog for helping me clarifying that.

4:13 AM

It seems, that every society has got its own aphrodisiac and that women always make the worst of it.


The Social Pathologist said...

Firstly, thank you for your kind comments and secondly, the Evil Style Queen is a wicked blog. I love it.

Women are not able to live their sexuality in a self-reliant and responsible way.

I would probably phrase it differently. Women are not designed to be self-reliant, rather they are wired to move towards groupthink. Acting alone, or more importantly independently, is unsettling for them. A woman is quite capable of being independent as long as she follows group norms.

I think your example of idealistic German women, justifying their infidelity out of love, is actually in accordance with the dominant cultural theme of the west. The Romantic ideal, that love will conquer all, is profoundly influential in modern western thought. When a woman leaves a boring marriage to passionately fornicate with her new lover, she does it with the blessing of the poets, Hollywood script writers and other romantics. The theologians just shake their heads, however no one listens to them. They are Western Society's nerds. They carry no social weight.

The_Editrix said...

Yes, you are right. What I do is sheer empiricism. I am learning a lot through the scientific approach.

Just a minor clarification what I mean by Romanticism. It has only few intersections with romance. German "Romanticism" is probably unique in shaping the minds of an entire people. Not to put too fine a point upon it: English Romanticism culminated in Agatha Christie novels, German Romanticism in the Holocaust. What Germans are doing if they think they are doing "the right thing" can be frightening. It goes far beyond the soppy, corny, mawkish concept of "romance". My real name is well known and "The Editrix" only a gimmick. People about whom I could talk at my blogs are only a few steps away from exposure, therefore I hesitate to quote some hair-rising examples.

But generally, you are right. Women in the West do it with the blessing of the poets. Wonderfully put!

Actually, "The Evil Style Queen" is my favourite blog. I sometimes think I ought to close down all the other ones and focus on that one.

The Social Pathologist said...

Just a minor clarification what I mean by Romanticism. It has only few intersections with romance.

My use of the term is probably exactly the same as yours. Romanticism is the justification of action through the "nobility of grand sentiments". Crudely put, an action is justified if it is motivated by noble, or "intense" sentiment. I've always thought of the National Socialist movement as a "romantic" movement. Likewise, the many of the early "Communists" were similarly "romantic", hence the appeal to the arts community. (BTW, Nazi "romance" inspired quite a bit of good art. In my opinion, Wiesel's "Farm Family from Kahlenberg, is greater work of art than Grant Wood's American Gothic.)

Whilst German "romanticism" may have cumulated in the Holocaust, Anglo "romanticism" finds its expression in a far more insidious, and therefore difficult to treat evil. An evil which may herald a new age of quite literal barbarism. "Chav" man(and woman) is the product of such romantic ideation, with all his deleterious features. The Nazi's may have been good at destroying the bodies of their victims, the Anglo's are far better at destroying their souls. A cultural darkness is overcoming the West, its consequences won't be good.