Feminism vs The Patriarchy – Monogamy, Pair-Bonding, Family and Relationships

 

[Script/Notes:]

I would like to read to you some feminist quotes and discuss their implications because these quotes, as well as the sentiments that drive them (and in turn, drives the wider movement), are so pernicious and vitriolic that they should never be accepted and only entertained with caution.

 

I wish to express again and stress the element of caution because to give fuel to these incendiary ideas, especially when seated with those whom feel short-changed by life, looking for someone to scapegoat, will allow such individuals to wreak havoc – as we have already seen be done by the ideologues of the Left.

 

And so, the first quote is by Germaine Greer, who said “Women’s liberation, if it abolishes the patriarchal family, will abolish a necessary substructure of the authoritarian state, and once that withers away Marx will have come true willy-nilly, so let’s get on with it.”

 

How someone can have such disdain and malice for the family and in turn, the family home truly beggars belief. It is truly contemptuous to assume the “patriarchal” family to be a necessary sub-structure of the authoritarian state but more of that in a moment. I would, however, like to address the notion that somehow women need liberating from the family home.

 

Here, she is arguing for the destruction of a pattern of behaviour that is seen globally and has existed for some TWO MILLION YEARS. To form a family is a very human and very natural path in life, which leads me into my next quote.

 

Feminists have to question, not just all of western culture, but the organization of culture itself, and further, even the very organization of nature.” Shulamith Firestone, The Dialectic of Sex – The Case For Feminist Revolution

 

Shulamith puts this on the front page, it’s the first thing that you read, her intention to go against our very nature. What it means to be human is wrong in her eyes. Feminism is against our very nature.

 

So let’s discuss some of our nature.

 

Homo sapiens’ neonates are born altricial (premature) and it is because of pair-bonded, monogamous relations between father and mother than allows for the young to develop extra-uterine, that is outside the uterus. Genus Homo has been pairbonding for around 2 MILLION YEARS so as to allow for the extra time that is needed to develop our big brains. They are very cost-expensive, our brains are 2% of our body mass yet consume 20% of our energy.

 

Our young are born premature simply because they cannot develop to full-term in the uterus because the birth canal would not be able to facilitate the extra mass. Even as they are, they are large, human neonates are approximately 6% of the mother’s mass in comparison to chimpanzee neonates which are around 3% of their mother’s mass and gorilla’s which are about 3.5%.

 

The family home evolved not to oppress women but to support women!

 

If we are to maintain our large brains, our intelligence, our humanity then we need this extra time to develop! We cannot do it in uterine so had to do so extra-uterine. If a human female, a woman, were to carry her neonate, her child, to full term and, if the strain didn’t kill her, the birthing will.

 

So, to avoid pushing LARGE young out of such a small birth canal (it’s called the obstetrical dilemma) our young are born premature. Ergo, the family evolved.

 

Feminists, neo-Marxists, post-modernists, whatever you want to call them, all intend on destroying the very thing that facilitated our advancing into the big-brained, highly intelligent creatures that we are today.

 

By destroying the family, they are undoing MILLIONS of years of human evolution.

 

If you look at Feminism as a movement, not for women’s liberation, as it claims to be but, if you look at it as a movement to destroy the family home, all their actions start to make sense. They said it right there! Feminists are the gender version of AnPrims (Anarcho-Primitives).

 

Let’s go to the origins of this and read some Marx and Engels, shall we?

 

The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.1

Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.2

Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.3

But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.

The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.

He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.

Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party, February 1848.

 

1 – Families that are able to pool resources and propagate themselves as a unit survive and climb the class ladder, this is a good thing.

 

2 – As they fucking should, the family is the staple of society.

 

3 – The role of the parent is not to exploit their children but to nourish and encourage their children. Do you know what happens to a species that don’t nourish and encourage their children? It DIES!

 

4 – This is so simplistic and reductionist it is staggering. In basic terms, women reproduce and men produce. Sorry, no offence, but it’s fucking true. Do you know what happens in species that practice this community of women as you call it, rather than pairbonding or marriage? Well, we’ve got the Gorilla and the Sea Lion where both species are hugely sexually dimorphic, the males are ultra-violent and the females are kept in a harem. Is the future you want? Because that’s the future that will evolve!

 

This is what they are building on, this is what fuels their hatred for the family, what gave rise to their thirsting for the destruction of the family home.

 

We already have heaps of evidence of the damage caused to children by broken homes, single parenting, et cetera. By destroying the family home we, as a species, would be taken back in time to the tune of millions of years. If there is no pairbonding, our young suffer the consequences and so do their young and their young and it continues ad infinitum unless if intercepted.

 

If we were to remove pairbonding and monogamous relations, that would have a two-fold effect on men.

 

  • It would increase selection pressures on men, only those who can fight for and maintain a mate will reproduce.
  • Those who can mate will mate with more than one female because they can.

 

Over time, the selection pressures on men will accumulate – the paradigm of Males Compete Females Choose will increase and as such men will evolve to be larger. Size Sexual Dimorphism is such that the male female ratio is on average 1.15 (men are 15% larger), though depending on location the values range from 1.09 – 1.28. If we step away from pairbonding we ramp up Size Sexual Dimorphism because it was pairbonding that lowered it.

 

Over the course of evolution, as male competition decreased our brain sizes increased. If you want to increase male competition, expect our brain sizes to decrease to accommodate for the lack of pair-bonding, decrease in resource provisioning and extra levels of effort required in raising the young from the female … in other words, you.

2 comments

  1. It is amusing to contemplate a return to the tournament model as a consequence of feminism – especially as another name for that is a rape culture. But actually there is no alternative to the pair bonded model which has long term stability. The tournament model is a lawless society in which large cooperative groups cannot survive, nor can an efficient economy. What we have now, or are tending towards, is a welfare state in which the product of male effort is syphoned towards women and hence children who are not related to the men in question. This is not an evolutionary steady state – it is a mere transient condition which is unsustainable because altruism cannot be sustained where there is no genetic advantage. Of course, evolution works on a rather long timescale – though not as long as people think. Several generations may be enough when the evolutionary pressure is sufficiently great. Any alternative to the pair bonded model will see a long term decline in male effort – because there is insufficient reward to bust a gut for. Were there only a single culture on Earth, there would ultimately be a return to pair bonding when conditions got bad enough due to any alternative being attempted – though that might involve human catastrophe on a vast scale first. But…there are other cultures around which are not feminist, and strong cultures tend to drive out weak cultures. That is the most likely scenario unless the decline of the pair bond ceases soon.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s