Wednesday, July 5, 2017

In the modern world, hypergamy creates patriarchy

The image at the left is an okCupid survey that you may have seen. It is how women and men rate the opposite sex. The pink is how men rate women while the blue is how women rate men. This is the essence of hypergamy, that is, of women wanting "the best" male she can get.

For a woman to want a high status male is for her to want, without realizing it, her own low status relative to a male. This is why "negging" works; it lowers a woman's perception of her own sexual market value. When it is done repeatedly by a particular man to a particular woman it gas lights her into believing that she is low status relative to him. A pair bond is set up where she depends on him for self-esteem. This is why there are fat guys with ham hock hands walking the streets with beautiful women. His relationship with her is built on "game," where is keeps her perception of her sexual worth low on purpose.

Remember what I said here: for women to crave high status males is for them to crave their own relative low status. Hypergamy makes inequality inevitable as men compete to be the high status male. Inequality, violence, and war are the inevitable product of vicious competition between men for status. In a room of 10 men, a woman will only want 1 in 10. In a room of a hundred, she will only want 1 in a 100. She only wants "the best," and that sets up a winner-take-all system where 1 % of the men control 99 % of the women. It should not surprise is that our society is so unequal; human economic behavior is the collective outcome of individual human sexual behavior. Untimely, all utility is sexual or reproductive in nature. Economics is downstream from sex.

As women have gained more economic power, society has become more radically unequal. It used to be that 30 % of men controlled 70 % of the wealth, now 1 % control 99 %. This is not a coincidence at all. The more unequal the sexual marketplace is the more economically unequal the society will be. Female sexual choice makes equality impossible; a society cannot have socialism without first having sexual socialism. One goal of feminism makes the other impossible. To give women choice is to exacerbate inequality, since they will always choose the best, creating a shortage for the rest.

Patriarchy is simply a response to hypergamy where men, (quite logically) suppress female economic status in order to raise their own relative sexual status. It is the intelligent, rational, thing to do when confronted with the madness of a woman who only wants 1 out of every 10 men she finds. If her behavior is left unchecked, she will create a society where all children are birthed out of wedlock, where 9 out of 10 women are childless cat ladies and sluts, where most men are frustrated bachelors, and where the society fails to produce enough children to avoid gradual extinction. Additionally, she will make it impossible for the small number of highly attractive women to form monogamous relationships with highly attractive men. By pursuing those men and committing adultery with them she forces the highly attractive woman to choose between an ugly, and probably faithful husband, and a highly attractive, and unfaithful husband. Her hypergamy denies the "perfect 10" a life of stable marriage.

It is no use trying to meet a women's standard; she will just raise the standard so that you no longer meet it. The side effect of universal monogamy is complaining and henpecking wives. The is not the fault of the husband; the wife is genetically programmed to be miserable by her own hypergamy. The correct thing is for society to educate her to be quiet.

All humans are genetically programmed to be miserable. It is a myth that one eventually finds "happiness." Contentment is possible, but not the perpetual "happiness" that we are sold in advertising. Humans need to reproduce themselves like any other animal. To accomplish this task the human animal is given pain and longing. To force it to reproduce it is given sexual desire. To force it into contact with other humans, so as to increase the odds of finding a partner, it is given loneliness. To compel the animal to feed itself, so that it survives, so that it can reproduce, it is given hunger. All urges are derivative of the need to reproduce. Even boredom is untimely about getting you busy in order to force you to associate with other humans, in order to increase your odds of reproducing.

This discontent is magnified in women because of hypergamy. Nothing can ever meet her standard. this is because in the ancestral environment women who nagged received resources like food, shelter, protection, that assisted in the survival of children. The urge to nag is thus independent of the existence of any problem. If there is no problem she will invent it. She will simply manufacture drama out of her own boredom and attention-seeking behavior. Occasionally people ask, "what do women want?" The correct answer is, "who cares?" As soon as you meet the standard she will raise it. What she wants is for you to never stop meeting the standard. Then, once you have striven hard to meet her standards she will lose respect for you. The more you pander the less respect she will have. And then you won't get laid, because women don't fuck men they don't respect. Do not pander. Buy her flowers occasionally, yes, but don't pander.

And giving a man a problem which he is required to solve is the most basic female biological imperative. They even have an orifice for this function.

Be indifferent about half of the time. It works. She is a bottomless pit of need, and to meet that need is to never get laid again. Doormats get no vag. Did I say not to pander?

Hypergamy creates patriarchy, and male dominance is a rational response to female madness. In truth, only two types of societies are possible; competitive patriarchy or cooperative patriarchy, that is, "winner-take-all" versus "sexual socialism." There is no such thing as an equal society. Women will never stop creating inequality by rewarding high status men with sex. Trump gets more pussy than you. Who do you think is providing the pussy? Melania is a self-described feminist.

The female sex will generate the problem even while complaining about the results and blaming it on men.

In competitive patriarchy men compete violently to "meet" female standards. Of course this is impossible. No one can meet a woman's standards. The need exists independently of the reality and nothing can satisfy it. All developed western societies are currently competitive patriarchies.

The other form is "sexual socialism," or cooperative patriarchy. This is where men divide up women equally, giving one woman to each man. Functionally, this is done by criminalizing premarital sex and adultery. Sexual socialism beats competitive patriarchy every time. The nation that landed a man on the Moon was sexual socialistic. Notice that now that it is not, it can no longer repeat this historical accomplishment. A society where every man get one woman, and only one woman is highly productive.

Because she is only attracted to high status men she will be more attracted to the husbands of other women than to single men, since those men, by virtue of having wives, are automatically viewed as higher status. She will try to justify this by saying that they are "safe" and "reliable" but in reality she only wants what she cannot have. Thus, satisfying her is a game of gas lighting her into being desperate, and then withholding satisfaction from her. When she finds out about the game she will take no responsibility for wanting it, and blather something about "abuse," "usury," or "muh women's rights." She craves drama and excitement, but revealing how the sausage is made is unacceptable.

In a society of economic empowerment she will seek to lower her own sexual status. She will get fat, shave off part of her hair, or uglify herself with tattoos, piercings, etc., because she wishes subconsciously to raise the status of the men around her by lowering her own. She will do this while screeching about how horrible inequality is. "Rape culture" is probably a projection of her own desire to be raped. (31 to 57 percent of women have rape fantasies, 25 % of porn searches by women are for violent sex). The audience for Fifty Shades of Grey was almost exclusively female.

Some may claim that rape created patriarchy, or that somehow men are to blame for the current state of affairs. This is a precise inversion of reality. Irregardless of however it was in the ancestral environment, it is women who generate male-dominance today. The eagerness of women to excuse themselves is part of this reality, and the eagerness of some men to also excuse them is symptomatic of their slavery to pussy. Female sexual power runs the world. The very fact that male feminists exist proves this, since it is in no man's interest to be a feminist unless he wants to lean left politically all the way into a woman's bed.

Let us now explore a theoretical historical sequence of events that created the world we now live in.

A Sequence of Evolutionary Events

—Hpergamy begins as a genetic consequence of rape in tribal societies; women choose the strongest male to protect their children from being killed by competitor males, and to protect themselves from murder and rape. The strategy works, and selects for women who prefer men with strength.

—The "safety of the strongest" strategy breeds hypergamy into existence.

—The first farming societies are formed. Kings monopolize access to women.

—New farming societies find that mandatory monogamy can expand the ranks of fighting men by rewarding them sexually. Religion is brought in to enforce monogamy.

—The "monogamy strategy" wins wars, allowing patriarchal monogamous societies to expand through conquest and extermination. (Like ancient Israel or Rome) Men with a sexual investment fight harder than slaves. Male-dominated societies repeatedly out-perform more equal societies in war. The more male-dominated society of the Romans destroys the less male-dominated society of the Etruscans. The more male-dominated Christians destroy the less male-dominated Romans. The more male-dominated Europeans destroy the less male-dominated Native Americans. The more male-dominated Muslims destroy the less male-dominated Europeans? The same succession of conquests replicates itself in all non-African environments, and possibly Africa as well.

—Eventually, the human species becomes reproductively dependent on a combination of monogamy and the suppression of female status, (especially in societies that have had farming the longest). Since hypergamy evolved in the ancestral environment all races will be affected. The species no longer reproduces at above break-even rates in areas where female status is not suppressed.

—Birth control, abortion, and especially urbanization disrupt the political will to subordinate women. The species, now dependent for its reproduction on male dominance, enters free fall levels of reproduction with the introduction of women's liberation.


1. Political imposition of traditional roles to suppress female status.
2. Back to the farm to defeat urbanization.
3. Religious options.
4. The Brave New World option. (corporate/state manufacture of artificially gestated humans)
5. Rejection of technology. (the Amish option)


  1. I have to counter-signal the great breeding competition. Simply put, Arabs and Africans have always had higher reproductive rates than Europeans. In a modern context, where every Arab and African that shows up in the west gets full access to modern healthcare, there is no winning the biological race. The only solution is heavily suppressing their reproduction in the west and preventing their further migration into the west in large numbers. Anything done to improve western reproduction is negligible in the mid to long term.

    1. Well. You might as well just pack it in and go home with that attitude.

    2. Suppression of undesirables has a long tradition in the West. I'd be much more confident in that being resurrected than Europeans developing an average TFR of 7.

    3. The Negro birthrate in America is only a bit above the American Euro one. Same goes for the Mestizo one officially (I say officially since the the swarms of illegals make finding out what the Mestizo birth level is a tricky one). Capital already suppresses births that aren't needed to maintain it.

      The much higher birth level seen in Africa is really from having backwards less Capitalized societies getting acceses to technology and food beyond their means. I expect it to change once the colonization by Chinese and South Asians is finished.

    4. Two things:

      First, I was speaking about Europe in particular. I agree that the fertility delta in the United States isn't as high. That said, whites as a population are much older and have their children at-least a few years later on-average so you cannot expect to reach parity, even in the US, without suppression. The only upshot for the US is the well known hostility between Black and Mestizo factions which might fragment as the latter attempt to assert their greater plurality status.

      Second, capitalization of Africa doesn't occur because the human capital there is largely useless. Watch "Empire of Dust," to get an idea of what the Chinese are dealing with. You can't even hire Africans as manual labor because they simply don't work, they're not accustomed to a lifestyle more harsh than seasonal farming and gathering. Thus it is unlikely that urbanization and liberalization will occur in the same way as happened in SE Asia. Assuming third parties continue to render aid to Africans in particular, they will continue to migrate until they are faced with a serious barrier to entry.

    5. Rod Horner: "Watch "Empire of Dust," to get an idea of what the Chinese are dealing with. "

      Thanks. I'll check it out.

    6. I didn't say the Chinese would just make the Negroes into proper citizens. Obviously they're going to transform the continent into one more helpful towards Capital. Be it through encouraged self-deportation or ethnic cleansing as practiced on Uyghurs.

  2. The inevitable failure of female empowerment can be seen in Sparta. Spartan women were from all accounts more noticeably empowered than their neighbor women. Whether it's permitting their women to speak in counsel or letting them dress more provacatively (their tunics were cut high enough to expose their thighs). This among other things led to Sparta's defeat, since their women were too empowered to maintain their society thanks to not birthing enough male children.

    Athens in contrast avoided the mistakes Sparta made when it came to women. At least it did so longer than Sparta did.

    1. Yes. And Sparta is a ruin where Athens still exists.

  3. Hypergamy in action:

    The Short Version: Bonobos fuck the top boys who get dibs on the fertile females (complete with one male fathering 60% of the next generation in one case) leaving the other boys to rot. Bonobo females even engage in polygamy (read: a bunch of Bonobo females would rather share one top boy than settle for a lower status boy).

    1. Well there goes my "solve inequality by genetically engineering humans to be bonobos" plan.

    2. Bonobos are far less spread out than Chimpanzees, weaker, and show significantly less tool usage in the wild.