Theory of the Day:
When society at large encourages moral behavior and discourages immoral behavior, more women than men will behave morally, but when society at large discourages moral behavior and encourages immoral behavior, more men than women will behave morally.
This theory has been bouncing around my skull for a while now, but I didn’t put it down onto paper turn it into ones and zeros until Martel’s latest post on Dread. A sample:
In olden days of yore, even beta males were Alpha by today’s standards. Yet even those who weren’t particularly Alpha were still able to maintain a similar frame in that they were still “the one who needs the other the least.”
Back then, she depended on him for income, today she’s got “You-Go-Girlism.” If she was caught cheating on him then, society would frown upon her en masse; today he gets blamed for not adequately getting in touch with her emotional needs. There were fewer opportunities to cheat (the logistics of cheating is easier to navigate in small towns today than it was in big cities in prior eras), no Facebook to remind her how special she is every two minutes, no movie stars or professional athletes for her husband to not measure up to, and no political movements telling her she had a right to
make beta males she’s never met pay for her kidsindependence. She was more likely to attend church, and in church she was more likely to be reminded of her duties as a wife.…
Women had the same hypergamic instincts they do today, but far more dread to counter it. If a woman in other eras pulled this crap, he wouldn’t need a week-long freeze-out, he could probably just tell her parents, or the preacher, or any of her friends, and she’d be ruined.
Today, it’s the complete opposite. If the vast majority of Americans heard the anecdote I cite in the previous paragraph, they would be horrified. If instead of running back into his arms she banged the plumber, she would hear infinite choruses of “you go girl!” (including many from her church, if she even attends one).
Culture matters, especially to women, as I explained in a comment I left:
I have thought for a while that the cultural changes which have occurred in the last century have been far more important than the legal changes when it comes to the actual impact on the state of marriage today. Reading through your post Martel, it appears we might be on the same page here. While child-support laws and divorce laws now are clearly biased against men, the danger they pose would be minimal if society condemned their use as we see today. Society-wide Dread is a powerful force, especially against women, who tend to be much more attuned and responsive to culture at large.
It is the last part of my comment which lies at the heart of the theory above. Women are creatures of the herd, they stick close to the pack in what they do. Furthermore, they are usually much more keen on finding out what is “popular” in their social setting and then adjusting themselves to that pattern of behavior. In a group setting, few women will voice opinions or beliefs which stand in stark contrast to the group; no one wants to “stray.” Conflict is avoided by the silent consent of the members of the group. When you add all of this together you see that women will fall in with the accepted behaviors of the group, and not simply not criticize them but actively adopt them in order to fit in.
Compare this to men, who usually exhibit more individualistic attitudes and behaviors. Men have far less trouble criticizing the group or its members, and are more willing to find a new group if the present one doesn’t satisfy them. Most men don’t care whats popular and actively ridicule the idea of adopting popular styles (those men who tend not to fit this pattern also tend to be the least masculine men). Male groups usually include a lot of criticism and dissent. As part of their base nature men tend to go their own way (not in the sense of MGTOW), perhaps as a method of standing out so as to make it easier for them to step out of the shadows. Added together men will tend to defy group behaviors they don’t like, and will conform themselves not to behaviors acceptable to the group, but which are consistent with the man’s own beliefs and desires.
Examining these two polar opposite approaches by men and women, it is possible to observe a potential reason why the idea of Women-Good/Men-Bad developed. If those around them preach a moral lifestyle, the female inclination to go along with the group will leave them more likely than not to adopt a moral lifestyle. However, this is not true for men. The male inclination to stand out, to be distinct, will lead many men to rebel against whatever cultural standards society is pushing. When those standards include a moral lifestyle, then far more men than women will be adopting an immoral lifestyle. The idea of women being innately good makes sense when you have a society which actively encourages moral behavior, because in that society women will tend to be more moral than men. If that kind of culture is all that is known, then any casual observer could easily draw the inference that women are more moral than men.
This theory also explains why there seem to be far more chaste men interested in marriage, especially young marriage, right now than there are chaste women interested in marriage. The general culture now discourages both chastity and young marriage, so women will tend to go along with that narrative. Leaving men, always the sex more willing to buck society, to be the ones more likely to live a moral/Christian lifestyle.
Thoughts, questions, concerns or comments?
Donal Graeme 
Fascinating theory, and there may be exceptions, but it would probably hold up under scrutiny. It explains why feminists can claim that women were largely screwed over under a patriarchy, yet fail to recognize that men are screwed over (even more) without it.
I need to do some thinking about this, but this is great.
Pingback: Thought Provoking Words | Delightful Oak
“It explains why feminists can claim that women were largely screwed over under a patriarchy, yet fail to recognize that men are screwed over (even more) without it.”
Not quite sure I understand this part Martel. How does this theory explain why feminists can claim that women were screwed under patriarchy?
If Martel’s quote was changed to :
It explains why feminists can claim that women were largely screwed over under a patriarchy, yet fail to recognize that women are screwed over (even more) without it.
it’d make more sense IMPO. It would certainly fit into the narriative that feminism was the best thing that ever happened to PUA’s.
If women were relatively more moral than men under a patriarchy (when society encouraged moral behavior), it enhances their claim that women were sweet victims while the guys got to get away with spending all their time in whorehouses, etc. But that doesn’t mean that their overall thesis is correct, but I’ll explain that in response to Northern Observer.
Your statement is also correct but doesn’t contradict mine in that we’re ALL worse off under a matriarchy.
Human beings of both genders are flawed in all eras. There can be no perfect system because nobody’s perfect.
Nevertheless, the problems resulting from flawed males running a society pale in comparison. In the past, male cads could run wild (relative the women of the time, but in general both male and female bad behavior were under more control.
Today, we’ve still got tons of women getting beaten by their drunk boyfriends, but we’ve also got hopelessly celibate beta males, lonely and bitter women hitting their wall, endemic broken families, burned-out super-moms, guys having their lives ruind by false accusations, etc., none of which were nearly as pervasive when our society was run by men.
When society at large encourages moral behavior and discourages immoral behavior, more women than men will behavior morally, but when society at large discourages moral behavior and encourages immoral behavior, more men than women will behave morally.
I’m not sure that’s consistent with this:
As part of their base nature men tend to go their own way (not in the sense of MGTOW), perhaps as a method of standing out so as to make it easier for them to step out of the shadows. Added together men will tend to defy group behaviors they don’t like, and will conform themselves not to behaviors acceptable to the group, but which are consistent with the man’s own beliefs and desires.
If it’s about his own desires and “likes”, or about being noticed, then it’s not necessarily a question of morality. It’s just being a rebel.
You could say that a Christian man is more likely to be moral, though, which is another reason why it’s so important for women not to be in authority in the church.
Looking over it again, you are right that the last part doesn’t make sense. Not sure what I was meaning to say, because it doesn’t fit with the first part you quoted.
Perhaps I was referencing the fact that men being “rebels” is about our desire to stand out. If society is generally moral, men stand out more by being immoral. And if society is immoral, men stand out more by being moral. I for one will acknowledge that one reason I have adhered so strongly to my faith was as a sign of resistance/rebellion against the general corruption of society.
“You could say that a Christian man is more likely to be moral, though, which is another reason why it’s so important for women not to be in authority in the church.”
Its not that a Christian man is more likely to be moral, but that he is less likely to be influenced by culture or society than a Christian woman would be. Which as you note is why women aren’t to be in positions of authority in the Church. They are too likely to reflect worldly influences.
I like this theory, it would explain how the “men are the ones who only care about sex and cheat on their spouse” idea came to exist in the first place. If morality and conservative beliefs are in vogue, women will go all out and be “super-moral”.
Herzog, I don’t think this theory is the only reason that idea came about, but I agree it had a large part in it.
Pingback: Who is the true enemy of Neoreaction: The Red Pill or Social Conservatism? Part 1 | Atavisionary
Pingback: Reconciling Different Views of Women | Donal Graeme