Reconciling Different Views of Women

Courtesy of Free Northerner, I came across a post at the Orthosphere which tried to resolve the apparent differences the manosphere and traditionalists hold about the nature of women. I was intrigued by the post because a number of the points were quite similar to some I’ve argued in the post. One example includes this snippet:

I observe that women are generally conformists. They don’t want to rock the boat. They don’t want to make waves. They just want to get on with living as pleasant a life as possible, and this requires having good relations with other people and not feeling like a fish out of water when they listen to our leaders. Most women just want to agree with what the authorities are teaching and get on with having a comfortable existence.

And this need not be a bad thing. When the times are properly ordered, it is good for a woman not to waste her precious psychic resources tilting against windmills when there is important practical work to be done raising the next generation. The ability and desire to raise children well is the unique gift of the woman, and the world is generally better off when most women leave the idealism to the men.

Remember, generalizations are generalizations. Readers of the Orthosphere are different. If you’re reading these words then you’re probably not a conformist. But most of your sisters are.

Many men are conformists too. But manliness is antithetical to conformity. Men, on average are different.

This advances the same idea I raised in my post The Herd and Women-Good/Men-Bad:

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.

Its always nice to know that I’m ahead of the curve. One thing that deserves to be commented on is this:

Through most of human history, when the authorities taught the ideals of pre-marital chastity and post-marital fidelity, most women, being conformists, felt allegiance to this ideal. Being human, they occasionally failed to reach it. And those who fail to reach an ideal are tempted to deny it. But most women, most of the time, endorsed the ideal.

I have two problems with this. The first, which is addressed in the comments, is that teaching is not what made the system what it was. Teaching chastity and fidelity are the small and easy steps. What matters, and what “traditional” societies did until recently, was to enforce what they taught. Tied to this is whether most women really “endorsed” the ideal. I don’t think that they did, any more than men did. Endorse is too strong of a word, it indicates far more support than I think most had. Rather, women accepted the requirements the ideal imposed on them. Some certainly accepted, or even endorsed, the ideal. But they would be the minority. The majority accepted it because the they wanted to avoid the consequences of deviancy.

Now, I did have some disagreements and observations about other parts of the post. For example, I definitely disagree with this statement:

So why is the modern woman different? Because she’s a conformist, and so she conforms to the new ideal of selfishness.

While I do agree that woman are conforming to that ideal, that is not the only reason why modern women are different. In fact, I would argue that conforming to selfishness has only a small part to do with it. But that is a subject for my next major post.

Next, I wanted to point out a flaw with this part:

Traditionalism of the Orthosphere variety doesn’t just order men to “man up and marry the woman” (to paraphrase a popular Manosphere saying.)

That isn’t a paraphrase of the manosphere saying, it is an alteration of it. And by alteration I mean change so significant as to be almost disingenuous. A more accurate paraphrase would be “Man Up and Marry That Harlot.” The difference between those two versions of the saying is profound, and thus a correction is necessary.

Also, I think that this bit:

if men abdicate their responsibility en masse then the human race will founder

has pretty much been definitely proven by now. Our present “civilization” is a living example of what happens when men abdicate responsibility en masse. I suspect that there is little we can do about it now besides try out best to preserve and pass on that wisdom to the next few generations, in the hopes of not repeating that error again anytime soon.

Advertisements

16 Comments

Filed under Blue Pill, Civilization, Men, Moral Agency, Red Pill, Sin, Temptation, Tradition, Women

16 responses to “Reconciling Different Views of Women

  1. The majority accepted it because the they wanted to avoid the consequences of deviancy.

    This is an important sociological conundrum that causes great upheaval in the margins.
    People, I think, can be divided in to three very broad categories here.
    1. Those who do the right thing because it is right, (or if you will the moral thing). Example: I am driving my friend to the hospital, bleeding to death, in the middle of the night on a deserted road. We approach an wide open 4-way stop sign with all cross traffic obviously clear. I run the red light, breaking the law to get there faster. I have violated a traffic law, but done the right thing.
    2. Those who generally do the right thing, but only because of a fear of being caught. If they KNOW they can get away with it, they will. Example: I can take a larger tax deduction for a business expense because the receipt I got does not itemize which purchased items at office depot were for my personal use verses business. I don’t though, because I may be audited.
    3. People who are not concerned about laws, traditions, morals, or any of it. These are the psychopaths, and run lawless across the countryside without concern for others feelings safety, or Gods eternal damnation.

    As long as the proportions of these three groups stay at acceptable levels, the society runs pretty smoothly. If the proportion gets too far out of whack, tyranny and oppressive police states emerge.

  2. “So why is the modern woman different? Because she’s a conformist, and so she conforms to the new ideal of selfishness.”

    I know you disagreed with this statement at Orthosphere. I did too, but for different reasons.

    It’s not that modern women are different. It’s that they act differently because the incentives that shape their realities are different. They no longer have any restrictions on their sexuality and sexual behavior. They can do whatever they want. Modern society has been shaped so as to minimize consequences for their behavior. Thus, they do whatever they want. The consequences come later.

  3. Orthosphere:

    Through most of human history, when the authorities taught the ideals of pre-marital chastity and post-marital fidelity, most women, being conformists, felt allegiance to this ideal […] most women, most of the time, endorsed the ideal.

    Donalgraeme:

    What matters, and what “traditional” societies did until recently, was to enforce what they taught. Tied to this is whether most women really “endorsed” the ideal. I don’t think that they did, any more than men did. Endorse is too strong of a word, it indicates far more support than I think most had. Rather, women accepted the requirements the ideal imposed on them. Some certainly accepted, or even endorsed, the ideal. But they would be the minority. The majority accepted it because the they wanted to avoid the consequences of deviancy.

    I agree with you on this point.

    When I was in high school (this would be around 1986), a girl in my grade got pregnant out of wedlock and decided to keep the baby. That was still unusual for a white girl in a rural area back then; the few other girls I knew who got pregnant either had abortions or put the baby up for adoption (and one other girl I knew got married to the baby’s father in high school).

    I wasn’t close friends with Pregnant Girl, but she was friends with some of my friends, so I was privy to some of the conversations, and I’ll never forget something my friend Julie’s mother said. Someone had begun planning a baby shower for Pregnant Girl and Julie’s mom said to Julie and me that she thought this was wrong and that neither she nor Julie would be going. Now, Julie’s mom was pro-choice, worked outside the home, was not religious, etc. This was after the second-wave feminist revolution. There was really no reason why she had to take the stance she did because no real shame would have come to her for attending Pregnant Girl’s shower.

    But she obviously endorsed the idea that girls shouldn’t have children out of wedlock (in her mind it was better to murder the baby in utero, so we’re not dealing with a highly moral person here). What she DIDN’T “endorse” was the ideal of pre-marital chastity. She didn’t really seem to care that much about that; what was important to her was managing the consequences. One way of managing the consequences was by subtle slut-shaming (“I won’t come to your baby shower.”) of a girl who kept an OOW baby.

    To me, that looks more like accepting the requirements rather than endorsing the ideal.

  4. @ Scott

    I think you are correct in your general categorizations. Most people fall into category 2. And that has been the case throughout history. Civilization will fall apart quickly when Category 3 grows in size. But it will fall apart slowly when Category 1 shrinks in size, or loses power in the system. Basically, anarchy one way, and oppression the other. There’s more to it, but that is a fairly accurate generalization.

    @ Deti

    They no longer have any restrictions on their sexuality and sexual behavior. They can do whatever they want.

    This is it. It isn’t that women are conforming to selfishness. Rather, women are acting selfish because that is their base nature. Same goes with men. Only women aren’t restricted from acting on their base natures now, and so they revert to that norm. The conformist tendency only tends to make things worse.

    @ Sunshine

    Thanks for that example. I suspect that view was the standard throughout history. Morality took a backseat to practical self-concern. This is why social mores need to not only “push” moral behavior, but must “punish” immoral behavior. You need the carrot and the stick. The carrot alone never works.

  5. mdavid

    DG, But manliness is antithetical to conformity.

    There is masculine strength in conformity (e.g. police riot line). Perhaps what you mean is that to suffer for what is morally right against the tribe is more of a masculine virtue.

    Our present “civilization” is a living example of what happens when men abdicate responsibility en masse.

    I think modern “civilization” is the exception, not the rule, of mankind’s normal state. Western Christiandom did wonders for 1,500 years by controling morality, but those days are LONG over. This abdication you mention? It’s merely a rational response; why should any man be loyal to something that is not loyal in return?

    The future for men who want something more than to rape and plunder with the barbarians is probably something like the Benedict Option…or the Overseas Chinese…or the Jewish response…or the Amish. Clan or Tribe first, and just treat the State as a piece of nature, neither good nor bad. E.g., if you get hit by an astroid or raped in divorce court, sure it’s unfair, but life ain’t fair and the state recognizes no morality, only power. As someone once said, the law is an ass. So expect no justice from the State. Merely try to predict its methods to survive it’s onslaught.

  6. @ mdavid

    Perhaps what you mean is that to suffer for what is morally right against the tribe is more of a masculine virtue.

    That was actually supposed to be in the quote, it wasn’t something I said. Which took me a second to realize, although it felt odd because I didn’t remember saying that. I will fix that in a moment.

  7. Clan or Tribe first, and just treat the State as a piece of nature, neither good nor bad. E.g., if you get hit by an astroid or raped in divorce court, sure it’s unfair, but life ain’t fair and the state recognizes no morality, only power. As someone once said, the law is an ass. So expect no justice from the State. Merely try to predict its methods to survive it’s onslaught.

    Some of what Jesus says in Matthew 10 is along those lines, especially “When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next.”

  8. theshadowedknight

    The Muscovite idea of women, derived from Byzantium, had nothing of those romantic medieval Western conceptions of gallantry, chivalry, and the Court of Love. Instead, a woman was regarded as a silly, helpless child, intellectually void, morally irresponsible, and, given the slightest chance, enthusiastically promiscuous.

    I have to say, this sounds far more like the behavior that I have seen. Far more actionable, to be sure.

    The Shadowed Knight

  9. mdavid

    A few more comments:

    1) I second what deti says above.

    2) The reason why “women are like that” in modern times is merely that they are not genetically prepared for it (like the dog that eats himself to death). Never before in human history have women had such freedom and power. A thought experiment: what would the nation look like if every man could take any woman he wanted? Probably like Vikings, who went extinct. In the same way, it won’t take long for women to reorient themselves around the new reality of traditional people are cranking out successful kids and living in peace and prosperity while the harlots are destroying their families and living in chaos with less offspring. It doesn’t take long to breed a new culture in this situation. Look at Utah or Texas for how fast demographics can change.

  10. theshadowedknight

    The Vikings never went extinct. They converted to Christianity. Their defendants live in Scandinavia, as well as remnants all over the rest of Europe. I actually happen to be one of those remnants, and I am not extinct yet.

    The Shadowed Knight

  11. Novaseeker

    It’s true that women are behaving as they are because they can. It’s an unprecedented level of sexual freedom for women. Never before in history, because even in societies that declined and had looser morals, women still did not have access to the means of avoiding/terminating pregnancies in a reliable/safe way that they do today — which is the ultimate “freedom from consequences” card when it comes to female sexual morality. This level of sexual freedom for women is unprecedented, and women are not wired to deal with it well, so we see what we are seeing.

    As for men, it’s actually the same thing that’s happening, but it looks different for men because of the way female sexual attraction works (hypergamy). The men who are sexually attractive to women have always had it easier sexually than all other men, but they’ve never seen the absolute bonanza of sex that they do today — again, because women have been “freed” sexually. Much of that “freeing” inures to the benefit of the sexually attractive men, obviously, and so these men also are living the “free” life sexually as a result of the sexual liberation of women. That this doesn’t extend to all men is simply a fact of how female sexual attraction works, and precisely how very narrow and limited it is when given its freedom of action. A system which provides all or most men with sexual access to women/a woman is one which must use fairly brutal force to achieve it. Whether that’s a viking raid, or simply the triple belts and suspenders systems of law/cultural mores/religious rules which had female sexual expression on lockdown for most of history — in order to get that result consistently throughout the culture, women *have* to be put upon sexually. Hypergamy, in its full and free expression (i.e., one which is not pretty harshly restricted/channeled) is not compatible with a broad cultural monogamy. Without emphatically suppressing the one, you do not get the other.

  12. feeriker

    This abdication you mention? It’s merely a rational response; why should any man be loyal to something that is not loyal in return?

    Thank you for summing it up so succinctly. I’m sure the implication in Donal’s statement was purely rhetorical, but this answer will certainly be of value to non-manospherians unfamiliar with the issue.

  13. mdavid

    TSK, The Vikings never went extinct. They converted to Christianity. Their defendants live in Scandinavia as well as remnants

    By this argument, even the Neandrethals haven’t gone extinct, since their DNA lives in many of us. Viking culture is extinct, and so Vikings are extinct. They didn’t so much “convert to Christianity” as just capture so many Christian women their offspring eventually turned on their culture.

    Nova, I agree. However, left unsaid is how fast poor female behavior gets eliminated from the gene pool. Abort and embarce sexual freedom and whatnot, but the world belongs to those who show up for it. Several generations of this is all it takes for a major cultural shift. Offspring that is perpetually violent (say Darfur) or below replacement for two generations(say Norway, Japan) vanish overnight. Today, it looks otherwise because the dominate culture (the West, like Rome or Greece) is choosing to have less children and they control things. But this won’t last. Look at the Texas border, or Muslims in Europe. Darwin will see to things, and so most likely Christian morals will again rise to dominate the Empire.

  14. theshadowedknight

    MDavid, the Romans are not extinct. The Germanics are not extinct. The Franks are not extinct. The Jews that followed Christ did not go extinct. The culture changes, but the people remain.

    The Shadowed Knight

  15. A system which provides all or most men with sexual access to women/a woman is one which must use fairly brutal force to achieve it.

    Fairly brutal force, namely police force, is needed to prop up the current system as well. Just saying.

  16. A thought experiment: what would the nation look like if every man could take any woman he wanted?

    1. A minority of women are gang-raped as means of retribution for what is seen as collective guilt, at least when the context is a brutal conventional war.

    2. A somewhat bigger number of women are forced into quasi-marriage to higher-status men.

    3. The majority of women are simply left alone.

    At least this is what the Red Army has done on Central European soil in 1945.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

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