The Destruction of Modern Women

[Unending Powerhouse Match]

Just because pickings are slim does not mean that the purpose of marriage as a eugenic filter is lost.

I think you're mixing two separate points of mine in a strange way. Perhaps I did not articulate my thoughts properly. I'm never really sure if I'm doing it properly. Let me try to put it in a different way.

I said it's not an eugenic filter simply because it does nothing to select for eugenic traits in women. There is absolutely no standard that women need to meet in order to have access to a marriage with a decent man. My statement on whether or not it's an eugenic filter ended there.

The slim pickings thing was in response to a different part of your reply, where you said it's only really dysgenic if the woman is bad. I said in response that I agree, but that the woman is in most cases going to be bad, simply because there are so many more men who yearn for a wife than there are good women, so at the end of the day we're going to have dysgenics. Marriage is not to blame for this, of course, but I just thought it was interesting enough to state it.

Broken marriages also have fewer children on average than intact ones.

Do they? Are there statistics on this? Not trying to be the "source?" guy for some cheap gotcha, I argue in good faith, I just can't seem to find anything, looked around for a bit in Google Scholar and such.

Think of what's like to date a girl from a strong intact family vs a girl from a single mom. It's night and day. The women from broken marriages have no role models to look up to, and have no way to know how to be a good mother themselves. Few of these women will end up becoming a good mother.

I mean, sure. Your overarching point with this is that bad women produce broken offspring with less chance of reproducing, correct?

Like I said, I'm not sure if the premise that a broken home correlates with a lower fertility rate is true, or if it reduces the rate by something significant. But I suppose it's plausible, and I don't really believe in soyentific papers anyway, so I will simply accept your premise.

So then, the point is, "the dysgenic freaks will die alone eventually, or their offspring will, or their offspring's offspring will, or so on", correct? If so, fair enough. Do you think the institution of marriage will accelerate that process?

So, good women marry and bad women do not,

No, bad women definitely do get married all the same. Maybe they do it much later in life, or more cynically, or they don't actually end up honoring the oath, but I don't think they get married at a lower rate.

I mean, marriage is such a stupidly, onesidedly sweet deal for women that they all take it eventually. The only women who die of old age without taking it are those who are genuinely pathologically repulsed by men, or who hit the wall and are unwilling to update their standards accordingly. Mind you, women in that last group often actually do snatch a guy who meets their high standards anyway, because this is clown world and there's surprisingly plenty of tall and fit men who make decent money but are invisible to women their age and are therefore very much willing to hagmaxx. I have met men like that.

which is when marriage was a requirement for a woman to do ANYTHING in society, the entire world was better off. Women were forced to be good, the same way men are forced to behave in order to land a job.

Right. Marriage used to be the core building block of society and a very good thing for all parties involved, back when it was legally and socially enforced and encouraged, and divorce was difficult, looked down upon by society, and things like alimony didn't exist. But that has all been destroyed and women are no longer forced or even incentivized to be good, by any system or social force. Quite the opposite.

All in all, I don't think marriage today is really even marriage at all, and I don't think it's worth it for men (though that might just be me coping and calling the grapes sour). I suppose most men aren't built for celibacy and don't really have a choice, though.

 

[Let God Arise]

Plenty of obese welfare queens out there with many kids.

Plenty of black dudes with no morals, standards, or values, who will happily sleep with any welfare queen who offers, no matter how obese or awful she is. These dudes don't plan to stick around anyhow. It's just sex-ercise and bustin' a nut for these losers.

 

[Samseau]

Do they? Are there statistics on this? Not trying to be the "source?" guy for some cheap gotcha, I argue in good faith, I just can't seem to find anything, looked around for a bit in Google Scholar and such.

We can use history as our guide; marriage wouldn't have lasted for thousands of years if it was dysgenic.

Now, I understand your point that bad women still find men to marry them. But, it is a fact that women from intact families marry more than those from broken families. It is a primary reason why marriage rates are falling across the board and single-motherhood is becoming a lifestyle.

When the freebies run out, then these single moms will die out. Bad women who destroyed their marriages will generally not survive nor will their offspring. The good women in marriages will survive. And that's how the human race will continue.

The caveat here, is that why should women only be married to one man? Because one successful alternative to monogamy is polygamy, as women have always been willing to marry into a harem in order to secure resources for their offspring. And it does work, to some extent, far better than single-motherhood does. It isn't sustainable for society, but it's not entirely dysgenic for the rich man to marry many wives.

It was the Christian faith that made monogamy the norm, and it has been shown to work best, but it is entirely possible society will regress into harem style marriages. We already see it with guys like Musk marrying one woman after the next and having many children. Many of these children grow up to be nutcases, but several of them will undoubtably be well off. It's far more sustainable than single-motherhood which is headed for starvation.

 

[Australia Sucks]

We can use history as our guide; marriage wouldn't have lasted for thousands of years if it was dysgenic.

Now, I understand your point that bad women still find men to marry them. But, it is a fact that women from intact families marry more than those from broken families. It is a primary reason why marriage rates are falling across the board and single-motherhood is becoming a lifestyle.

When the freebies run out, then these single moms will die out. Bad women who destroyed their marriages will generally not survive nor will their offspring. The good women in marriages will survive. And that's how the human race will continue.

The caveat here, is that why should women only be married to one man? Because one successful alternative to monogamy is polygamy, as women have always been willing to marry into a harem in order to secure resources for their offspring. And it does work, to some extent, far better than single-motherhood does. It isn't sustainable for society, but it's not entirely dysgenic for the rich man to marry many wives.

It was the Christian faith that made monogamy the norm, and it has been shown to work best, but it is entirely possible society will regress into harem style marriages. We already see it with guys like Musk marrying one woman after the next and having many children. Many of these children grow up to be nutcases, but several of them will undoubtably be well off. It's far more sustainable than single-motherhood which is headed for starvation.

Don't you think your whole argument falls flat on its face since we live in a massive welfare state? I feel like we are heading towards the movie Idiocracy where trailer trash type of people reproduce the most (and then go on welfare) while the most productive people don't reproduce or barely. Hundreds of years ago lack of welfare meant that eras equivalent of today's trailer trash moms wouldn't be able to keep their children alive. I think a massive welfare state changes the basic dynamics of survival and reproduction.

 

[Blade Runner]

No, I don’t believe men are any more inherently virtuous then women.

A far greater portion of men will have many greater characteristics or traits for overall attraction than will women, who are quite obviously dependent on the culture for formation as we see in the modern day. This doesn't mean that MOST men will, but as I've stated many times, there are at least 10x the number of 7+ men than 7+ women in the west/developed world at this point. The quality is not even close. The problem is that men are objective about their desired traits (youth, beauty) and women are subjective (standards keep rising regardless of the woman's value herself). This last fact is self evident.

This is completely backwards and wrong - marriage selects for the good women, and weeds out the rest. Marrying a bad woman is dysgenic, because those marriages don't last and the kids grow up damaged who usually fail to reproduce.

You are mixing up either the word dysgenic or the general idea of traits. If marriage selected for "good women" genetically, then white America would barely have any problems. Since we know that's not the case, the only conclusion is that regardless of the woman, it's the upbringing and culture that determine her behavior, attitude, or interaction with men = it's not genetic at all, certainly not on a population level, or even close to it.

And the thing is that while wise leaders of the past devised a system that was over all the best thing for men, women and society at large, I’m pretty sure it benefitted women more than it did men in the long run.

I've said this forever, and use the classic example of marriage. Given men's desire for youth and beauty, and variation on top of that, with a woman's neediness to boot, the woman gain's far more from marriage, especially in a world where she isn't allowed to get married before 18. That woman, therefore, will have a lifetime guarantee, and only give up a short window of actual attractiveness - while still living to 70, 80 or 90. The man will basically be attractive from some time in his 20s through 50s, with increasingly more money. As far as desires goes, it's clear women win far more in that exchange. The funniest part about it is that guys are totally OK with that. But the system, the chaos, or the women - or all of the above - wanted even more than a huge win. Sad, but true.

In fact, marriage today does not select for anything whatsoever in women. Any woman, any at all, can very easily get married if she so pleases. To a decent man, too. Thanks to self-improvement culture, there is today a very disproportionate amount of high-value men compared to high-value women. Women have their pick of the litter, even if they are "post-wall" or mentally ill or what have you.

I've already argued that for the most part, it never has. There are certain personality traits that can make some overcome culture, but it's quite obviously very rare with the general inclinations most women have.

Men of good character, on the other hand, can and frequently do kind of just turn out that way on their own regardless of their origins.

That's what I'm saying too.

and are therefore very much willing to hagmaxx.

Sad but true.

We can use history as our guide; marriage wouldn't have lasted for thousands of years if it was dysgenic.

I've explained above how this sadly isn't the case. For thousands of years, teenage brides were common and you don't get objections from them, but you will see personalities now of their descendants at age 30-40, and without kids, and see how they act. If they were genetically inclined to get married at young ages, they would have. But they don't when they don't "need to". This is basically incontrovertible.

 

[Samseau]

Don't you think your whole argument falls flat on its face since we live in a massive welfare state? I feel like we are heading towards the movie Idiocracy where trailer trash type of people reproduce the most (and then go on welfare) while the most productive people don't reproduce or barely. Hundreds of years ago lack of welfare meant that eras equivalent of today's trailer trash moms wouldn't be able to keep their children alive. I think a massive welfare state changes the basic dynamics of survival and reproduction.

I sincerely doubt this welfare state exists in even 25 years from now. Guaranteed dead by the end of the century. Yes there will be a massive die-off with the collapse of the welfare state.

Our civilization is an aberration in time that pushes water uphill, that will soon be corrected.

 

[Samseau]

You are mixing up either the word dysgenic or the general idea of traits. If marriage selected for "good women" genetically, then white America would barely have any problems. Since we know that's not the case

You are mistaken; just look at women of other races, especially Black women. They come from cultures without monogamy and it's even harder to marry one of them. White women are far more predisposed to monogamy, not that it's easy, because they have been selected for monogamy for thousands of years. You have to compare apples to apples. Saying "I don't like women today" isn't an argument against women as a whole. You have to compare women to other women, and it's obvious that cultures with a history of marriage produce women more suitable for marriage.

For thousands of years, teenage brides were common and you don't get objections from them

This is also false. Plenty of teenage brides got married, were unfit for marriage, destroyed their marriages (adultery, eloping to another man, or starting fights at home that got her killed), but no one talks about these women. That's because they were selected out of the gene pool; and their children largely were not as fruitful as the ones who stayed married.

 

[Blade Runner]

Our civilization is an aberration in time that pushes water uphill, that will soon be corrected.

Now I agree with this. The question is how soon. You lose a lot of "good" genetics when you severely limit the massive majority of the female genome due to these falsehoods.

 

[Blade Runner]

Saying "I don't like women today" isn't an argument against women as a whole. You have to compare women to other women, and it's obvious that cultures with a history of marriage produce women more suitable for marriage.

No, regardless of what happens in the modern day, european women were always more attractive than other races, as all races will tell you or show you. That was already in play well before any selection happened 2000 years ago. European women lost all of their genetic predispositions in just 60 years? Come on, this is a funny point at best.

 

[Samseau]

No, regardless of what happens in the modern day, european women were always more attractive than other races, as all races will tell you or show you. That was already in play well before any selection happened 2000 years ago. European women lost all of their genetic predispositions in just 60 years? Come on, this is a funny point at best.

Even in an age that lifts all restrictions on female behavior, you still see somewhere around 50-60% of White women seeking marriage at one point or another. Meanwhile Black women are sub 20%.

 

[Australia Sucks]

No, regardless of what happens in the modern day, european women were always more attractive than other races, as all races will tell you or show you. That was already in play well before any selection happened 2000 years ago. European women lost all of their genetic predispositions in just 60 years? Come on, this is a funny point at best.

If you are saying European women were always physically more attractive than other races, well western Asia and North Africa certainly has pockets of very attractive women.

For example the Lebanese who are descended mainly from the Phoenicians have a lot of attractive women. And for example Morroco, Tunisia and Algeria also have lots of attractive women and they have had genetically mixed race people living there long before the French colonized North Africa.

 

[PurpleUrkel]

... regardless of the woman, it's the upbringing and culture that determine her behavior... it's not genetic at all...

True. The old nature versus nurture argument. I'm not discounting some genetic influence, but environment is everything. Women are the way they are today because they were programmed by the environment (parents, community, media, schools, etc.) to be that way. In much the same way that the environment has turned women into selfish, attention seeking whores who value money and cats over men, it has also created a generation of homosexuals. There has been a ten-fold increase in homosexuality and bisexuality over the last 20 years because the environment has advertised and promoted these sins as being something virtuous and good.

... european women were always more attractive than other races, as all races will tell you or show you.

Absolutely. It's not just white men telling Eastern European super models that they are the most beautiful women in the world, it is everyone.

When it comes to chimps, with Africans being the closest to them statistically...

We do ourselves no favors pretending that we are all equal. When I look into the faces of some black women I literally see the face of a primate. I don't think this is bad, in fact I think chimps, and gorillas in particular are beautuful creatures, but I certainly don't want to breed with them.

This is a harsh and brutal fact of existance. Lately I've been praying for ugly people when I see them on the street and asking The Lord for forgiveness for not having more appreciation for the physical gifts he bestowed upon me. It never occured to me how difficult life could be as an ugly person because I am not currently ugly, but as I am fast approaching 60, I will soon find out.

 

[MrRedsquare]

 

[Blade Runner]

If you are saying European women were always physically more attractive than other races, well western Asia and North Africa certainly has pockets of very attractive women.

All races have good looking men and women. Groups have characteristics that are more desired, and of course these are percentage based. You should, and I think you do, know this.

Absolutely. It's not just white men telling Eastern European super models that they are the most beautiful women in the world, it is everyone.

It's not a question. Why? Beauty is objective. Europeans also have the most rare characteristics, so as I've said before, it's simply a supply/scarcity thing. But it's also coupled with objectively more desirable traits (blue eyes, blond hair, fairer skin) ... all the ones most people of the world don't have.

 

[Unending Powerhouse Match]

There is no such thing as an attractive black woman. I've never ever even once seen a black woman and found her attractive.

Ad companies these days literally use AI instead of models when when want an attractive black woman in an ad, and the AI unfailingly gives the woman Caucasian features.

Blonde hair, white skin and green/blue eyes are considered exceptionally beautiful in every single culture all over the world. Indian women all use creams to make themselves whiter. Latin American women usually have Iberian curly dark hair (it's different from black people's curly dark hair) and they love to do all sorts of things to make their hair straight and blonde.

 

[Shaquilleoatmeal]

There is no such thing as an attractive black woman. I've never ever even once seen a black woman and found her attractive.

Ad companies these days literally use AI instead of models when when want an attractive black woman in an ad, and the AI unfailingly gives the woman Caucasian features.

Blonde hair, white skin and green/blue eyes are considered exceptionally beautiful in every single culture all over the world. Indian women all use creams to make themselves whiter. Latin American women usually have Iberian curly dark hair (it's different from black people's curly dark hair) and they love to do all sorts of things to make their hair straight and blonde.

Beyoncé is considered the most attractive black woman and she dyes her hair blonde.

 

[FrancisK]

haha forget it....you guys crack me up

 

[Douglas Quaid]

Nordic women are the most attractive. Germany, Austria, Switzerland are right there too. Slovenia is another one.

Then Japan out East.

 

[Douglas Quaid]

There is no such thing as an attractive black woman. I've never ever even once seen a black woman and found her attractive.

Disagree. They can be attractive when they don't act ghetto or get fat. I wouldn't want to have a family with a black woman, however.

 

[MusicForThePiano]

Ehhhh....do you guys consider Mediterranean women "European"? Because if you're going to tell me that UK, German, French etc etc women are without a doubt the most attractive women and everyone knows it I'm going to call you guys delusional while talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Yes. Europa came from the Greeks and the Romans, many of whom were Blonde or lighter-brown in hair, there was black curly hair but this phenotype is also seen on Aryans quite frequently, in pre-norman Celtic tribes in the British Isles there was rarely any red hair, there was a lot of black hair and blue-green eye combinations. Red hair comes from further east. Even the women of Persia in Alexander's time were often Blonde, just like how the ancient Egyptians closely resembled a Briton. Hannibal of Carthage as well was not an African, but descended from Phoenicians who founded the city. Pretty much most of the Mediterranean and Levant had the modern European phenotypes until Arabization and Islam polluted a lot of the gene pools between 700-1500. From when Spain was invaded until the fall of Constantinople there was a lot of damage done in the successive waves of the invaders, afterwards the lines were clearly drawn and any further attempts to Turkify Europe were repelled by very mean White men who showed no mercy to the outsiders.

If one goes to Thessaloniki, or to Bari, you will find many women that have lighter features still yet are native to the region. Not everyone in the Mediterranean is a lizard squatting in the sun, there are also some very prominent tall Greek and Italian women with colored eyes, some may have darker hair, but looking at the bone structure one can clearly see they are not Arab or have any of those genes in them. There are recessive physical phrenological observable patterns in Arab and Arab mutt faces that are easy to tell, even if they are very attractive. Lebanese women often have the dominant French nose if they hail from crusader ancestry.