The Denial Of Human Nature As A Barometer Of Societal Illness
August 5, 2015 by CH
Cuckservatives, leftoid equalists, and feminists all share a mental disorder in common: the habitual denial of human nature. The ways in which these groups deny human nature are far too numerous to list in one blog post, but commenter Tempus Fuckit (heh) tangentially reminds us of one way that often escapes the notice of even steely-eyed realists.
This. Hit. Hard.
My oneitis is currently on a career tankgrrl rampage (she’s 22)..
“My mom told me not to rely on a man for money.”
..to the grave.
The cultural embrace of the iconic gogrrl careerist femborg isn’t just a feminist and equalist rallying cry; one will often hear cuckservatives mouth the very same “encourage our young women to succeed in the workforce” platitudes that animate their supposed ideological opposites.
And now mothers. If the denial of human nature is a barometer of societal illness, then the wholesale acceptance and advocacy of the careegrrl lifestyle by mothers forecasts the arrival of some seriously inclement weather.
Platitudes like “don’t rely on a man for money” have a way of gripping less agile minds and taking hold for life. Superficially, it sounds sensible; one may convince oneself, “if men won’t commit and ‘man up’ for women, then women should take the necessary precautions against indigence and establish self-sustainable careers for themselves.”
The problem with this simplistic formulation originates in the faulty premise that men and women are alike in all ways but the genitalia. This flawed premise allows for the psychological projection of the female-specific predilection for receiving material support onto men; it tacitly assumes, in other words, that women are as comfortable providing for themselves (and for others) as men are, and that men will promptly abandon their intrinsic role as resource providers as soon as women agree in principle or practice to be dependent upon men.
The core plank of modern feminism — careergrrl empowerment — rests on a horrible misunderstanding of human, and especially male, nature. It’s a misunderstanding, deliberate or deluded, that follows from an arid, de-sexualized, transactional view of relations between men and women.
“If/Then” algorithms are shaky substitutes for human sexual market feedback loops. While transactional analysis of human behavior has some usefulness as a predictive model, it quickly reveals its limitations when we draw comparisons between the decision-making processes of the sexes. An error in thinking of this magnitude will result in wrong conclusions like the one above: That men are as fickle and uncertain about providing for women as women are about providing for men, and therefore women ought to ensure their own economic self-sufficiency.
The reality is much different once we account for continuously operating SMP feedback loops. The vulnerable unemployed or underemployed young woman arouses the natural instinct in men to provide for her and protect her against hardship. As long as she has the requisite physical attributes to catch men’s eyes, there will be more than enough (white or asian) men happy to share their hard-earned material abundance with her in implied exchange for her sex and love and fidelity.
This is what feminists, cuckservatives, and Narrative-soaked social scientists don’t get about the sexes: What one sex may do in response to a given stimulus is not necessarily what the other sex would do. Men possess a moral sense, (or a character trait, if you prefer less loaded language), that compels them to provide generously for pretty young women who prove their sexual loyalty and low partner count. Women don’t have this moral sense, not in the way it is used here. Women are eager to provide many things to the men they love — most of all their bodies — but they aren’t psychologically driven to transfer their own material resources to indigent men the way men are driven to lavish largesse on indigent, comely women. Women may do this when circumstances align just right, but it won’t come from a place of deep personal fulfillment from the act of doing so. It will come from a place, instead, brewing with resentment and confusion.
So, the career tankgrrl’s mom is wrong. Tankgrrl, assuming she has the goods to attract a sufficient number of decent resource-ready men, should rely on men for money, because men are happy, indeed driven as if by some otherworldly force, to give to women for whom they feel intense physical desire and love.
Once Tankgrrl has stopped relying on men for money… once she has traveled far down the road of invulnerable feminist empowerment, leaning in the whole way… she should not be surprised to find that fewer and fewer men along each mile marker are waiting and willing to give to her what she has already given to herself.
Feminism, in this way, becomes a self-fulfilling whine. The more feminist a woman gets, the more men will retreat from her, and the more her feminist man-hating will seem like the appropriate response to her romantic failures.
There will be exceptions, of course. There always are when human nature is the topic. Ugly or old women may really have no choice but to become financially viable on their own, and for them a healthy society recognizes their need of taking the “feminist” path. But a healthy society would never elevate those exceptions to a 24/7 propaganda blitz, insisting that every woman follow the same life script as those poor unfortunate souls who have no choice in the matter.
As always, it comes down to exalting beauty, rejecting ugliness, and living not by lies.