Blog Archive

Wednesday, October 23, 2013

Modernity Has Made Men Less Attractive:

Generally speaking, when you cite statistics like '90% of young women wish to stay single,' or '45% of women find sexual contact revolting,' the answer is always that this is the man's fault.

You see, men aren't doing enough to generate female interest in themselves and therefore have only themselves to blame.  However, this is absurd.  This would imply that in the space of one generation, spontaneously, every single male in Japan (and elsewhere) individually, of their own free and separate volition, suddenly decided to be unattractive to women.  Even though every generation previously decided to be attractive, for ten thousand years, this generation just randomly opted not to, and are reaping their just desserts as a result.  This would be like the sun not rising tomorrow because it just didn't feel like it.  While it's possible to blame individual men for not attracting women in the case of a society where most men do succeed in attracting women, this same excuse simply does not work when the majority of men, in fact, 90% of men, no longer make the cut.  Applying the same pat answers to a phenomena wholly new in human history simply does not compute anymore.

I suppose you could make an argument that men did massively decide not to be attractive due to some particular new feature of the modern world.  This would at least have some correlation to the known statistics that surround this issue.  You could say that men stopped striving to be attractive husbands when porn was invented, or video games, or televised sports, or some other modern feature that has universally snared men into preferring wasteful activities over status and wealth accumulation that could attract a woman.

However, even this doesn't fit what we know about life.  It isn't that men can't work hard in the modern day -- men on average work longer hours than women, and at more dangerous and backbreaking jobs.  ({%2210201637161384275%22%3A576895525693778%2C%2210201636752814061%22%3A575993485782636%2C%2210201636750734009%22%3A10150465077150555}&action_type_map={%2210201637161384275%22%3A%22og.likes%22%2C%2210201636752814061%22%3A%22og.likes%22%2C%2210201636750734009%22%3A%22og.likes%22}&action_ref_map={})

If you can generate statistics like this, then it's impossible to say that most men are too busy playing video games to attract women.  It's far more likely that the men who can't attract women end up playing video games instead -- the arrow of causation is completely the reverse.

It's not men's willingness to work that's the issue, it's their ability to get work in the first place.  An 'attractive' man is someone who has a secure, high-paying, high-status job.  That's basically it.  That's the fundamental requirement.  Women always desire to marry up, and divorce anyone they grow to despise, so 'high' in this case always means 'higher than the woman.'  In the past, this wasn't an issue.  Since women had no jobs, every male was viewed as attractive because they were all better than she was.  But now that women have their own jobs and college degrees, they sniff at anyone who isn't at least as highly credentialed or earning as much as they do.  Education favors women due to systematic processes that prefer women's learning style over men's, so the end result is a lopsided arrangement where far more women than men go into higher education and succeed at it.  Furthermore, education is the best predictor of future income, so the lopsidedness just carries over into the future.  Why is education the best predictor of income?  Because businesses are constitutionally barred from hiring on the basis of actual merit, like an IQ or skills test.  This gives college degrees a monopoly on market signalling that an employee would make for a good investment to a company.  Since, for some reason, college degrees are not considered discrimination (while IQ or practical skills tests are), the entire American economy hires based on whether you have a degree or not and from what college.

Since education mostly has to do with the ability to quietly memorize reams of trivia and parrot it back to authority figures, something only women have the patience or lack of integrity to do, they end up seizing the monopoly on 'hire-ability' and thus the top of the totem pole.

If the economy had not banned IQ tests, or allowed people to be hired as apprentices as kids (their training funded by the government in lieu of education spending) and then hired for real if their actual real life skills qualified them for the job, men would still completely dominate the job market.  This is shown by who wins the Nobel prizes at the end of the day -- the people who actually merit jobs are not the ones being hired.  But there is no incentive for this sick, twisted system to end any time soon, since the people who benefit from this are the majority of the population (women), the richest (college graduates), and the most powerful (the ones with the high status jobs thanks to their fraudulent certificates).

In any case, due to the distortion in the market of 'anti-discrimination' laws that restrict how employers can select their employees, women have made themselves so much higher-status than their male counterparts that there's hardly any marriageable material left to go around.  This, not the lack of promotions or daycare or whatever, is the reason why college graduate women are the least likely people to reproduce.

But even without the issue of education, the problem remains.  Technology has rendered almost all male traits worthless -- whether it's their muscle power, their aggressiveness, their risk-taking, or whatever.  Workplaces are now generally perfectly safe, powered by steam/electricity/etc, and standardized for the purposes of automated efficiency.  There is no war left for men to fight, so they cannot distinguish themselves by slaughtering their neighbors or bringing back plunder to their womenfolk.  Artificial insemination has made an actual husband superfluous, and generous welfare payments to single women with kids have undercut the contribution of male earning power.  Men themselves have become a vestigial organ.

It's not the same for women.  For one thing, women are still necessary for reproduction, because there is no such thing as an artificial womb.  Next, children's health and IQ and emotional stability is still dependent on infant-care, including breast-feeding, that only women can do.  Furthermore, harvesting eggs is far more difficult than donating sperm, so it's difficult to separate women from their gametes, they're generally a plain package deal.  Most of all, machines have not yet found a way to out compete women in their field of expertise -- inter-personal relations.  When the world has come down to doctors, lawyers, teachers, marketers, clerks, business meetings, waitresses, and so on, the primary job qualification is 'ability to work well with coworkers, bosses, and customers.'  Social deftness is the primary 'work' you do all day every day.  Communication is key.

And who is best at communication?  Who likes communicating the most?  We all know the age old answer is girls.  Who are people more comfortable around?  Girls.  Who are we nicer to?  Girls.  Who is more attractive just to look at?  Girls.  So in any position imaginable, girls are at the natural advantage for a service job.  If you could hire a girl to do your communicating, why wouldn't you?  When would they ever be less effective than a boy?

It used to be most jobs were farming.  You didn't have to talk much, or really interact much, with anyone.  You owned your own plot of land, your nearest neighbor was miles away, and you just quietly plowed your fields with your trusty pair of oxen.  The only thing that mattered was strength and perseverance.  Men flourished in jobs like this, and evolved to excel at them.  Whereas women focused on communication skills to appeal to men and nurture children.  Now, suddenly, technology has upended the meaning of work and only the skills women evolved to possess have any further relevance.

Suppose all men who drop out of college do so not out of lack of intelligence, but due to a lack of 'social deftness.'  They don't like coming to class, they don't like listening to their stupid professors or their zany brainwashing programs or their stupid classmates who parrot said professors, they don't like writing essays about bullshit, so on and so forth.  Will these men be any better off in the job market?  No.  The exact same problem faces them outside of college as well.  Suddenly they're taught that they must be smiling at all times while on the job, to make customers feel better.  They must not say or do anything offensive at any time, no matter how obviously true it might be.  They must attend endless meetings where nothing of consequence is ever said or done.  They must file endless reports about inconsequential subjects that distract them from their work.  No matter where you turn, it's just the exact same problems all over again.  No matter how intelligent the worker is, and no matter how well he could tackle the work at hand if just left alone, he's instead forced back into interacting with other people, most of whom he hates.  Is this guy really going to succeed in the marketplace vs. his fellow college dropout girls, even if they really did drop out due to lack of intelligence?

Intelligent, socially deft men will graduate from college and get high quality girls.  Intelligent, socially inept men will not graduate from college and will not even get mediocre girls.  This is because even at the second tier of jobs for non college graduates, women will continue to be higher status than men.  Despite being more intelligent than the women around you, they'll continue to look down their noses at you because their jobs and income will be higher than yours.  The ridiculousness of the situation is on the level of a modernistic stage play.  Like with education, it would be easy to change businesses so that people skills were less necessary, and in so doing give men an upper hand in the meritocratic competition, but the people in power (the managers, who get paid to do nothing but communicate with their underlings, the marketers, who get paid to do nothing but con others into buying their product which is no better than anyone else's, the CEO's, whose job is to convince investors to invest in his business, etc, etc) like the situation just the way it is, with more talking and less doing, and so that's how it will stay -- always favoring them for the rest of eternity.

Nor is there any point in pursuing low quality girls.  These girls cannot be trusted and are therefore worse than useless.  With a divorce rate over 50%, an adultery rate at 50%, obesity rates at 30% and so on, the bottom half of girls are simply worthless trash no one could even conceive of attaching themselves to for any reason at all.  Unless you enjoy having your heart ripped out and stamped upon every couple months by these drama queens and poisonous vipers, who generally have substance abuse problems, mental illnesses, giant debts, and god knows what afflictions, there's simply no reason to ever interact with the bottom half of woman-kind.  Naturally, the same applies to men with criminal backgrounds, flaky histories of ditching every girl they copulate with the night after, substance abuse problems, and so on.  Both of them are completely unsuited to relations and both groups basically never have any relationships.  They only have flings, and only with each other, producing scads of poverty stricken, abused and defective children which taxpayers then take care of for the rest of their lives, until the cycle repeats, ad infinitum.  In a culture with no insistence on moral behavior in either sex, the dregs of mankind become something far less than human, and shameful in comparison to their peasant and maiden ancestors.  What used to be a perfectly qualified pool of marriage material -- well-natured but homely women, hard working but simplistic men -- has now putrefied into an unthinkable mass of darkness no one could imagine drinking down.

Which returns us to our 90% figure.  Through a variety of social transformations, none of which were an individual man's choice, and none of which are his fault, men just aren't appealing anymore.  The education system didn't have to be this way, but it is.  The employment system didn't have to be this way, but it is.  The jobs available in the world today didn't have to all be service jobs, but they are.  And women didn't have to find jobs that are higher paying and higher status than men, thus making all the men around them unappealing as mates, but they did it anyway.  We didn't have to abandon moral education/enforcement for the lower classes, but in a fit of liberal tolerance, we did that too.  Generally speaking, one's doom does not come from one single decision, but a series of bad choices all in a row.  Only when you create a perfect storm of crises all crashing together at a single point do bad ends come to the fore.  If we had just reformed any one of these processes, the education system, the employment system, women at work, the way work is done, or moral values, we probably could have come out okay somehow or other.  But when every single one of them favors women over men, the combined weight of this toppling cliff of adversity is enough to bury the sex all the way to oblivion.

Here's the problem with leaving the top 10% of men, the only ones left who are attractive to women, to reproduce the next generation and just ignore the wailings of the hell-bound losers beneath them.  First off, these men aren't reproducing nearly enough to meet our needs.  By taking only one high class wife, and generally only having one high class child, they only compound the problem every generation.  We need a lot more successful, intelligent men to impregnate all of the successful, intelligent women in society than are currently available.  Second, it creates a distortion where the male virtues are being pushed out of existence -- things like honesty, integrity, stoicism, and pride -- which are more likely to reside in the breasts of the losers than the winners.  It's fine for a slick lawyer to graduate college with slick essays and then get defendants off by making slick arguments, but this doesn't actually improve society.  The people who have the necessary virtues to do good work that actually leads to production are the very ones being sidelined.  Only these 'socially deft' people, who are more parasites than producers, are winning at life anymore.  Stock brokers who convince pension funds to invest in their shell games can make millions, and male college graduates absolutely adore these sorts of jobs, but is society really better off?

Men are better off lacking communication skills.  In a sense, it's beneath them to have silk tongues.  We were meant to ride out at day herding cattle, with nothing but a sheep dog to talk to, and come back at night taking off giant work gloves that had been stringing up barbed wire.  Obviously jobs like that are no longer available, but the spirit of jobs like that can never die.  It is that spirit that provides the yin to the female yang, the balanced approach to life that channels the best of both sexes.  Why not let men graduate in jobs like that, for instance computer programming or construction or no-nonsense disciplinarian teachers or oil drillers, where charming another person never enters the job description, and teach these courses in a way that appeals to men and keeps them coming to school?

There is no perfect solution.  As technology improves, jobs become less and less available for everyone, and automation overtakes us at virtually everything.  In a way, even trying to make men more appealing by finding them better jobs is a waste of time.  We're all doomed to unemployment anyway.  But if we could just correct the balance between men and women, if we could get their relative statuses to match up again, romance would become far more viable for everyone.  Why not ban women from certain professions and give men affirmative action in this manner?  Just say, we know women are qualified for this job, but women are qualified for every job, whereas men are only qualified for a few jobs.  Therefore, according to David Ricardo's principle of comparative advantage, these jobs should go solely to men who can do them and nothing else.  Give men these workplace shelters where they can find good, high paying, high status work with other men like them they can get along with, and let the women prosper in their jobs like teaching and nursing where they hold the vast majority.  The absolute unfairness of insisting that every male-centric job should be 50-50 full of women, while female jobs can stay 90% female and there's no problem with that, has to end.

Alternatively, we can do nothing job-wise, invent female sex dolls, or virtual reality girlfriends, give men welfare so they can afford these leisure activities, and just call it a day.  If women would prefer that, more power to them.  But telling men to just go rot in a hole and die, given neither welfare nor any job prospects, is a powder keg.  These spontaneous mass killings are just steam being let off from a massive rumbling volcano.  Giving men, the most aggressive and dangerous sex, absolutely no hope and feeding them on nothing but hateful scorn their entire lives, is likely to produce a backlash on a scale never before seen.  It will be like Yellowstone erupting and destroying the entire continent.  And women, at the end of this backlash, would not like the new social regulations that would be put in place afterwards nearly as much as the compromises they could come to now.

1 comment:

Valter Cassar said...

Great extrapolation!
You really intrigued me with your educational system argument and really shed some light on today's system. It may be that the social hierarchy changed how males and females relate, but i doubt that that could turn females asexual. I find that females' innate drive towards a man is his power, but not social power, that is just superficial, but strength of character- the aura he emanates when he is speaking to her, the dominance. I totally agree that a MAN would abhor the educational system, the parroting and having a professor trying to shove liberal agendas down your throat, and seeing your gullible feminine friends swallow it and embrace it, and would therefore drop out of school. But the reason i disagree with your conclusion is that you failed to realise that most man today are feminine in character (the reason why males are seeming pungent to females, in my opinion) due to the same educational system which starts at the age of 4 and no person, male or female, would have developed ideologies or the ability to question. Being idle minded they will not dispose of that corrupt ideology when they grow up. The only people who will stand against the educational system are not males, as you insist, but philosophers, and we all know how rare the real ones are.

With regards to the farming argument, it would be absurd to say males developed to be introverted, I bet males grouped in gangs to farm, fish, hunt, build or whatever. In fact males relate to each other very well and are friendly with their contemporaries...unlike females who are known to 'bitch' each other and back-stab. Maybe, using your argument, because she got used to domineering the house while the man is gone and leading the children. Maybe the reason why they love a dominant man in bed is because they feel relieved of that authoritative responsibility once the man is home.

Please keep in mind I agree with all your ideas, but not all arguments you use to support them. I know they are from your point of view, and I will have mine, but we both realised the same truth. In your futile attempt to try and convince the Hoi Poloi, you try to bring out facts or analogies from real life, because their minds, due to their educational system, are Empirical. Then they will disprove your facts and your idea will be busted along with it. The idea is what matters, and commoners will never acquire it.
"Don't bother me with facts, I am thinking" -Plato

I enjoyed reading your post. Keep it going.