The number of single people has reached a record high. A survey in 2011 found that 61% of unmarried men and 49% of women aged 18-34 were not in any kind of romantic relationship, a rise of almost 10% from five years earlier. Another study found that a third of people under 30 had never dated at all.This article pretty much reflects my thinking on modern living. We have created a society where 90% of women are completely uninterested in men or children, preferring instead their high status, high income, high consumption, high-octane life with other girls like them. The remaining 10% of women who find marriage and children appealing are snapped up by the top 10% of men who would do anything for such a wonderful helpmate throughout their lives. Where does this leave the bottom 90% of men who, though interested in wives and children, find it too difficult to compete with the top 10% of men in order to corner the only 10% of women who are willing to marry in the market? They drop out, saying it's too troublesome and it's just not worth it. It used to be that if you worked decent hours and just stayed out of trouble with the law, you could have a nice wife and all the kids you pleased. You wouldn't have a supermodel, but you could land the girl next door. Now that sort of system is gone. It's been obliterated by women entering the workplace and finding self-actualization without any reference to husbands or children. It turns out that women were not in fact biologically programmed to prefer being homemakers. If they aren't forced into this role, 90% of them immediately strike out to live independently as single women with other single women friends, never thinking of men or children again.
A survey earlier this year by the Japan Family Planning Association (JFPA) found that 45% of women aged 16-24 "were not interested in or despised sexual contact". More than a quarter of men felt the same way.
Kunio Kitamura, head of the JFPA, claims the demographic crisis is so serious that Japan "might eventually perish into extinction".
There is no going back. "Both men and women say to me they don't see the point of love. They don't believe it can lead anywhere," says Aoyama. "Relationships have become too hard."Marriage has become a minefield of unattractive choices. Japanese men have become less career-driven, and less solvent, as lifetime job security has waned. Japanese women have become more independent and ambitious. Yet conservative attitudes in the home and workplace persist. Japan's punishing corporate world makes it almost impossible for women to combine a career and family, while children are unaffordable unless both parents work.
Aoyama says the sexes, especially in Japan's giant cities, are "spiralling away from each other".
I meet Eri Tomita, 32, over Saturday morning coffee in the smart Tokyo district of Ebisu. Tomita has a job she loves in the human resources department of a French-owned bank. A fluent French speaker with two university degrees, she avoids romantic attachments so she can focus on work. "A boyfriend proposed to me three years ago. I turned him down when I realised I cared more about my job. After that, I lost interest in dating. It became awkward when the question of the future came up."
Tomita says a woman's chances of promotion in Japan stop dead as soon as she marries. "The bosses assume you will get pregnant." Once a woman does have a child, she adds, the long, inflexible hours become unmanageable. "You have to resign. You end up being a housewife with no independent income. It's not an option for women like me."
Tomita says things would have to improve "dramatically" to compel her to become a working wife and mother. "I have a great life. I go out with my girl friends – career women like me – to French and Italian restaurants. I buy stylish clothes and go on nice holidays. I love my independence."
Romantic commitment seems to represent burden and drudgery, from the exorbitant costs of buying property in Japan to the uncertain expectations of a spouse and in-laws. And the centuries-old belief that the purpose of marriage is to produce children endures. Japan's Institute of Population and Social Security reports an astonishing 90% of young women believe that staying single is "preferable to what they imagine marriage to be like".
The sense of crushing obligation affects men just as much. Satoru Kishino, 31, belongs to a large tribe of men under 40 who are engaging in a kind of passive rebellion against traditional Japanese masculinity. Amid the recession and unsteady wages, men like Kishino feel that the pressure on them to be breadwinning economic warriors for a wife and family is unrealistic. They are rejecting the pursuit of both career and romantic success.
"It's too troublesome," says Kishino, when I ask why he's not interested in having a girlfriend. "I don't earn a huge salary to go on dates and I don't want the responsibility of a woman hoping it might lead to marriage."
Japan's 20-somethings are the age group to watch. Most are still too young to have concrete future plans, but projections for them are already laid out. According to the government's population institute, women in their early 20s today have a one-in-four chance of never marrying. Their chances of remaining childless are even higher: almost 40%.
They don't seem concerned. Emi Kuwahata, 23, and her friend, Eri Asada, 22, meet me in the shopping district of Shibuya. The café they choose is beneath an art gallery near the train station, wedged in an alley between pachinko pinball parlours and adult video shops. Kuwahata, a fashion graduate, is in a casual relationship with a man 13 years her senior. "We meet once a week to go clubbing," she says. "I don't have time for a regular boyfriend. I'm trying to become a fashion designer." Asada, who studied economics, has no interest in love. "I gave up dating three years ago. I don't miss boyfriends or sex. I don't even like holding hands."
In fact, it is men who are biologically interested in women. It was men who would fall passionately in love with women, to the point that they'd sacrifice anything to get them. Which means family formation only occurs at the behest of men -- ie, if men are in charge. But men aren't in charge in democracies, for the simple reason that women are the majority of the electorate. All of human history has people living as married couples with lots of kids, until the modern day. All of human history men have determined how society should be. This is not a coincidence. The ideal world men created for themselves was a world where women stayed at home, faithful to a single guy for life, and raised their children. When they had the 100% totalitarian dictatorship oppression powers of the past, they created the monogamous family. And now we know what happens when freedom prevails, and the oppressive male patriarchy ends. Girls who go to delis, drink coffee with their girl friends, and become fashion designers. And the extinction of the human race.
So long as men could put in some effort and get a reward, effort was worthwhile. Now, when only becoming some sort of superhuman ubermensch is enough to get one of the rare girls who is even interested in men, much less faithful and supportive of them, the result is that most men don't try at all to be appealing to girls. It's a simple cost benefit analysis. Effort without reward is worse than laziness without reward. If 90% of girls aren't interested in marriage, you can pretty quickly size up your odds of belonging to the 10% of eligible bachelors. If you aren't going to be rich, handsome, powerful, or famous, you may as well quit while you're ahead. There's no reason to do anything whatsoever to appeal to females if you're just going to lose out anyway. That same level of effort could be invested in yourself, in finding ways to be happy without girls ever entering the picture.
In this way, both sexes spiral away from each other equally, even though only one sex ever wished to be apart. Men desperately wanted to be with women, as shown by history, which proves that whenever men have a choice to be with a woman they immediately seize upon it. But if that's simply impossible, they're not going to just sit around crying every day about it -- they're going to spiral away with their own, new pursuits to replace the gap in their hearts.
Furthermore, girls who do not actively attempt to be appealing to men are, naturally, far less appealing to men than the girls who do try. The less interested in men girls become, the less they attempt to be attractive to men. As a list of attractive traits, here's just a fair sampling -- nice, affectionate, admiring, loyal, devoted, thin, young, modest, graceful, unselfish, undemanding, non-nagging, pure, cute, genuine, wants children and is good with children. How many of those traits apply to the modern woman? How many women on the dating market qualify under these standards? 10% would be a miracle -- and like I said, all those women are already claimed by the CEO's, NFL quarterbacks and rock stars. Rather than a below-specs girl, the illusion or fantasy of a high-specs girl is far superior. Imaginary girl friends don't demand you make more money so they can spend more of it, they don't divorce you and take away your kids, they don't cheat on you, and they don't call you names whenever you refuse to be or do as they say. Who would spend one second with a real girl of that caliber when they could instead immerse themselves in a world full of Nagisa's, Lafiel's, Deedlit's, Yume's, Asuna's, etc?
Before, it's easy to imagine that 90% of girls could qualify as good wives, because they spent their whole lives grooming themselves from birth onwards to be good wives. That was their education, that was their job, to be as appealing to men as they could possibly be. Now, when they spend all of their time and energy becoming fashion designers, it's only natural that only 10% of girls happen to be attractive spouses for hire. If no one trained to be an engineer it's unlikely many bosses would find a large pool of talented engineers for hire either. As women put zero effort into being good wives, the result is hardly any of them are attractive marriage prospects, in an equation as simple as 1+1=2.
This trend has no end. So long as women remain free to choose, they will continue preferring their own ideal lives over what men would ideally have women behave. Nor is the casual sex, single-parent hellhole of the retarded races any better a formula than Japan's. Alocohol, drugs, poverty and violence are not a replacement for 1950's America any more than Japan's 90% of young women desiring to stay single for life. The article's silly belief that all we need to do is banish 'conservative norms,' like not divorcing or having single children, and everything is solved, is ridiculous. Men are even less happy divorced with children they can't see than celibate and single. Women are of course far more burdened this way than if they had remained celibate and single. And the products of these unions aren't really children, because human reproduction includes the idea that the end product of your union is capable of replacing the previous generation. A generation of ghetto children who have only learned ghetto values are not a replacement for the civilized, virtuous adults who came before them, it's like substituting pyrite for gold and saying you've performed miracles.
Nor would silly laws like more workplace leave after having a child, more flexible work hours, or guarantees by workplaces that women will not suffer any sort of adverse career outcomes for having children help. This implies that first, women want to be around men and children in the first place, which they don't. It isn't that women desperately want to form a family, but are kept back from this by cruel greedy employers who don't offer them enough support. This is a farce. Just read the polls in the article -- 45% of young women, aged 16-24, the very women men would be attracted to in the first place, are not interested in or despised sexual contact. If they go so far as to say they never want to have any level of intimacy with a man whatsoever at 45%, you can just imagine how few are interested in marriage and children out of the remaining 55%. If there is a continuum from perfect housewife to rabid man hater, and 45% are on the rabid man hater edge of the continuum, then you have to imagine that the remainder are all tilted towards that side of the board as well. That's just how statistics work, a bell curve centers around a mean and when you have standard deviations away from that mean your numbers grow very, very thin. How many standard deviations from the mean of 'rabid man hater,' the largest percentage of women in Japan, would it take to reach 'loving housewife?' God only knows. If you aren't a rock star or a president, it's probably not worth even finding out. Suffice to say not enough to go around for you to stand a chance.
Even if you guaranteed all women a separate income from their husbands via a citizen's dividend, and paid them more per child they had, to the point that they were making more as mothers than they ever could as workers, you still couldn't get them to stay at home. This is because what they really want isn't the money, but the status their jobs provide, the sense of purpose it gives them, and the girl friends they can meet who share their thoughts and feelings. How can they get these things while staying at home with husbands and children, none of whom are remotely like them biologically or culturally speaking?
It's a dead end. Evolution never even imagined women being free to choose, as they had never been free to choose who they 'wanted to become' for all of biological history. Therefore it created no mechanisms to steer women into family formation. There is no instinct for it. There is no desire for it. There isn't even a sex drive like what's found in men for women. Just like the appendix, the tail, or gills, evolution throws away vestigial organs and stops paying any attention to them the moment they cease to have a necessary role. When women were forced into pregnancy and homemaking for millions of years, evolution discarded everything that might remotely cause them to desire these things, because they were all vestigial, because women did it whether they wanted to or not, so who cared? Meanwhile evolution imprinted infinite desire for women on men because men could support themselves and ignore women as much as they wanted for the last million years. Men, if evolution left them alone, would all go play pool together or ping pong or poker or something, and humanity would die off. So evolution implanted all sorts of drives and needs to go back to the women and pay them for sex and pay them to maintain the kids until they reached maturity. This way the people in power all, of their own free will, kept playing by evolution's fiddle. Their desire for the other sex was not vestigial, but absolutely necessary to keep mankind alive every single generation, because not even once could evolution afford for men to not want to marry women, whereas how women felt never once mattered cuz they were just clubbed over the head to begin with.
There does seem to be one biological instinct evolution preserved in women. At the moment they give birth to a child, a sudden shock of oxytocin is sent into their system so that they feel motherly towards their own children. This probably helps them not strangle the child to death after it keeps crying and whining when they're trying to sleep, which evolution found necessary for the next generation to survive. However, this maternal instinct only kicks in at the moment of delivery. Women have no problem at all using birth control, abortions, or simply abstinence up until that point to avoid caring about children. They're netted by instinct once they are mothers, but before then there's no biological backup mechanism available. Evolution never imagined that the weaker sex would somehow be able to dictate terms in a polity about how and when they would be mated to men.
Liberals regularly talk about how mankind has reached a point where it is more powerful than mother nature's coping mechanisms. They constantly wring their hands over global warming, saying there are no negative feedback loops left that can save us except our own behavioral choices. But they fail to see the much bigger 'failure' of mother nature right in front of them. When 90% of young girls, the very people that men are attracted to and biologically are fit and fertile enough to have your next generation, say they'd rather stay single for life, there is no negative feedback loop left that can change their minds. Only our own choices can change this result. 'Freedom to choose' is just another way of saying that the trend should continue, because it's inevitable that their choice will always lead to this result. Just like the 'freedom to emit' doesn't mean that maybe we will emit Co2, and maybe we won't, it just means straight out we will always choose to pollute the air more and more forever. Freedom is all well and good until it reaches existential disasters when left to individual choices that have negative externals. Liberals understand this when it comes to global warming. So my next question is, why doesn't this apply to 'romantic love?' We are looking at two negative externals here that are simply breathtaking in scope -- a generation of men who have no desire or ability to produce anything, because there's nothing in it for them even if they do -- and a lost generation of children who simply will not exist anymore, each generation smaller than the last, until there's literally no one left to turn out the lights. These are the negative externals of women's individual choices. And honestly, I could add a third negative external here as well -- a generation of flippant women who live selfish, shallow, materialistic lives where nothing they do has any spiritual value or meaning whatsoever, drifting through life without ever being human in a philosophical sense whatsoever, because they never displayed any virtues that make us higher than the animals in their whole lives. In a sense, they are creating a dystopia even for themselves, as when they look back on their lives at 80 wondering what was it all for, are they seriously going to say coffee, Italian food, and rhinestone pink vests due to their wonderful skills in fashion design? If they could ever float over themselves and realize the opportunities they are missing to make a real difference in someone's life -- by being a spouse and a mother -- if they ever realized how much love, beauty, and truth they could give to the world by sacrificing themselves to others -- would they really prefer to stay single forever? Never being emotionally moved, never emotionally moving anyone, across their entire lives? Because it's all just too much of a bother and they don't have the time?
When I watch shows like Aishteruze Baby, that shows just how much better it is to spend time with a child than play kissing games with a girl, because the child needs you at an emotional level and her life really is changed by the things you do for her, I'm utterly convinced that the single, selfish life is not the way humans should live. Do women just not watch these shows? Watching them, how can they possibly carry on with their nihilistic version of paradise that prefers mixed fruit drinks and clubbing? If allowing women the freedom to choose creates such empty lives over the opportunities that truly await them if only they would don the yoke again, I call that just another negative externality. Maybe women just can't figure it out for themselves, and it has to be shown to them through the smiles and coos of a real baby in their arms, what life is really meant to be about. If so, as a mercy and a favor to them, providing them with real infant children against their will is the best thing society could ever gift them with.
By all means, give working women every economic support imaginable to marry and have kids. Make life for women as easy as possible and try to grant them every request they could ever want, from promotions to pay raises to flexible hours. Give them anything they ask for and just see if it helps. It won't. When 50% of women despise the very idea of sex, flexible working hours just don't matter anymore. But if that's what it takes to advance the debate from the current feminist nonsense about how men just aren't being supportive enough to let women reproduce, it's a small price to pay. And when that experiment fails, there's only one question left. Do we want humanity to exist any more? I suppose if we're fine with making Androids instead of reproducing any more, a long term trend of falling birth rates doesn't much matter. Humanity can go extinct while emotions and intelligence live on. In which case, girls can be fashion designers all the way to 2250 or whatever the trend line shows us becoming extinct. But if we do want to live on, we're going to have to circumscribe female freedom again. Romantic love needs to go back to being arranged marriage, and the sooner the better for both sexes and all children. Children of single parents and divorced parents are suffering right now. Unborn children aren't getting a chance at life right now. Men who have quit the game of life because there's no reward at the end are quitting right now. And women are becoming ever less attractive and ever more vapid as we speak -- obesity rates, adultery rates, and consumer debt levels speak for themselves. If we have any desire to turn this around at all, there's no point waiting until we actually face extinction in a century, there's plenty of suffering from this trend in the world today. Global warming alarmists say that not only will there be a catastrophe in the future if we allow pollution to go on as trending, but even right now we are losing billions of dollars due to 'climate pollution related causes.' In other words, just because the world won't end for another century doesn't mean we shouldn't shape up now and save ourselves some money. The same logic applies here. If we're going to avert the end of the world anyway, we may as well cash in early and avert all the suffering in the present too.
If we're not going to avert the end of the world, I suggest we invest a lot more into computer research than we currently are, because time is running out.
No comments:
Post a Comment