Here is a short list of ideas suggested by this analysis of the Baby Boom. Many of them are compatible with liberal principles, and could be pursued democratically.
Of course these are all good ideas, but they all rely on the sad fact that women could be manipulated so easily into making the exact opposite decisions from before based on the most pathetic of reasons -- women on average have 4 kids if they're happily married, and will happily marry at a young age if their relative socioeconomic status is well below that of their young male peers. The baby boom occurred when young men were earning twice as high an income as young women and were twice as likely to be college educated. As the proportional earnings and education rates converged, happy marriages became less likely, as did marriages, (the two most likely environments for children to actually be born), until the lines crossed at 1970 and fertility, worldwide, fell off a cliff. This drop in fertility occurred regardless of whether abortion or birth control were legalized so all other causative factors can be ruled out. The moment women felt like they could outcompete men, or were at least close enough that they no longer admired men or felt it was a big step up to marry said men, marriage as an institution died.
Note that this is all proportional, none of it is based on a rational need of resources. I can understand practical women who marry so that they, and their children, can be assured of food and shelter when they worry about being able to provide for themselves. But even the lowliest of working class men today could easily provide such basic goods to women today. Those making $10,000 a year or whatever, on pure minimum wage, are living like kings compared to every man in history. It isn't that men who don't earn enough aren't good enough marriage material, it's solely and only a question of proportions. If a woman earns $10,000 a year and her prospective husband earns $20,000 a year, marriage bells and marital bliss. If a woman earns $30,000 a year and her prospective husband earns $20,000 a year, expect to be ghosted and/or sued for sexual harassment at the very presumption of courtship. The same guy, the same $20,000 a year, switches from a golden lure to fishbait.
These days, single women without children, who stick to a career track, outearn their male peers. The odds of an average woman encountering a man who earns 50%, or 100% more than her, with a higher college degree than her, are extremely low. There's an even lower chance such a high class guy would suddenly agree to a monogamous marriage with that specific woman when he could have any number of others who are attracted to the exact same shallow and obvious things that she's attracted to.
No other variable has any effect on the data at all. In other words, a man's looks, personality, beliefs, values, hobbies, interests, virtues, etc., have no impact on the 1:1 causal relationship that can be described purely by the proportional socioeconomic status of men and women. Women are attracted to men who are higher status than them, and they aren't attracted to men who aren't higher status than them (by a noticeably wide degree too, it can't be by some razor-thin margin). Nothing else matters, nothing else computes. And since this is all happening in the unconscious, reptilian brain, women will doubtless come up with endless different reasons and justifications for why they're attracted to various men whilst finding the rest repulsive, but data doesn't lie. There's a 1:1 relationship between marriage rates and male/female proportional income. There's no room for any other variable to count. Women really are that simpleminded. This is the entirety of their lives, that highest of transcendental emotions, love, is just a single short question, 'what's your annual income?'
To underscore how ludicrous, pathetic, and thoughtless women are, scientists have distinguished whether the issue is pure money or independent virtues that are associated with higher earnings -- like say intelligence, hard work, courage, gregariousness or conscientiousness. But no, no such luck. If men win the lottery using nothing but luck, their rates of marriage and fertility go up, as does the happiness of their self-reported marriage if they were already in one. Likewise, if a woman wins the lottery, her fertility rate and likelihood of marrying drops, as does her satisfaction with the man she's already married to. So a guy can be the exact same guy she saw yesterday and loved with big hearts in her eyes, she gets a congratulatory letter in the mail saying she won the lottery, and suddenly her husband is a stain on the carpet. Instant transformation, based on nothing but money, even when they know the money wasn't earned fairly. Only a robotic program could be this knee-jerk, and yet that's the average woman when plotted on a graph.
One could make an argument that men are simpleminded too, and far from loving a girl, they're just instantly charmed by their waist-to-hip ratio or whatever. But a girl's good looks can't be faked, it is a deep representation of the overall health of their genome, because good looks come from healthy genes, the same genes which express themselves in the body as athleticism and in the brain as intelligence. A girl's looks aren't shallow at all. Furthermore, men can be initially attracted to a great many women but will then narrow down their preferences quickly based on how virtuous she is (for example by the number of sexual partners she's already had in the past), whether she's a good conversation partner, and so on, which means who they marry is based on a great many variables. Furthermore, looks are an objective absolute. They are a real valuable thing independent of the observer. A man will not think a woman looks steadily uglier the more money he makes, he will respect and cherish a woman's beauty exactly as much as the girl really is beautiful.
Status is not an objective absolute. Governments and cultures can easily put their thumbs on the scales as to who gets paid what. Since most spending is government spending or based on government regulations, most income is government-derived status. A man is rich and has a fancy degree precisely because society has decided he should be, not through the workings of the free market or the invisible hand, based on the amount of benefit people feel he has done them (as represented by the amount of money they're willing to pay for his goods or services). This is true of every country on Earth, so there isn't a single man who is truly as good as his income says he is. Every woman on Earth is as beautiful as boys see them to be. Boys are judging girls fairly, but girls aren't judging boys fairly. Winners and losers are being chosen ahead of time, based on arbitrary factors, like whether or not the State approves of you and thinks you will perpetuate it (regardless of whether that State deserves to be perpetuated).
Imagine a country whose entire income is arbitrary and determined by the state -- like the Dukedom of Brunei or something, where their entire GDP is based off of offshore oil that's actually drilled by foreigners, but is paid into the state coffers who officially own the oil, and then the state decides who shall receive of this bounty from there. The earnings of each and every male in this country say nothing about the quality of the man, and yet their likelihood of marrying, having children, and their marriages being happy will nonetheless completely track their incomes all the same. Of course, if Brunei is foolish enough to reward this largesse to women instead of men, or women and men equally, then there won't be a single marriage in Brunei. It's all that depressingly simple.
It's hard to blame women for acting on evolved instincts, all living things do. But it's incomparable how slavish and mindless women's falling in love is compared to men's. It leaves you wondering if the human race is truly sentient, or just men are.
As usual, I'm sure there is a large number of women this article doesn't apply to. It's tiresome that I have to mention this every time, but we're talking about averages plotted on graphs, there will always be women who rise above the average and those who fall below the average. If the women you know are exceptional people who judge the men they know fairly and not by proportional earnings, then forget everything you just read. But if your experience in life matches this description pretty well, it's time to sigh in relief and think, "oh! So it wasn't that I lacked any lovable traits, it's just that women are programs and the current anti-male, anti-free market, anti-me world is ensuring I'll never succeed with them." It really isn't your fault. It's the stupid narrowminded blindness of how women were programmed by evolution, to literally not take any objective facts into account.
Given that it will be a long time before society is remodeled to accept my simple solution -- marriage and children at gunpoint -- or the author of this article's suggestions, making use of women's programming to manipulate them into wanting marriage and children -- a more promising avenue is AI. What if we created entirely new lifeforms, this time actually sentient, who didn't love you based on your proportional income or education? Who actually had the ability to appreciate the finer things in life, the things anchored in objective reality, like how well you listen to them, how well you keep your temper, how many fun things you can do together, etc.? Currently nobody can stop AI from going in any direction, so if somebody is smart enough to invent a reasonable female AI that judges men as fairly as men judge women, as men would wish to be judged by women, we could just replace the entire female sex with these new robots that we can actually get along with. Humorously the robots would be less robotic than the women. As far as things with an actual probability of happening in a relatively short time frame, AI seems the better bet.
No comments:
Post a Comment