By far the most important philosopher of the Menaissance is Charles Darwin. The theory that human sexual preferences evolved from the time that hominids successfully reproduced in the primeval African grasslands can explain the mystery of women’s preference for macho—or alpha—males. At the same time, evolutionary theory gives the former wuss permission to pursue massive amounts of sex with an endless assortment of women. Finally, the emphasis that Darwinism places on natural selection encourages him to adapt to the brutal current sexual ecosystem. Culture, in both its feminist and Emily Post forms, hasn’t won him any favor with women, so he will embrace Nature in all its rude harshness.
[T]he problem with the Darwinian tenor of the Menaissance is neither antipathy to women’s equality nor a misguided reading of female nature. It is an uncompromising biological determinism that makes no room for human cultivation. We are animals, the new Darwinians seem to say; get used to it. They define manhood as alpha-style toughness and unsentimental promiscuity. And in that spirit, they cultivate manipulation, calculation, and naked (in both the literal and metaphorical sense) self-interest. “Nature doesn’t care about hurting people’s feelings,” explains dating coach Mike Pilinski. “It cares ONLY about reproductive success.”
On many levels, Hymowitz is probably correct. Frustrated with mixed signals and erratic behavior of women, word has been getting around in the man-o-sphere about a Truth That Works. It's called 'game'. Under game, non-alpha men adopt (or feign) alpha-male behaviors while cultivating an image of an ability to exercise (and sometimes practice) unreconstructed promiscuity--both steps that help them succeed with women where they previously were coldly rejected. As Hymowitz herself alludes, game is to men what cleavage revealing tops and short skirts are for women--addictive catnip for the opposite sex. Slightly underhanded, possibly. Manipulative? Definitely. But effective? Inarguably so.
Where Hymowitz errs is in the temporal ordering of the phenomena that she describes. She assumes that the Menaissance was the catalyst, the pilot ship, the seminal event that created the current climate of nasty brutish (and likely short) state-of-nature relationships. She could not be more wrong, and tragically so, since she all but names the parties whose innate mercenary behavior, when unfettered from patriarchal customs and traditions, "makes no room for human cultivation" and instead reduces us to animals:
Forty years after they threw off the feminine mystique, women continue to prefer bigger, stronger, richer men, at least as husbands. They almost always marry men who are taller than they are, men who are several years older than they are (though the age difference has declined in recent decades), and men who earn more than they do (though that number, too, has declined a bit). Most of the women interviewed by Jillian Straus say that they’re looking for a man who can be the primary breadwinner. A June 2008 New Scientist article reports on two studies that even suggest that women are biologically attracted to “jerks”; researchers speculate that narcissistic, risk-taking men had an evolutionary advantage.
There you have it. Women were the original Dating Darwinists, and it was feminism's subversion of patriarchy that set both men and women free to maximize reproductive success (defined for men as oat-sowing and for women as resource and power acquisition, as well as oat-receiving to a lesser extent). It was women and feminism that destroyed the culture that "tame[d] natural selfishness" and redirected it toward the common good. It was women and feminism that led society to expect nothing "more of their men than muscle and promiscuity". And it was women and feminism that led society to expect nothing more of their women than crass materialistic consumption and promiscuity.
4 comments:
Look through her entire article...not once will you see the word "hypergamy."
The "New Girl Order" (Hymowitz own phrase she coined) has changed women's behavior...but NOT the basic, biological imperatives that drive them to seek out mates with superior genes to give their offspring a better chance to survive and thrive.
Under the New Girl Order, the cultural zeitgeist has basically presented a false paradigm to boys growing into manhood...that they must get in touch with their feminine side, that they must be more emotional and in tune with feelings, etc. Couple this society-wide social conditioning with a generation of boys raised by single mothers of divorce or illegitimacy where they're only ideas of manhood are based on what they're mothers SAY a "real man" should think and behave like (i.e. putting women on a pedestal, femininity), and you have this mass of males growing up to think and act like Beta's.
All's "game" is, is re-connecting men to the idea of masculine dominance as the most desired trait females look for in mate selection.
It is no more manipulative than a woman who seeks to "boost" the mating attributes that males value most -i.e. cosmetics to highlight the appearance of youthful fertility.
The only difference is that in the New Girl Order, where all women are programmed since child hood that they are "equal" and "can do anything a man can do!" and "You Go Girl!" is the overriding mantra of our culture, Women are indoctrinated to SAY they want "equality" with a mate, while subconsciously, they're attraction triggers are based on identifying dominant males!
Kay is incapable of recognizing this, because she too is beholden to the cultural motif of "equality." Most Western Women cannot and will not admit that they value men who are dominant over them...because to admit it aloud would cause cognitive dissonance with their societal programming!
This is EXACTLY why we have women telling their girl-friends, emotional tampon guy friends and gay male friends how they dream of a man who is thoughtful, considerate, in touch with his feelings, blah blah blah...than go out and bang the bad boys.
My problem with game is that it's smells of fakery. There's being a man, being masculine, and there's being a poseur, a swaggering peacock. Game IMHO is the latter. Yet it works, in the same way that scantily clad women get more guy attention.
And Hymowitz confuses me greatly. She described women's hypergamic behavior to a "tee", yet failed to see how it was quite relevant to the topic at hand.
Yep, I agree HL, she can't see past the fem-goggles she wears to appreciate the contribution that women have to the Darwinistic dating scene that she describes.
You make a good point that women have always been viciously, ruthlessly ambitious to breed with dominant males.
Also, Hawaiian, thanks for the link.
Women are programmed to mate with men whom they "feel" to be dominant and of superior genes. More often than not the feeling is a blunder.
They go around with thugs due to this "feeling". In fact nerds and braniacs with IQ's of 160+ are female-free, thanks to this "feeling" among women. It is these nerds who have superior genes not the thugs with a IQ in 80's and 90's.
Down here it's the father who chooses the appropriate mate, and it is often a proper choice. Men with high IQ ie.,. with a higher earning potential have a higher value in marriage market. Thugs and
criminals are left at the service of prostitutes and whores.
Yet an another instance where the female does not know what she wants
Post a Comment