An interesting piece on TCW, the first of four. I’ve posted the following comments:
“Thanks Rick. I can recommend the book that Helen Andrews cites in her talk, The Great Feminization: Women as Drivers of Modern Social Change (2022) by J Stone (about whom nothing is known).
A month ago Conrad Riker published The Great Feminization: Wokeness An Epiphenomenon Of Female Supremacy, Capture Of Institutions, & Marxist Satanic Inversions Of Merit To DEI which I have yet to read.
JUSTICE FOR MEN & BOYS
CAMPAIGN FOR MERIT IN BUSINESS
LAIGHING AT FEMINISTS”
Justice for Men & Boys 
From a male point of view, the BIG drawback of female reproductive preference is her penchant for a mixed litter of children sired by sequential fathers, as this minimises the risk of genetic problems in her offspring arising from a single paternal source. Meanwhile, she can be assured that HER genes are in her entire brood.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003347200917056
Men, meanwhile, seek monogamy, as this gives (some) reassurance that HIS genes are in all of the kids he is raising. Only the male reproductive preference leads to stable societies, with nuclear families where everyone knows their relationship to everyone else (prior to the advent of paternity testing). This encouraged the male to pretty much work himself into an early grave, to support his offspring. Families benefitted, and society was enriched by the fruits of male creativity, ingenuity and hard work, the offshoots of his competition with other males while he strove to attract a female and retain her.
Females, on the other hand, being weaker, can often be sneaky-sneaky…
Her optimum reproductive strategy, in societies which imposed monogamy as a means of keeping her in check, was this: if she couldn’t attract an alpha-male, then she’d have to settle for a beta-male, marry him, have his child. But always keep an eye open for a willing alpha-male during the couple of days of the month when she was at her most fertile, and progesterone was being converted to DHT by the ‘back door’ androgen pathway. For this brief window, she is almost at the mercy of androgen sex drive in the same way that men are while testosterone is being converted to DHT by the enzyme 5-alpha-reductase. Being the most advanced female mammal, she has evolved a unique means of assisting her on her mission of paternity fraud – hidden ovulation.
William Collins covers this aspect in his excellent article ‘Paternity Fraud and Sexual Crypsis’ in The Illustrated Empathy Gap.
Books like Esther Perel’s ‘Breeding in Captivity’ indicate that women are driven by their ‘feelings’ to seek sequential sires for their children, probably subconsciously. They seek the security of marriage. Then, as soon as they’ve had a child, they become ‘bored’. These poor birds in a gilded cage now seek ‘excitement’ which can only be satisfied by a new partner. So – what would make this easier..? No-fault divorce, perhaps, brought to us by NAWL, the National Association of women lawyers? Check! Favouritism in the employment market (AA, EEO, ESG, DEI), placing her in proximity to high value men, and where her salary income allows her to be ‘choosy’..? Check! All men beneath her pay grade rendered invisible, with their cloak of invisibility maintained by ‘sexual harassment’ legislation..? Check!! Generous welfare should madam choose to opt out of the range of opportunities available to her, and simply choose to breed..? Check!! Making the mainly male taxpayer (71% contributor) pay for HER choices, aided and abetted by 2TK and his feminist Cabinet harem, should she find herself unwilling to stop at 2 kids..? Check!! This is happening in real time.
Which brings us to the chaos of the present day, where women have now made hostile incursion into the previously deontic, male-derived systems of politics and jurisprudence, perverting these to their own teleological, female-favouring systems which seek outcomes of utilitarian female benefit. And, meanwhile, families fall apart, wives incentivised to divorce by a system which rewards them with houses, cash & prizes after they’ve had a child, leaving them free to trade up on the hypergamy bandwagon, and produce further hybrid children.
Meanwhile men, asset-stripped and dismayed, are opting out. Many of them before they can be asset stripped, avoiding dating as a pre-emptive measure to protect their hard-earned wealth, and God-given sanity. Men cannot build a family in a society that profits from its destruction. So, they won’t. That’s sensible. The fruits of future creativity, invention and hard work can remain stillborn.
Linda Gordon’s rallying call, ‘The nuclear family must be destroyed‘ has almost been achieved. Feminists wanted this to happen, probably without even knowing why. The ‘Patriarchy’ which they’re so ‘oppressed’ by is no more than male expectation of monogamy, and faithfulness within it.
Having destroyed it, they have no idea where it goes from there. If men have no motivation to work for the benefit of others, they won’t work for others. Women will have to do everything themselves. Ever seen them build their own houses..?
Grass huts, here we come.
[As a slight aside, Mike, I have, a year or so back, purchased one book by ‘Conrad Riker’, about Sigma Males, and found it to be AI slop.]
LikeLiked by 2 people
Germaine Greer did know what she expected to be the result.
“Women’s liberation, if it abolishes the patriarchal family, will abolish a necessary substructure of the authoritarian state, and once that withers away Marx will have come true willy-nilly, so let’s get on with it”.
As did Simone De Beauvoir. They expected the collapse of “the patriarchy” to mean the ushering in of Marx’s (and more particularly Engels) “eternal classless society. This vein of Marxist theory lies deep in strands of feminism and gender and queer theory. Though they put faith in Marxism’s “science” and its supposed “historical inevitability” in fact they never actually describe how this rather magical change will happen. They presume, as did Marx, that in a world of plenty humanity would be made anew and leave behind the dictates of biology and the the “false ideological consciousness” of the stages of socio-economic development, socialism being the penultimate just prior to this magical transformation to “true” Communism. I’ve just been re reading a copy of History Today. A piece about the history of crimes and policing in the DDR (East Germany). Really about the lengths gone to pretend crime did not exist in the DDR, because in a Socialist Society such imperfection could not exist. Reminded me of the Movie “Child 55” based on just such an ideology in the USSR.
The point being that the ideology believes that changing the socio economic “system” changes “human nature” and makes perfect people. Whereas the “Black” community illustrates the dire consequences of the break down of traditional structures of kinship where the state in the form of welfare enables “liberation” of both men and women, and a spiral into social collapse sped up by the “state” welfare (“married to the state”). A pattern also seen in other communities in “sink” estates etc.
Of course most “feminists” are simply opportunistic enjoying the privileges the idea gives them in their personal lives. Likely ignorant of the theoretical structure that is within academe and gives their self interest the gloss of a movement toward utopia
LikeLiked by 2 people
I saw ‘Child 55’ around three years ago. The lengths which the state would go to protect a pretence of ‘utopia’ was mildly terrifying. It made sense in the light of ‘The Rape of the Mind’, written in the mid 1950s by Joost Meerloo, a psychologist who worked for WW2 British Intelligence, and knew ‘George Orwell’. Both of them studied the gaslighting techniques of the concentration camps. Meerloo took it further with the ‘Cold War’ propaganda of the time.
In my own opinion, the inextricable association of feminism with left-wing politics has its roots in how the oestrogen-sensitive left brain processes reality. It cannot ABIDE any outlook other than its own, sees it as an affront to its will to power, and will attempt to suppress it by any means. Professor Iain McGilchrist’s ‘The Master & His Emissary’ is coming true before our very eyes.
They will clear out the jails of the real criminals, in order to imprison those who are not ‘on message’. The abolition of trial by jury for ‘offences’ which merit less than 3 years imprisonment has paved the way.
We are already living in interesting times.
When there is no carrot, the feminist State will resort to the stick. Under monogamy, men worked, willingly, to provide for their OWN children, with the carrot of a sexual reward from a faithful wife.
In the hodge-podge of ‘blended’ mongrel ‘families’, and the sexually-incontinent ‘single mothers’ of the sink estates, man will live in a regime of fear, and work for the children of others under pain of imprisonment for ‘wrongthink’.
If anything is going to stop this, it’ll have to happen soon.
LikeLiked by 2 people
In their botched rediscovery of Marxism in the 1960s, feminists like Greer labelled men as the ‘oppressor’ class. Their ‘oppression’ was largely imaginary, in all respects, other than the still-prevalent social abhorrence of female reproductive preference for rotating, temporary monogamy in the 1960s. The only real ‘oppression’ imposed on western women by men was an expectation of honouring a marriage contract that imposed fidelity until death do us part. This ‘legally binding’ contract is now null and void from a male perspective, yet the law is employed to full force female benefit, asset stripping men in the divorce courts.
Feminists believe that men can be forced to keep late-stage capitalism operating to their benefit. But, they are mistaken. Mediocrity and collapse will inevitably follow the imposition of female reproductive preferences.
They simply cannot get it through their heads that we got to where we are today by male competition. Competition-driven men want to excel. It’s how they attracted a female mate in the first place. Male efforts are to his benefit, and the benefit of his wife and children. The benefit of HIS genes.
If he is denied this reward, he simply won’t try. What’s in it for him, at the end of the day? More taxation, and an empty bed to go home to.
It does not compute to vast swathes of women that men won’t simply carry on as before. That is because most women operate to principles of minimum reciprocity, attempting to corral as much as they can for themselves, while offering the bare minimum in return. It’s the basis of Briffault’s Law.
Because this is how they operate, they believe that this is how the whole world operates. Peak projection. As usual.
LikeLiked by 1 person