In Defense of Feminism
Here I will defend feminism, but not for the typical reasons. In order to understand this post, you must understand these two previous posts of mine:
Human Evolution where I explain why women in feminist cultures are attracted to stupid immoral men.
The Rise and Fall of Christian Culture where I explain how American Christianity failed in the 1800s, meaning lost the ability to impose morality.
In the "Human Evolution" post I explained that women simply choose the type of man who is evolutionarily optimal in the current environment. Let me take this one step further. Probably the most important thing for a woman is which men she has sex with, because this will determine the future success of her genes. Because this is so important, one can reasonably assume that a significant part of a woman's brain is dedicated to this issue. This means that women can intuitively determine which men are genetically "good" much better than men can using analytical reasoning. In other words, men have no right to doubt women's mating choices in terms of genetic suitability. When a woman says that a man is "hot", she is unquestionably correct that he is a good genetic choice in her current environment. And when a woman says that a man is a (genetic) loser, she is also unquestionably correct in her current environment.
One of the worst things that can happen to a woman is mating with a genetically unsuitable man. A woman can only have a limited number of children, so who she chooses to be the father of those children is critical. Mating with an unsuitable man is almost like the loss of a child because that child's genetic future is bleak. The word to express this tragedy is "rape". Men badly misunderstand rape because we interpret it from a male perspective. We think that the critical element is violence. This is because for men, violence is a huge risk for our genetic future since many men are killed through violence. But for women, this simply isn't the case. Violence plays a much smaller role in the genetic success of women. So now let's consider a woman in modern culture. If a violent thug forces this woman to have sex with him, is this rape? No it isn't because the violent thug is well suited genetically for modern culture. So there is no issue of mating with a genetically unsuitable man. Now let's consider the case of this woman being seduced into sex by a nice guy who studied seduction techniques. This clearly is rape since nice guys are genetically unsuitable for modern culture. Whether the sex was violently forced or voluntary is irrelevant, all that matters is the quality of the man's genes. In modern culture, any sex with a nice guy is rape regardless of the circumstances because nice guys have unsuitable genes for modern culture.
Throughout history, women have depended on society to protect them including protecting them from rape. Men in society have always played a role in protecting women from mating with unsuitable men. But of course it is ultimately up to women to decide what types of men are unsuitable. In an effective patriarchal society where promiscuity is heavily punished, intelligent moral men are optimal and stupid immoral men are unsuitable. In such a society, women expect society to protect them from stupid immoral men. And similarly, in modern culture where stupid immoral men are optimal and intelligent moral men are unsuitable, women expect society to protect them from intelligent moral men. In both cases, the motive is exactly the same, to protect women from rape, namely sex with unsuitable men. This is why modern society is currently implementing all these strange sexual consent laws. These laws are very well designed to protect women from intelligent moral men.
At this point it should be clear why feminism makes sense for women in modern culture. All feminism is really about is allowing women in modern culture to mate with genetically good men and avoid mating with genetically bad men. Why should women be prevented from this? But now let's move away from women's perspective and consider what is best for humanity.
The optimal society is a moral patriarchal society. In such a society, promiscuity (outside of prostitution) is strictly limited. Women are expected to virgins at marriage. Adultery (sex with another man's wife) is severely punished with the guilty being removed from the gene pool one way or another. Seducing virgins is also punished. In such a society, moral men are the optimal mating choice for women. So women in this society will be attracted to moral men and will consider immoral men to be losers. There is absolutely no chance of feminism occurring in such a society because women there simply wouldn't want it.
Now let's consider what happens when such an optimal society starts to break down. What happens is that for some reason society loses its ability to enforce sexual morality. This means that promiscuity and adultery become a viable evolutionary strategy for men. Women realize this, and these immoral men become exciting for women. And so the evolutionary decay of the society begins.
Feminism is the natural expression of women's changing mating preference in a decaying society. But let's imagine that we could magically eliminate feminism. Would this be better for humanity? I believe that what this would look like is America almost permanently stuck in the 1950s. As I explained in "The Rise and Fall of Christian Culture", American culture began to break down in the 1800s when religion went from encouraging people to follow Jesus's moral teaching to simply having a personal relationship with Jesus. With such a change, it was inevitable that society would lose focus on the core issues of sexual morality, and lose the ability of effective enforcement. In the 1950s, America retained the facade of a moral culture, but underneath society was breaking down. Women clearly expressed sexual excitement for "bad boys" in movies. And I am certain that this must have corresponded to a rising adultery rate. Without feminism, the facade could have remained intact for centuries, with moral men continuing to find wives but these wives cheating on them and having illegitimate children with immoral men. The genetic breakdown of society would have been much slower, but the ultimate result would have been the same. So instead of taking decades for society to call apart, it would have taken centuries. Which is preferable? I think it is preferable for a morally broken society to fall apart as quickly as possible so that it can be replaced by something else. Feminism doesn't change the end result, it only speeds it up. And so I support feminism.
What about the poor suffering moral men in modern culture who can't get women? One can read the complaints of these men all over the internet. If you suggest options to these men like using a prostitute or looking abroad, they will tell you that they want validation. Any moral man who wants validation from a woman in modern culture is simply a moron who deserves to suffer and die without reproducing. Unlike feminists, he hasn't slightest understanding of evolution. The only sound evolutionary strategy for moral men is to join together to form moral patriarchal societies. Such societies are evolutionarily superior to modern culture. When modern culture has decayed sufficiently, a good moral patriarchal culture should attack modern culture and slaughter all of its men for the genetic good of humanity.
If a woman from the modern culture calls a moral man a loser, the correct response is "I would be a loser if I were a member of your culture, but I am not. My culture is superior to your culture and my culture will eventually destroy your culture." Intelligent moral men must reject modern culture and find an alternative. And from the perspective of an alternative culture, we can recognize feminism as a good thing that is helping to destroy our enemy, namely modern culture.
(Submitter's note: Emphasis added)