2009 December 03 Thursday
Is Feminist Socialism Beta Aversion?
In the comments of a post by Audacious Epigone an anonymous commenter advances a pretty succinct formulation of the idea that the welfare state allows some women to avoid long term relationships with men they find insufficiently attractive while still being able to make babies.
With regards to women and socialism, I don't think it's merely risk-aversion. Socialism allows them to have their cake and eat it too. They get the financial support of provider males while mating with whoever they want. They basically get to cuckold half of the male population. It's more beta-aversion than risk-aversion, IMO.
Beta aversion. An interesting way to look at a certain variety of socialism. What do you think of this argument?
This comes in response to comments by Audacious Epigone about women who vote for alpha males as an exercise in fantasizing.
The treatment potentially accorded those who make a Watson- or Summers-esque comment in a public setting usually limits my discussion of HBD issues to face-to-face conversations or pseudonymous online postings.
There are times when discipline fails me, though. A friend answered in a facebook social interview question asking what she'd talk to Barack Obama about by responding that she hoped the two of them wouldn't do much talking. Trying to maintain levity, I commented:
Great illustration of another reason it was a mistake to give women the vote! Because politicians of prominence tend to be in their early forties at the youngest, female politicians are sexually invisible to most men (with rare exceptions like Sarah Palin, who apparently puts lead in the pencils of many middle-aged guys). Women fall for social dominance, which consists primarily of financial affluence, social prestige, good frame (physical attractiveness, deep voice, facial symmetry, etc) and occupational success--all hallmarks of successful politicians (our current President being no exception). And men don't wilt in their twenties, occasionally remaining in full bloom into their senior years (see Silvio Berlusconi). So we have women voting for politicians in the hopes that it'll somehow bring their personal fantasies to fruition!
The idea of cuckolding taxpayers reminds me of a recent Robin Hanson post about cuckolded ex-husbands who are forced to pay child support. Hanson argues that if an ex-husband should be expected to pay child support why don't the people who support this idea support the taxing of all other non-fathers to support the same kid?
I find these contrary arguments to be extremely weak. If we worry about the kid’s financial security, why don’t we tax everyone instead of just this one man? What basis could we have for calling this man’s reluctance “irrational,” if the rest of us are equally unwilling to pay for this kid?
Men need to become more conscious of female interests and female strategies in relationships and politics. Know better how your own interests are harmed by females following their instincts.
"Beta aversion. An interesting way to look at a certain variety of socialism. What do you think of this argument?"
A quote from a woman on the subject, from Sperm Banks Men for Sale from earlier this year at the Rebuking Feminism blog:
"Most women may not be able to marry the tall, attractive, guy with good proportions and health and have his kids, but having such a guy to donate his sperm may be easier. for this reason, young Nordic and Mediterranean men are in great demand"
"Just imagine how good it will be for women if we had more state benefits for child support, if only we had a system where the state was responsible for bringing up the kids and women would not have to chase after men to marry them and share the burden of supporting and in the process compromising on genetic quality, choosing ugly, fat, bald, short unattractive men only because they were willing to be good supporters.
this is not FREEDOM of choice for women. women are forced to choose these men."
At the risk of being overly tacky, but because I’m way to lazy to do it all again, I’m also going to quote two of my responses from that thread:
1) As to the corollary to her ideas:
Seems to me that this dipsh*t misses the obvious corollary question – if women are going to get so “picky” over what male sperm should be allowed to create babies (at taxpayer expense, of course), why the Hell shouldn’t we (men) be just as picky over what female eggs get fertilized?
Maybe those women who may not be able to marry the tall, attractive, guy with good proportions and health, since they obviously lack the genetic traits to do so, ought to have their genes selectively removed from the population as well.
Frankly, we already have a form of this – and it’s not working out so well. In the Ghettos, the Barios, and the trailer parks, (not to pull any punches) UGLY women are constantly getting knocked up by the bad-boy thugs (preferred by these women for their genetic phenotypes), and end up raising the next generation of thugs on the public dole.
And, just for good measure, let’s take a closer look into the “results” of this wrt selecting for the best “male” traits. I think it’s quite obvious that the ugly women end up having some decent looking sons (who look more like their fathers), but few decent looking daughter (most end up looking like the mothers).
So why should we even consider expanding the ability of ugly women to get handsome sperm when all we seem to get out of it is fatherless thugs and more ugly women?
And 2) continuing on within a reply to poster BeltainAmerica:
BeltainAmerica - "I think that tells us where these women are actually heading. They wish to marry the state for it to provide the protection etc and then breed with the genes they most want without having to make some man happy."
The unholy convergence of Eugenics, the Welfare State, and (beta-)man-hating feminism.
But, in the eugenic quest for the perfect baby, they leave out one very important and unavoidable piece of reality - it isn't just "ugly, fat, bald, short unattractive men" who contribute "lower quality" genes, because short, fat, ugly, small-breasted women are also putting in the same "bad" stuff in the production of offspring.
If wymyn such as the author of the piece above are truly bent on pursuing the dreams of Sanger/Hilter, Marx, and Friedan simultaneously, why stop at just selecting for "good" male genes? Why not REQUIRE that every women "9" and below (on the looks scale) who wishes to have a baby MUST be implanted with the egg of a "10" which has been fertilized with the sperm of a tall, handsome, smart, healthy, fit, well-proportioned, and well-endowed alpha-male?
After all, if the genes of "lesser" men are of no value and need to be weeded-out; then so do the genes of "lesser" women.
How would these radical feminists feel if their quest for a perfect baby meant that they would have to bear another women's child?
Well, enough with the snark.
I'm actually kind of wondering where the ideas of this women are coming from.
Is this a preemptive effort to get around the increasing obstacles for women being able to get both their “sexy sons” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexy_son_hypothesis ) and financial support? The proliferation of low-cost DNA paternity tests and allowing men up to two years to figure out that they’ve been cuckolded (and still be free of child alimony) makes the good-old paternity fraud route less tenable. The desirable alphas are getting smarter about carelessly spreading their “seed”. And, fewer “provider” men are getting married than ever.
So, perhaps, to the shallow-mind of a feminist, the ideal approach IS to simply make the government pay for all women’s babies, and let the women pick their desired “designer” sperm.
I guess I won’t be terrible surprised if in the not-to-distant future we start to hear convoluted logical arguments coming from feminists suggesting that if MEN were doing what they are SUPPOSED to do and marrying, divorcing, and quietly handing over child-alimony (for whomever’s children their ex-wives have), more men would be paying for more women’s babies – thus, single men (only) ought to be subject to an extra tax intended to augment child rearing costs for single women.
Well, that’s my “re-gifted” $0.02
"Never mind... I know..."
What do you mean?
Seems nothing but logical and believable to me. I wonder if people are aware of this consciously, or unconsicously.
Since women were to the right of men for some of Britain's history, I wonder if the Brit left was proposing to serve as Public Beta at that time, or not.
For a while, I posted links on Facebook to various articles that I thought had overlapping appeal between myself and my social network. I found it interesting to test them to see what they really care about.
I concluded that in their personal lives, most people are super soft, and my most successful personal branding strategy would be a social persona that's very open and lighthearted. I find a quite effective example to be the personal website of the esteemed Dan Ariely: http://www.predictablyirrational.com/?page_id=5
James, some of us aren't just now catching on. This stuffs seems obvious, almost.
All of feminism is beta aversion.
At it's root any feminist idea is one that will free women to either (a) live without a beta provider or (b) obtain higher quality sperm.
Name a feminist idea that doesn't fit into one of these two and I'll show that it actually does.
Steve, you may well be right, but just to see how your theory holds:
Title Nine applied to athletics
"Title Nine applied to athletics"
Increases the number of scholarships given to women to go to college. In college they've got more sexual access to desirable men.
On top of that, title nine chicks interact with male athletes; guys who are almost all more cadish (alpha) than dadish (beta).
Finally, it cuts the number of scholarships for male athletes in sports that are unpopular; women are not as interested in these guys and would prefer they go away. Who wants more dorky golfers around hitting on you?
Who wants more dorky golfers around hitting on you?
Tiger appears to get plenty of trim. Now, had you said greco-roman wrestling or badminton...
The problem is that the state is a pretty stingy father.
Secondly, it seems that a great many AfAm females go for that option, but then they have an evolved disposition to try to go it alone anyway, and that does not cut the mustard when the shit hits the fan. What is going to happen when the state no longer has such large amounts of largesse at its disposal and we hit another mini ice age?
In some sense it seems that the good times we have been living through are a winnowing or selection function. It selects for those who can manage to improve the genes of their offspring by ensuring that they have strong future-time orientation and an ability to get through the tough times that are coming.
You mention the ability of politicians, due to their status, to get tail without mentioning the tail these politicians seem to be getting. Gov. Eliot Spitzer, a rich and powerful man, had to pay for it. Gov. Mark Sanford's Latin beau doesn't impress, nor does Sen. Max Baucus's mistress Melodee Hanes (who, because of the modern spelling of her name, I assumed to be about two decades younger than she actually is). Senators Chris Dodd and Ron Wyden have both managed to score women much younger than themselves, but neither would incite any fantasies. Monica Lewinsky wasn't too bad, but she surely wasn't model material, whatever Vogue says.
The truth seems to be that women who avoid long-term relationships to go it alone, with the state as their husband, are mostly women who aren't able to attract attractive men. The men they do manage to get are unattractive not for physical reasons but for behavioral ones. They simply don't stick around.