In China in 2013, 125 boys were born for every 100 girls. By 2020, the predictions are that there will be 24 million men more than women. This is the result of a combination of historical communist state control over the number of children allowed to families, and the fact that mothers have been selectively aborting girls who, in the Chinese culture, traditionally have had lower economic value to their families than boys.
The social effect of this is fascinating in the context of what feminism is doing to our society in the west.
In a documentary programme on the UK’s Channel 4,1‘Unreported World’ documentary broadcast 19.30hrs 18 October 2013 on UK Channel 4. young men were interviewed about Chinese women’s choices of future husbands. One of the interviewees said:
‘Women want you to have a flat, a car and money for the wedding.’
What a blast from the past this seems to be in modern Britain: a man having to establish himself in life before seeking a bride. It feels almost archaic when compared to our modern feminist socially re-engineered society where men and women are ‘equal’.
Now, obviously, there is an issue of supply and demand going on in China. When women so significantly outnumber men, they can take their pick of the best. Their relative short supply allows them to be choosy. In fact, the reverse situation happened in Britain and Germany in the decade or so following the end of the First World War, when there were far more women than men because so many young men had been killed in the trenches of France and Belgium. The destruction of the flower of marriageable manhood in that obscene event meant that many women missed out on marriage and children altogether.
However, there is something deeper going on in China today that puts our situation in the west in a completely new light. What is happening there is an excellent example of Bateman’s Principle working itself out in that society.
The work of A J Bateman (1948)2Bateman, A.J. (1948), Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila, Heredity 2 (Pt. 3): 349–368 on the mating behaviour in fruit flies, is now widely accepted by biologists as being applicable to human reproductive behaviour. Bateman showed that there is a far greater variability of reproductive success in males of a mammalian species than in females. This is due to the fundamental nature of fertilisation where many sperm compete with few eggs, and only one ‘wins’.
A man has billions of chances of passing on his genes in his lifetime – right up to his death – but he has much greater variability in his reproductive outcomes than a woman. On the other hand, a woman’s chances are measured in dozens in her lifetime. All the eggs she will ever produce from her ovaries during her fertile life are there in her body when she is born. As only a few of these are released each month for 35 years or so, before her reproductive capacity comes to an end, her capacity to reproduce is greatly limited – so she really does have to be choosey, if she is to be reproductively successful.
Bateman’s principle explains why men compete with other men for the best women. They chase after the best looking ones because good looks imply the essence of femininity: heterosexuality, breeding-ability and good female genes that promise good-looking children who will, in turn, attract good mates and ensure the best chance of success in the human race for survival.
A man will also look for a woman who is the most devoted and loyal, because that is his guarantee against being cuckolded: tricked into bringing up another man’s children and thus deprived of passing on his own genes.3A survey carried out in December 2013 by the respected UK organisation YouGov found that, across the board, 8 per cent of British fathers were unsure of their child’s paternity. In certain regions, it was as much as 16 per cent. Of those who were out of work (thus indicating a particular socio-economic group) it was 17 per cent and amongst fathers who were separated or divorced, it was as high as 18 per cent (of course, this may be a symptom of the resentment men feel in divorce, especially if there are custody and access difficulties running concurrently with court orders for child support). What is more, across the board, three per cent of mothers reported being unsure who is the biological father of their child, and that was five times greater for mothers aged between eighteen and twenty-four. These are astonishing figures. SOURCE: http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed127787 He will also look for a woman who is the most warm and loving, because that implies she will care well for his children, the precious product of his genes, until their maturity and successful independence.
Women, of course, have opposing but complementary genetic drivers. A woman will look for a mate who controls the most resources in society, who is the fittest, the strongest, the wealthiest, the most powerful she can get. Physical good looks – handsomeness, if you like – come far down on the list of male attributes for a woman. She knows she is inherently vulnerable, especially during pregnancy, childbirth and early years nurturing, and she seeks security from a man who will be loyal and stick around whilst she devotes her body to its most vital task.
This is what is going on in China where the imbalance in sexes is only serving to throw women’s need for the most security-donating male into stark relief.
Feminists don’t like Bateman’s Principle, of course. It goes against their political ideal of ‘equality’; which is not about equality of opportunity or even égalité, it is a left-wing political revolutionary concept.
Feminism insists that men and women are equal, qua ‘the same’. Its core theory is that, ‘one is not born a woman but becomes one’, a particularly incomprehensible, quasi-philosophical/political construct invented by Simone de Beauvoir, a Marxist existentialist bi-sexual paedophile, revered as feminism’s matron ‘saint’, who borrowed its underpinning existentialist philosophy from a man, her male lover, Jean Paul Sartre.
The inevitable logical outcome of this fundamental tenet of feminism is that female babies are born essentially androgynous and are then turned into gendered women under the pressure of man-shaped society. (This is one of the ideas that allows lesbians to be so significant in the ranks of feminism. They and feminism are perfectly happy bedfellows.) It is nonsense, of course, because such a proposition flies in the face both of nature and common sense, but then these factors have never been the strongest suit of feminists who much prefer mantras and dogma in their desire for women to be the dominant sex.
Feminists believe that nurture not nature dictates what it is to be a woman (or a man for that matter). They believe their philosophy informs the way men and women interact with one another socially, and what role each plays in society.
Feminism’s equality-qua-sameness is the antithesis of the nature-ordained complementarity of the sexes, in which men and women work out their biologically-programmed roles, and the irony of all this is that feminism shoots itself in the foot. Women who espouse feminism are supporting the very thing that is not only against their biological natures, it is also not in their best social interests.
We see this at work in the child-women who are the modern feminist activists. Women like Laura Bates who campaigns with enormous vigour (and no small degree of success it has to be said) to deny men their natural inclination to wolf-whistle and ‘come on’ to women they find attractive. She labels this as ‘sexism’, that modern feminist thoughtcrime, which is a classic example of feminists seeking to deny nature and social factors in reproductive activity.
We also see the denial of nature at work in the relentless hatchet job feminists continuously perpetrate on men and maleness. They relentlessly seek to portray men as fools or lazy, or as unreliable, raping, violent, controlling creatures in thrall to their base instincts (which of course they are, as are women, although not in the sense that feminists seek to make out), and they seek constantly to reduce the image of men to the opposite of what women are biologically programmed to look for. Now isn’t that a strange thing to do?
The ‘liberation’ that feminism truly wishes for women, is actually liberation from men: from men’s authority, influence and involvement in society – except on feminist terms. Feminism’s fanatical fight against patriarchy is actually a fight against men’s authority4It is couched in false terms and based on one of the biggest errors of logical thought – the begged question: that whose underlying premise is itself questionable i.e. that men are actually controlling women. If they are not, there is no need for liberation from them. – particularly the authority of the father as head of the family.
Patriarchy actually means ‘the rule of the father’ in his family: it is men fulfilling nature’s inbuilt imperative to provide for, guard, guide and look out for the welfare of their wives and children, so those children can grow up successfully to pass on their genetic code. Men die to do this – in wars.
When Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the fathers of communism (and feminism is a core strand in Marxist thinking), sat together in that corner window seat in Chethams’ Library in Manchester in the 1840s, hatching their plans to change society to communist principles, Manchester was in the grip of fantastic social change. Like many other towns in Britain in the second stage of the Industrial Revolution, it had exploded economically in only 30 years, and social conditions were appalling. There was high child mortality from diseases such as smallpox, measles, scarlet fever and whooping cough, which today are almost non-existent. Death rates were around 33 per hundred in the cities, whereas, in the countryside, they were 22 per hundred (and those were mostly infant mortalities).
Marx and Engels blamed this all on capitalists (who were men, of course), and it is from there that the idea of men as oppressors of women emerged. Engels went on to develop this idea, conflating men with capitalism and women with the oppressed worker, and this was the fertile ground in which idea of the ‘liberation’ of women took root. The endless struggle that now exists between men and women in British society today (and in America and Canada, and increasingly Australia, also examples of the industrialist/capitalist system) that has split society along the fault line of gender, is all predicated on this premise. That is why there is so much tension between women and men. That is why feminists are constantly seeking as much leverage for women as they can get. It is all based on the Marxist/Engelist/communist capital-vs-labour struggle.
Yet, in China, people are working things out according to biology – despite the interventions of communism (and, I repeat, feminism is part of communism) – but here in Britain, so gripped are we by feminism, we are going in the opposite direction, trying to implement the very ideology that caused China so many problems in the first place.
Feminism is a destructive social force that is intent on changing men and women into clones according to its own political-ideological constructs. It is not, and never has been, about equality of opportunity, or about equal rights for all (how could it be, you cannot assert the rights of one half of the population, without inhibiting the rights of the other half? I mean, men and women don’t exist independently of one another. I wrote at more length about this here).
Least of all is feminism about liberation. Feminism frees no one. All it does is attract people who follow it into a form of ideological slavery that isn’t in their, or society’s best interests. Feminism takes freedom away: the freedom of men and women to interact with each other naturally, and choose the best mates they can find; the freedom to choose sexual partners and reproduce according to a much greater set of rules – nature’s rules.
Political movements like feminism can only have an effect on society, they cannot change human nature, but it is the damage they do in the meantime that matters. Maybe, one day, Britain might become like China?
[ + ]
|1.||↩||‘Unreported World’ documentary broadcast 19.30hrs 18 October 2013 on UK Channel 4.|
|2.||↩||Bateman, A.J. (1948), Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila, Heredity 2 (Pt. 3): 349–368|
|3.||↩||A survey carried out in December 2013 by the respected UK organisation YouGov found that, across the board, 8 per cent of British fathers were unsure of their child’s paternity. In certain regions, it was as much as 16 per cent. Of those who were out of work (thus indicating a particular socio-economic group) it was 17 per cent and amongst fathers who were separated or divorced, it was as high as 18 per cent (of course, this may be a symptom of the resentment men feel in divorce, especially if there are custody and access difficulties running concurrently with court orders for child support). What is more, across the board, three per cent of mothers reported being unsure who is the biological father of their child, and that was five times greater for mothers aged between eighteen and twenty-four. These are astonishing figures. SOURCE: http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed127787|
|4.||↩||It is couched in false terms and based on one of the biggest errors of logical thought – the begged question: that whose underlying premise is itself questionable i.e. that men are actually controlling women. If they are not, there is no need for liberation from them.|