I’ve said it here and elsewhere before, but I will say it again now because it is relevant: I think that Dalrock’s breakthrough proposition that serial monogamy is simply the female preferred form of promiscuity (i.e., for almost all women other than the most high sociosexuality, r-selecting/High-T women) is the most subversive thing he has ever written, and also profoundly true. It is also the gateway to understanding what we are trying to get at, identify and describe when we are discussing the female-variant of the super-norm (my own very much “work-in-progress” term for what we are discussing). This is because the widespread acceptance of the serial monogamy script as being “good” by pretty much everyone regardless of political, religious, and philosophical affiliation demands an explanation, and that explanation cannot be as facile as “it’s feminism”, precisely because feminism as a movement promoted no such script, and indeed was proposing relationship models that were much more radical than anything involving serial monogamous relationships with a series of men. It isn’t feminism. It’s something else. And that “something else” is what we are trying to identify, describe and understand in these discussions and posts.
In thinking about the relationship between feminism and the female-variant of the super-norm, I picture two rivers that flow into one, where immediately prior to the point at which they join there has been erected a big dam that spans both rivers and modulates their flow into the one, joined river. Each river represents a variant of the super-norm — the male and female variants, respectively. The dam in this picture is patriarchal hard monogamy, something which restricts both rivers and modulates them into a flow that is good for the joined river into which they both flow past the dam. One day a group of terrorists comes along and blows up the dam on the female river — the explosion also blows up some of the male river dam, but much less of it. These terrorists are, of course, the feminists. In the aftermath of the explosion, the female river is overflowing the dam, and has a hugely disproportionate flow into the joined river — this is our current cultural situation.
Now, someone living through this would clearly blame the feminist terrorists for blowing up the dam, because the explosion resulted in the overflowing of the female side of the river. However, the garbage that is flooding the observer’s street isn’t feminism, but the female river — too much of it, in an unmodulated way, such that it is overwhelming the male contribution to the river, which is still being (mostly) modulated by the dam. It’s that “flow” that we are discussing — not the feminist explosion that allowed it to flow, but the actual flow itself. This is something distinct from feminism, and claiming that it is simply feminism really looks like deliberate obfuscation once the concept is properly understood. (Emphasis added).
The main one is the observation, correct in my view, that the “dam” in this picture is a biased one — that is, it is biased in favor of the female-variant “river”. This is undoubtedly true. From my perspective, this is explained primarily by the biological tilt in favor of women as the scarcer reproductive resource, and this has cascaded throughout history, such that the compromise that is the “dam” is a skewed one.
I do not think this is a problem, however. The male-variant, taken to its extreme, is *worse* than the female-variant taken to its extreme, although this is sort of like comparing the destructiveness of two different nuclear bomb variants — they are both destructive when taken to an unchecked extreme. The critical difference, however, between the two unchecked extremes is that the male variant, when unchecked, leads to incessant bloodshed due to endless sexual competition, hierarchy challenges and the like, because the fulfillment of the “male imperative” of polygyny necessarily leaves most men out in the cold — which leads to war among men, whereas the unchecked female-variant leads to the gradual decline of a society and its eventual, yet slow, ruin (as described in Glubb and Unwin). Both are terrible, but the latter is slightly less terrible because it defers the ultimate terrible, and deferral is almost always preferred over immediacy, when it comes to negatives.
In any case, Pittsburgh’s geographic and topographic situation provides almost the perfect image of what I have been trying to convey in some of the posts of this series, and which I will continue to explore in a few posts which still need to be finished.
As I describe above, the two rivers — the Monongahela and the Allegheny — are the male and female variants of the super-norm — that is, the two “ultimate” or “ideal” versions of how the society would be organized in terms of rules, norms, mores and so on, to further their respective reproductive and genetic replicative interests. The “dam” would be right over Point State Park there in the center of the image, and would modulate each river before permitting the flow of each into the merged, mighty Ohio river. This modulation favors the female river over the male one, for reasons of biology and culture, but it is still a very substantial restriction on the female river, and one which serves the interests of more males and females than an exaggerated flow from either the Monongahela or Allegheny rivers would.
Sometimes nature really does provide us with clues to help answer mental puzzles.