I enjoyed reading this so much (my poor husband just got bombarded with fun facts on the sofa next to me)! Particularly interesting to see how the sentiment score preceeding the word 'wife' jumped up in the 17th century, absolutely fascinating stuff (ps. I would have greatly enjoyed that wedding speech).
Men make all pairing decision. In the past it was competition through brideprice or other tradeable offers to male parents. Now it's direct and indrect status competition(active and supressed) between men that dictates who has access to ask out and offer things in trade for the right to mate guard her. Like before, offers are collected and vetoed until something is left. Vast majority of women do not make active choice and even in those choices the traits being chosen are functionally identical to what guys detect as success inmale male competition. I'm not arguing it's not better for women, the feminist interpretaiton of 'women have pairing choice now' is an illusion.
The distinction between courtship requiring emotional labour versus just providing resources is fascinating. Makes me wonder how much of contemporary gender dynamics still hinges on that same tension.
Great article. I'd be curious as to your take on how monogamy has been good for women historically, which you seem to imply, and maybe at present. Somehow it feels kind of uncool right now to make a liberal/progressive/feminist argument for monogamy when conservatives make such rigid ones. But at the same time it seems like maybe an explicit liberal or feminist monogamy argument is really needed in the culture. I can see that committing to one another sexually puts pressure on both parties in a marriage to treat each other well ... except when it doesn't? It's a really interesting cultural debate around monogamy right now with morays kind of up for grabs.
Pretty happy that state capacity declines and mass migration mean this gay culture & its attempted assimilation abroad is dead. Hail the clannish European!
Many things contributed to the discipline of men. For example, the individualization of violence in the growing European cities of the modern era. There were no clans or extended families that would come after you for revenge. You were simply killed, and that was it. Boxing, which grew out of English fist fighting, is also about trust. It means that none of the participants will pull out a knife. The founding fathers gave people freedom, and Colt equalized their chances (a culture of honor is extremely detrimental to survival).
Idea that people prefer AI to the attention of the opposite sex is completely ridiculous. They simply cant secure it. And they will not stop "dumping the market" if you take away their porn. Lonely people are already sufferr. At least leave them AI pornography.
I enjoyed reading this so much (my poor husband just got bombarded with fun facts on the sofa next to me)! Particularly interesting to see how the sentiment score preceeding the word 'wife' jumped up in the 17th century, absolutely fascinating stuff (ps. I would have greatly enjoyed that wedding speech).
Thank you so much Jasmine! Yes, that graph is fascinating!
Men make all pairing decision. In the past it was competition through brideprice or other tradeable offers to male parents. Now it's direct and indrect status competition(active and supressed) between men that dictates who has access to ask out and offer things in trade for the right to mate guard her. Like before, offers are collected and vetoed until something is left. Vast majority of women do not make active choice and even in those choices the traits being chosen are functionally identical to what guys detect as success inmale male competition. I'm not arguing it's not better for women, the feminist interpretaiton of 'women have pairing choice now' is an illusion.
You should lift weights.
Loved this!
You might like this related piece I wrote a while back: https://www.kvetch.au/p/wife-economics-and-the-domestication-e8f
The distinction between courtship requiring emotional labour versus just providing resources is fascinating. Makes me wonder how much of contemporary gender dynamics still hinges on that same tension.
Great article. I'd be curious as to your take on how monogamy has been good for women historically, which you seem to imply, and maybe at present. Somehow it feels kind of uncool right now to make a liberal/progressive/feminist argument for monogamy when conservatives make such rigid ones. But at the same time it seems like maybe an explicit liberal or feminist monogamy argument is really needed in the culture. I can see that committing to one another sexually puts pressure on both parties in a marriage to treat each other well ... except when it doesn't? It's a really interesting cultural debate around monogamy right now with morays kind of up for grabs.
Pretty happy that state capacity declines and mass migration mean this gay culture & its attempted assimilation abroad is dead. Hail the clannish European!
Many things contributed to the discipline of men. For example, the individualization of violence in the growing European cities of the modern era. There were no clans or extended families that would come after you for revenge. You were simply killed, and that was it. Boxing, which grew out of English fist fighting, is also about trust. It means that none of the participants will pull out a knife. The founding fathers gave people freedom, and Colt equalized their chances (a culture of honor is extremely detrimental to survival).
Idea that people prefer AI to the attention of the opposite sex is completely ridiculous. They simply cant secure it. And they will not stop "dumping the market" if you take away their porn. Lonely people are already sufferr. At least leave them AI pornography.
P.S. Do you really consider men to be cattle?