Sunshine Mary nails it

We have been discussing the demographic transition – the tendency of peoples to fail to reproduce, examining varying nations, religious groups and such to see what makes a difference and what does not.

Sunshine Mary has proposed a theory which I think fits all our data.
Ten changes that need to happen in order to promote society-wide traditional sex roles.

The only way that it is safe for women to engage in traditional sex roles – keeping the home, nurturing the young, caring for the old, ministering to the sick and the poor – is if they can depend on the support of a husband and kin network. And the only way it is safe for men to engage in traditional sex roles – providing for and protecting women and children – is if their investment in their families is protected from destruction and theft by corporations, governments, and the women themselves.

One might suppose Saudi Arabia to be a counter example, but Saudi women are exposed both to easy divorce, and to state intervention to raise the status of women.

One might suppose China to be a counter example, but the excess of males caused a rise in the status of women, and an ensuing sexual revolution, since those females could play around, and still get married.

22 Responses to “Sunshine Mary nails it”

  1. Chris says:

    How would the general female populous react to such changes? Empowerment tends to give people a sense of entitlement which makes a reversion to traditional roles an issue.

    • Bob says:

      I don’t recall the spartan women saying much when they lost their rights. Women tend to be go with the flow types.

    • jim says:

      Look at who they are screwing. They are screwing whoever can disempower them.

      Women’s rights are a shit test. You pass shit tests by not taking them seriously. The girl throws a temper tantrum, which swiftly blows over.

      Women, I think, would just love the re-introduction of traditional sex roles. Look how many women convert to Islam.

      • sunshinemary says:

        Completely agree. Fighting tooth and nail against a return to traditional sex roles means that either the woman is majorly fitness testing men or she is extremely unattractive and benefits more from fake egalitarianism than traditional complementarianism.

        And thank you for the link-back, sir.

    • Jim says:

      “Empowerment tends to give people a sense of entitlement which makes a reversion to traditional roles an issue.”

      They’re not “empowered” (what a desperate term) they just think they are.

  2. thinkingabout it says:

    I’m in a quandary. Should I love Islam because it seems most in accord with nature, it doesn’t tolerate nonsense from the cultural left, it doesn’t disrespect its men? Or should I hate it because it is Arab imperialism which destroys native cultures wherever it goes?

    • jim says:

      Islam is surprisingly vulnerable to Cathedral entryism – Iran’s university’s are tools of the Cathedral. They wanted MIT, got Harvard.

      Islamic theocracy tends towards rule by stupid people, possibly because Muslims are required to believe a lot of stupid things.

      Islam is both universalist, and arab supremacist, so if you are a non arab, you have to become culturally arab, and the arab culture sucks.

    • Red says:

      Islam leave a wasteland where ever it goes. I’m not really sure why, but it’s just doesn’t appear to be a good system.

    • SMERSH says:

      You should feel ambivalence and a strong conviction that we need to do better.

      Average Muslim IQ = 81 (and this could drop further if we excluded some peripheral and / or not very Muslim areas). Average Arab IQ = 84.

      So Islam doesn’t have particularly good human capital to work with, to put it mildly. On the other hand, Islam looks like it should be dysgenic with all that close inbreeding, making matters worse. But on the other, other hand, Muslim IQs aren’t that far out of line with non-Muslim IQs from the same regions. India = 82 IQ, etc. Islam might be dysgenic, but it’s not all that dysgenic compared to whatever larger factor caused the band of stupid across the top of Africa and the bottom of Asia.

      Taking HBD into account, the extreme limitations and tradeoffs involved in Islam make a bit more sense. You probably don’t want to make things too nuanced when you’re dealing with 79 IQ Yemenis. It seems to me that Islam is one of the few things that has really been able to motivate Arabs to move beyond petty tribalism and corruption, even temporarily. Certainly Western style ideologies like Baathism or pan-Arabism didn’t really cut it, if you think about the military ineffectiveness of secular Arab dictatorships.

      So maybe Islam is a relatively optimal meme for some populations. Muslim birth rates are falling, but we can certainly see memes that are far more destructive for the populations that adopt them. Like whatever white people in California believed back when California was 90% white. But if our big brains are worth anything, we should be able to do a lot better than Islam. We did better than Islam in the past.

      And we probably don’t want 81 average IQ humans to enjoy all that much more biological success than what they’re currently enjoying, so any respect for Islam has to be tempered by the realization that most actual existing Muslim populations really need to be contained.

      • Red says:

        Arab IQ suffered the same problem that Portuguese IQ suffers from: Black slave integration into the larger populace. The arabs were never all that bright to begin with put they took a terrible tumble after the 14-15 century when they heavily integrated their black slaves and ran out of white slaves to import.

        • Red says:

          On a long enough time line slaving integration always happens which is why I slavery is a terrible system… for the slave masters.

        • Alcestis Eshtemoa says:

          Untrue. Portuguese in Portugal are about only 5% black on average and quite “pure” or preserved compared to people in Brazil.

          Portuguese people are very INBREED. That’s the reason for their lower functioning. Arabs, Iranians, Egyptians, Lebanese, Syrians, Afghanis, Pakistanis and others are all practicing INBREEDING.

          They are on average 1 to only 10% black because of marrying cousins, polygamous unions and preservation of the gene pool. In fact, the reason they married each other so much and ended up with much inbreeding was because they were fearful of outbreeding with sub-Saharan Black Africans.

          Brazil is where all of the mixed people exist. Brazil’s population is45% white, 45% mixed race (mestizo-castizo, mulatto-quadroon) and 0.5% Amerindian (Native Amerindian), 7% Black and 2% East Asian (Japanese and Taiwanese Chinese).

          • Red says:

            I’ve seen the 5% number before and it doesn’t appear to be solid science. They ignored male Bantu DNA that went into the pool(They assumed only female slaves producing children) which isn’t surprising as it’s pretty much impossible to calculate a percentage of Male DNA due to the randomness in the combinations of DNA code. It doesn’t really mater to me the exact amount. Books before 1920 points to intermixing as the downfall of the Portuguese people and the decline is quite dramatic. The nation went from one of the brightest in western Europe to the dumbest and most useless in a very short period of time.

            http://www.npr.org/2012/04/09/150062919/lack-of-graduates-hampers-portugals-recovery
            That’s a 30% rate of high school graduation.

            I don’t buy the idea that first cousin marriage causes low IQ. HBD chick pretty conclusively proved that first cousin marriage causes tribal behavior and there’s no reason to be smarter/better than the rest of the tribe when it comes to selection. That’s the big downside to being a tribe, people naturally don’t get smarter because of the buffering effect that tribal life has unless they’re under heavy environmental or external pressure.

            Stressors on a population makes that population smarter unless it’s a Bantu population that compensates for stressors by producing more and more off spring(R-type selection in a K-type world).

            • jim says:

              I don’t buy the idea that first cousin marriage causes low IQ. HBD chick pretty conclusively proved that first cousin marriage causes tribal behavior

              Can cause both

  3. spandrell says:

    those females could play around, and still get married.

    In general, Chinese women after 27 are considered “leftovers”, and have NOT an easy chance marrying. Chinese guys aren’t stupid.

    That doesn’t stop Chinese women from wasting their youth waiting for the rich guy to swoop them out their feet of course.

  4. red says:

    And yet the early Christians did it all without state suport.

    • jim says:

      Paul’s program for lowering female status and raising male status was more subtle and insidious than a neg. Far from resisting it, women loved it.

      • Thrasymachus says:

        So how did the status of women in the Jewish culture of the time compare with the status of Roman/Greek women? It’s not too clear from the NT, at least to me, but it seems that the status of women was lower in Jewish culture than Roman/Greek culture, but not by that much, and Pauline Christianity lowered it more.

        In the evangelical families with many children, I think the husband has to have personal alpha status, and alpha status in the community. The same guys get the hot women in evangelical churches as they do elsewhere. The evangelical culture successfully promotes the traditional family for a few people, but only a little for most. It’s better than nothing though.

        • jim says:

          When we say that Paul lowered the status of women even further, we should emphasize that his methods were more humane, caring, and protective than those of the Taliban.

Leave a Reply