AUsername commented on another post on competitive women, making the case that many such women are Conservative, and their competitiveness is a Conservative trait. I don’t argue with that, nor do I view female competitiveness negatively by itself. However I do believe that as societies progress towards r, you will see increasing competitiveness among females. It’s a symptom of the r-phenomenon, even though it is not inherently bad beyond it’s coincidentally destructive effects on society.
I suspect this competitive female trait arose evolutionarily from r-type changes in male traits, and societal views of the male role in their protection of women. To give the best idea of how all of this works, it probably helps to look at the most extreme examples. Below are links to two pictures of Mixed Martial Artist Kim Couture, in her fight with Kim Rose
Kim Couture’s Broken Jaw 2
If you look closely at her bottom row of teeth, you will notice the teeth on one side are a little higher than the teeth on the other. That is because at the start of her fight, her female opponent delivered a punch to her mouth which split her lower jawbone in two, right down the middle at the chin. The teeth on one side are lower, because one half of her jawbone is hanging a half inch lower than the other half. To her credit, she finished out her fight, and never quit. So she is not just a pretty face, but is certifiably one tough chick.
But looking at this image of a wounded woman, I think that it is clear that something is wrong, and that this is a mark of a society in decline. This isn’t the type of image produced by, and common in, a healthy society. Somehow, we have created something even worse than the Roman Gladiators in the Arena. Two women, locked in a cage, beating each other as wildly as possible, as the crowd cheers, and internet commentators point at the gut wrenching pictures of their disfigurement and laugh. It’s a mark of an unhealthy society that is, at least temporarily, in decline.
I think what this picture signifies is the retreat of the class of men who are driven to protect women, and the rise of a class of men who are not. Some of it is the fault of cowardly beta men, too fearful to be politically incorrect. Still other fault can be laid at the feet of angry, bitter feminists, who having failed to secure the permanent affections of a man themselves, do as much as possible to poison the normal, loving relationship which is supposed to exist between men and women in our society.
In the 1950’s, protective men would have shielded women from being put into physical fights with each other. Kim still wanted to fight? Too bad, these K-type men would have said. Women don’t experience danger or risk, that’s just how it is. (And for those who think I’m criticizing Randy – I’m not. He was married to Kim, so obviously he has little say in these things if she want’s to fight. It was up to men who didn’t have to face Kim at home to prevent this fight – while Randy pretended to object as vociferously as possible, before reluctantly conceding to an inevitable defeat at the hands of an evil, misogynistic patriarchy. This syndrome is a societal effect, not a matrimonial one. It is society as a whole which needs to exhibit K-type mores and reject this type of behavior.)
This is just one early aspect of the disregard for female safety you will see among r-type men, however. As it grows stronger, you get what is seen in Europe today, where a violent rape epidemic is met with callous disregard by Europe’s Leftist males.
Also, there is the Australian media silence on a two year gang rape spree on 70 young girls, one only 13 years old, “Why did it take two years and as many as 70 rapes for us to be made aware of what appears to be a home-grown form of systematic ethnic cleansing by a group of men said to be of “Middle Eastern” extraction? How many girls and young women have been sacrificed because no-one wanted to offend ethnic sensibilities or inflame racist feelings in the community?’”
r-type men genuinely don’t care if their women are raped, because the r-selected reproductive strategy is about avoiding danger, mating promiscuously, and it does not involve an emotional pair bonding with females, or any personal sacrifice on their behalf (indeed, I suspect it often involves a passive hostility towards women). If you wish to see this absence of any concern firsthand, ask a Liberal male if any of these cases are realted to increased third world immigration. Yes, ladies, they would rather import more foreigners and see you raped, than abandon any aspect of Liberal orthodoxy, even as Conservatives next to them are aghast, and want to protect you. (Truly, women who like Liberal men are ignorant, naive fools who cannot judge others.)
This type of Liberal male attitude is the face of men in an r-type society. As it grows, women are increasingly forced to fend for themselves, and they adapt to do so out of necessity.
But as with all aspects of an increasingly r-selected society, these symptoms are the clouds on the horizon. Although I see no problem with women competing or being competitive, I recognize that statistically, their increasing need to do so within our society is a sign that a storm is coming, and we probably should be preparing for it.
[…] Competitive Women in a Changing Society | […]
***callous disregard by Europe’s Leftist males.***
I think that part of the problem is that the elite class have ruled certain areas of debate off limits. Thinking bad thoughts about third world immigration is associated with low status proles. So your well educated liberal male will emotionally recoil from that kind of thought (low status) and use their superior abstract reasoning ability to rationalise their acceptance of this immigration.
Also, as you note the media downplay or avoid news that reflects poorly on third world immigration so people can happily exist in their bubble.
btw. Speaking of r/K I see there is a new Richard Lynn paper on that theory reported in the Daily Telegraph. The paper is here. http://tinyurl.com/8s86x5e
Very true. Since Lib’s gravitate to gaining position in social hierarchies, they do tend to focus more on controlling the debate than looking for truth, and indeed will deny it if it gets in the way of their status climbing. But Libs do also tend to show less concern for women – even the females (ie, Whoopi Goldberg saying Roman Polanski just raped a twelve year old girl, but he didn’t “rape-rape” her, since he didn’t beat her badly as well, so it’s not really bad. Or the Juanita Broaddrick case, where Clinton, by all accounts, viciously raped a vulnerable woman, yet Liberals completely ignore it, and he didn’t even have to deny it to get a pass.)
I always liken Libs to bunny rabbit people, since on the relative r/K spectrum they are in that direction. I think the analogy holds here too. A rabbit wouldn’t understand the concept of rape, or view it as bad. Just like Liberals can’t fathom why Conservatives think teaching sex-ed to five year olds is bad. Bunny rabbit people.
Thank you for the comment, and the Lynn paper. Very interesting.
Best,
AC
Forget hares: think mallard ducks — where gang rape is endemic to the species.
Interesting. If you think nothing about two girls breaking each other’s jaw bones and bloodying each other up, how far are you from raping an attractive girl you happen across. I mean, if girls being bloodied and broken physically is just funny entertainment, what direction are you heading?
I hadn’t thought of it like that.