Feminists Are Masculine

I got this post off the Facebook r/K Theory Discussion page. If you aren’t there, you’re square.

Again, Woodley is dancing around the margins of r/K Theory:

The feminist movement purports to improve conditions for women, and yet only a minority of women in modern societies self-identify as feminists. This is known as the feminist paradox. It has been suggested that feminists exhibit both physiological and psychological characteristics associated with heightened masculinization, which may predispose women for heightened competitiveness, sex-atypical behaviors, and belief in the interchangeability of sex roles. If feminist activists, i.e., those that manufacture the public image of feminism, are indeed masculinized relative to women in general, this might explain why the views and preferences of these two groups are at variance with each other. We measured the 2D:4D digit ratios (collected from both hands) and a personality trait known as dominance (measured with the Directiveness scale) in a sample of women attending a feminist conference. The sample exhibited significantly more masculine 2D:4D and higher dominance ratings than comparison samples representative of women in general, and these variables were furthermore positively correlated for both hands. The feminist paradox might thus to some extent be explained by biological differences between women in general and the activist women who formulate the feminist agenda.

Again, for those who are new, K-selection features aggressive/protective males who guard families and take mortality for their offspring, while it features feminine women who please males and guide offspring away from danger as the male risks, and maybe sacrifices himself for his monogamous mate and his carefully reared and protected offspring.

In r-selection the sexual dimorphism switches, with males becoming feminine, and females becoming masculine. This is because males gorge on free resources, flee conflict, and mate and flee, leaving the female to raise offspring herself. As a result, males grow small, fleet footed, and develop the kind of feminine appearance which would make a K-selected male actually feel bad about hurting them. Females meanwhile, grow large and aggressive, since they have to provision and protect the offspring which they rear alone.

The amygdala, the stress-processing center of the brain is the brain center which handles K and r programming. Atrophy the amygdala, and you get r-selection. If you have a resource glut, the dopamine shuts off the amygdala. Lack of threat and fear further atrophies the amygdala-structure. As genes which code for amygdala-development are not used, epigenetic markers are altered which produce a heritable predisposition toward amygdala-atrophy, which will only be exacerbated toward further atrophy by continued resource-gluts.

That is how an r-selected psychology is produced in humans, and it is designed to imbue an r-selected reproductive strategy that will best exploit the resource glut. That r-strategy is the biological origin of liberalism, and this is why it features strangely masculine feminists as a core component of it.

Here it is, documented by Woodley in all sorts of clever ways in a peer-reviewed journal.

Woodley and I talked once, and while he was polite and seemingly took everything in, he did not jump on board with r/K. I took it at the time as his interest was in what was going on with IQ. Thus I have no idea his opinions on r/K Theory. I’d assume this is his normal research process, simply advancing inexorably toward truth in a methodical fashion, but I cannot help but think that at some point, if he has not already seen it, r/K will slap him in the face and he will be shocked.

It amuses me no end to think that someday a hundred years from now some poor bastard will make the connection between r/K, politics, and these cyclical social moods, rush to publish, and then be informed by one reader that everything, literally just about everything on this subject, was already laid out on this site a century prior, and hashed out and dissected into its most minute quanta.

Even funnier is that everyone behind r/K could easily end up being remembered in history alongside Locke, Jefferson, Adams, Machiavelli, Rousseau, and maybe even Ronald Magnus and the God Emperor himself, as Evopsych ends up having a greater effect on the course of civilization than anything Marx ever dreamed up. All of this is the most momentous insight and body of work studying human nature and the forces which guide history and politics that has been produced since the Bible.

The only thing standing in the way of r/K’s blinding success is that in r-selection, quality and reality mean nothing with respect to success.

Then again, perhaps the greatest period of K-selection to be seen in ten or fifteen generations is right around the corner.

Spread r/K Theory, because it you look brilliant when you know everything ahead of time that others are working overtime to figure out