Andrew Anglin has an article on Unz.com entitled: “Reality 101: Women Look at Status the Same Way Men look at Tits and Ass.” If I can summarize, men want women who look like they can reproduce and women want status (read Type A males) to protect them while they do so.
This is more or less what I would have said a decade ago, but not what I said exactly a year ago in The Long View at Eurocanadians.ca. Then I made the point that women were making themselves irrelevant by denying their own sexuality and that men would replace them with AI sex robots.
I still believe this, but the Anglin article has focused my thinking on his second point; that women want status. Here’s how he puts it:
Most relevant here, however, is that if she is to bear this man’s child, and he is to become her protector, she wants him to be as powerful and influential as possible. She wants that for herself and for her child. If she’s going to commit to him, which she basically has to do in a post-tribal age when the nuclear family is necessary for the survival of women and children, then she wants the most resources she can possibly obtain, and she wants the highest possible social status. Generally, wealth and status are going to be linked.
This is logical, male thinking, and it used to be my thinking, but I now realize this is wrong. Women want status for themselves, not in their men, because status is power. Women want power for the same reason men do, with power you can do things, go places, order people around. There’s no need to exercise power though a man when you can exercise power over a man.
Indeed, Anglin seems to be toying with this approach, despite the previous quote, because he says women on hormone pills don’t want real men, they want girly men to provide emotional support:
On these pills, the reproductive impulses of a woman completely shut down, so effectively, instead of looking for a traditionally attractive mate (as defined above), they look for a man who can serve as an emotional support item, similar to a pet. They also want a man who will work as a kind of servant, so do not look for the dominant and powerful men who would normally be attractive to them.
I’m not going to accuse Anglin of playing both sides of the street here because I think he was right in the first case, and is right in the second. Women, not on the pill, did want a strong, powerful and rich mate. Women on the pill, on the other hand, want to be the man in the family with a mate acting as a girlfriend, not a provider or defender.
This is also the reason women don’t want children. Children mean they have less power, more responsibility
What’s the problem with this, aside from denying future generations any chance at life on this planet? What’s wrong is that despite all the advances women have made in the professions, the military, and business; women in direct competition with men usually aren’t as successful. As women have found out in mixed-sex sports, and boardrooms across the country, men are typically bigger, stronger and more aggressive.
Of course, there are exceptions, but if you take a look at the broad scope of human activities, it’s men who have built the roads, bridges, cars, ships, airplanes, universities and governments and women who have enjoyed using them. Perhaps what they’re planning to do is to keep men at these rude tasks while they lounge around like Cleopatra.
You can prove this is true by listing all the other prominent women in history: (Samson and) Delilah, Mary (Mother of Jesus), Helen (of Troy), Boadicea, Joan of Arc, Elizabeth I, Queen Isabella, Georgiana Cavendish (fashion), Ada Lovelace (computers), Catherine the Great, Jane Austen, Queen Victoria, Florence Nightingale, Marie Curie, Frances Willard (Women’s Christian Temperance Union), Elisabeth (of Austria), Mata Hari (spy), Gertrude Bell (explorer), Emmeline Pankhurst (Suffragette), Edith Cavell (heroine), Amelia Earhart (aviatrix), Wallis Simpson (Edward VIII’s mistress), Hedy Lamarr (frequency hopping inventor), Coco Chanel (fashion), Pamela Churchill (courtesan), Diana Mosley (beautiful fascist), Leni Riefenstahl (film maker), Eva Braun (Hitler’s mistress), Elanor Roosevelt (first lady), Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, Eva Perón, Margaret Thatcher, Angela Merkel, Aung San Suu Kyi (politician), who am I missing? Roberta Bondar (astronaut), Marilyn Monroe (actress), Taylor Swift (phenom). Well, even with these included, this is not a very long list for a planet with eight billion people..
No, to judge by current travel ads on television, lounging around a pool, drinking wine with the “girls” and enjoying a spa day seem to the the ultimate female activities. Indeed, it seems to me, the only reason women get married these days is to send pictures to the friends and relatives who couldn’t afford to fly to Tahiti to enjoy the ceremony in person.
Meanwhile, back in the lab, you would think AI computer people, the robotic humanoid builders and the sex doll factory owners would be realizing they’re all in the same business, but amazingly, they don’t, yet. Nor have the scientists working on artificial wombs brought forth a working model for human embryos.
Still, these are early days. What we do know is that women don’t want to be women any more and they’re moving their sex into a tough field, the world of men. I wish them well.
Meanwhile, take another look at the image above, pretty good eh? Who’s to say a complete robotic female won’t be just as gorgeous? And if one is built, you know who’s going to build it.
And you know why.
