- I don’t think that “blackpill” is this suppressed “truth” when pretty much everyone is aware of it just by the virtue of socialization. We say that beauty is “subjective”, but it’s not meant to be taken literally. Diplomatic talk always wins and in many ways it’s more revealing than just facts being stated clearly. Think of it as a joke where the punchline is “but the opposite is true!” with a wink.
- Women’s behavior is policed more, they just do a better job of abiding by the rules and suppressing deviant behavior. The debate around free speech is actually a perfect example of that because they’re capable of morally codifying even something as free-flowing as rigorous scientific thought.
- Gender value calculus is an interesting topic too and I would still be inclined to say that child bearing and rearing throws a wrench into that. A birthing person is just worth more from an evolutionary standpoint, especially in a species with a life history such as ours.
- It’s hard to say where this experiment with low fertility and a massive redistribution apparatus will lead people to, because, again, there’s just too much to speculate on here. I would say that the modern anti-dictatorship dictatorship turning into society negates any kind of mass politics: we’re alone in our solitude in the endless sea of consumers and employees. There’s simply nothing to oppose in this technocracy.
- Is this how things are meant to be? In a way, yes. The superfluous mankind, harnessing the cosmic entropy to reach equity by proclaiming universal equality, builds itself by putting black over white, obese over lean, poor over rich, gay over straight—the end result of it being this mass of impotent men incapable of violence seems fitting enough.
- As you point it out, women are affected by this too because failure tends to spill over. Are women happy? Evidence seems to suggest that it’s not the case, but this is largely a byproduct of increased agency. But then again, they’re not dying to go back and there are still millions of solutions for this that don’t require anything that would resemble the idealized version of the 50s Americana.
1. Mate, Americans aren't even clearly aware sexual dimorphism applies to humans. The older generations maybe, the next one has grown up immersed in propganda from a young age. Not that long ago the head of some american healthcare related body refused to define what exactly constitutes a 'woman' in front of congress. People know that men & women have differend sex organs, but beyond that any recognition of differences in trait distributions, innate talents, personalities or preferences are mostly either unknown unknowns or carefully ignored unknowns for the majority of young adults and teens.
You can read stories on here about how much it embittered people to find out they had been lied to their entire life. If you think the blackpill, which btw has some directy overlap with race realism, is known and understood by the majority of normies, academics, really any group not directly focused on the topic, I would like to know what you base that on. Even amongst non-woke intellectual twitter, a place filled with race realists, researchers young and old, working in fields that intercept with
topics and also with rightwing extremists, I got the very strong impression most people were somewhere between completly unaware and aware, but in denial, when it came to even just the basics of attraction. The idea that normies and 115IQ academic brainlets are all secretly aware of
s that they ideologically reject and which have only really gotten as clear as they are now after ~10 year old dating apps collected the data... I just have no reason to believe or suspect that. In a sense, you are judging an entire society guilty of willfully, knowingly pretending to believe something almost no one does and going along with having legislation based on this falsified reality even though they all know it's nothing but lies. Do you really think all the women protesting "gender pay gap" secretly know the dishonesty in what they are protesting, and all the men around them also know, but just no one is saying anything 'cause social pressure? Is that your model for what is happening in America right now?
2. Couldn't disagree more. When a woman is shown to have lied, or been wrong, or behaved manipulative, I do not see them get punished or shamed. Just a bit ago there was a threat on reddit about women showing sympathy to men in misery and there was maybe 1-2 women who said anything that was not 100% hostile blaiming & shaming. One women went so far as to say "good, let these incels kill themselfs". No one even bothered to try and police that type of behavior. Subreddits revolving around females coming together to shit on men as a group are allowed to exist when the male versions of said subs would quickly get shut down. We could go into the justice system and find softer punishments for the same crimes. Or ask if things like false rape accusations are punished in an appropriate manner. If men were refusing their duty to serve society in war like women are refusing to birth a next generation, would society also just go "well, guess that's their choice, good on them!"? Or would men be bombarded with a large scale shame&guilt based mass media campaign to pressure them into doing there part or lose what little social standing they have left? Or would they just be forcedfully recruited if the need arises? I hoenstly could fill pages with all the instances I believe to percieve women getting away with w/e they want with little to no punishment. Not only was there a study showing that people were more willing to believe research that portrait women in a positive light compared to research doing the same for men, the autors of the study itself showcased said bias by initially being hesitant to accept their own results because they weren't totally PC / disagreed with the popular narritive.
In general, a lot of the driving force behind female dominated society were male thinkers and academics, their personalities and predispositions being more relevant than female ones themselfs for how things ended up this way.
Think I'm gonna keep it shorter so this doesnt become unbearable to read.
3. If female worth was determined by their practical relevence to society in the form or "birthing people", women who refuse said duty would lose value and women who embrace it would gain societal respect. That is not what is happening. Women are valued higher because innate pro-female bias amongst men and women, an ideology that has misinterpreted human history and painted men as the unequivocal villains and women as the innocent victims and because men lack group cohesion, making them vulnerable in a battle of group interest.
Evolution is just a mindless process, a mere happenstance, what was evolutionarily most important is only indirectly affecting our societal decision making process.
A hint that your reasoning does not connect with the "why?" behind todays society is that it would work just as well if the roles were reversed: If men were dominating and pushing their interests through with an iron fist, you could just as easily find some evolutionary reason to justify it, such as "evolutionarily, men simply were the ones fighting and taking responsibility and leading the group, society was destined to end up revolving around male interests, it was inevitable!". But it wasn't and it didn't and todays world isn't based purely on 'value' or 'worth' either.
Also, if we just put morals aside, men are obviously capable of just taking what they want from women (individually and as a group).
Society begins when male self-interest and desire are subordinate to the stable cooperation as a group. We let the more violent types of men domesticate the american wilderness, and afterwards we went in and hanged all of these men that couldn't let go of their violent ways and adapt to the more orderly city life. Why is it so obviously fine to force men into cooperation with societal interest, even at the threat of death, but women ought to be free to just let our civilisation die out, if they so choose? Where is that heavy policing of female behavior again?
4. People are too comfortable to get up and revolt and most are blinded by propaganda through culture and education. Enough men not getting a girl and the entire basis of the western world view (blank slate, equality, fairness) being exposed as a manipulative powergrabbing lie might just be enough to get people to do something. But yeah, what happens long term is just too complex to give any strong predictions. And my model of the future is dominated by something unrelated anyways, so I would bet against any of this really mattering long term.
5. There is no "meant to be". The universe is 1000% indifferend and never had any plan or intention. It being poetically fitting (which i don't even agree with) is ultimately a shit reason for letting society turn into a hell hole for half the population.
What 'matters' or is 'important' is also not for the universe to decide. How are we any more or less superfluous than the billion trillion bodies of rock and ice flying around out there?
Aren't we, as the only known concious parts of the universe, exactly the opposite of superfluous, aren't we the pieces that 'matter' the most, since to 'matter' requires
another to whom the thing that matters is of importance to? If anything, only we can decide what matters. I have no interest in letting an near infinite wasteland of dirt and nothingness make that decision for me.
6. I have never understood that part about people that value "freedom" or "free choice" highly. If women aren't aware of what they are choosing and its long term consequences, and men aren't aware of how the game is rigged against them and how mistreated they are, who exactly is even choosing anything intentionally?
How can there be "choice" or "freedom" without an accurate predictive model of reality informing the decisions made. Otherwise, isn't that just a bunch of instinct driven animals with massively inaccurate world models rolling eyes-closed down a hill in possibility space? How is that desirable or optimal? Why should we just let things continue on like that?
I have no interest in 50s America. Artifical intelligence might cure aging, take over all the unpleasent tasks and create more value than we can consume and, in the long term, allow us to life inside a simulation far more enjoyable than anything reality ever had to offer while it stays outside and keep the lights on.
I'm mostly just interested in keeping things as pleasent as possible for as many people as possible until we either are killed or uplifted by said tech, and also in establishing a more fair model of society based on a more truthful understanding of human nature and history.
Moral narratives have grown ever more powerful in an age of meaninglessness and interconnectedness. I percieve my sex to have a very convincing narrative to tell and a strong collective interest in getting society to embrace it. Yet, the people giving themselfs as moral realists or pragmatists seem rather opposed to even try, claiming no change is possible or even desirable.
Are you sure you have not just adapted an analytical framework that allows you to keep your distance, judging and displaying some intellectual capabilites when the opportunity presents itself, while ultimately not having to undertake any risks or effort?
How come in this unfair shitstain of a society with a world model mostly based on lies the right answer ends up being "everything is just as it ought to be, don't do anything, you have no chance and it's better this way anyhow"? Are you sure you are being objective instead of just reactive + defeatist because it's easy and free? Where is your reasonable, pragmatic self-interest? Why is that something only the opposition is allowed to pursue unapologetically ? If women win by manipulating, why are you against manipulating societal discourse in our favor? Where is the willingness to fight and the desire to help those most like yourself?