I would say certain level of cuckery always persisted, but when all this bs about "respecting femoids" came?
I could give a short answer, but I shall give it broad because of my recent meditations on similar problem. Femoids are, unlike humans, part of nature; humans as a whole are a negation of nature. Therefore they're contradictory beings. In times when men just began to attain humanity, they were intimidated by the force that was their negation, much powerful than they were at the time: so began the worship of nature, that is chthonic worship. Existence of it started the history, which in dialectical process shall end in negation of this; since the spirit flows to the freedom, which is rationality - absent in the nature dominance, therefore it is highest in the absolute negation of thereof. The state of chthonic worship was very powerful in these days, one can just look at the neolithic (not fully included) included history to acknowledge that. The city states of fertile crescent started to show first negations of it, although minimal: the slow decadence of foid goddesses in Asyria, Babillon and prior to these the Sumeria, and raise of male gods, such as lord Marduk, killing Tiamat. In the middle east it lasted in this state, or I should rather say: it decadenced slower than in other regions. Even in Greece the culture was foid-worshipping, as Minoans show. But the new world was rising: the Hellenic world. The conquer of Greece by Dorics was a beginning of new era, new kulturgeist to rule over the Greece. With that, all arts were renewed: Heraclitus put his writing to the temple, Homer wrote his Iliad and Odyssey, Socrates teach and died; the spirit was rising as the Hellens on their horses and chariots were crushing last bastions of chthonicity (in the Greek world). Although they were no unity in them, hundreds of polis fighting each other were not able to forge a form for the higher spirit than the one focused on the particular interest, tyrant or voting owner. In the meantime, Alexander conquered his way through the middle eastern chthonicity and partially civilized the barbaric Persians and other wild nations. But the new power has been created and raised above them: Rome. It was founded by Romulus in a way that could predict its future greatness: sabinae raptae. Such a beatiful act of human supremacy over nonhumans was truly worthy of Rome. After him and Titus Tatius, the many worse or better (like Numa and Hostilius) kings had ruled the eternal city, all through the Tarquinius, which one was overthrowed, what shows the dialectical laws here, for negation of Romulus legacy, that is seizing the means of reproduction just for particular spirit desire. Thus began the republican Rome. Not only he was the light for itself, but he widened the spirit progress all across the old world. Firstly, by conquer of Etruscans and other more chthonic tribes. Secondly, the great victory was achieved by him over Carthage, the core of femoid worship, the colony of Fenicia, which was descendant of middle eastern culture I wrote about earlier. In the punic wars, Hanibal's (or rather carthaginian) armies got crushed, his fleet sinked and Carthage itself got eradicated and salt was poured over it. The third great victory was achieved by Romans against the Gauls, worshiping femoids and even sometimes having them as leaders. Caesar rightfully stomped on them with his legions, finally defeating Vercingetorix under walls of Alesia. With Caesar and three others warlords, (not formally) has ended the Republic. The virtue, as Montesquieu says, holds the power of the republic; it is necessary for it to survive, while in other forms of the state, the honor (in monarchy) or the fear in despotism are enough. They're not necessarily absent, but aren't such great nor widely spread. If one want to see how the foids were seen as, or I should say: understood, he should simply read Cato's (the elder) texts. But the virtue, along with republic, was no more. Princeps word substituted, as Saint-Just ( with whom I don't agree much, but some of his texts' parts are interesting) says, immortal institutions. The abandonment of lex julia proves that well. The peak of decadence of Rome was rule of Heliogabal, what is, I think, clear. When the romans were consumed by assassinating their rulers and each other, a certain jew was executed in province of Judea: his name was Jesus Christus. The raise of christianity, that followed his death, set the already rotten roman spirit to the new dialectial form; the negation of both, humans and nonhumans, in favor of the absent God. Although it can be seen as worse than roman worldview, it was necessary successor of it; since the human over nonhumans supremacy was not necessary strong in Rome, christianity was a cathartic step to the intense of it, for the pure supremacy itself in it was much stronger then ever before. The fall of rome was necessary, since the more foid-despsing (even although of their religious arianism) germanics had the stronger objective spirit. They sacked the Rome, then conquered it. Yet it was necessary for them to also become christian. Thus began the medieval. I could also describe the rise of Mahometans that took place in it, but I shall focus on Europe: since muslims just stopped at the similar level on which the chrtianity were, although islam differs from it just in way, that through the worship of God it sets human over nature supremacy, what's a middleground between chritianity and germanic humanist (in known sense) religion. In terms of medieval, it can be described very easily: absolute dominance of the christian spirit. What is after this stagnation, is the first sign of its rot (which i don't take heresies for, since these were other angles of the same geist): beggining of reneissance. Man became the measure of all things, thus human supremacy had shyly started to raise above the all nongod being negation of christiandom. The chritian god wasn't killed in a day nor a single secularist work: all the reneissance legacy were the blowns dealed to him. This process had its breaking point in the French Revolution, in which christianity was for the first time despised by the state, that is objective spirit. Marat; Robespierre; Danton; they were the sword of enlightenment's, firstborn son of reneissance project, negation of religion. The human as the individual was took as the highest idea; contradictory to what Rousseau wrote. Liberalism is the supremation of human being as the individual over nonhuman; thus the supremacy of just particular spirit over nature. Even though the nature was taken as good in liberal ideas (on which ground they all agree), this was just a casus belli against the given order. Proof is much clearer and wider worship of the rationality, which is of course contradictory to nature. The enlightenment project has won its first fight against reactionary forces, but then a problem arised: who is human, and is his particularity more human than individuality? This great schism is the source of all philosophical and ideological debates of modern history. Contradictionary idea to the liberalism I described is the absolutism (collectivism), taking the objective spirit as the highest achievable rather than subjective one. Knowing this divide, all the modern ideology can be understood, thus I shall described them in chronological order. Firstly, nationalism: it tooks the nation as the most human entity. Its first great triumph was during jacobin's rule, when the 'royal' was replaced with 'national'. It was the main idea of european states until the end of great war in 1918. Secondly the liberalism, I already wrote about. Next is communism: it takes the working class as the highest being. Then racism, which is the same as two before him, but takes a race as his subject. The current great idea is hipergamism, which attribute humanity to femoids and their owners, which are the ones with physiognomic traits seen as human. The pattern i mentioned is clearly visible in these ideologies: they desperately try to answer the question of the humanity or its lack. But they can't finally proof their truth; they only operate on phenomenons, thus they're stuck in eternal antinomy, metaphysics which can't be proven, which strength lies entirely in sophism. Only the objective philosophy can give an answer to this schism. Human is the one, who is contradictionary to the nature; thus the one, who is capable of acting against it. Femoids cannot do it, since they're driven by imperative of hypergamy. Thus only men can be called human. Yet the ruling idea is still hipergamism; of which pure anithesis is dogmatical blackpillism. To see this clearly, I shall look at both of these ideas. Hypergamism is the taking of femoids and their owners as human; but it cannot be collective idea, since it's not chthonic: for in chthonicism the general worship of nonhumans is seen as the greatest, when many particular cases can be still in favor of humans, while in hypergamism the particular pleasure and gain are the ones that the laws are mostly concerned about; thus the hypergamism is taking prior mentioned particulars as the highest form of humanity. Also there will never exist an idea of only attributing humanity to femoids, since they always will worship the ones with desired physical traits. Therefore the hypergamism (you're asking about) is the final form of femoid worship. Now, I shall show clearly that its antithesis is the dogmatical blackpillism. It's not a consistent idea, but a form of it every time remain the same; superiority of men over nonhumans is well saw, but the mean to seize it are never proposed nor proved to be the state; it want to bring back fatherly rule, thus a particular will to take over nature. The contradiction of these two is now clear: particular femoid worship against particular human superiority; thesis and antithesis. From these a synthesis is necessary to arise: absolute blackpillism, which want through the state seize the power over nature, that is, set an absolute rule of humanity over nonhumans. But to describe it is not my goal here.
