Contributors

Persons

Places

Terms

Anti-White Buzzwords And Codewords

Thursday, 24 October 2019

Female Hypergamy and the New Sexual Apartheid

by Ferdinand Bardamu



I: The Reality of Female Hypergamy


The age-old traditional arrangement has been women “marrying up” and men “marrying down.” The former is known as hypergamy and the latter hypogamy. In the Chinese imperial household, harems could number hundreds or even thousands of concubines. Concubinage was a common practice among rich and powerful Chinese, until it was banned in 1950 by the Communist Party’s anti-feudal Marriage Law. In some societies, female hypergamy was institutionalized. In ancient India, racialized caste distinctions arose because of the Aryan desire for blood purity. Male hypergamy was a rare, largely aristocratic practice. The early Ottoman dynastic rulers took wives from Byzantine, Serbian and other ruling families to increase their own power and influence in Anatolia. Royal houses consolidated power by allowing men from the aristocracy of subject populations to marry hypergamously. In Manchuria, Mongol hereditary princes cemented alliances by marrying into the ruling Qing royal family (1644-1912).

The human genome reveals that female hypergamy is as old as anatomically modern Homo sapiens. Genetic studies reveal that 40% of men were able to pass on their genetic lineage, compared to 80% of women. In Paleolithic and Neolithic societies, the female’s hypergamous mating was regulated by dominant males; a large number of women were distributed among a small, elite number of men. In ancient Greece, a more equitable distribution of sexual resources saw female mating behavior regulated by the rational decision-making of male citizens. In today’s feminist matriarchy, mating patterns are determined by female biological instinct and enforced by the liberal-feminist police state.

Hypergamy is most evident during periods of conquest and population expansion. European mtDNA lineages date from the Paleolithic, long before the spread of agricultural practices from the Fertile Crescent. A homogeneous mitochondrial gene pool, with little genetic contribution from the Near East, suggests an indigenous origin of European agriculture. A very different pattern is observed for the patrilineal gene pool. Analysis of Neolithic autosomal and Y-chromosomal DNA sequences reveal a gradual, clinal pattern of genetic variation over a large geographic range, from the Near East to Europe. This discrepancy is reconciled by the high mutation rate of mtDNA and female hypergamy in patrilocal societies (Cavalli-Sforza and Minch 1997).

Genetic evidence of female hypergamy is further corroborated by the observed socio-sexual behavior of our closest mammalian relatives, bonobos, chimpanzees and gorillas. Primatologists and ethologists have long known that violent “male-male competition” for sexual access to females is the norm among primates. Apart from finding that “male reproductive skew” was higher in bonobos than chimpanzees, researchers confirmed that dominance rank among primates is positively correlated with reproductive success; low-ranking bonobos and chimpanzees were forced to go without mating opportunities because of their inability to effectively monopolize reproduction (Surbeck, et al. 2017).

According to another group of researchers: “Variance in male reproductive success is expected to be high in sexually dimorphic mammals, even when it is modulated by the costs and benefits of group living” (Breuer et al. 2010). Sexual dimorphism and male reproductive variance are positively correlated; alpha male dominance corresponds to high reproductive success. In evolutionary biology,

Bateman’s principle, after English geneticist John Bateman (1910-1996), explains sexual dimorphism in terms of mating frequency, which in nature is always limited by female mate selectivity and egg availability. Among the western gorillas of the Congo, only dominant males can effectively monopolize reproduction, depriving low-ranking gorillas of mating opportunities. If sexual dimorphism has led to male reproductive variance in primates, the same relationship exists among humans, who are also highly sexually dimorphic. Analysis of the human genome has allowed geneticists to infer a Y-chromosomal bottleneck that occurred 5000 to 7000 years ago, during the Neolithic. This is attributed to male reproductive variance, with 17 women reproducing for every male, the highest ever recorded in the annals of genetic research. Geneticists have proposed various explanations accounting for the discrepancy, ranging from military conquest to sex-biased migration (Karmin et al. 2015).

Female hypergamy is either genetic or socioeconomic, reflecting the female’s dual mating strategy. Like genetic hypergamy, socioeconomic hypergamy is a sexual selection mechanism, given that socioeconomic stratification between males is an indirect reflection of underlying genetic differences. The transformation of Western societies into feminist matriarchies has failed to eliminate socioeconomic hypergamy. “[T]he tendency for women to marry men with higher incomes than themselves [has] persisted” through the late 20th century, continuing into the 21st, despite declining educational hypergamy over the same time period (Qian, 2017). Social engineering cannot erase millions of years of evolutionary programming:
With increases in their economic independence implied by their high levels of education, women do not necessarily lower the value attached to financial resources of potential spouses.
The rise of feminism and women’s sexual liberation in the last 150 years has returned the female to her evolutionary role as sexual selector of the human species; women now evaluate male genetic quality on the basis of physiological markers of reproductive virility. According to a recent Tinder study (where “likes” correspond to level of perceived physical attractiveness):
[M]ale subjects (super)liked 61.9% of the female evaluated profiles, while female subjects (super)liked only 4.5% of the male evaluated profiles. … These findings are in line with previous research in evolutionary psychology and more specifically with parental investment theory (Trivers, 1972) ( Neyt et al. 2019).
Another study found that women regard committed men as more attractive than male singletons. Men in committed relationships have been pre-screened for resources and good genes by other women. For men, being desired by women is a significant indicator of male genetic quality:
One study (Parker & Burkley, 2009) found that a man’s relationship status directly affected his attractiveness to women; when women thought a man was single, 59% found him attractive, but when they thought he was in a committed relationship, 90% found him attractive. Hence one form of competition between women is to attract the highest quality mate, even if it means “poaching” him from a monogamous relationship (Morris et al. 2016).
The female’s hypergamous nature can be established logically, given our understanding of biological sex differences. From an evolutionary psychological perspective, female parental investment is costly because of pregnancy and nursing, whereas male investment is minimal because it is limited to seminal ejaculation. Greater parental investment means that females will be more selective, screening out potential partners on the basis of good genes and material resources. Therefore, ceteris paribus, women will be hypergamous, relative to males, and males will be hypogamous, relative to females.

There are additional logical arguments establishing the female’s nature as basically hypergamous. In physiology and endocrinology, research indicates that blood serum concentration of testosterone determines strength of sex drive. Females have lower sex drives because they have lower testosterone [1]. This sex drive differential logically implies female genetic hypergamy. If the female sex drive is relatively weak, women will be more selective than men. If women want sex less, men will have to offer something in exchange for sex, either in the form of good genes or material resources. Therefore, women will be hypergamous and men hypogamous.

In a polygamous or feminist matriarchal society, if the sex ratio is 1:1, some men will have more sex than others, who may be forced to forgo mating opportunities altogether. The stronger male sex drive, when unrestrained by enforced monogamy, results in the sexual disenfranchisement of those males who occupy the bottom rung of the sexual totem pole. In the feminist matriarchies of the post-Western world, females have gained full control over the sexual marketplace because of the male’s stronger sex drive.

With the dissolution of the nuclear family in Western societies, contemporary mating patterns have regressed. In Norway, men find themselves deprived of monogamous family life, despite being just as likely as women to want children. Statistics reveal that 25% of Norwegian males never become fathers [2]. Among primates, dominant males monopolize reproductive females; a similar pattern is observed among humans:
Norway can, in other words, be a country where many men never father children, even though its fertility rate is high. What actually happens often is that men who are already fathers get recycled. 
In comparison to females, childlessness among Norwegian males is 15% higher at age 40 (Jensen, 2016). This is expected to increase as time goes by.

II. Why has Female Hypergamy Replaced Traditional Monogamy?


The female’s hypergamous nature has been written about since the time of ancient Greece. In Hesiod’s Theogony, female hypergamy is recognized as a fact of life. Prometheus steals fire from the gods and as punishment, Zeus orders Hephaestus, the “limping god,” to fashion the first woman out of earth. The poet writes:
For from her is the race of women and female kind: of her is the deadly race and tribe of women who live amongst mortal men to their great trouble, no help meets in hateful poverty, but only in wealth. And as in thatched hives bees [595] feed the drones whose nature is to do mischief—by day and throughout the day until the sun goes down the bees are busy and lay the white combs, while the drones stay at home in the covered hives and reap the toil of others into their own bellies— [600] even so Zeus who thunders on high made women to be an evil to mortal men, with a nature to do evil.
The female is by nature socioeconomically hypergamous; women only care about wealth and avoid all those who do not possess it. The poet likens females to drones in a hive who sponge off the hard work of others, while contributing nothing of value themselves. In Hesiod’s Works and Days, the woman fashioned by Hephaestus is identified as Pandora. Although not technically “sacred literature,” the writings of Hesiod – and Homer – were the basis of much Greek religious thought about the gods. Before the pre-Socratics, religious belief helped explain why the world was the way it was. Hesiod believed that women were created as hypergamous beings to punish mankind for Prometheus’ original sin.

Evolutionary biology teaches us that society is naturally hierarchical; alpha males at the top, beta males in the middle and omega males at the bottom. This dominance hierarchy determines reproductive variance among men, with the least dominant males frequently having to forgo mating opportunities. Through enforced monogamy, dominant males controlled female hypergamous instinct for the greater good of society. By giving all men, including the weakest, a reason to contribute to society, their abilities and resources could be more efficiently harnessed in service of the state. Following the same line of reasoning, ancient Greek society suppressed the female hypergamous instinct by imposing monogamy upon its own citizens.

From Greece, monogamy spread to Rome and the rest of Europe. The traditional Western order, which took shape after the forced Christianization of the Middle Ages, ensured the equitable distribution of sexual resources among dominant and lesser males. Free men not only had access to monogamous family life, they were also guaranteed the privilege of deflowering young virgins on their wedding nights. Females were under the authority of their fathers and were typically married off young. In ancient Rome, the average age of marriage was 12 to 15 for girls; among the nobility, pre-pubertal marriages were contracted on some scale and immediately consummated [3].

Patriarchal monogamy entailed a rigorous code of conduct for women. In ancient Rome, women were expected to be chaste and sexually pure. If they acted or dressed like whores, they were considered public property and could be raped with impunity. They were condemned by Roman society as “infamous” and deprived of all legal standing. If they wished to make amends, wayward women were exhorted to follow the example of Lucretia, the ideal Roman matron, and kill themselves.

The period before 1900 was one of relative sexual abundance for free, able-bodied males. The sex ratio remained an ideal one up until recently; endless wars and fighting killed off excess males, leaving behind a surplus of unattached females. If anyone had to go without, they were at least comforted by the fact that women could always be purchased as slaves and concubines. This lasted until the elites fully emancipated females from the patriarchal strictures of the past. The traditional Western order, once subverted by leftists from within, was replaced with a feminist matriarchy.

Full emancipation of the female was aided by second-wave feminism. The movement was disproportionately ethnic; Jewish females were overrepresented among members of the feminist vanguard. Through the efforts of second-wave feminists and activist governments, female mate selectivity and Darwinian sexual selection were established as the cornerstones of the modern sexual marketplace. In post-Western matriarchal society, dominant males have increasingly begun to monopolize reproduction, just as they did during the Stone Age and the Neolithic. The return to Stone Age polygamy has made it harder for lesser males to satisfy their fundamental biological needs. Gone was the level sexual playing field of enforced monogamy. An extreme sexual inequality was concealed behind the vacuous shibboleths of "equality," "consent" and "human rights." These terms are always both politically motivated and selectively applied; for example, no brouhaha is ever raised over the issue of consent and male circumcision, or more appropriately, male genital mutilation. This liberal-feminist egalitarian language merely reinforces the "double standard morality" that already favors females at the expense of lesser males. Since dominant males have relinquished control over female hypergamous behavior, we now have a growing population of males deprived of any stake in society and unable to continue their genetic lineage.

III. Female Hypergamy, the Future of Humanity and the New Sexual Apartheid


Is unrestricted female reproductive choice a good thing?

IQ has declined in many, perhaps most Western industrialized nations since the first half of the last century. This is known as the negative Flynn Effect (Dutton et al. 2016). The linear relationship between dysgenic fertility and declining IQ was empirically demonstrated in the 1930s (Cattell, 1936). With the feminization of society has come age-independent generational declines in testosterone levels, first observed among American males (Travison et al. 2007). A similar phenomenon has been observed in Denmark (Andersson et al. 2007). The first systematic literature review of 61 studies on semen quality has revealed a generational decline spanning 5 decades (Carlsen et al. 1992). Since then researchers, working independently, have uncovered similar declines in France, Denmark and the UK. Intelligence and semen quality are not unrelated traits; researchers have shown that both are positively correlated.

What is driving the decline in male genetic quality?

Since the 1850s, the emancipation of women had been gradual; by the 1960s, feminism and women’s sexual liberation had helped them achieve full emancipation. In the absence of enforced monogamy, women assumed their evolutionary role as sexual selector of the human species. Since women are less rational than males, their choices are based on biological instinct, not pragmatic consideration, as was previously the case when monogamy was a patriarchal institution. Dysgenic fertility as driver of both declining average IQ and genetic deterioration in populations has been established by many studies [4]. In a matriarchal society, which men reproduce is determined by female reproductive choice. This makes female mate selectivity a dysgenic influence that must be regulated by enforced monogamy.

If the elites continue to arbitrarily enshrine female mate selectivity as a “human right,” more men will continue to find themselves childless. Compared to Norwegian females, childlessness among Norwegian males has increased at much faster and higher rates between 1980 to 2014 (Jensen, 2016). There is no end in sight to the increasing number of men being denied their fundamental biological needs. Rising childlessness among males is historically unprecedented. In the past, free men could have monogamous family life almost whenever they wanted. Slavery and concubinage existed to supply excess demand.

Predicting the future course of female hypergamy is not difficult. The prospect of Fisherian runaway selection has always loomed ominously over the horizon. This phenomenon has been observed among peafowls. Female mate selectivity led to the evolution of exaggerated male sexual ornamentation. Peahens are plain in appearance, but peacocks are known for their colorful, shimmering plumage. Extreme sexual dimorphism among peafowls entailed violent competition for mates; alpha males would fight off, maim and even kill rivals who tried to seize their territory during lekking season. Only high-ranking peacocks, meaning those with the most eye-spots and the largest train sizes, copulated with females (Loyau et al. 2005). As with other avian species like the sage-grouse, male reproductive variance is far more skewed in favor of dominant males than it is among humans.

Charles Darwin long puzzled over the survival benefits conferred by such costly reproductive signaling. By all appearances, the peacock’s tail was a hindrance; as far as nutrition was concerned, it was metabolically wasteful. The tail’s size and iridescence made the peacock an easy target for predation by leopards, tigers and other mammals. Darwin believed that female preferential mating with dominant males decreased the survival benefit of the peacock’s tail, but increased its reproductive value as an indicator of genetic quality. In the process, he developed sexual selection as a necessary adjunct to his theory of natural selection.

Darwin’s explanation remained tantalizingly incomplete, failing to explain why female mate selectivity led to exaggerated ornamentation in male peafowls. In the late 1970s, the Israeli biologist Amotz Zahavi came up with the “handicap principle,” an extension of Darwin’s theory of sexual selection. The tail’s costliness, or “handicapping effect,” guaranteed its reliability as an indicator of heritable vigor, signaling to females that the bearer possessed good genes and could sire healthy offspring. Only the alpha males with the most elaborate trains successfully passed on their genes. The mate value of the peacock’s ornamentation was sufficiently large enough that a positive feedback loop was initiated, leading to a Fisherian runaway. This mechanism is the basis of the female’s continuing sexual preference for exaggerated male secondary sex characteristics.

Male reproductive variance is always skewed in favor of alpha males. If reproductive variance was reduced by enforced monogamy, it is obvious that under feminism, this variance will increase to once again favor alpha males. State-enforced female hypergamy, the predominant marital arrangement in feminist matriarchal society, is a program of biological engineering or gene manipulation operating under the guise of “liberal equality.” Female selectivity will inevitably lead to a Fisherian runaway, just as it has done among peafowls. Men will become even more sexually dimorphic. Their ornamentation will become exaggerated, much like the peacock’s, with more chiseled and heavier jawlines, increased facial angularity, more powerful frames or even heights exceeding 7 ft. Persistent and directional female selectivity will transform the male’s sexual ornaments into a handicap; for example, walking may become an increasingly arduous task with increased average height. For the female, the male’s ability to survive with exaggerated features and cumbersome appendages is an indication of good genes.


In a post-Western matriarchal society where female selectivity is the norm, females will become increasingly mediocre in the absence of selective pressure. Tens of thousands of years into the future, physical supermen will be forced to compete for sexual access to females, the vast majority of whom will be of low genetic quality. A similar situation obtains among peafowls; peahens are always drab in appearance, but peacocks are always magnificently ornamented, even if they are genetically inferior. By this point, only a small number of alpha males will have breeding privileges while the majority of males will be forced to go without. Among peafowls, male-male competition for mates is a violent one; floating peacocks will invade the territories of dominant males in search of mating opportunities, only to be fiercely driven out or killed. Since beta males would be spending the majority of their time fighting and killing rival males for access to mating opportunities, the feminist matriarchy will be replaced with a patriarchal marital arrangement or Western civilization will eventually break down and disappear.

The only way to avoid this fate is by replacing the current feminist matriarchy with a scientifically informed patriarchy to regulate female reproductive choice. Taking away female rights and ending women’s sexual liberation is the first step. Prospective newlyweds will only be allowed to marry those of similar genetic quality, increasing the accuracy of assortative mating and leveling the reproductive playing field. Special licenses would be issued to prospective parents, after they are genetically screened for hereditary diseases. Those who fail to pass genetic screening will not be allowed to become biological parents, but will be given permission to adopt. This will mitigate future suffering by maximizing the happiness of all monogamous couples. If patriarchal monogamy is enforced, women would be driven from the workplace. This would increase wages and demand for labor; a single income would be enough to support an entire family of four. The result would be a return to the sober marital practices of the 1950s, but with a strong eugenic orientation.

Women are more likely to be killed by current and former partners because they do not have the rational capacity to wield female reproductive choice responsibly. According to a CDC report (2017), over half of all murdered women in the United States were killed by current or former partners between 2003 to 2014 [5]. There are similar statistics for the UK, Sweden, Finland and Spain, where feminism and women’s sexual liberation are out of control. Intelligent regulation of female reproductive choice would protect women from “intimate partner violence.” Preventing the genetically unfit from breeding, as well as revoking the parenting licenses of those caught abusing or even murdering partners and ex-partners, would go along way toward restoring domestic tranquility.

In Western nations severely affected by dysgenic Third World migration, rising miscegenation is another problem. Although white women preferentially mate with same-race partners, there has been a shocking increase in the number of mixed-race unions since Loving v. Virginia (1967), which struck down all anti-miscegenation laws across the US. The most destructive of these unions are BM/WF. As of 2015, 10% of all white female newlyweds were in mixed-race unions [6]. Because of this ruling, white males have been deprived of same-race females, forcing them to endure lifelong physical torment and psychological anguish; if they are physically attractive enough to find a mate, they are forced to miscegenate with East Asians and Latinas. By matching people according to genetic quality, the need for anti-miscegenation laws will become superfluous; racial purity will be easily re-established with the aid of widespread DNA testing.

Traditional Western civilization rested on two pillars: the monogamous family unit and white racial homogeneity. The dismantlement of enforced monogamy has created a new system of sexual apartheid.

For the first time since widespread adoption of monogamy in medieval Europe, men in post-Western societies are now divided into the sexual “haves” and the sexual “have-nots.” Sexual apartheid has had dire consequences for the social order, inflicting unimaginable suffering on beta males in particular. Sexual apartheid is a direct attack on a man's fundamental identity as a social being. Hiding the oppressive tyranny of feminism behind the language of liberal equality does nothing to soften the blow to man’s dignity as a human being. Through burdensome taxation and restrictive laws, feminism aims to psychologically castrate beta males. By transforming the beta male into a “psychological castrato,” feminism molds him into a more efficient and obedient slave to the emerging neoliberal world order. As police-state terrorism against beta males, feminism demonizes and pathologizes beta male heterosexual desire by classifying it as “sexual harassment” or some form of mental illness.

The mass movement of Third World people into post-Western nations, accompanied by growing miscegenation, is another attack on beta males. If feminism threatens beta males sexually, mass migration threatens them both sexually and economically. The beta male’s ability to eke out a living for himself and support a family is hampered by intensified competition for jobs and housing. Finding willing females becomes even harder, due to the state’s dumping of additional males onto an already lopsided sexual marketplace. Since feminism and mass non-white migration rob a man of his dignity on the deepest level possible, the only appropriate response is to view these policies as naked aggression on the part of dominant males. These men are contemptuous of betas and then justify this contempt ideologically.

In the face of elite disdain, the beta male is left with few choices. The utopian fantasies of liberalism and feminism have long ceased to be relevant; because of these reigning ideologies, he can no longer satisfy his most fundamental biological needs. Backed into a corner, the beta male is forced to acknowledge reality in all its unvarnished nakedness and act accordingly when he discovers that his genetic lineage is threatened with extinction.

Footnotes


1. See Baumeister (2001) for a comprehensive discussion of the evidence, including that related to the physiology and endocrinology of the sex drive. Lippa (2009) is a more recent discussion of male-female differences in sex drive, concluding that in all 53 nations examined, males consistently report having stronger sex drives than females.

2. Bård Amundsen. A quarter of Norwegian men never father children. ScienceNordic.com. http://sciencenordic.com/quarter-norwegian-men-never-father-…. (May 9, 2014).

3. On the subject of pre-pubertal consummation, M. K. Hopkins (1965) writes: “There is a law which deals with a girl's marriage under 12 and intercourse; it is concerned with her adultery. This is but one example; it may be an exception, but surely the general assumption is that intercourse took place on marriage.” Summarizing the classical sources on defloration of pre-pubertal virgins, he further observes: “[S]ome writers advised against pre-pubertal intercourse, others treated it as a normal Roman practice; at least three historians express surprise that young wives were returned as virgins.”

4. Cattell’s 1936 study was the earliest. For a more recent discussion of the evidence for dysgenic fertility, readers are asked to consult Woodley (2015).

5. Emiko Petrosky et al. Racial and Ethnic Differences in Homicides of Adult Women and the Role of Intimate Partner Violence — United States, 2003–2014. Cdc.gov. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/wr/mm6628a1.htm. (July 21, 2017).

6. Gretchen Livingston and Anna Brown. Intermarriage in the U.S. 50 Years After Loving v. Virginia. Pewsocialtrends.org. https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/05/18/1-trends-and-patt…. (May 18, 2017).

No comments:

Post a Comment

The opinions of our commenters do not necessarily represent the opinions of CEC or its contributors. Please follow the netiquette.

Our Facebook Our Twitter Our Gab Our Youtube Our RSS feed