Recognize the Dichotomy

And show no mercy to the temporizers

Yesterday, on my personal site, I pointed out that it is totally impossible for any society to grant equal respect to both male preferences and female preferences. Just as prioritizing male preferences requires imposing limitations on female choices, prioritizing female preferences requires imposing limitations on male choices. The primary difference is that women will accept limitations being imposed upon their choices and have children, while men will simply quit rather than continue working productively under a female regime.

The latter is the phenomenon of male flight from occupations and organizations that force them to submit to female behavioral norms, which has only belatedly been recognized as a real and present danger to the ability of a civilized society to maintain its infrastructure.

“You know what this means… even more meetings.”

The fundamental problem is that we now have more than 50 years of data demonstrating that a society which prioritizes female preferences is one that a) does not reproduce at replacement rate and b) does not produce goods and services at maintenance rate. Therefore, it is clear that any society which wishes to survive and grow economically must prioritize male preferences and impose limitations on female choices.

This is not an opinion. This is a straightforward logical conclusion based on a considerable quantity of historical evidence. Regardless of what one prefers, regardless of the ideals to which one holds, the logical outcome is inevitable over time. Even so, this simple statement of the link between prioritized preferences and societal outcomes was enough to inspire someone to urge temporizing.

Can we not take this to the easy route of “women bad?” Frankly men have also been quite damaged as well and are totally unprepared to be the men a traditional minded woman would want them to be. Maybe if we thought of this as more about the influences (ers) and how to mitigate them. Technology and how it changed the idea of work and how it is done is a third party in this ongoing growth and change of humanity and it hasn’t even entered the conversation.

No. The logic is clear: either male preferences or female preferences must have priority. There is no middle ground. Anything and everything you do and say will either tend to support one position or the other. And insisting upon the avoidance of rhetoric that might hurt someone’s feelings is clearly supportive of the opposite case.

If it’s necessary for everyone to declare “women bad” in order to convince a sufficient number of people to prevent society from destroying itself by prioritizing female preferences, then it is necessary. It’s not true, of course, but there is no truth in rhetoric, there is only effective emotional manipulation and ineffective emotional manipulation. One should no more bring dialectic to a rhetorical fight than one should bring a single battalion to an invasion of Russia.

Worry about winning the battle, don’t worry about how it might be more gently fought by minimizing the number of people whose feelings might be hurt. Because, no matter what your nominal preferences might be, what we’re dealing with here is the difference between having functional indoor plumbing and effective sewage systems, and returning to the bad old days of outhouses and cholera outbreaks.

Some form of unfair discrimination is absolutely inevitable in every society due to the intrinsic incompatibility of sex-based preferences. The only question is a) what the net benefits are and b) what the net costs will be.