MATRILINEALITY IN BONOBOS IS POSSIBLE BECAUSE THEY AREN’T INTELLIGENT ENOUGH TO

MATRILINEALITY IN BONOBOS IS POSSIBLE BECAUSE THEY AREN’T INTELLIGENT ENOUGH TO HAVE PROPERTY – WHICH IS WHY FEMINISM IS A SOCIALIST STRATEGY: THE ELIMINATION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY.

The goal is to restore female control over society by sexual exchange rather than property rights. By eliminating property rights. (Which in feminist terms means ‘sharing equal responsibility for children’.)

(Dear ladies, no need to read this and get mad at me. I’m for equal rights. But not for female privilege. Or equal outcome. )

Maternal societies are statistically insignificant, tend to be outcasts from larger more successful societies, have very small populations, and are dirt poor.

Pacifist, sedentary, earth worshipping, agrarian matrilineality was natural to western europeans – and so was small-size, short life spans, and low birth weights.

Innovative, mobile, expansionist, sun-worshipping, pastoralist paternalism was the INNOVATION that made regular access to meat, Reason, Science, technology and the CONCENTRATION OF CAPITAL possible.

Women don’t concentrate capital. They favor the uniform tyranny of equalitarianism. They want the economy to be based upon sex and affection, not productivity. That’s why “equality” is the cause of poverty. The incentives are for sex not for production.

The depth of where this argument goes will demonstrate why evolution tested both models and the masculine model survived the test.

The Fact is, that the intellectual reformation currently in progress is demonstrating in every discipline that both postmodern and feminist dogma consists of ideological argument unsupported by the the data.

Period.

People choose prosperity (freedom to choose to consume) in all circumstances. That is the test of ‘happiness’. Not survey data. Not subjective judgement. If it relies upon survey data, or subjective interpretation rather than demonstrated preference then it is not science. It’s propaganda.

We have to forgive Jill Hamilton, who writes otherwise titillating chick-pop articles that cross into male interest because she is not an academic or public intellectual. She must find material that catches eyeballs. Thats her job, and as readers its the job we want her to do.

But as an eyeball catcher, one must be somewhat cautious, if not infinitely skeptical of academic propaganda.

Jill could have positioned this book as questionable but fun to consider, without personally committing to support of it or its ideas. And in doing so both caught eyeballs and preserved her journalistic credibility.

It’s not understood by journalists (who aren’t generally from the top of the class by the way) that the number of academic papers and books that survive scrutiny is minuscule, and almost all of them – at least with regard to the big questions – are produced by a handful of intellectuals at our most prestigious universities.

The current exception is probably Jonathan Haidt who, from Virginia has reformed most of our understanding of political morality. But assuming he continues he’ll end up teaching at the top ten at some point.

But we must keep in mind that the entire feminist and progressive programs were based on work by women like Jane Goodall and her followers who told us how nice primates were in nature. When in fact, that entire generation’s work in the study of nature and of anthropology was universally false. Chimps are brutal raping predatory murderers. In fact, the only animal that shares our understanding of intentionality, or our social structure, is the domestic dog.

Feminism, liberalism and postmodernism are simply the names we have given to communism and socialism now that those two programs have failed in both theory and practice.

========

TO: CURT DOOLITTLE

FROM: Afiq Syamim Salleh

“Chimps are brutal raping predatory murderers”

Wait..you miss on bonobos,it’s a matriarch,very promiscuous,less violent than chimps and the closest DNA related to humans.We’re heading for that future(possible).I’m sure feminist are very happy if humans are more like bonobos.

=========

TO: AFIQ SYAMIM SALLEH

FROM : CURT DOOLITTLE

Good point. But bonobos don’t have, and aren’t capable of, establishing property and a division of labor.

It’s property and the division of labor that creates both prosperity and Paternalism by removing reproductive control from the female exchange of sex and affection under hunting and gathering, to the exchange of property for the purpose of coordinating production, and forcing reproduction to be based upon productivity and innovation.

Most feminist academics know this, as well as did the Marxists, since Engels wrote about it in the 19th century.

It’s not that females are in control that makes Bonobos maternalistic, it’s that they lack the intelligence and ability to coordinate their actions in a division of knowledge and labor.

Cooperation among apes is unique to man. Period. The idea of apes helping one another is…. impossible. Absurd.

Yet it is possible for dogs.

Just to make feminists frustrated now and then with their fantasies, I tend to remind them that while there are no female jack the rippers, the most fruitful serial killer was indeed female. And while you once and awhile get a Curie, you’ll never get a female Newton.

Maternalism is regression to primitivism. Paternalism was an evolution. An evolution made possible by the development of property.