Source: Original Site Post

—“is Briffaults law French pseudoscience?”–Erik Lukovsky

It’s that the feminine french are more likely to recognize that the female (singular) is the center of the family, and the MEN (plural) are the center of the polity. So we all discover what we are biased to discover.

—“The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place”—

I agree with him. Hence why returning to single motherhood at the bottom and increasingly lower middle, and keeping marriage only at the top. As long as this hyperconsumption is possible and men are of limited value – they will have limited value to women. And as such we must once again find something to do with all the men who are not being used for economic resources in exchange for sex. NO WOMEN DON’T RULE He’s wrong that ‘women rule’. It’s that women rule the gender relationship as long as it’s tolerable for men. However, if we look throughout history if it is intolerable for men, they return to treating women as possessions – domesticated animals like any other – because there is nothing women can do about it if men choose to. The only reason women are not treated as property – domesticated animals – as they are in Africa is because fathers and brothers protect them under agrarianism and marriage that results from agrarianism. If there is no agrarianism or marriage under agrarianism, and men no longer have an interest in protecting sisters and daughters, then it’s just a matter of time before men rationally convert to treating women as assets. And as such we are in an interstitial period where we presume marriage and gender relations but are converting to pre-agrarian families for the majority. So ponder that one for a bit.

—“is Briffaults law French pseudoscience?”–Erik Lukovsky

It’s that the feminine french are more likely to recognize that the female (singular) is the center of the family, and the MEN (plural) are the center of the polity. So we all discover what we are biased to discover.

—“The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place”—

I agree with him. Hence why returning to single motherhood at the bottom and increasingly lower middle, and keeping marriage only at the top. As long as this hyperconsumption is possible and men are of limited value – they will have limited value to women. And as such we must once again find something to do with all the men who are not being used for economic resources in exchange for sex. NO WOMEN DON’T RULE He’s wrong that ‘women rule’. It’s that women rule the gender relationship as long as it’s tolerable for men. However, if we look throughout history if it is intolerable for men, they return to treating women as possessions – domesticated animals like any other – because there is nothing women can do about it if men choose to. The only reason women are not treated as property – domesticated animals – as they are in Africa is because fathers and brothers protect them under agrarianism and marriage that results from agrarianism. If there is no agrarianism or marriage under agrarianism, and men no longer have an interest in protecting sisters and daughters, then it’s just a matter of time before men rationally convert to treating women as assets. And as such we are in an interstitial period where we presume marriage and gender relations but are converting to pre-agrarian families for the majority. So ponder that one for a bit.