Oct 14, 2019, 10:12 AM Women voluntarily pair with men, (a) to defend against involuntary pairing with other men; (b)to gain access to resource and defense, (c) status (market value) largely among women, (d) to capture genes, attention and resources and keep them away from other women, (e) mates will sacrifice more than all other combined except mothers for children (ie: friendship), (f) cooperation is disproportionately more productive than all other individual actions. This produces the emotional reaction of friendship: ready access to attention and care. Our emotions evolved to inform us that these are the optimum actions. Marriage is only an optimum under property. As we can see reversing in modernity. Successful people with assets stay together. Poor without them far less so. I can explain that also but it’s not very ‘nice’.
Theme: Sex Differences
-
Charles Murray Puts It on The Line
Charles Murray Puts It on The Line https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/charles-murray-puts-it-on-the-line/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 16:50:05 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265686727882092549
-
Charles Murray Puts It on The Line
Human Diversity: The Biology of Gender, Race, and Class amazon.com (via Ahmed Reda) Edit
-
Charles Murray Puts It on The Line
Human Diversity: The Biology of Gender, Race, and Class amazon.com (via Ahmed Reda) Edit
-
What ‘traditional’ Means, What to Say Instead, and How to Restore Reciprocity Be
What ‘traditional’ Means, What to Say Instead, and How to Restore Reciprocity Between Genders. https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/what-traditional-means-what-to-say-instead-and-how-to-restore-reciprocity-between-genders/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 16:41:10 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265684483094704130
-
What ‘traditional’ Means, What to Say Instead, and How to Restore Reciprocity Between Genders.
Oct 22, 2019, 12:26 PM Advice to Libertarian(ideology), Constitutional (rule of law), Right(normative tradition), and Religious(theological tradition): Avoid “Traditional” as it’s indefensible. (FWIW; it means ’empirically successful in pre technological history because of the division of labor necessary under intergenerational agrarianism.’) Better argument is “Biological gender roles constitute the optimum Nash equilibrium under which all of us do the best we can even if none of us or few of us do as well as we’d wish, without imposing irreciprocal hardship upon one another.” This is why we evolved paring off and serial monogamy, and only developed long term monogamy as (a) we lived longer (b) we developed property and productivity and (c) were able to perform intergenerational care in exchange for intergenerational inheritance. Because of the narrower distribution of desirable men, and the wider distribution of desirable women and the increase in the division of labor such that women are freed from manual household labor like men are (largely)freed from manual environmental labor, we can no longer expect postwar rates of marriage, and will return to pre-industrial rates of marriage – preserving it more commonly among the better classes who have greater interests in property and its returns, and the working and laboring classes who possess sufficient in-class sexual social market value, and sufficient conscientiousness and reciprocity, and returning to serial or parallel relations around maternal households living on the edge of self sufficiency. However, we can eliminate ir-reciprocity for MEN in the current era, by (a) ending marriage to the state (redistribution); (b) ending community property, alimony, child support, (c) restore liability for interference in a marriage; (e) restore voluntary disassociation so that men can reform paternal institutions of reciprocal support in lieu of marriage; and (d) forcible savings for retirement that is unattachable by anyone and everyone as insurance by and for the polity from your moral hazard of self insufficiency. In other words, we can restore reciprocal interest in the returns on investment in a partnership, by restoring the disincentive to parasitically live off others permitted by their intuition of reciprocity against moral hazard.
-
What ‘traditional’ Means, What to Say Instead, and How to Restore Reciprocity Between Genders.
Oct 22, 2019, 12:26 PM Advice to Libertarian(ideology), Constitutional (rule of law), Right(normative tradition), and Religious(theological tradition): Avoid “Traditional” as it’s indefensible. (FWIW; it means ’empirically successful in pre technological history because of the division of labor necessary under intergenerational agrarianism.’) Better argument is “Biological gender roles constitute the optimum Nash equilibrium under which all of us do the best we can even if none of us or few of us do as well as we’d wish, without imposing irreciprocal hardship upon one another.” This is why we evolved paring off and serial monogamy, and only developed long term monogamy as (a) we lived longer (b) we developed property and productivity and (c) were able to perform intergenerational care in exchange for intergenerational inheritance. Because of the narrower distribution of desirable men, and the wider distribution of desirable women and the increase in the division of labor such that women are freed from manual household labor like men are (largely)freed from manual environmental labor, we can no longer expect postwar rates of marriage, and will return to pre-industrial rates of marriage – preserving it more commonly among the better classes who have greater interests in property and its returns, and the working and laboring classes who possess sufficient in-class sexual social market value, and sufficient conscientiousness and reciprocity, and returning to serial or parallel relations around maternal households living on the edge of self sufficiency. However, we can eliminate ir-reciprocity for MEN in the current era, by (a) ending marriage to the state (redistribution); (b) ending community property, alimony, child support, (c) restore liability for interference in a marriage; (e) restore voluntary disassociation so that men can reform paternal institutions of reciprocal support in lieu of marriage; and (d) forcible savings for retirement that is unattachable by anyone and everyone as insurance by and for the polity from your moral hazard of self insufficiency. In other words, we can restore reciprocal interest in the returns on investment in a partnership, by restoring the disincentive to parasitically live off others permitted by their intuition of reciprocity against moral hazard.
-
The Past Challenge of Bringing Women Into, and Keeping Them In, Propertarianism
The Past Challenge of Bringing Women Into, and Keeping Them In, Propertarianism https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/the-past-challenge-of-bringing-women-into-and-keeping-them-in-propertarianism/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 16:10:04 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265676655273672705
-
The Past Challenge of Bringing Women Into, and Keeping Them In, Propertarianism
Oct 25, 2019, 4:01 PM
—“Enjoying your posts”— A very kind woman 😉
Awesome. It’s very hard for us to keep women interested, so that makes me (and the leadership) very happy. Three reasons it’s challenging: (I need a reason to post this so I’ll seize the opportunity you’ve created. ) The general strategy of restoring the compromise between the genders that makes raising children, family, civil society, harmonious society, possible tends to attract men falsifying the excesses of marxism, feminism, postmodernism, and denialism (political correctness) when masculine men always and everywhere think in systems and politics, and women in empathy and relationships means that if we don’t find women who’ve had strong fathers and brothers, that they too often cannot translate male systematizing and political speech(aggregates), and interpret it as personal speech, or and interpersonal speech and find this offensive. Worse, we can attract men with bad experiences making it worse. SO this is why I spend time writing about male and female relationships in economic terms so that we can return to a compromise between the genders rather than a see-saw of conflcit between extremes. Worse, I teach in the masculine method of competition using king of the hill games, taking positions i agree with, disagree with, or can go other way with, or which can be interpreted by me advocating both ways. This generates lots of masculine huffing and chuffing and flexing and dominance, which is how men love to learn and will value what they learn. And very few women like to play the king of the hill game. Most women tend to referee the men instead. And that’s probably our natural dispositions., So a woman has to be able to say ‘thats just silly man talk’ the same way men say ‘thats just silly women talk’ because we’re both expressing our genetic impulses instead of working on compromise through trades. The difference is that is almost universal for masculine men to say ‘men and women engage in silly man talk, and silly women talk and that’s ok’. And for evolutionary reasons – men fear only of force not words, and women primarily concerned with words, both for their own protection from other women, and for protection of their children on many levels – including preventing them from ‘learning what they can’t yet make use of’. I think part of our transition out of the more analytic content and more into the religious, social, and political application of p-law is helping our expansion. Very few people want to understand testimonial truth – and I’m not sure how many can. lol )
-
The Past Challenge of Bringing Women Into, and Keeping Them In, Propertarianism
Oct 25, 2019, 4:01 PM
—“Enjoying your posts”— A very kind woman 😉
Awesome. It’s very hard for us to keep women interested, so that makes me (and the leadership) very happy. Three reasons it’s challenging: (I need a reason to post this so I’ll seize the opportunity you’ve created. ) The general strategy of restoring the compromise between the genders that makes raising children, family, civil society, harmonious society, possible tends to attract men falsifying the excesses of marxism, feminism, postmodernism, and denialism (political correctness) when masculine men always and everywhere think in systems and politics, and women in empathy and relationships means that if we don’t find women who’ve had strong fathers and brothers, that they too often cannot translate male systematizing and political speech(aggregates), and interpret it as personal speech, or and interpersonal speech and find this offensive. Worse, we can attract men with bad experiences making it worse. SO this is why I spend time writing about male and female relationships in economic terms so that we can return to a compromise between the genders rather than a see-saw of conflcit between extremes. Worse, I teach in the masculine method of competition using king of the hill games, taking positions i agree with, disagree with, or can go other way with, or which can be interpreted by me advocating both ways. This generates lots of masculine huffing and chuffing and flexing and dominance, which is how men love to learn and will value what they learn. And very few women like to play the king of the hill game. Most women tend to referee the men instead. And that’s probably our natural dispositions., So a woman has to be able to say ‘thats just silly man talk’ the same way men say ‘thats just silly women talk’ because we’re both expressing our genetic impulses instead of working on compromise through trades. The difference is that is almost universal for masculine men to say ‘men and women engage in silly man talk, and silly women talk and that’s ok’. And for evolutionary reasons – men fear only of force not words, and women primarily concerned with words, both for their own protection from other women, and for protection of their children on many levels – including preventing them from ‘learning what they can’t yet make use of’. I think part of our transition out of the more analytic content and more into the religious, social, and political application of p-law is helping our expansion. Very few people want to understand testimonial truth – and I’m not sure how many can. lol )