Curt Doolittle

Theme: Sex Differences

  • The Post-Love Civilization?

    THE POST-LOVE CIVILIZATION? Under agrarianism, the marriage bond was an extension of the existing family and family relations, the want of children, the need to share labor in a household, and if possible, the need to survive, and sometimes if not often – erotic attraction. The ‘family’ was much closer to a ‘tribe’ or ‘clan’ – multiple generations of many family relationships few commercial relationships, and where marrigae meant joining a family (or uniting families). Love as we think of it, as something more than Eros, but as finding the right person – the kindred spirit – was a 12th century invention of the Troubadores. It was made possible by sufficient wealth from the rise of trade, that we could think in such terms. The marriage bond was an extension of the existing family and family relations, the want of children, the need to share labor in a household, and if possible, erotic attraction – but now we added compatibility to that list. During this period we saw the rise of the traditional, nuclear and absllute nuclear families, where increasing mixing of families, and greater independence of families, but still multiple generations in the majority. In the 1970’s because of contraception and because of the employability of women, and because of the vast post-war wealth, the vast increase in labor-saving home appliances, and the corresponding poverty of the undeveloped world (pre-consumer-capitalist world), westerner’s changed again such that marriage was now primarily a matter of friendship and sex, and only remotely important for reproductive, economic, survival, and security reasons. Coupled with easy movement and migration this led to the marriage being the ONLY source of familial relationships or the dominant source. And people became lonely. Alone. Disenfranchised. Alienated. Capitalism was just the beginning. Feminism was the end. And the only restoration is the familial corporation at all levels. Because this model we have chosen is hyper consumptive and suicidal.

  • Gender Opportunity Costs

    —“As opportunity costs for women to enter in monogamous relations rises, men must pay more premium for exclusivity of monogamic relations in a world where there is mens value of labor in massive deflation and women’s reproductive labor on inflation. And that premium is payed with power because, women don’t need any more comfort.”–Matej Lovrić

  • Gender Opportunity Costs

    —“As opportunity costs for women to enter in monogamous relations rises, men must pay more premium for exclusivity of monogamic relations in a world where there is mens value of labor in massive deflation and women’s reproductive labor on inflation. And that premium is payed with power because, women don’t need any more comfort.”–Matej Lovrić

  • So there is only one domestic problem: female voters. And one international prob

    So there is only one domestic problem: female voters. And one international problem: female reproduction under the the minimum. Both of these problems are solvable. They just aren’t pleasant to solve.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-20 11:35:00 UTC

  • Understand. There is only one problem. Women voters. That’s the only problem we

    Understand. There is only one problem. Women voters. That’s the only problem we have. It’s the only problem we have ever had. The question is not ‘what do we do’ but ‘how do we do it’. If women can destroy the civilization by vote, then what means do we use to prevent their abilty to destroy the civilization by vote?

    Seriously. The problem isn’t complicated at all.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-20 11:32:00 UTC

  • By Eli Harman My argument against women’s suffrage depends on only 3 points. 1)

    By Eli Harman

    My argument against women’s suffrage depends on only 3 points.

    1) Voting either directs violence, or is a substitute for it.

    2) The preponderance of actual violence is supplied by men. And the preponderance of potential violence is *not supplied* by men.

    3) Men and women vote differently, on average.

    All three of these points are, I think, incontrovertible.

    There is certainly much more which could be said on the matter. But this is all that actually needs to be said, to show that women’s suffrage is unstable, and necessarily ends in violence.

    For democracy can never reconcile conflicting interests of priorities. It can only privilege some, at the expense of others. And the more women vote to advance their interests, or impose their priorities, at the expense of men’s, the more tension will build. And it can only build until it breaks, because it is men who are asked to supply the actual violence which carries the outcomes of elections into effect, or to refrain from potential violence to prevent the outcomes of elections from being carried into effect.

    But we don’t have to do either.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-19 11:49:00 UTC

  • EQUALITY

    http://vidmax.com/video/155672-Brutal-footage-shows-bouncer-punching-woman-in-the-faceMORE EQUALITY

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-18 18:16:00 UTC

  • “As opportunity costs for women to enter in monogamous relations rises, men must

    —“As opportunity costs for women to enter in monogamous relations rises, men must pay more premium for exclusivity of monogamic relations in a world where there is mens value of labor in massive deflation and women’s reproductive labor on inflation. And that premium is payed with power because, women don’t need any more comfort.”–Matej Lovrić

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-18 14:27:00 UTC

  • “Women are hypergamous… Government is the biggest resource and thus the handso

    —“Women are hypergamous… Government is the biggest resource and thus the handsomest.”—Anne Tripp

    (genius)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-18 14:20:00 UTC

  • THE POST-LOVE CIVILIZATION? Under agrarianism, the marriage bond was an extensio

    THE POST-LOVE CIVILIZATION?

    Under agrarianism, the marriage bond was an extension of the existing family and family relations, the want of children, the need to share labor in a household, and if possible, the need to survive, and sometimes if not often – erotic attraction. The ‘family’ was much closer to a ‘tribe’ or ‘clan’ – multiple generations of many family relationships few commercial relationships, and where marrigae meant joining a family (or uniting families).

    Love as we think of it, as something more than Eros, but as finding the right person – the kindred spirit – was a 12th century invention of the Troubadores. It was made possible by sufficient wealth from the rise of trade, that we could think in such terms.

    The marriage bond was an extension of the existing family and family relations, the want of children, the need to share labor in a household, and if possible, erotic attraction – but now we added compatibility to that list.

    During this period we saw the rise of the traditional, nuclear and absllute nuclear families, where increasing mixing of families, and greater independence of families, but still multiple generations in the majority.

    In the 1970’s because of contraception and because of the employability of women, and because of the vast post-war wealth, the vast increase in labor-saving home appliances, and the corresponding poverty of the undeveloped world (pre-consumer-capitalist world), westerner’s changed again such that marriage was now primarily a matter of friendship and sex, and only remotely important for reproductive, economic, survival, and security reasons.

    Coupled with easy movement and migration this led to the marriage being the ONLY source of familial relationships or the dominant source.

    And people became lonely. Alone. Disenfranchised. Alienated.

    Capitalism was just the beginning. Feminism was the end.

    And the only restoration is the familial corporation at all levels.

    Because this model we have chosen is hyper consumptive and suicidal.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-18 13:29:00 UTC