I think I’ve discussed this before, but I can’t remember which post I titled it under or if it was on Donalgraeme or SunshineMary’s blogs in the past. I’m probably going to repeat some stuff, but I think it’s useful to cover again.
Elspeth’s comment on Jack’s blog jogged my memory.
My working hypothesis for several years has been that the feminist revolt/sexual revolution was at its original zenith in the 1920s, but that the Great Depression brought it to a grinding halt. Nothing injects reality into folks like lack. Hedonism can only really run amok in the presence of material comfort.
The devastation of WWII produced a solemnity in many people that kept the madness at bay for a time (or under wraps at least) so that the economic boom was directed toward family formation rather than widespread decadence. But the spirit of the 20s was still there, waiting to be unleashed.
Generally speaking, prior to the start of the feminist movements there were several things working for men.
- The position of man and husband were held with nearly universal respect for what men do.
- Most jobs, especially those which required a lot of expertise hands on or otherwise, were held only by men. By extension, most of those jobs were higher paid.
- Men in general were more masculine
- Lack of obesity. The comparative lack of obesity in the past, male and female 1-3s in the past would be rated higher than the 1-3s of today.
These things propped up the sexual attractiveness curve for men where male 5s were probably comparable to the female 7-8s. Thus, a male rated at a “5” would be considered attractive to women 1-7s because of hypergamy.
The only way you can get societies where 90-95% of all men and women marry is to have social factors propping up male attractiveness to the point where even the 1s and 2s are marrying each other. Generally, the male 1s and 2s tend to be happy marrying anyone given the thirst that we see from many men. Therefore, it’s the comparatively low rated women that have want to marry their similar counterparts.
The chart depicted below gives a visual analysis of the past and current situations.
The current situation statistics are analyzed in the do you need to be the top 20% post.
Localization and insulation of various areas contribute as well. If you’ve lived in a small town for all your life you won’t be exposed to a lot more attractive men or women. However, with the rise of easy travel and jobs and the rise of dating apps, the localized areas have become conjoined with larger metropolitan areas. A man in a small town in New York who is the best there is might be a or 7-8 but when you’re matched with a 9-10 making the big bucks in New York City only 100 miles away where you can meet up for a date that’s going to distort things significantly.
Generally speaking, these are just averages. There are some women and men in the 7-10s who don’t marry and some who divorce. There are some in the 1-3 range for men and women that get married and stay married. This is just analyzing the whole situation statistically for what we tend to see on average.
Now to get to Elspeth’s comment we first need to analyze attractiveness in context. There’s several different definitions in the ‘sphere so lemme comment on them first.
AF/BB (alpha fux/beta bux) is the representation that women tend to prefer direct alpha traits (e.g. power, status, athleticism, looks (PSAL without the M) over money (the M part of PSALM) generally. However this fails to encompass the whole spectrum.
Alpha/beta/others can also refer to attractiveness vs non-attractiveness. In the above money (M) is actually part of attraction, it’s just lower on the totem pole. The whole spectrum of traits of attractiveness and conversely unattractiveness. There’s a spectrum of traits that are generally consider attractive and the more that a man has the more attractive he is. For instance, a man with power, status, athleticism, looks and money (PSALM) like a professional sports player or Olympic athlete would be much higher on the totem pole than someone with only a few of those traits. Someone with a few of those traits would be higher than someone with only one or none.
Alpha/beta/etc can also refer to Vox’s sociosexual hierarchy which is more of a male order ranking than a female one, although women do go through some type of ranking in their own mind as they can rate men higher or lower than others in a pecking order of who they would prefer to date or marry.
In general, most societies follow a certain path although there are various debates as to what the particular phases are. In particular, most societies or civilizations reach a phase after growth to a stage of opulence.
In the growth phases, the contribution of the vast majority of men are necessary to make it grow strong either through warfare or productivity. The best way this happens is through monogamy. Once a civilization reaches a stage of opulence generally money becomes less of a factor because there is plenty of food and other conveniences. At this point generally women have become much more involved in all spheres of life and men tend to become much more disposable.
The growth phases are generally pre-feminism and most of all men and women are married. Male status is higher than women’s. Men hold the higher paying jobs, and women are much more reliant on them. Hence, money tends to become one of the strongest factors of hypergamy during the rise of a civilization. Women in general in pre-industrial societies and those in poverty would love to marry a man with money because it satisfies her hypergamy and helps raise her higher up on the Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Survival first.
- Physiological needs – food, water, warmth, rest
- Safety needs – security, safety
- Belongingness and love – intimate relationships, friends
- Esteem needs – Prestige, feeling of accomplishment
- Self-actualization – achieving one’s full potential including creative activities
Indeed, the God ordained view of marriage and attraction has physiological needs with provider (food, shelter, resources – usually acquired by money) and safety needs with protector (power, status, athleticism). Sex and being a helper generally fall under belongingness and love.
However, once we get to opulent civilizations there’s the turnaround. Generally, feminism can only arise from relatively opulent societies: Europe, America, Australia, and parts of Asia. Although feminism is making in-roads into South American and Africa, poverty is still scarce enough that women literally need men not just for hypergamy but to procure basic food and resources.
Elspeth’s comment of the Great Depression destroying the burgeoning feminism is correct. Feminism can’t grow while women need men which is especially true during times when money and other survival basics are scarce. However, once society trends toward the end stages of it’s growth and egalitiarianism where women can procure their own money, other various traits as such power, status, athleticism, and looks rise up on the totem pole above money.
After all, a women can procure a decent living on her own. Only enough money to secure a significant increase in standard of living or status (e.g. what gold diggers are after and women who marry very very old men looking for inheritance) is worthy of consideration, but in most cases women with decent jobs are mainly looking beyond money to fulfill as many other attractive hypergamous impulses as possible. Of course, men are too with beautiful, fit, feminine women with good character, doting, and respectful.
I gave the solution to this a while back:
However almost nobody alive today has the reading comprehension skills necessary to read 1 Corinthians 11:7 without choking on a Feminist fur-ball and screeching that I’m a heretic for believing God’s word means exactly what it says there, like the early patristic church all did.
1 Corinthians 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
Early church father, Ambrosiaster, explains the early church’s unanimous position:
Ambrosiaster writes: “Paul says that the honor and dignity of a man makes it wrong for him to cover his head, because the image of God should not be hidden. Indeed, it ought not to be hidden, for the glory of God is seen in the man. … A woman therefore ought to cover her head, because she is not the likeness of God but is under subjection.”
And that there is the societal pivot point. Either you accept that God is “Our Father” and that He who chose to create two distinct sexes, always and only identifies Himself as male. Or you turn aside to lies and believe in a hermaphrodite deity like Baphomet who embodies both male and female.
God created the first man, preeminent, a stronger vessel designed to bear the likeness and image of God the Father and the Son. God, who is thrice holy, all-knowing, incapable of error, incapable of evil, and is the manifestation of authentic love, put the woman under complete subjection to the man’s dominion “in every thing”. To subject one equal to another, is by definition slavery. Feminism relies on the farcical lie that women are the image of the Most High, and since there can be none higher, they are therefore equal with men, which then renders all marriage into an unjust form of slavery and God into an ignorant misogynist, who spites all women with subjection to an equal by His unreasonable divine fiats. However, Feminism and women’s supposed equality to men is just an ignorant lie that requires males to suspend their own realization of the obvious truth, that was known to the ancients, that men are the superior and exemplar representative of the species. Forasmuch as men are the image and glory of God, while women are merely the glory of men. Eve was created of the man and for the man. God did not subject the greater to the lesser. God subjected the defiler,(Revelation 14:4) the woman, to her husband who is to be the image of Christ, the good shepherd, the savior of the body, while the wife does not image God but images the church which is prone to constantly straying.(Ephesians 5)
We must remember that God made our earthly languages. And that is why “god” is a masculine word. A female deity is by definition a goddess, not a god. So, by the will of God, even the definition of the word “god” is exclusively masculine. Only Satan, and those of his synagogue, would want to emasculate God our Father and portray defiling women to be His likeness and so blaspheme the Holy Spirit himself, and the Son, and the eternal Father of all spirits and all flesh.
That is the crux of the matter. Feminism is a satanic heresy that was fostered by the “church” of Rome.(the Mother of Harlots) We must continue to reform our doctrine back to how it was given to us by the apostles, take back men’s birthright, the image of God, because that is where and how the church went astray into Feminism, effeminacy, Mary worship, and Etc.
That logic doesn’t fly. Jesus is equally God with God the Father, yet He is in complete subjection to God the Father. Furthermore, some men have authority over other men, which means the men under authority are in subjection to the men in authority over them, even though every man is equally created in God’s image.
Being equal in image does not exempt one person from submission to another.
Pingback: Maslow’s hierarchy of needs as a way of understanding dysfunctional marriages | Christianity and masculinity
LOL I never said the lies that undergird Feminism are logically sound. As Dalrock pointed out:
Dalrock’s Law of Feminism: Feminism is the assertion that men are evil and naturally want to harm women, followed by pleas to men to solve all of women’s problems.
I totally agree with you, but Feminists still do claim that women and men are equals and that women can’t be expected to submit to an equal or inferior being.
Though the Father & Son and men can readily choose submission, for women to choose submission is to dishonor the supreme goddess within them that outranks even the Creator of the universe.
That logic doesn’t fly.
It’s not even logic. It’s just emotion mixed with word salad. Feelze over realze. Nothing new, either.
The “looking for the grass on the other side of the fence” has been a huge problem in people’s lives. It started in the garden. The happiest people I’ve ever met live where they are, true to family.
Pingback: Disparities in college education might explain much of the gap in marriage | Christianity and masculinity
Pingback: Objective and subjective attraction measures and what the Church can do about it | Christianity and masculinity
Pingback: On Curating a Christian Culture of Attraction | Σ Frame
Pingback: Any two Christians can have a godly marriage | Christianity and masculinity
Pingback: Cheap sex leads to decreasing marriage rates or not? | Christianity and masculinity