In a world where women either match or outperform men in nearly all domains, more and more women express frustration from not being able to find a man who is attractive enough in their eyes for marriage, by which they mean, successful enough, which is in turn defined by women as the man being as or more accomplished than them. Some women, attempt to suggest to other women to therefore focus on the personality of men rather than being distracted by the man’s social standing, occupational status, housing, income, success, aspirations, or degrees. An example of this naive recommendation can be found in a recently posted video. The following article, is an empathic, honest explanation of why this vision could never be realized, and is intended for such women who offer to other women to forgo their drive towards a man who is at least somehow “more than”.
I’m sorry dears, you are trapped in the feminist lie that humans are a programmed, cultural invention. They are not. We all have an innate sexuality, imprinted in us according to, and by, our sex – through our sex chromosomes – and women will never be able to couple with a man whom they see as inferior, just like men will never be able to couple with a woman they see as ugly. Their genetically-imprinted female and male sexualities are tuned from birth, in females to seek a man who is “more than” and in males to seek a woman who is sexy and beautiful. “Body positivity” – trying to program the innate male sexuality to produce attraction to unattractive women – failed and had to fail because sexuality is biologically-imprinted, and for the very same reason “Status positivity” can never succeed among women – you cannot program human sexuality (for some reason feminists know this very well when it comes to homosexuals, but can’t possibly generalize this simple understanding – you cannot program human sexuality – to heterosexuality). But, if it’s any comfort to you, women’s “success” and men’s “under-performance” are artificial.
Under true equality – blinded equal opportunity and blinded equal cultivation – as employed in the West in the 1990s, women could not reach numbers that are equal to men’s numbers in all domains, because of biologically-determined differences between the distributions of the two sexes on a variety of human capacities. Imagine two bell curves with the left one shifted slightly relative to the other; yes, some and possibly even many on the left curve overlap with the right curve, but, given any line that crosses the x-axis, because of the shift, the majority above that line are from the rightmost curve. This is the meaning of biologically-determined differences that manifest not between any man and any woman, but between two distributions of many men and many women, yielding under perfect equality more men than women in a number of both intellectual and physical domains.
Since the 1990s, feminism has been demanding society to reach parity by any means, ignoring the above-mentioned biologically-imposed distributions that are beyond human control. As a result, DEI and quotas were applied, and forced employers and universities to disregard applicants’ suitability in order to reach at any cost artificial parity, meaning society started employing discrimination against men in favor of less competent women. Everywhere around you, in domains which are somewhat competitive and were historically with some male majority, if there’s a female domination there, then the vast majority of the female group is unfortunately below-standard, fairly incompetent, and they are taking the place of a giant group of men more talented than them for the task – who could and should have been eligible husbands – all because of institutional feminist discrimination against men. Most women, under equality, can find men who satisfy their female sexuality which was tuned by the process of evolution to the same distribution-shift of maleness and seeks that “more than” that this shift is – the only reason they can’t, is widespread institutional feminist discrimination against males, often from birth.
Once equality returns (and it will), and boys and men will again live under blinded equal treatment and blinded equal opportunity (this is the only equality there is, and men are not asking for anything more than just that – equality), you will again like in the 1990s have a large male presence in domains currently artificially filled with below-standard women at a proportion sometimes reaching 70% to 80%, who received their place by the feminist anti-male chauvinism. Men will be able to return by merit to being either half of, or, the majority when on the upper side of the organic distribution of the relevant capacities there just happen to be more men than women, in literature, journalism, psychology, media, art, medicine, law, all branches of academia, engineering, management – and therefore nearly all women will again find the “more than” husbands whom they are attracted to by their innate female sexuality. The female “equal numbers” in some domains, and the female majority in many others, that we see today, are fabricated and are based on severe, illegitimate, illegal, mass discrimination against the better candidates for being male, alongside the handicapping of human potential in male infants, children and teenagers, to prevent them from reaching candidacy in the first place (“this only balances”).
Regardless of differences between distributions that create under true equality a small or a large male majority in any number of demanding domains, and a female majority in others (social workers, nurses, kindergarten staff), women can’t really compete against men in large enough numbers to produce parity in all domains given equality, because they don’t have testosterone, the motivational drug of nature. The hormone testosterone is a brain-acting molecule, and it is what enables a man to work 36 hours without rest, to keep going under almost any circumstances – women report that they need to “rehearse mantras in their head” to just keep working for an hour straight. Because they don’t have nature’s motivational drug – testosterone – and they will never be able to consume it safely because the female nervous system does not have the receptors for it in the same locations and density as in the male brain and body. Humans are splendid ingenious creatures, but they are not above nature, we are not gods and we are not capable of rewriting the entirety of biological life created by the universe on planet Earth, as upset as feminists may be by this reality.
It is what it is – actual equality, without mass illegal feminist discrimination against males, produces a world where most competitive domains have some majority of men and some minority of excellent women, simply because yes, men were designed by evolution for work and problem-solving (for survival of the human species) and on average and given equal cultivation they excel in that more than women. Just stop supporting female anti-male chauvinism that persistently discriminates against the better candidate to artificially and illegitimately produce “equal numbers of women” and “female majority” in each domain, and nearly all women will find husbands they like because men will be allowed to succeed again. If you are a woman who suffers from the husbands crisis, understand that by not objecting publicly and vocally to the institutional systemic feminist discrimination against men and boys, you are sentencing yourself to eternal loneliness and solitude. Your mediocre female neighbor is holding without merit your future husband’s merit-based accomplishments, and stumbles in his shoes thanks to a system of discrimination she is benefiting from unjustly.
You can just as well respond to this text with anger. Yet, if enough women follow that anger then their innate female sexuality will simply cause a biological extinction of those parts in society that endorsed fury in response to human reality. Because these parts lose their reproduction capability (the women don’t find husbands that trigger attraction in their innate female sexuality and families are not formed), and by that after a generation or two those parts of society therefore vanish from existence – outraged individuals included. After this biological disappearance of the group that responded to innate realities with “anger” – humanity is re-balanced again and continues according to its imprinted structure. An angered response to immutable realities such as female sexuality, does not change the future of humanity, it only denies a future from the raging individual and from a part of her generation. We are not gods. We will never be able to rewrite human biology, and within biology, sexuality, is the most foundational structure and beyond human reach (it is what created all of biology by being the mechanism of molecular shuffling that generates molecular genetic variation, which is the factory that produced any trait and cellular or bodily mechanism in the living world, the only exception being bacteria and viruses; sexuality is as deep to life as the fundamental particles are to physics, it is what generated all other regularities, qualities, and properties, and hence changing it is completely beyond reach – not without ending life itself). We also need to recall what all this anger would be against – blinded equality, and for what purpose this rage will be expressed – arbitrary “50:50” numbers in domains in which parity has no basis in distributions of competencies and no consequences other than discrimination, prevalent incompetence, separation of the sexes. But you can be angry in the name of your ideological chauvinism against males and cause the biological extinction of your social niche, that’s fine. Or in the name of equality you could send the NY Times an op-ed denouncing feminist institutional systemic discrimination against males from infancy. It’s all about choice, isn’t it.
Lovism 