This post is also available in: English
A paper written by what sounds like three micks inebriated on decades of academia femcunt poopytalk has, in a roundabout way, corroborated the classic CH description of the sexual market as a barter system between cheap sperm and expensive eggs (or, more poetically, between expendable men and perishable women).
The expendable male hypothesis
Matriliny is a system of kinship in which descent and inheritance are conferred along the female line. The theoretically influential concept of the matrilineal puzzle posits that matriliny poses special problems for understanding roles of men in matrilineal societies. Ethnographic work describes the puzzle as the tension experienced by men between the desire to exert control over their natal kin (i.e., the lineage to which they belong) and over their affinal kin (i.e., their spouses and their biological children). Evolutionary work frames the paradox as one resulting from a man investing in his nieces and nephews at the expense of his own biological offspring. In both cases, the rationale for the puzzle rests on two fundamental assumptions: (i) that men are always in positions of authority over women and over resources; and (ii) that men are interested in the outcomes of parenting. In this paper, we posit a novel hypothesis that suggests that certain ecological conditions render men expendable within local kinship configurations, nullifying the above assumptions. This arises when (i) women, without significant assistance from men, are capable of meeting the subsistence needs of their families; and (ii) men have little to gain from parental investment in children. We conclude that the expendable male hypothesis may explain the evolution of matriliny in numerous cases, and by noting that female-centered approaches that call into doubt assumptions inherent to male-centered models of kinship are justified in evolutionary perspective.
Authors: Siobhan Mattison, Robert Quinlan, Darragh Hare
It’s a reflex in me now to check the names and phyzzes of the authors of feminist-friendly studies for an accurate gauge of the veracity of the study in question.
Siobhan Mattison. Vicious man-hating catlady face. Defying expectation, she claims to be a “wife and mother”, which she listed third in her profile bio, behind “demographer”.
The authors are of course framing their hypothesis as “strong empowered wahman don’t need no man!”, but the truth is far darker than that.
The worst societies in the world are marked by rampant polygyny (one man, multiple women, bitter incels). Black Africa is a prime example. In all societies, though, men are generally more expendable than women, because at the finest granularity of reproductive fitness, it only takes one man to impregnate a lot of women. The remaining men can go fuck off, evolutionarily speaking.
On a practical level, it’s easy to grasp the significance of this sex difference by noting how easy it is for societies (aka tribes) to rebound after a war in which mostly prime aged men are killed. A war which took the lives mostly of women would have a hard time repopulating, because wombs are the limiting factor.
That said, women have their own darwinian curse. Their precious eggs have a shorter shelf life than men’s abundant sperms. Post-menopausal women are useless as population regenerators, but one 70-year-old man could conceivably repopulate an entire tribe decimated by a conflict of attrition. This reproductive reality plays out at more concrete, higher levels of interpersonal dynamics, in everything from men’s better earning power later in life to the longevity of male actors’ careers in contrast to actresses’ careers.
Concerning the hypothesis of this paper, where women are economically self-sufficient, as in the modern West, beta male providers are rendered more expendable. And where sluttery, cheating, cuckoldry, and single mommery are rising, male parental investment declines because men are no longer confident in their paternity with any one woman.
We see both trends rising in Western strongholds that have existed the longest within an industrial and then post-industrial system. Naturally, what follows from the “expendable men, perishable women” hypothesis is a de facto if not yet de jure polygynous sexual market exemplified by women waiting longer to get married, spending a decade or more chasing degrees, paychecks, and cocks, and being freed from societal constraints on their ability to dupe men into cuckoldry or to soak men they have sexually abandoned with onerous child support garnishments, which is a form of institutionalized cuckoldry.
Men, for their part, are responding as would be expected in a sexual market returning to a primitive pareto-guided allocation of sexual rewards. 20% of men (alphas) are hoovering up 80% of prime nubility females, while 80% of men (betas) are left to romantic isolation or settling down with a road worn and tossed away wet aging slore.
Into this gynarchic efflorescence, we see men abdicating any trace of authority over women and losing interest in resource accumulation to attract women, while simultaneously women are actively encouraged to sexually roam and shun marriage and motherhood. It started in the lower classes, but is rapidly winding its way to the upper classes.
Feminist cunts may titter and preen and think an emerging matriliny is all fine and dandy, a blow for the sisterhood, until civilization collapses into an r-selected rabbit warren punctuated by a retreat from evolved beauty and bouts of incomprehensible violence.