- Messages
- 916
Can't happen. There simply aren't enough men out there who are good providers, to provide such a husband for every young woman. The math doesn't work out.
And it will always be this way, because of the greater genetic variation among men than among women; because women are naturally more cautious than men; because women have less burden of performance than men; etc. The prison population is 90% men, which reflects that women are exposed to risk less than men. The autism statistics tell a similar story.
In a society with more marriageable women than marriageable men, we have four choices: (1) Surplus women will be spinsters. (2) Surplus women will be single moms. (3) Surplus women will be sister-wives. (4) Surplus women will be killed off or institutionalized so that they're not posing a nuisance to society.
The Mormons chose the third option. Western society chose the first two options. Eventually, it had to be acknowledged, these women are not really in their situation because of any fault of their own. A lot of spinsters and single moms simply didn't want to be stuck in relationships with losers who couldn't earn any money to support them. Or, they got with a loser and he went to prison or whatever.
So, what society did was destigmatize the spinster and the single mom, so they could lead a cushier life. The spinster was given some busywork to do in the corporate world, and praised as being the equal of any man at her profession. She was given the liberty to have casual sex as she pleased, without too much of a stigma for being a slut. She was also given a feminist movement and a bunch of other aligned movements, such as leftism in general, that she could join, to feel like she was making an important contribution even without having kids. Meanwhile, the single mom was given a bunch of social safety nets and our culture began to praise her for handling a tough job, and to excuse her situation as having been the result of some dastardly man being irresponsible.
There simply are no other options unless we're just going to kill or institutionalize these women, or silence them. I mean, what used to happen to spinsters and single moms back in the 18th century? Spinsters used to just have to keep quiet because they were excluded from most prominent roles in society, and until recent decades, single moms used to have to give up their kids for adoption; they weren't allowed to raise them, because it was assumed they were immoral and therefore unfit parents. Their sluttiness had to be hidden, so that they wouldn't be persecuted for it.
Nowadays, the cultural assumption is that although it's certainly handy for a dad to be in the picture, a single mom can do just as good a job as any two-parent family at raising a high-quality kid. And maybe there's some truth to that, given how many moms in two-parent households are career women anyway, outsourcing their childcaring role to babysitters.
And it will always be this way, because of the greater genetic variation among men than among women; because women are naturally more cautious than men; because women have less burden of performance than men; etc. The prison population is 90% men, which reflects that women are exposed to risk less than men. The autism statistics tell a similar story.
In a society with more marriageable women than marriageable men, we have four choices: (1) Surplus women will be spinsters. (2) Surplus women will be single moms. (3) Surplus women will be sister-wives. (4) Surplus women will be killed off or institutionalized so that they're not posing a nuisance to society.
The Mormons chose the third option. Western society chose the first two options. Eventually, it had to be acknowledged, these women are not really in their situation because of any fault of their own. A lot of spinsters and single moms simply didn't want to be stuck in relationships with losers who couldn't earn any money to support them. Or, they got with a loser and he went to prison or whatever.
So, what society did was destigmatize the spinster and the single mom, so they could lead a cushier life. The spinster was given some busywork to do in the corporate world, and praised as being the equal of any man at her profession. She was given the liberty to have casual sex as she pleased, without too much of a stigma for being a slut. She was also given a feminist movement and a bunch of other aligned movements, such as leftism in general, that she could join, to feel like she was making an important contribution even without having kids. Meanwhile, the single mom was given a bunch of social safety nets and our culture began to praise her for handling a tough job, and to excuse her situation as having been the result of some dastardly man being irresponsible.
There simply are no other options unless we're just going to kill or institutionalize these women, or silence them. I mean, what used to happen to spinsters and single moms back in the 18th century? Spinsters used to just have to keep quiet because they were excluded from most prominent roles in society, and until recent decades, single moms used to have to give up their kids for adoption; they weren't allowed to raise them, because it was assumed they were immoral and therefore unfit parents. Their sluttiness had to be hidden, so that they wouldn't be persecuted for it.
Nowadays, the cultural assumption is that although it's certainly handy for a dad to be in the picture, a single mom can do just as good a job as any two-parent family at raising a high-quality kid. And maybe there's some truth to that, given how many moms in two-parent households are career women anyway, outsourcing their childcaring role to babysitters.
