Are women naturally amoral?

Mr. Zopo asked what I think of the theory that women are naturally amoral. I would put it that women are naturally more inclined towards amorality, but basically, I do think that it’s true.

The fact is that morality – the ability to stand by principles when doing so makes one’s life more difficult, or even puts that life in peril – is adaptive for men, and maladaptive for women.

Incidentally, most people’s “lizard brains” – their subconscious minds, where all the real decisions are made – are far more sexist than my frontal lobes. When I was a child, I was downright priggish. I was always pointing out to the adults around me the immorality of their behavior or theories. (As you might expect, I had a very unpleasant childhood as a result.) Also, I often refused to do things people wanted me to or that other children were doing, on moral grounds. This made other people, both children and adults, angry at me, but even more than that, they were astonished. It wasn’t until well into adulthood that I realized that they were astonished to see a female standing on principle! They would never have articulated such a thought, but they knew which sex was supposed to make a moral stand and which wasn’t.

But let’s get back to the survival value of morality. For a minute, pretend you are a cave man. You decide to kill a woolly mammoth in order to feed your tribe. But woolly mammoths are big honkin’ critters. You can’t just go up to one with your little handmade spear and kill it all by yourself. Bringing down one of these requires teamwork. So you ask two other healthy young men of the tribe, your pals Og and Ug, to help you. After they’re done switching to Geico, they agree. (Okay, it probably takes more than three guys, but that’s not important right now. Three guys or ten guys, the principle is the same.)

Now, when the three of you pick out your woolly mammoth, it’s entirely possible that one or more of you will get killed in the process of hunting it. So on the face of it, it would seem that running away and abandoning your comrades at the first sign of trouble would be adaptive, would have survival value. But let’s say the mammoth gets feisty. You and Ug run away, leaving Og behind to be trampled by the mammoth. You and Ug live through that day, but you and your tribe are less likely to survive because you don’t have mammoth steaks. Plus, if you’d killed the mammoth, the chicks in your tribe would have dug you. They might not have bartered a straightforward exchange – their sexual favors in return for a chunk of mammoth meat – but killing it would have given you and your pals status, which is excellent currency for getting laid. So you’ve just lost several opportunities for passing on your genes.

Since you, Og and Ug are most likely to succeed in killing the mammoth, staying alive throughout the hunt, and going home to a feast and sex with grateful cave women, if all three of you stick together even when the hunt is dangerous. In other words, loyalty and courage are adaptive for males, even when it imperils them. Loyalty to an ideal and courage against inquisitors who are trying to stamp your ideals out come from the exact same personality qualities. Hunting, or defending your tribe against the tribe across the river, also requires aggression, and that aggression can also be channeled into, for example, crusading against evils such as slavery or communism.

Understand, a lot of cave men are going to die trying to stick together while they attack woolly mammoths. The fact remains that the cave men who survive and reproduce will be the ones who stick together in the face of danger and succeed, not the ones who run away when the mammoth gets tetchy.

Another personality quality that morality requires is independence. This, too, is adaptive for males. Let’s say there’s a hominid tribe living in a valley. They’ve been there for generations, but lately pickings have been slim, and consequently so are the hominids.

Driven by their testosterone, a couple of young males propose leaving the valley in search of territory richer in food. The elders warn them not to. Everybody knows that outside the valley are dragons, ogres, and who knows what other monsters, ready to gobble up hominids who wander out of the valley.

But teenage boys never listen to anyone. Our two young males insist on leaving anyway. That is, they take a risk on their own independent judgment. Two things could happen. One, they could die, of starvation or of being eaten by a cave bear or any number of other things. In this case, their genes vanish and they matter not. The other possibility, however, is that they discover that a mere half a day’s walk away is a much nicer valley, with lots more fruit-bearing trees and plenty of animals just waiting to be killed and eaten. They claim it for themselves, then invite other hominids who are willing to accept their dominance to join them. As the ruling males, they get first call on poontang. Thanks to their independence, their genes are passed on.

A few thousand years later, their descendant refuses to renounce his faith even on pain of death. Let’s say this descendant is a Christian living in Rome before Constantine. He is showing his independence by following what his own heart and mind tell him is right even when everyone else he knows thinks he is wrong, just as his ancestors did when they went in search of a new valley to live in. Our Roman martyr might die himself, fed to lions in the arena, but his brave sacrifice is part of what founds the largest and most powerful force for morality in human history: Christianity.

But these ingredients of morality – loyalty, courage, aggression, and independence – are as maladaptive for females as they are adaptive for males. Any of them could cost a woman her life and her chance to reproduce.

Think about it. What constitutes reproductive success for a woman? She has to invest nine months in gestating the child without miscarrying, then take care of it for at least a decade. Carrying it, nursing it, watching it to make sure it doesn’t eat toadstools or walk right up to a cobra or simply wander off, providing it with food and basic training in human behavior. From a purely evolutionary standpoint, a man can ejaculate and die 30 seconds later and still be a reproductive success, but for a female, the investment is far larger. A female cannot afford personality qualities, such as courage, aggression, curiosity, and innovation, that might get her killed before her children reach puberty. Females who had those qualities generally didn’t live to be our ancestresses, so we didn’t get their genes. We got the genes of the meek women who pleased the men of their tribe and stayed far away from the woolly mammoths.

(I would hypothesize that these traits are sex-linked, but not perfectly so. This would explain why most women inherit the genes of their submissive ancestresses, but occasionally manifest those of their independent, aggressive ancestors. Similarly, while men will usually inherit the genes that made their fathers viable, like courage and loyalty, sometimes instead they will show the qualities of their mothers, of manipulating and befriending.)

What does a woman need in order to raise her offspring, the carriers of her genes, to adulthood? Other people to help her watch the sprog so he doesn’t run into the nearest pride of lions would be good. Other people with spears and torches to chase off hungry predators who come around hoping to snack on some juvenile Cro-Magnons. Other people to bring her some food when she’s eight months pregnant and can barely move, or when she’s got a baby in her arms and a toddler following her everywhere and she just can’t gather enough for herself because she and the baby have both come down with something. Other people to kill antelopes – she’d do it herself, but her three-year-old follows her everywhere and keeps crying and alerting the antelopes – so that she and her kids can get some of that essential protein. Other people to hold the baby for a little while so that she can climb a tree to get some fruit off the high limbs.

In short, other people. Hillary was, in a sense, correct: it does take a village. But not in the way she meant.

This means that women cannot, evolutionarily speaking, afford to be independent. An independent female would be drummed out of the tribe, and with no one to help her protect and care for her small children, she would be dead very quickly. Even if she did manage to survive, her children would have no one to mate with, being without a tribe, and her genes would die out. A woman’s survival depends upon her keeping enough of the favor of the tribe, or at least of a powerful member or two of the tribe, that they will let her stay and enjoy the protection and support of the tribe. She can’t stand up to the chief because she thinks his decisions are immoral. He would either beat her into submission or exile her, and unless she found other protectors, she would soon be dead.

A woman also cannot afford the aggression that allows men to promote moral ideals. Aggression often leads to fights, and anyone can get killed in a fight, and women are smaller and weaker than men, so their chances aren’t as good. A woman can’t afford courage. Survival rewards her for avoiding danger, and placating fellow humans who might be dangerous, including by having sex with them. If she bravely defied the males from the next tribe when they came in and took over, they would kill her, then no reproduction. The males’ courage and aggression in invading has enabled them to pass on their genes; her courage and aggression in resisting them has destroyed her chance of doing the same.

Loyalty is the same. Again, imagine you are a young cave man and you and your friends Og and Ug see a gang of cave men from a rival tribe on your territory. The three of you walk up to confront them. As you get close, Og notices that one of the other lads is much bigger and more muscular than any of you. Og might decide on the spot that casting his lot with this large stranger is his best course. He does, and you and Ug are killed by him and the other guys. Now maybe Og will get a chance to pass on his genes with the females of the rival tribe, but more likely they’ll never really trust him and he’ll never have enough status to get laid. He lives out a cave man lifespan, but his turncoat genes are unlikely to be passed on.

However, if Og sticks by you and Ug even when he sees how big and strong one of the enemies is, the three of you have a chance to prevail against the big stranger and his buddies. If you do, you’ve defended the territory and you live and you get nookie. Your loyalty to each other has survival value.

But what does loyalty mean to a female? Imagine for a moment that you are a primitive woman. You have recently been married to a nice young man from a friendly neighboring tribe. While the two of you are traveling back to your new husband’s tribe, a tough guy from yet another tribe happens along. He looks you over, likes what he sees, and kills your husband without preamble. You’re all primitive, so that’s how it’s done. He grabs you and takes you away on his horse. As you ride back to his camp, you weep for your dead husband.

But once you get to your new man’s camp, you have a choice. You could be loyal to your dead husband and reject this new man. Most likely he’ll rape you if you resist, but after that if he’s not pleased with you he might kill you, or he might just not make your offspring his heirs, minimizing their chances of reproductive success. Or you could dry your tears, make the best of a bad job, and set about making your new man happy with you so that he will make the son you will give him his heir. (Heirs get more nookie.)

This is not hypothetical. More than 800 years ago a woman named Hoelun was faced with that choice. She made the latter decision. Today, the world hosts roughly 16 million of her descendants, because the son she bore her abductor grew up to be Genghis Khan, who got a lot of nookie. Disloyalty to her first husband – ingratiating herself with his murderer – meant tremendous reproductive success for Hoelun.

I think it’s pretty clear that people who are designed by nature to be this opportunistic should not be allowed a great deal of power in a civilization.

Now, it isn’t that women are incapable of being moral. It’s just that they require massive societal (male) support for their morals. It requires a man to invent systems of morality. Whether you believe that the Torah and the Gospels and other holy books were the work of man or of God using a man as His instrument, we know for sure that they were not the work of woman. Ayn Rand was a woman and a brilliant philosopher, but she was drawing on centuries of patriarchy and grew up in a patriarchal culture – and, by the way, she was a self-described male chauvinist.

Women are not going to invent morality. When barbarians first came up with the notion of ethics, thus launching civilization, it was male barbarians who did this, not female ones. Women can practice morality, but they need to be supported by men in this: fathers, husbands, clergyMEN, policemen, the MEN who run the government of the society in question, and God the Father.

When Margaret Mitchell was a teenager, she wrote a short novel which was published in the 90’s. In it, an innocent, virtuous young girl is captured by an evil man who intends to rape her. She kills herself rather than endure the proverbial fate worse than death. She chooses death out of loyalty to her fiance rather than be unfaithful to him, because of the patriarchal ideal of chastity, and because of her strong Christian faith. In other words, she gave up the reproductive success which nature would have made her choose, because the men in her life had provided her with the artificial moral values of religion, loyalty, chastity, independence and courage. I approve of the choice – for one thing, it would discourage other evil men from kidnapping and raping women, if they know the women are likely to choose death over sex with them – but it’s one that is only possible to a woman with religion and patriarchy to back her up.

This is why I keep pointing out that secular, “liberated” feminists see no problem with encouraging terrorism and tolerating Islam. They know, at some level, that when the time comes, the Mohammedans will spare their lives, because women are more useful as living sex partners than dead. Western men will have to be killed, but feminists are okay with that; they know they’ll live. Some Western women will of course refuse to yield to the invaders. These will be chiefly the conservative Christian women, who have learned the artificial values of loyalty to their husbands, of chastity until proper (not forced or polygamous) marriage, of religion which forbids them from becoming the whores of infidels. In other words, without moral Western men to protect these moral women, the moral women will die and their genes disappear while the amoral women – feminists – will not be killed and will bear children for the terrorists.

So yes, one could say that women are naturally amoral. Women can be moral, but it is not natural to them. It requires the support of moral men.

Advertisements

14 Responses to “Are women naturally amoral?”

  1. Artfldgr Says:

    technically the men not willing any more to be with the, ahem, ladies, means that they are banishing them. the internal banishment is also a plus. sending them out would mean being picked up by another tribe that might not handle it as want my labor, cooperate… but might be, cooperate at the end of a large stick sicne your from someplace else. call ti the shaharazade theme.

    complex social species refuse to mate which kills any tribe that gets the totalitarian bug.

  2. Artfldgr Says:

    technically the men not willing any more to be with the, ahem, ladies, means that they are banishing them. the internal banishment is also a plus. sending them out would mean being picked up by another tribe that might not handle it as want my labor, cooperate… but might be, cooperate at the end of a large stick sicne your from someplace else. call ti the shaharazade theme.

    complex social species refuse to mate which kills any tribe that gets the totalitarian bug.

  3. Artfldgr Says:

    technically the men not willing any more to be with the, ahem, ladies, means that they are banishing them. the internal banishment is also a plus. sending them out would mean being picked up by another tribe that might not handle it as want my labor, cooperate… but might be, cooperate at the end of a large stick sicne your from someplace else. call ti the shaharazade theme.

    complex social species refuse to mate which kills any tribe that gets the totalitarian bug.

  4. Mr Zopo Says:

    Thank you!

  5. Mr Zopo Says:

    Thank you!

  6. Mr Zopo Says:

    Thank you!

  7. Abject Says:

    Hi

    Here's a myth directly related to this. We hear all the time — from posturing women claiming moral higher ground — that because men are by nature promiscuous whereas women need a deeper (?) emotional connection to their partner (read: her inner-slut module must be fully activated by an "alpha male"), they are somehow (it is implied) morally superior in their sexual behavior to men.

    What nonsense. How is that so?

    Think of it like this: the majority of married, even when he has a mistress or is, say, getting blow jobs from his secretary, will still not divorce their wives, and may even continue having sex with them (at least out of a sense of obligation). A married woman, in contrast, by the time she loses interest in her husband (or stops getting what Roissy calls the "gina tingle" from him) will not only start making it more difficult for her husband to have sex with her, but if she is totally "connected" from her extra-marital partner, will (under the current laxity of law) dump/divorce the husband and move on.

    In which way is the latter morally superior?

    For men, if a man whom we call our buddy or a loyal business partner, just moved on to being buddies with another guy simply because, well, he has better social/business connections, more money and charms, better at golf, etc., he cannot in any way be considered a morally integral man. He'd be considered a back stabber, a cheat, a social climber, anything but a manly man. Man who suck up to power and fall for it are the most repulsive men by other men.

    Then, we hear the claim that "honesty" is the highest moral virtue, and the wife dumping the guy she doesn't "love" (i.e. sexually titillated by) anymore is more honest and therefore morally superior.

    So, if I insult someone who happens to be physically uglier than me, that's morally superior because it is honest? If I refuse to extend charity to the less fortunate because I honestly consider them "losers," that is morally superior because it is honest?

    Since when is giving in to your basest urges synonymous with honesty?

    It is exactly because men can treat sex mechanically and not let it get in their way while making decisions about loyalty to family, etc. that men are morally more reliable.

    Feminist propaganda is riddled with paradoxes like these. No wonder, it is a godsend for the morally weak and intellectually feeble to rationalize their flaws while cloaking them with moral arguments.

  8. Abject Says:

    Hi

    Here's a myth directly related to this.

    We hear all the time — from posturing women claiming moral higher ground — that because men are by nature promiscuous whereas women need a deeper (?) emotional connection to their partner (read: her inner-slut module must be fully activated by an "alpha male"), they are somehow (it is implied) morally superior in their sexual behavior to men.

    What nonsense.

    The typical married man, even when he has a mistress, or is say getting blow jobs from his secretary, will still not divorce his wife, and may even continue having sex with her (at least out of a sense of obligation).

    A married woman, in contrast, by the time she loses interest in her husband (i.e. stops getting what Roissy calls the "gina tingle" from him) will not only start making it more difficult for her husband to have sex with her, but if she is totally "connected" to her extra-marital partner, will (under the current laxity of laws) dump/divorce the husband and move on.

    In which way is the latter morally superior?

    For men, if a man whom we call our buddy or a loyal business partner, just moved on to being buddies with another guy simply because, well, he has better social/business connections, more money and charms, better at golf, etc., he cannot in any way be considered a morally integral man. He'd be considered a back stabber, a cheat, a social climber, anything but a manly man. Man who suck up to power and fall for it are the most repulsive men to other men.

    We hear the claim that "honesty" is the highest moral virtue, and the wife dumping the guy she doesn't "love" (i.e. sexually titillated by) anymore is more honest and therefore morally superior.

    So, if I insult someone who seems physically uglier than me, that's morally superior because it is honest? If I refuse to extend charity to someone less fortunate because I honestly consider him a "loser," that is morally superior because it is honest?

    Since when is giving in to your basest urges synonymous with honesty?

    It is exactly because men can treat sex mechanically and not let it get in their way while making decisions about say loyalty to family that men are morally more reliable.

    Feminist propaganda is riddled with paradoxes like these. No wonder, it is a godsend for the morally weak and intellectually feeble to rationalize and morally cloak their flaws and morally unacceptable behavior.

  9. huxxx Says:

    …woman is not…capable of friendship: she knows only love. – NietzscheI thought of this before I'd read your blog, although in less detail. Cool.

  10. The Demon Says:

    Yo femMis, I'm curious about your opinion on why so many men accept this immoral behaviour from women. I mean I see and hear it everywhere. Women being absolute evil bitches and engaging in obvious manipulative behaviour, yet they suffer no consequences whatsoever. It's like the world is infected with a bad genetically defected version of chivalry.I've been posting comments on Youtube concerning two video's. One was about the whole Rihanna/Chris brown thing and another is about some second rate rapper named Charles Hamilton. The dude receives a right hook from some stupid woman during an argument. He doesn't retaliate in the slightest.Concerning the Rihanna/Chris Brown affair I made posts expressing my opinion as such that Rihanna must have done something to provoke Chris. I also said that she was hiding something when she spoke about what happend in the car between them (it was so obvious). I even had a few females agree with my standpoints.It was mostly guys and very few females that disagreed and said that Chris was an abuser and blahblahblah. He's only done this once yet he's still an abuser. In my opinion abusers are repeat offenders. The guys said a man should never hit a woman no matter what she does, it's inexcusable. She could be trying to stab or shoot him for all they care…With the Charles Hamilton issue I said that if that women had punched me in the face I would've tore her a new one. I would've punched her in the face just like she did me, only difference would be that she'd be knocked out on the floor afterwards.Some guy responds saying "and that's why you don't have a girlfriend". I responded with "so you think a woman would rather go for a guy who let's himself get beat up by a woman instead of one who always defends himself, even if it's a woman). He respondes with basically the same comment except that it was even more illusionary, "yes woman beaters get no women because they beat them, they don't know how to love them or the earth for that matter".WTF?Anyway I wanted to know your opinion on this. Why do so many men behave as emasculated "chivalrous" nancy boys these days? It would seem logical to me to defend and protect yourself and your honour always, even if it's a woman attacking you. Especially when it's so obvious that the majority of women today are evil and demonic creatures who don't even know the meaning of the word compassion.

  11. Female Misogynist Says:

    Demon, I think it's partly leftover chivalry from men who don't fully realize that women have changed and are no longer deserving of chivalry. It's also years of conditioning from the MSM and the schools, promoting the notion that women can do no wrong and men are evil by definition, yadda yadda. It's hard to shake off all this programming, and can take years of harsh experience.Keep fighting the good fight!

  12. Phoenix Says:

    I have often wondered why the feminists were in bed with the terrorists, apart from a common enemy i.e. Western Civilization. This post has enhanced my understanding a lot. Guess it really takes a woman to know women.

  13. Bang Gully Says:

    I find this post very interesting and I seem to agree with alot of it. I was nodding my head until I got to the part about how feminists support Islam.Huh?Feminists hate Islam for the most part. To many of them it is the definition of everything bad and everything they stand against. Many feminist NGOs essentially oked the bombing of Afghanistan which killed the very same women and children that they wanted to save with their propaganda. They want the Muslim female to be like the emaciated masses of Western females.

  14. Billy Says:

    "The guys said a man should never hit a woman no matter what she does, it's inexcusable."That is what women and the media have been screaming for decades now.Fuk them, fuk them all!My Mother got into Feminism and was reading NOW rags. When I was a teen she and my sisters were having a feminist whiner session and I walked into it. Mom pulled a butcher knife out and Said "There's one now(a male) let's kill him for all mens sakes.Horrifying to hear that from Mom, I was her favorite and only son.My oldest sister was in my face screaming at me and she grabbed my hair and yanked me across the room towards my knife wielding Mother. I nicely warned her to let go of my hair and she only yanked harder. 3 times I warned her and she yanked and jerked me by my hair harder.. then 'Booom' I lunged with a half strength punch towards her and landed directly in the nose.The entire stupid episode ended right then as she fell into the corner of the room and Mom rushed the butcher knife back into the drawer..I felt no remorse. She deserved the busted nose and more.My oldest sis was the only one that apologized but it meant little, she has been a bitch all her days and I've recently disowned her.My oldest sister don't even deserve a brother. I never wished for anything bad to happen to her but I couldn't care less if I ever saw her again & I avoid her. ~ a few million braincells short of a happy meal. Funny how these women in my family never mentioned this ever. Years later I brought it up and Mom denied it ever happened. That was my awakening; Since then I've realized that most women are truly just as screwed up in the head.My wife was wonderful for one entire year, then marriage, then came the baby and she changed into the exact opposite and the worst wife possible.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: