Thread: On philosophy and hypergamy

Having a little discussion with someone on G+ regarding rationalist vs. empericism with a focus on hypergamy (which follows from a debate I was having with an AVfM'er.. I thought I would post this here and see it all expanded by the minds of MGTOW.

plus.google [dot] com/u/0/+ObMon/posts/3VFmjCkZMKh

I only recently got into these subjects.. currently reading Murray Rothbard and hoping to work backwards through time and thought...

So... from what I understand so far, our definitions of empiricism and rationalism are essentially the same. However, I wouldn't go so far as to say human reasoning is extremely unreliable and then go on to mention religion or superstition. Those aren't empiricist nor rationalist.. maybe fantastical.. hopeful perhaps? Fearful?

When it comes to religion and God, empiricist methods show no sign of Him. And the rationalist argument follows logic to prove that God, if he exists, must also be subject to the same set of rules that govern all else in the universe, otherwise the universe would collapse in on itself in a fit of irrationality. Hence God (as per the standard definition), doesn't exist.

The question I like to pose to people is this.. can a blind, deaf, mute man in a dark, featureless space, who can neither feel or taste, figure out that 2 + 2 = 4?

For me, as I understand it so far, the real difference between empiricism and rationalism isn't the method by which they use to understand the universe (and both have the utmost respect for the scientific method), but rather it is the belief in innate characteristics, not subject to past experience. Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm still in my philosophical infancy..

What part(s) of knowledge, human or animal, is built-in, and what part(s) are developed though social interaction and experience?

Plato says shapes and patterns are innate. I was skeptical of that at first until I watched a documentary on smart animals such as the crows of Australasia. One crow in particular is capable of solving an 8-step puzzle to retrieve food, and it does this by recognizing shapes and cause and effect. Experience taught the crow that a particular shape can have a specific cause and effect (a ball goes into the hole for example).. but then the question remains, how does a crow understand that a ball is a ball... unless shapes and patterns are innate.

Morality according to Descartes is innate. Do we feel guilt when we hurt another person because society tells us to? Or because we innately understand right and wrong.

From an empiricist perspective, an experiment that encourages monkeys to turn on each other based on the fact that other monkeys turned on them in the past shows that perhaps morality is not innate..

On the other hand, why do we not see far more cases of feral behavior? Humans, apart from civilization, behaving entirely atypical of normal human behavior?

Chomsky says that language is innate. I tend to agree.. where does the drive to communicate with others come from?

"MGTOW thinking especially Barbbarrosa’s and Stardusk’s work cuts through much of cultural bullshit (rationality en masse) and concentrates on the human animal and his observable behaviors and tendencies. MRAs and PUAs I find are fond of silly rationalizations “cultural Marxism” chief among them."

Completely agree.. but they do this by recognizing the innate characteristics of men and women. MGTOW recognize that society wasn't built by human experience, but by animal biology. Or so I believe.

My own thought on the subjects is this: Gender is not a social construct, society is a gender construct.

The gynocentrism of human society isn't a by-product of human invention. I believe humans augmented, not invented, what was already a natural biological endeavor.

Since the beginning, 600 million years ago, when nature decided to create two genders out of asexual organisms, the female, not the male has had the advantage of sexual selection. For 600 million years, gynocentricity has been encouraged and reinforced by the "developing social systems" of every species. They were not invented by the species, only encouraged or limited.

Even the seahorse, where the male carries the offspring to term, it is still the female who chooses which male will carry her ovum.

This is the argument where for example Suzzanne McCaffrey of AVfM fail in her definition of hypergamy... The belief that female behavior is a product of social development is only a half truth. And empiricist.

There are no grades to hypergamy. It's not a good thing or a bad thing when misused. It simply is. Society would either curb the innate power of sexual selection in women, which was how human society up until feminism worked, or it can set hypergamy free and like the peacock, dumb the male down to little more than elaborate presentations of self-worth. PUA's for example..

For the record.. I don't much prescribe to the notion of a fempocalypse either. It isn't that there will be a massive gender war played out on the battlefields.. I think it will be a slow progressive realization of the biological roots of our behaviors and then, if society doesn't regress into a cycle, we will slowly evolve our biology.

The trick will be to not become a hive-mind civilization in the process. I'm a transcendentalist at heart.

As for the rift between MRA and MGTOW.. its simple, MGTOW believe that MRA, while noble in their efforts, are not recognizing man's true power.

We built civilization. Yes, we did it for women. We did it as part of the grand gynocentric equation.. but that doesn't change the fact that man is uniquely capable, as male chauvinist as it may seem, to build civilizations. By that measure, going our own way and in essence changing the game would be far more effective than feeding the system and playing the same game. And women, not just men, will eventually benefit far more from the change of game.

PS. Loving the forum by the way.. so familiar, and yet.. improved! way to go chaps!

My comment will be more of a "drive-by" instead of a "deep dive". I basically agree with most of this. I'll leave rationalism and empiricism aside in my comment. The rest of the animal kingdom practices a kind of hypergamy. And yet all those animals are still in the jungle or underwater. Curbing the female instinct to practice male mate selection based on "jungle survival" criteria is what allowed the family structure to form the building block of human civilization. Absent any correction of this, I believe we will effect a regression of the genetics of man. Now I will make a bit of a controversial point. If men GTOW and women do their own thing, become single moms, then the government will have us foot the bill. To me that is a safe conclusion. It is happening today and these entitlements will grow. Yes, we can insulate ourselves from the shenanigans of women, but unless there is Action of some kind and a growing fraternity of men that are willing to stand up for themselves against the system, we will suffer. My personal view, not pushing it on anyone. I believe that MRA and MGTOW are complementary tactics and not mutually exclusive, in that you can manage your personal life & relationships with red pill awareness AND choose to invest your time and effort ensuring that the system does not exploit you when you're not looking. One can walk away from marriage but one can never walk away from the tax collector. My view again is simply my own but I wouldn't be surprised if there is some aspects of intersection of MGTOW and MRA, and synergy. However, I will never frown on any MGTOW who chooses to avoid activism in any way; nor will I consider one who does, any more of a MGTOW, etc. These are all personal choices.

As jagr put it, we are devolving .

Some smart guys thousands of years ago firgured out that the only way we as a species would ever advance is if female sexuality were tightly regulated. The reason is akin to why nuclear technology is strictly regulated and controlled. The difference being, a nuclear reactor can only ruin the physical enviornment. Female animalistic programming, left unchecked to propegate through a society, undermines the entire civilized nature of humanity.

Where we are now is akin to a civilization of the future who happens across a nuclear waste site, and has no memory of what the "HAZARDOUS WASTE" label means. Previous cultures and many current ones knew how dangerous hypergamy is, and took steps to prevent it. Having grown up in the stable results of a post-hypergamy society, men forgot the wisdom of their forefathers and opened the cask of radioactive waste, aka female political power.

The rest literally is history.IMO, the way forward is some kind of permanent, Rosetta stone style memory archive engraved in the hardest stone possible, buried in the most secure soil possible, which warns the men of the future exactly how to NOT fuck themselves over as we have. Perhaps then humanity can quit royally fucking itself over every few thousand years.

That Rosetta Stone is the internet and all the wisdom we spread via it. In ancient times the number of copies of a book/scroll was very limited. Knowledge was constantly found and then lost. The dark ages were dark because most of the ancient wisdom had been lost when the libraries were burned or otherwise lost. This lasted until the Crusades brought back much of the writings of the ancients to Europe. Sorry generations of middle easterners had to die and suffer in order to get Europe going again. However, knowledge was still precarious until the printing press was invented. This allowed knowledge to be so cheap it could be widespread and never in danger of being lost. Knowledge started to accumulate, building on the works of others to go further, faster, higher.

We are the lucky recipients of the internet age. This is way more recent than most of you young guys realize. When I was studying Engineering in college as an undergraduate, computers were extremely rare and inaccessible for most. The PC and Mac opened up the door, but it took a decade or more for the internet to take off. Having the knowledge of the ages and instant communication with everyone on the planet at our finger tips is so recent it is no different than being there for the Gutenberg bible first edition.

On reading this, I couldn't help but think of part of series 4 of Babylon 5 - when the Rangers had recreated the monasteries...

Very interesting points made here.I believe that MRA is a social construct and attributing too much importance to MRA alone is a misguided attempt at achieving social harmony.When a man in a muslim society is an activist for his rights, what "rights" is he fighting to preserve in comparison to a western MRA or an Indian MRA or an MRA of certain african societies? Islam grants the right to men to beat their wives and marry 4 at once.An Indian MRA might fight for the "right" to keep his wife at home and prevent her from working so she can sit on her rapidly fattening ass while he slaves away at work. An African MRA might fight for his right to female circumcise his child bride.
So which MR Activism are we to follow? Is there then a universal version that can be a one-size-fits-all? I suspect such a version will be a trojan horse for feminism and cause for significant resentment wherever it is attempted to be introduced albeit in a well intentioned manner.
The present day malaise affecting gender relations cannot entirely be attribute to hypergamy alone as the basic biology of our species hasnt changed in the last couple of centuries.Lack of a penis and testicles should by no means be a handicap for acquiring values like decency, honesty, loyalty,sacrifice etc.We are not merely physical entities, we are sapient sentient philosophical beings.Thus, the present female hypergamy is a symptom of systemic and structural flaws in our social makeup which unfortunately are self reinforcing and self perpetuating. Our (male) lack of introspection and ignorance about how to tackle it has exacerbated it to the point it is today.
It is only MGTOW philosophy which will give the necessary perspective to recognise female behaviour and adapt to it accordingly. This is where MGTOW shines as a philosophy.Rights activism is meaningless without introspection and change from within.

What philosophy embodies the MGTOW concept? I think if there is one truth held over all as MGTOW, is that we put dealing with women's sociological and physiological concerns aside to endeavor to better ourselves. Taking women off their pedestal, and shooing them away so we may work on what is important to us.

MGTOWs as Men's Rights Activists have the unique position of being able to help deflect the hate feminism brings to the table by doing something they have no real answer to: We simply drop their out-of-protocol responses. At some point, feminism's fury and anger begins to stop bothering you. We know what they're made of. We know what they seek, and we know how to manipulate it in our favor. And if they get out of hand, drop them. Turn and walk away. They have no answer to someone who simply quits their game.

The only winning move is not to play.