new

[From a book titled "The Garbage Generation" hosted on the linked website]

What IBM thinks of as the promotion of equality is better understood as the undermining of hypergamy, one of the pillars of the patriarchal system. Hypergamy, or the "marriage gradient," means that women "marry up," men "marry down." A cinder girl may hope to marry Prince Charming, but a chimney sweep cannot hope to marry Princess Charming. A male doctor might well marry a female nurse, but a female doctor would hardly consider marrying a male nurse. The female nurse may be underpaid, but in the marriage market her prospects are better than those of the female doctor because there are more desirable males she can hope to "marry up" to.

...

IBM's question implies that society's arrangements tilt in favor of males. The fact is that society's arrangements produce more male winners and more male losers. One principal reason for the success of the male winners is the knowledge that they might well be losers: they must earn their success and are motivated to earn it partly by the greater risk of failure. IBM proposes to intervene in society's arrangements to confer benefits on females which will increase the number of female winners without increasing the number of female losers. What will increase is the number of male losers, since the male engineers will be competing not only with each other but with females enjoying a conferred advantage denied to males. Another question:

WHICH ONE WILL BE PRIVILEGED TO ATTAIN STATUS BY MARRIAGE AND WHICH ONE WILL HAVE TO EARN IT FOR HIMSELF/HERSELF BY WORK AND SELF-DISCIPLINE?

With IBM interfering with "market forces" this question might have to be re-worded: "attain status by marriage or by IBM's largess." As IBM offers women more status, marriage has less to offer them-- men have less to offer them. Men's marriageability is decreased because they have relatively less to offer women; women's marriageability is decreased because they have fewer men to "marry up" to. As IBM transfers status from those more dependent on work and self-discipline to those less dependent on work and self- discipline, men will become less motivated, since the rewards for work and self-discipline are reduced. The effect, though at a higher level of income, will be what is observable in the ghetto, where women enjoying the handouts of the welfare bureaucracy and become economically and status-wise independent of men, with the consequence that large numbers of men become de-motivated and less marriageable.

Two more questions:

WHICH ONE IS MORE LIKELY TO DIVORCE HIS/HER SPOUSE? WHICH ONE WILL HAVE HIS/HER LIKELIHOOD OF DIVORCE INCREASED BY A FACTOR OF FIVE IF HE/SHE IS EDUCATED AND ECONOMICALLY INDEPENDENT?

...

Let's project IBM's program into the future. Let's suppose the wearers of the blue and pink booties grow up and both become engineers. Then:

WHICH ENGINEER IS MORE LIKELY TO BE CHILDLESS?

IF BOTH MARRY, WHICH IS LIKELY TO HAVE MORE CHILDREN WHO WILL BENEFIT FROM HIS/HER SUPERIOR EDUCATION?

Virginia Woolf thought as IBM thinks: families would make great sacrifices to educate their sons, few sacrifices to educate their daughters. She failed to understand the reason: education enables sons to have families, to provide for wives and children who would benefit from the sons' education economically and by the transmission of the knowledge and the values embodied in the education. Educating daughters does not enable them to provide for husbands, and greatly decreases likelihood of their having stable marriages. The birthrate of educated women is far lower than the birthrate of educated men. (Ms. Woolf herself was childless, as are most feminists.) What Bernard Lentz says of professional men and women of the period l890-l940 is true of other eras:

Even for the "superperformers" [the most successful professional women]...marriage still led to diminished success, resentment, and a distracting tension in their personal lives. In contrast, men at this time found marriage had numerous advantages in their climb up the professional hierarchy....

Ergo, society has a greater interest in encouraging and furthering the education of males. Educating a boy enables him to have and to support a family, to give children an advantage in life, to transmit family values and strengthen the patriarchy, to create social stability. Educating a girl enables her to escape marriage, or if she marries, to escape childbearing or to have a smaller family. Education, which increases her independence, will enable her more easily to expel her husband and inflict upon her offspring (whose custody is virtually guaranteed her) the disadvantages accompanying fatherlessness. Feminists see these options as desirable, but why should IBM or the rest of us see them as desirable?

...

Feminist-economist Dr. Barbara Bergmann offers a little paradigm-story about Pink People and Blue People earning their living by picking berries on an island. Like women and men in our own society the Pinks and Blues have sex-segregated occupations. Dr. Bergmann thus illustrates "the crucial point":

If a group is segregated and furthermore is crowded into a relatively narrow segment of labor-market turf, its members will as a result be less productive, and their economic rewards will be lower.

(It is a sufficient refutation of this to point out that Senators are a segregated group occupying a narrow segment of the labor-market turf, but they do not suffer from low economic rewards.)

...

If men cannot outperform women they will not perform at all, and society will be lucky if male energies are merely wasted in narcissistic display rather than in disruptive violence and machismo. A man with nothing to offer a woman save a paycheck the size of her own is impossibly disadvantaged. He will know, and his wife will know that he knows, that the words "I don't need you, Mister" are always at her disposal and, thanks to the anti-male bias of the divorce court, she has an authority in the family greater than his own. Patriarchal capitalism prospers because it creates an arena of work wherein males are allowed to succeed and create wealth and where they are motivated to do so and rewarded for doing so by the satisfactions of family living.

...

Ms. Wattleton's pitch for "reproductive rights" and Dr. Bergmann's pitch for taking better jobs away from men to confer them on women come to the same thing: men are excluded from meaningful participation in reproduction. Men become superfluous members of families. The basis of civilized society is that men shall share equally in reproductive decision-making, and shall earn the right to do so by working. The program of feminism is to deny men this right by undermining the sexual constitution, the Legitimacy Principle, marriage and the family. When they talk about women's reproductive rights and about making women economically independent of men, this is what they mean.

I am very glad I am a heterosexual; that I was born male and am romantically and sexually attracted to women. This is natural. This is healthy. This is the way it should be. It would have been very harmful to me if I had detoured into homosexuality at any point in my life and would have been particularly bad if I had embraced homosexuality as my identity rather than a shameful dysfunctional disorder to struggle to escape from in order to become normal and healthy and heterosexual again.

During my time growing up; born in the early 1970s and going to high school in the late 1980s; I was definitely harmed by the feminist attack against my masculinity and my purpose as a man but at least I was protected and shielded from homosexuality during Middle School (7th and 8th grade) and High School (9th grade to 12th grade). Homosexuality as normal and legitimate was never taught to me in the classroom and it was almost unheard of among my fellow students (one person during Middle School confided in me that she worried she might be lesbian while no one in High School was gay). Definitely homosexuality was stigmatized and thought of as weird and sick, no one among my fellow students ever communicated that homosexuality was normal or acceptable and the teachers never brought up the subject at all except during 9th grade when I was told that AIDS, a new terrifying sexually transmitted disease, mostly afflicted homosexual men in big cities like San Francisco.

Due to the feminist attack against me as a man, in particular against my masculinity and my purpose as a man, it is true that I had some problems related to gender identity in my early 20s. In particular I saw myself as a kind of feminine sensitive man interested in mostly female occupations as a way of expressing my “sensitive side” as a man. I was part of a kind of New Age subculture in the early 90s and in this environment as a young adult I did run across actual homosexuals and the feeling that maybe homosexuality was OK and acceptable was kind of “in the air” but still only rarely explicitly stated or advocated for.

My gender bending “sensitive male” identity didn’t do me any good with the ladies and I started to get disgusted with my aimless wandering and so I shifted course looking for purpose and identity and ambition in a way that would connect me with women. In particular I wanted to connect emotionally with the woman I loved the most in High School; to become someone that she would be proud of and to make myself into a man that would be of value to her. This then led to my conversion to patriarchy and dedicating myself to traditional masculinity and my duty to provide for and protect women; this conversion to patriarchy happening in my mid-twenties.

I am very very glad that I always stayed on the heterosexual side of things even during my period of vulnerability in my early 20s. There never was a time when I thought of homosexuality as being “normal” or when I thought that homosexuality should be “accepted” by the wider society. I always felt that it was a good thing that homosexuality was on the fringes and not seen as “normal” even in the New Age hippie like environment I wandered into after High School in my early 20s. I felt like I should be nice and polite and “accepting” of the homosexuals in my environment but I never thought that homosexuality should be elevated to “normal” status and truthfully no social pressure was placed on me to think of homosexuals as being “equal” to heterosexuals.

Looking back on things society didn’t protect me from feminism obviously but society did effectively protect me from homosexuality or homosexual influence or homosexual normalization at least until I graduated from High School and I am grateful for that. I was “safe” from homosexual advocacy and propaganda or any social approval or acceptance of homosexuality or the idea that homosexuality was “available to me” as an option.

What bothers me the most at the gut or visceral level about the Supreme Court decision just handed down mandating so called “gay marriage” nationwide is that it now means that “homosexual equality” is a kind of official government policy and that it is now implicitly “unacceptable” to view homosexuality as being inferior to or “less than” heterosexuality. The law has a kind of implied moral authority or moral legitimacy so that if the Supreme Court says that homosexuality is OK and normal and acceptable then that kind of makes it officially so. What this means is that at the broad cultural level there is no more protection from homosexuality anymore. That I would be left to fend for myself to keep a healthy and functional heterosexual identity intact; my heterosexuality itself would be no longer assumed or taken for granted.

In general I have been quite optimistic regarding what the future of America will be regarding cultural issues. This Supreme Court decision has been expected for awhile, but it is interesting now that it is actually here, that it is official now that “homosexual marriage” is “constitutionally protected” and the “law of the land” in all 50 states. My inclination is to continue to be optimistic regarding the overall picture of American culture going forward. This is because the broad swath of social indicators is pointing towards a return to patriarchy and a return to traditional values. Social indicators are the most powerful force of all I think; more powerful than the Supreme Court. I doubt very seriously that “gay marriage” will turn the social indicators in a negative direction. The rebellion against family breakdown is already rolling in terms of people’s actual behaviors.

I do however think there is a bifurcation going on; that the bad part of American culture is getting worse while the good part of American culture is getting better. The real danger is that the ruling in favor of “marriage equality” will lead to a kind of anti-Christian anti-social conservative tyranny. Already there is some tyranny going on; bakers and florists and such being forced to serve homosexual couples for the “weddings” the homosexual couples plan. Business owners refusing to participate in these kinds of “gay marriage” celebrations have received heavy fines effectively forcing them to either serve gay customers or go out of business. There are Christian educational institutions and such worried that they may lose their tax exempt status or face lawsuits based on their “discrimination” against gays.

To claim that homosexuals are morally equivalent to heterosexuals is a very very radical thing and many religious organizations are worried that an equivalency between racial discrimination and anti-homosexual discrimination is going to be placed into the law so that current anti-discrimination rules and policies protecting blacks from discrimination will be applied to how homosexuals should be treated; this potentially criminalizing important religious practices and policies currently in place at many Christian institutions.

Nationwide Supreme Court mandated “gay marriage” is certainly a bad thing for a number of different reasons but it shouldn’t derail the cultural revival and the Christian revival already underway. Certainly Supreme Court imposed “gay marriage” will help recruitment efforts for the more conservative forms of Christianity. The real question in my mind is how the forces of feminist / homosexual advancement will react to the growing backlash against the societal destruction that feminism and homosexualism has created. How will the feminists and homosexualists respond when they start losing support and losing political power? That is the truly interesting question in my mind.