Turd Flinging Monkey has a great analysis in the video “MGTOW: The Magic of Male Scarcity.” I think it is well worth your time to watch.
I suggest a modification to his hypothesis. I accept wholeheartedly that reduction of the male portion of population generally fosters the formation and intensification of patriarchy, and that it has in the past. I don’t think reduction is itself necessary or sufficient to achieve patriarchy, though reduction to 50 percent, should it even be possible, would of course be necessary to permit each man to have a woman of his own.
What matters is male control by cooperation and female cooperation by fear.
War triggers both but is not itself either. The state has usurped the role of men as law enforcers by cultural action on the spot. Instead of cultural law from the bottom up we have institutional law from the top down.
Moreover, past performance does not guarantee future results. Modern technology includes the post-Industrial and Information Age aspects: (1) one machine tender can do the work of hundreds or thousands, and (2) surveillance allows limited government resources to attack rebels before they can organize into a viable political rival. If that is not enough to make a difference today, there is always tomorrow. AI will change the game completely with implications for even the autonomy of humanity.
Modern technology also allows moochers to mooch on a global scale, which means women can mooch on a global scale so long as they are politically valuable and not has-been useless eaters. Essentially, the numbered days of the global economy will not permit any real change. It will not until day 1 of no global economy that men will become generally valuable to women.
Until the world economy is completely defunct and in ruins, male scarcity will not mean much.
Bitches be that batshit crazy. Here comes the interesting analysis of why and how much.
Yes, a scarcity of men would force women to bid up the price they are willing to pay, but it would be futile with liberated women of the West. Women only want the alpha, for sperm. Beta provisioning she can get from Daddy Government or Corporate Boyfriend. As all practitioners of modern seduction know, alpha fux and beta bux. That top one out of X eligible men that all women want and expect is able to smash a lot of pussy in a month or however long women will wait on average for #1. If liberated women were in equal number to men and those women held out for the top 1 out of 200 men, or if liberated women outnumbered men 4 to 1 and those women held out for the top 1 out of 50 men—resulting in equivalent ratios demonstrative of the hypothesized regulation by female hypergamy vis-a-vis what the market of men will bear—that would mean women outnumbered alpha men 200 to 1, or if the hypothesis is true, the hypergamous market rate was 1/200.
The hypergamous market rate is the rate of casual sex supplied by liberated females in terms of the supply of males. [RD: This definition has been superseded on 25 May 2015. Sorry for the confusion.]
The hypergamous market rate is the average casual sex value a female places upon herself in terms of the average casual sex value females place on alpha males.
The destructive nature of women in a cultural-economic environment and the self-destructive nature of women liberated by economic subsidy and man’s technology is evident from the definition. They can never be haaaaaaapy as a general rule. Liberated women can never be happy with a guy who values (by actions more than by lip service) women as anything close to his equal. The hypergamous market rate should not be confused with the alpha threshold. If the ratio of women to men is 1 to 1, the hypergamous market rate and the alpha market rate or threshold are the same. Liberated women will adjust their determination of the alpha market rate based on the relative supply of men to women. [RD: Added 25 May 2015]
The alpha market rate or alpha threshold is the rate at which women recognize males who appear to be viable for casual sex as alpha males. [RD: Added 25 May 2015]
The hypergamous market rate is independent of the sex ratio of a population because it concerns seduction and casual sex not courtship and contractual sex. The independent variables of the hypergamous market rate are: (1) female tolerance for gratification delay: the service cycle, and (2) female limits of means to access and critically evaluate as many men as possible: the subsidy of technology created and maintained by men and consumed by women.
If, in the above example, alpha men had sex with two women every three days, servicing every woman with alpha would take 300 days, about ten months. Over-the-hill careerists will wait forever rather than settle, morbidly obese pretenders, etc., etc. If half of all women sat on the sidelines, a service cycle would take 150 days or about five months. Let’s further suppose women redefine alpha as the best penis they can get in 30 days, a completely unrealistic relaxation of the hypergamous instinct. Then per market forces they would determine that alpha is the top 1 out of 10 to get the service cycle down to a month. That is still not exactly good odds for the average Western man in a post-feminist order with the best of sex and alpha ratios and female hypergamy.
Granted, it is waaaay worse than that right now. I estimate that right now the alpha threshold is top 1 out of 500. If we assume a 1-to-1 sex ratio, one alpha out of 500 males, the service rate of 2 lays every three days, and three quarters of women on the sidelines (not on the cock carousel) for the population of men and women not in a stable sexual relationship, the service cycle is 187.5 days or 6.25 months. That would be an average with younger, hotter women getting shorter wait times. I could be talked lower than one alpha out of 500, but from what I see anecdotally, 500 seems right to me. Perhaps there would be some sex for ‘2nd-rate alphas’ or betas on the fringe of alpha plenty, let’s say two lays per month. Then the service cycle would be the time it takes for a 1st-class or true alpha at 2/3 women per day and a 2nd-class ‘alpha’ at 2/30 women per day to total 1/4 * 500 lays = 125 / (11/15) = 170.5 days or 5.7 months.
Is the hypergamous market rate of 1/500 accurate? Is an average wait on the cock carousel of 6 months for sexually active liberated women under 30 realistic? Can anyone make a better guess based on field observations from the top of the PUA mountain? or on available statistics?
According to one study of DNA, the breeders from eight thousand years ago who are successful to this day have a sex ratio of 17 to 1. That ratio could have been more or less lopsided in terms of simply getting sex or conception or an adult offspring. The ratio 17 to 1 represents a local maximum skew in time of alpha male dominance attributed to wealth inequality in the wake of the agricultural revolution.
It seems overall, as some running average of sorts and in terms of success to this day, the breeders’ sex ratio is 2 to 1 (text search for ‘DNA’). Not incidentally, statistical considerations about childless men and the very concept itself are virtually ignored by Western society. The instinctive drones presume men are the disposable sex, but we are not disposable in cultural value. Certainly, far fewer than 1 out of every 2 men are or will be fathers, or will have gotten laid this year.
Same day correction, NOT 1 out of 5): Approximately 4 out of 5 American women have children (h/t Wikipedia: “Childlessness”), and men are weeded out mercilessly if women have a choice. As of 2013, 41% of all births in the United States were to unwed mothers, of which some small portion were couples living together without state validation. If we have a bastard rate of 30% fathered at a hypergamous rate of 1/100 and if 70% are fathered in monogamy (cuckoldry is probably negligible in wedlock), the result is 100 mothers per 70 and 3/10ths fathers or roughly 1.4 mothers to every 1 father. Not a crisis there. Sexual rejection by the wife and adultery by spouses of either sex are more common marriage issues.
I argue that modern transportation, communication, birth control, female indoctrination but especially the distinction of casual sex for all comers from long-lived legacies afforded to its winners raise that skew much higher for male sexual access today. Within marriage is presumably no picnic either because of the hypergamous nature of the amoral, liberated, trust-extracting monopolist. Genetic legacies on the order of thousands of years will weed out parental women more than parental men because parental women have fewer and more tightly grouped inheritance threads to burn than do parental men, typically having more offspring and co-parents. Thank you, manginas, for material technology as applicable but certainly the abdication of masculine values and our superior psychosocial technology known as fucking culture, you spineless pussies!
Anyway, my point is that liberated (by government oppression) women grade on a curve that puts regular sexual service out of reach of, as I argue, at least 98 out of every 100 men. Reducing the ratio of men to women by a factor of 2 or 4 would be a tremendous social change at the limits of plausibility. Yet, it wouldn’t relieve men one iota from the incredible choosiness of women for casual sex, not unless it induced a political change such that regular men triggered the respect of female survival instincts.
The problem is that women are not selling pussy to please their survival instincts in the least, which makes the all-α reproductive instincts the only motive women have to supply sex. Furthermore, the motive to be a good helpmate only comes from a woman’s survival instincts directed to a man not the state. Both survival and reproductive instincts were triggered during WWII and directed toward returning veterans. Here in America the euphoria wore off in the 1950s. Husbands were, I think, mentally broken and not social leaders of their homes, not providing husbandry for their wives and children. Culture went to shit for lack of its transmission from fathers to offspring, especially sons. In the 1960s the new propaganda and the maturing government welfare programs became respectively the dominant triggers and targets of female instincts under President Lyndon Johnson. You Westerners know the rest as roughly if not exactly the recent history of your country.
My argument is that reduction of the male portion of the population is close but not exactly right as a cause of patriarchy or even a harbinger. A population with 10 percent manginas and no other men will fail, like it should. I am not sure there was actual patriarchy in the 1950s. A superficial traditionalism? Yes.
Eliminating the male subsidy and guarantee of female survival is the key to reestablishing patriarchy.
Men of the West have abdicated their natural superiority to women via a love and fear of institutional authority. Sheeple are cowards who recast their fears as love and their vices as virtues, until they can be open hedonist failures safe and warm in the liberated, subsidized herd.
We have the no-doubt-subsidized-and-organized-with-your-tax-money-however-laundered protest at Hyde Park about, in fact, the Protein World advertisement campaign that had the unforgivable side effect of lowering the relative status of most women to everyone else and so to men, who are to be the lowest of the low, just ask Wishful Wipes, the boy blunder. They are sanitary wipes not tampons.
Those brainwashed men have been taught to fear and avoid a specific fundamental truth, otherwise obvious and the key insight to identifying the key lie and premise readily vulnerable to a rhetorical counterattack à la the “Bully Sheeple Destroyer Pattern”:
Virtually all women are or were able to provide functionally adequate recompense for being in a man’s world of culture and affluence only by being loyal, chaste, submissive, supportive sex objects to high-culture producer men.
Eliminating manginas and other culturally inferior but incompatible men from our midst would solve the root problem of vaginal wastage facing high culture, rational NT men of the West, but not because penis would become scarce in terms of vagina. I believe it would only work by changing the balance of political power in favor of capable rank-and-file men using discretion and force as agents of cultural law in lieu of the virtual government monopoly on physical force and waxing government predominance of psychological force.
Again, there is some truth to HBD. Again, the printing press. Again, pussy is politics. You can run, but you can’t hide. As a man you are either a patriarch, or you are not. Your social environment is a huge determinant of your fitness and success.
My advice, as before:
Civilized men are absolutist systemizers, though I don’t recommend building anything other than a flexible, opportunistic, disposable power structure to serve and protect the ones who matter starting with yourself.
The problem is the solution. All politically successful shifts of culture, to include religious movements, are opportunistic with what is. In the meantime, you are an individual. Live for yourself and not a schedule of change you can’t force into existence, or when the time comes, delay. Hubris and cowardice we leave to the sheeple.
—‘Reality’ Doug, 05 May 2015