Witches, Feminists, and the Men who Enable Them

I finished an informative, provocative, and entertaining book over the weekend called Witches, Feminism, and the Fall of the West. While I agree with the author (Edward Dutton) that feminists are witches, I guess I mean it literally whereas he only means it genetically. 

In other words, he maintains that witches and feminists are a result of maladaptive genetic mutations, and that the mutations have been accumulating under the far less harsh environmental conditions since the industrial revolution. Now any idiot with crazy and maladaptive ideas can survive into adulthood and even tenure. 

I could be wrong, but I don't see how the process of natural selection could result in such rapid and revolutionary changes. Besides, look at me: I would have called myself a feminist as recently as the 1990s, whereas now I think the 19th amendment was a civilizational catastrophe, and my DNA hasn't changed. 

Was I a warlock back then? No, but I was certainly under the influence of witchcraft. This, however, begs the question, because it puts the scene of the crime back into the foolish men who accept feminism to begin with. To paraphrase Lincoln, the patriarchy will never be destroyed from the outside. If we lose our testicles it will be because we castrated ourselves. 

Regarding patriarchy, one of the points of the book is that it is both adaptive and normative, certainly under the harsh conditions of the evolutionary environment. There are a host of evolutionary reasons why patriarchy developed, nor is it difficult to understand why. At bottom, patriarchal societies are more likely to survive the battle of group selection for the same reason Lia Thomas is likely to curbstomp his swimming competition. 

Here's a summary of the story so far: Early Modern witches

tended to be physically unattractive females who acted in such a way as to undermine patriarchy, and by extension group selection. They also tended to be childless and unmarried. Being physically unattractive, they had poor genetic health, and this was reflected in their being mentally maladapted, as we would expect most females to be evolved to accept patriarchy.   

Hold on a minute: evolved to accept patriarchy? That's not funny!

Well, call it what you will, but Rob Henderson's most recent newsletter contains some fascinating data showing how the same underlying evolutionary strategies are hard at work in today's "dating market" -- which is just a modern way of saying "evolutionary environment," for it's a matter of whose genes will move on to the next round.

For example, on dating apps,

Men swipe right (“liked”) on 62 percent of the women’s profiles they see; women swipe right (“liked”) on only 4.5 percent of the men’s profiles they see.

Oof! One result is that

In terms of attractiveness, the bottom 80% of men are competing for the bottom 22% of women and the top 78% of women are competing for the top 20% of men.

Oof!2 Thus, for women natural selection is a buffet, while for men it's a fight to the genetic death for the leftovers. In other words, same as it ever was. 

Except it is apparently going to speed up our genetic deterioration, because research suggests that use of Tinder, for example, is associated with "Dark Triad" personality traits (narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism), which are in turn heavily genetically loaded. Bottom line:

The researchers conclude that "Tinder can be a venue for people high on the Dark Triad to pursue short-term mating strategies."

All of this goes back to the very different mating strategies of men and women. Since women must bear the burden of pregnancy, they are on the genetic lookout for three main things: status, resources, and loyalty. Conversely, men are primarily interested in three different things: looks, looks, and looks.

But looks aren't what they appear to be, since an abundance of research shows a strong correlation between things like facial symmetry and overall genetic fitness. And to this day, liberals tend to have less facial symmetry, more mental illness, and other markers of genetic unfitness.

A big reason why the genetic rules have changed -- why we have so many spiteful mutants running around -- is that 

In 1800, half of all those born died as children; two centuries later, almost none did. More and more people who would not have survived in old times walked among us.

Which isn't a bad thing unless we allow the mutants to take over with their dysfunctional ideologies. "Unwell in body and mind," these mutants tended to be

selfish and impulsive; at worst, they promoted depression and despair.... 

The really spiteful ones advocated for ideas that were catastrophic. Worse still, people listened to them, since most are born to obey.... 

We all went mad, you could say -- everyone, except those who were naturally resistant or too slow to conform. Deviancy became the norm; patriarchy was overturned. Those who were brightest were the first to accept the new religion, as they could talk themselves into anything.

And here we are:

 

Having said all that, an aphorism comes to mind:

The historian who speaks of cause and not of causes should be fired immediately.

So, there are genetic causes to be sure, but there's a lot more going on. Yesterday I awoke suddenly at 5:00 AM with this question rattling around in my head of when things went wrong. 

If we consider Genesis 3, it seems that it all started with the first guy who listened to his wife. But then I wondered about the Serpent: is his gender mentioned in the story? Yes: "he said to the woman..."

Therefore, it's no longer a question of Eve pulling Adam away from his theocentric orientation, rather, it's a matter of Eve being caught between two competing male voices, so the bottom line is it's the fault of males either way.

To be continued....