In a study that surprised precisely no one, it turns out that a lack of physical strength correlates with a man’s willingness to hide behind the skirts of the closest mommy he can find. Grown men who lack grip strength rather enjoy suckling at the teat of the state, forever, if possible. The study in question is rather well designed, which makes it hard to refute. A robust sample of men (n=171) had their chests, shoulders and flexed biceps measured, along with grip strength, and then they were asked a series of economic distribution questions. Height wasn’t a factor, even though it correlates with higher income for men, because height isn’t a good predictor for strength.
There has been lots of commentary in the popular press about the study, and I won’t rehash it other than to say confirmation bias is a powerful lens that can contort any fact into any worldview at all, it would seem.
I have always been fond of Stephan Molyneaux’s take on socialism. This meme does a wonderful job of summing it up, but there is something missing, and that is where I would like to focus my attention today.
The implication in this meme is that good times lead to weak men, but it’s not good times so much as it is good women. Good times generally mean that men are working, and women are at home raising children. Skip the modern incarnation of the world, and go back to an agricultural world in which most people would be farmers. Good times mean abundant food, and that food will largely be produced by men, particularly after the domestication and cultivation of grains. Women will have a child every 2 – 3 years for her entire reproductive life, and those children have enhanced survival rates, thanks to the agricultural labor of their community of men. By no means am I dismissing women’s work here – I am simply pointing out that the work of raising children falls largely to women, at least during formative years. It’s hard to combine toddlers with oxen and ploughs.
In a rough world, only the strong survive. The strong men turn their attention towards the cultivation of wealth and resources (especially food stores), and leave the day to day work of children and laundry and making bread to women, as they must. Strong men create the conditions that allow women to raise a generation of weak men, who then proceed to forget all the hard work that went into creating good conditions and the cycle begins again.
I think we are witnessing peak weak men, who are busy creating bad times. This is a tough conversation to have in a modern context where strong men are resource slaves and weak men are cannon fodder and neither group of men gets to claim full humanity. Women are always human, and men are useful or useless. That provokes a rightful indignation from men, who then rally to protect all men, including the weak. Women who envy and resent men prefer weak men – competition becomes possible, and that’s not true with strong men. Women cannot compete with strong men, not on men’s terms, anyways. It’s a mystery to me why women would even want to, but resentful women are with us in abundance, and not going anywhere anytime soon.
It comes down to women. The hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world, and that hand will always seek the protection of strong men. The trouble with strong men is that strong doesn’t mean good, any more than weak means bad. Weak men can be good men, but as Jack Donovan argues, there is a huge and important difference between being a good man, and being good at being a man. And strong men can be bad men.
Look at Swedish women, who took their Viking men, castrated them during boyhood, and who now vote to support importing radical Muslim men to provide the male strength Swedish women destroyed. Enlightened Swedish men spent centuries learning to subject their beliefs to reason, and thus became capable of goodness. Muslim men, particularly the radical ones, have not been through an Enlightenment, and do not subject their beliefs to reason, and are thus less capable of goodness and highly likely to create very bad conditions.
Progressive American women, especially the ones who have no man in their lives, or a weak man whom they control (and thus despise), are caught in the same bind. They shriek their #MeToo to the heavens and then detest the emasculated, soy boys whimpering behind boxes of Tampax that result. Progressive American women both fear and desire men like Donald Trump, and that tension is what gives rise to the bad times.
As always, strong men will have to fix the problems women create.
Women will always create these problems, because women will always want good times that don’t demand too much of their children. They will soften and weaken the whole society, if they are allowed to do so. Within the context of a family unit, or even small tribe, this is fine. This is good! Bad actors within a family or tribe rarely want to see the destruction of the whole tribe. That’s simply not true on a global scale. Bad actors most certainly want to see the eradication of entire families and tribes and will work heartily towards that end.
And women will invite them in, hoping they can weaken these men, too.
Strong men will have to stop them.
Repeal the 19th.
That would be an excellent start.
Lots of love,