TABLE OF CONTENTS
-
- Giving both the father and mother the benefit of the doubt, treating both of them in good faith.
- Disabusing Ourselves of Magical Thinking and Genetic Fallacies.
- What is Marriage, What is the Purpose of Marriage and Where does Marriage come from.
- Marriage has been bottom up for the vast majority of our history.
- Monogamy, not polygamy, is more attuned to our human nature.
- Securing the biological imperative of both sexes to pass on their own genes, not someone else’s, to the next generation.
-
- A mandatory DNA test at birth to ascertain the paternity of the child.
- Abortion on request for mothers up to and including 13 weeks gestation.
- The legal provision of paternal abortion/paternal surrender.
- A new Ministry or Department for Adoption.
- Mandatory joint custody of children in the event of a separation or divorce of parents.
- Conclusion
- Update (March 24th 2019)
- The Importance of Jobs
- Update (July 12th 2019)
- Update (July 15th 2019)
Introduction.
In this article, I make my case for applying clear and precise positive law, in alignment with the principles of natural justice, to the hitherto honour bound custom of monogamous marriage. I propose that we transform the cultural institution of marriage into a legal institution. I think a big factor behind the success of western civilization from the 14th century onwards has been the practice of the custom of monogamous marriage. Since the 1960s, the sexual liberation of women (something I welcome), as a result of the availability of the abortion pill, abortion and the removal of social sanctions against women who have had children out of wedlock, has negatively impacted upon the popularity of marriage. Fewer people marry. The marriage rate in the United States, for example, has never been lower today than since records began – less for 7 per 1000 people every year since 2009. It’s even worse in all other OECD countries, with the exception of Turkey and Lithuania. In my country, the Republic of Ireland, the marriage rate fell to 4.8 marriages per 1000 population in 2016, the same as the OECD average that year. It fell further to 4.6 marriages per 1000 population in 2017 and 4.3 marriages per 1000 in 2018, the lowest it has ever been with the exception of 1995 and 2011. It is projected to fall further to 4 marriages per 1000 population by 2030. As recently as 1980, it was 6.41 marriages per 1000 population and had peaked at 7.42 marriages per 1000 population in 1973.
https://www.cso.ie/multiquicktables/quickTables.aspx?id=vsa02_vsa09_vsa18
Click to access SF_3_1_Marriage_and_divorce_rates.pdf
http://cdn.thejournal.ie/media/2015/04/marriage-in-ireland-1915-2014-thejournal_ie.xlsx
https://www.thejournal.ie/history-and-evolution-of-marriage-in-ireland-2039697-Apr2015/
Another way of expressing this is the percentage of marriages. According to US Census data, the percentage of Americans, aged 18 +, married in 1960 was 70.1%, following a surge after World War 2. This has since declined to 47.5%, a minority, today. This decline is even more pronounced among young adults. For example, among adults aged 25 to 34, the percentage married has fallen from 80% in 1960 to 36.9% today.
https://ifstudies.org/blog/sex-recession-blame-marriage-stagnation
The extremely low marriage rate has paralleled to some extent the unprecedentedly low fertility levels. For example, in the Republic of Ireland, the birth rate fell to an all-time low of 12.9 births per 1000 in 2017 and fell further to 12.6 births per 1000 in 2018. Since 1990, the fertility rate in the Republic of Ireland has been below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman of reproductive age every year with the exception of 2009. Throughout the west, the demographic winter (with fertility level below replacement level) has been ongoing since the 1970s.
I propose legislative measures that aim to make marriage more attractive to both men and women, measures that will save an institution that underpins civilization itself. Our lawmakers currently ignore or neglect this institution and they do so at our peril.
It’s time to look past the culture wars, such as the “pro-choice” versus “pro-life” advocacy in the often acrimonious abortion debate for example, to find practical solutions that will save this essential institution that has stood behind the prosperity of all civilizations. Both sides in the abortion debate hold passionate and sincere views. My legislative proposals in relation to abortion specifically and marriage, generally speaking, represent my own passionate and sincere attempt to find a compromise between the two sides.
Below, I examine the principles of natural justice that will inform well-designed family law. I identify certain genetic fallacies and magical thinking that obscure clearer thinking on this emotive topic. I also seek to answer the question of “What is marriage?”, “What is the purpose of marriage?” and “Where does marriage come from?”. In so doing, I address misconceptions about marriage. I identify the biological importance for both men and women of having a guarantee or an assurance that their children are biologically his or hers. It stands to reason that for monogamous marriage to continue to prosper, that guarantee or assurance needs to be extended to both men and women.
Next, I propose some legislative measures, including: 1) A mandatory DNA test at birth to ascertain the paternity of the child 2) Abortion on request for mothers up to and including 13 weeks gestation. 3) The legal provision of paternal abortion/paternal surrender. 4) A new Ministry or Department for Adoption, 5) Mandatory joint custody of children in the event of a separation or divorce of parents.
After that, I address how the automation of jobs over the following decades risk putting more men out of work and the negative impact that would have on the already low marriage rate. I also examine my own personal experience of monogamous marriage in my family of origin. I finally examine how the Republican party’s support for immigration, as a substitute for the low fertility rate of the native population, is against its own medium to long term interest and even its viability and survival as a political party that advocates for small government.
Principles of Natural Justice that will inform well-designed marriage law.
(a) Giving both the father and mother the benefit of the doubt, treating both of them in good faith.
Legal Monogamy will prevent the transformation of gynocentrism into misandry.
I propose that we remove marriage custom from the honour bound system of tradition and duty and subject it to clear and precise positive law that is aligned with the principles of natural justice. In other words, we update the institution of (monogamous) marriage from a cultural one into a legal one. Both men and women should be free to decide for themselves if they wish to parent. Currently, because of cultural expectations, only women have this privilege which, in fact, should be a human right, grounded in legal statute, enjoyed by both men and women.
This apparent cultural bias against men, which we can call gynocentrism, is, in fact, rooted in evolutionary biology. It is ultimately a biological bias that manifests nowadays as a cultural bias.
Recently, on twitter, a ruling from 2009 of the European Court of Human Rights was brought to my attention.
https://echrblog.blogspot.com/2009/05/dna-test-to-establish-who-father-is.html
A woman in Russia had sought another DNA test from a man she believed to be the father of her child, so that she could claim child support from him. The ECHR court ruled that she had a right, under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to privacy, to apply for the alleged father to undertake another DNA test. The first one found that he was 99.9% certain to be the father but it was ruled inadmissible by a Russian court because of incorrect procedures adhered to and the Russian court refused a subsequent application from the woman for the man to undertake another DNA test.
Many people would be sympathetic to her position. But, imagine if instead of the first test showing with 99.9% certainty that the child was the father’s, it showed with 99.9% certainty that he was not the father of the child, would people be as sympathetic to him not wishing to parent the child as they would be to the woman seeking child maintenance from the man in the 2009 case? I very much doubt it. By just changing one variable, it would become clear that, compared to people’s sympathy to the woman in the 2009 case, people would be less sympathetic to the idea that he should not be forced to father a child that has been found not to be his biologically or they would be less sympathetic to the idea that he is free to surrender paternity to a child subsequently confirmed not to be his biologically. People readily identify with the woman’s reproductive rights but not so much with a man’s. This is gynocentrism, something that is ingrained in our relations with one another.
Everything else being equal, men just tend to be less likeable than women.
The Social Psychologist, Roy Baumeister, in a 2007 address to the American Psychological Association, points out that research shows that human beings are descended from twice as many women as men. He observes that throughout human history, perhaps 80% of women got to reproduce but only 40% of men did.
He continues:
“Look at it this way. Most women have only a few children, and hardly any have more than a dozen — but many fathers have had more than a few, and some men have actually had several dozen, even hundreds of kids. In terms of the biological competition to produce offspring, then, men outnumbered women both among the losers and among the biggest winners. To put this in more subjective terms: When I walk around and try to look at men and women as if seeing them for the first time, it’s hard to escape the impression (sorry, guys!) that women are simply more likeable and lovable than men. (This I think explains the “WAW [Women Are Wonderful] effect” mentioned earlier.) Men might wish to be lovable, and men can and do manage to get women to love them (so the ability is there), but men have other priorities, other motivations. For women, being lovable was the key to attracting the best mate. For men, however, it was more a matter of beating out lots of other men even to have a chance for a mate. Trade-offs again: perhaps nature designed women to seek to be lovable, whereas men were designed to strive, mostly unsuccessfully, for greatness.
This inherent gynocentrism and the lack of likeability of men compared to women could transform itself into misandric beliefs held by both men and women and lead to a society that is blind to the rights of men and, beyond that, to the human rights of both men and women collectively as a substitute to just according privileged status for one sex over the other, that is, women over men. The assumption of misandry would lead to a society that ultimately downplays the rights and responsibilities of both men and women. It’s only that the male domino will fall first.
At a Democratic presidential debate in June, San Antonio mayor and candidate Julian Castro defended the right of transwomen to have taxpayer-funded abortions. “I don’t believe only in reproductive freedom; I believe in reproductive justice,” he said. “And what that means is just because a woman, or let’s also not forget someone in the trans community — a trans female — is poor, doesn’t mean they shouldn’t exercise that right to choose.” Of course, this is absurd. Transwomen are biologically men. He meant transmen. But the word “men” have become so toxic in political circles, especially when associated with the idea of human rights, that, for the purposes of that Democratic party debate, transmen were transformed into transwomen.
I think it will be impossible for our species collectively to get rid of its tendency towards gynocentrism. However, the provision of legal monogamy will serve to redirect this often hidden-in-plain-sight impulse of gynocentrism in such a way as to allow and to enable reproductive justice and reproductive equality before the law for both men and women and to keep in check any tendency towards misandry and its attendant toxicity.
Gynocentrism versus Misandry
Gynocentrism and misandry are two distinct phenomenon.
Gynocentrism, a prioritization of the collective wishes and needs of women over those of men, is biologically innate to our species.
Human beings are an anisogamous species, just like all other mammals, and vertebrates generally speaking. Higher order invertebrates and some species of fungi are also anisogamous. Being anisogamous means that our form of sexual reproduction involves the fusion of two gametes that differ in size and form. Compared to males, the female puts a lot more energy into producing a small number of resource rich eggs, of which only 300 to 400 ever ovulate, and that are optimized for longevity, whereas the male puts relatively little energy into producing, over the course of his life, perhaps 400 billion sperm, that are optimized for speed and motility. Given her small supply of eggs, females are, by necessity, choosy about whose sperm gets to fertilize her egg whereas a man, with his virtually unlimited supply of sperm, can be less discriminating. According to the geneticist, Angus Bateman, men are fundamentally promiscuous and women are fundamentally selective, ultimately because of anisogamy. According to Bateman’s principle, men have greater variability in reproductive success. Males compete with each other in order to be chosen by a female. This is the source of gynocentrism. A female had a greater likelihood of passing on her genes to the next generation. Alternatively, a man’s reproductive success can be measured by how many women he has slept with whereas for a woman, whereas her reproductive success is limited by how many eggs she produces. It is estimated that we are all descended from twice as many women as men. According to genetic research, throughout history, 80% of women got to reproduce whereas only 40% of men managed to do so. On the other hand, some men had left a huge number of offspring, way beyond what an individual woman is capable of leaving. For example, Paul Kingston, the leader of the Mormon fundamentalist Latter Day Church of Christ, is believed to have had up to 300 children.
When the Titanic sank in 1912, a higher percentage of women in third class were saved (46% or 67 out of 165 onboard) than men in first class (32.5% or 57 out of 175 onboard). In the face of crisis, men on the sinking Titanic allowed the women and children to be prioritized to be saved by the limited number of lifeboats. This I would characterize as gynocentrism. When human societies, especially small societies, are subject to great stress, when survival becomes the priority, gynocentrism becomes apparent. It is biologically hardwired and cannot be eliminated by means of culture or law.
While gynocentrism is biologically innate and biologically hardwired into both sexes, misandry, or a hatred of men for its own sake, is a cultural dysfunction that can arise from gynocentrism.
Misandry can be avoided, however, by means of law.
Legal monogamy forestalls any tendency towards misandry by granting equal reproductive legal rights to both men and women. Misandry is toxic because its outcome is the demonization of the male sex. When the male sex are demonized, it’s hard to grant them rights or to see them as people capable of having rights. In a modern society, that values individual liberty and responsibility based on the idea of universal human rights, this is problematic. It is also problematic because once one sex is denied human rights, the outcome is that the other sex is denied human rights in practice too, despite what any virtue signalling legislation to the contrary says. Due to the toxicity of misandry, human rights are often reframed as a female privilege only. Toothless virtue signaling legislation often results. For example, in the United States, female genital mutilation of non-consenting children and infants is illegal but male genital mutilation of non-consenting children and infants (otherwise known as male circumcision) is legal. The US Congress criminalized female genital mutilation in 1996. As of August 2019, 35 U.S. states have made specific laws that prohibit FGM. But, to this day, there has yet to be a successful prosecution of a practitioner of female genital mutilation in the United States at the federal or state level. This is a despite a 2016 CDC report that estimated that 513,000 girls and women in the United States were either victims of female genital mutilation or were at risk of it, with one third under age 18.
In fact, the 1996 Female Genital Mutilation Act that makes performing FGM on anyone under age 18 a felony in the United States was stuck down in 2018 as unconstitutional by US federal district judge Bernard A. Friedman in Michigan, who argued that the federal government did not have authority to enact legislation outside the “Interstate commerce” clause. As part of the ruling, Friedman also ordered that charges be dropped against 8 people who had mutilated the genitals of 9 girls. The Department of Justice decided not to appeal the ruling; however, the US House of Representatives has appealed it.
Click to access Nagarwala-Motion-to-Intervene-As-Filed.pdf
The simple solution to this impasse is to reframe genital mutilation as an age of consent issue. Genital integrity should be seen as a human rights issue, rather than just a privilege for the female sex. Children, of either sex, under the age of 18, should be protected from it, unless there is a medical emergency. For example, phimosis in boys can be treated with a slit in the foreskin, as opposed to removing the entire foreskin.
Both men and women want to be good parents.
In the United States, in the modern era, a worryingly high percentage (24%) of fathers are living apart from some or all of their children according to a Pew Research Center analysis of 2011 to 2015 data from the National Survey of Family Growth . There appears to be a mismatch between what fathers want, which is to be with their children more, and what the reality for many of them is.
A Pew Research survey from 2010 and 2011 found that 94% of women and 91% of men, aged 18 to 64, said that being a good parent was one of the most important things or very important in their lives. These are very similar results.
Click to access Women-in-the-Workplace.pdf
According to a Pew Research survey from 2017, fathers with children under age 18, in particular, complain that they spend too little time with their children. 63% versus 35% for mothers. Clearly, they would like to spend a lot more time with their children.
According to a 2013 Pew Research Center document, entitled “Modern Parenthood”, 48% of working fathers would prefer to stay at home with their children, under the age of 18. This is comparable to the figure for working mothers – 52%.
https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/03/14/chapter-2-balancing-work-and-family-life/
The same document also reported that between 1965 and 2011 there has been a convergence of roles between mothers and fathers with fathers doing less paid work, more housework and more childcare, and mothers doing more paid work, less housework and more childcare.
Clearly, we should give both men and women the benefit of the doubt that they wish to be physically and emotionally present in the lives of their children and thus parent them well. There is no need to subject either sex to shame as was the norm under the honour, culture-bound, system of the past.
Among both men and women, there is recognition of the crisis of father absence. For example, a survey of over 1500 mothers over the age of 18 with children under the age of 18, conducted in 2008, commissioned by the National Fatherhood Initiative, found that 93% of these mothers agreed there is a father absence crisis in the United States. 67% of them strongly agree with it.
https://www.fatherhood.org/mama-says-survey
Another survey, commissioned by the National Fatherhood Initiative, carried out in 2006, of 701 fathers, who had children, not including step children, found that 99% of them agreed that being a father was a very important part of who they are and 91% of them agreed that there was a father absence crisis in the United States.
https://www.fatherhood.org/pops-culture-survey
Equality before the law is the basis for the success of (western) civilization. And what more important equality is there than that between men and women?
Women have a lot more reproductive freedom than men presently have. She can abort her biological child. She can put her biological child up for adoption. She can abandon her biological child in all 50 US states, thanks to Baby Moses laws. Extend this freedom to men. The heavens will not fall upon us.
Legal monogamy is the key to increasing the fertility rate.
The fertility rate amongst the native population in the English speaking world is now about 1.7 to 1.8 children per woman of reproductive age. It is less than 1.5 children per woman of reproductive age in countries such as Germany, Italy and Japan. I am hopeful that the natural justice measures I propose below (see section entitled “My Legislative Proposals”) will raise this to what men and women themselves say they want which is around 2.7 children, according to a 2018 Gallup poll, up from 2.5 children in 2007 and 2011.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/236696/americans-theory-think-larger-families-ideal.aspx
Gallup also found that “currently 41% of U.S. adults think that families of three or more children is ideal. That is up from 38% in 2013 and 34% in 2011, and is the highest Gallup has seen on this measure since 1997 — although it is well below the 77% high point in 1945.”
The gap between what men and women want and the reality is wide. Both the general fertility rate and total fertility rate in the United States hit all-time lows in 2018.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/22/u-s-fertility-rate-explained/
The General Fertility Rate is 59 births per 1000 women, ages 15-44, in 2018 and the Total Fertility Rate, the hypothetical lifetime births per woman, is 1.73.
It is clear that the solution to the low fertility crisis throughout the west lies in fixing marriage. The General Fertility Rate of married women is more than double that of unmarried women. The General Fertility Rate for married mothers was 89.6 per 1000 married mothers, ages 15-44, in 2016. For unmarried mothers, it was 42.4 per 1000 unmarried mothers, ages 15-44.
https://ifstudies.org/blog/fertility-and-marriage-an-underappreciated-link
An analysis of American Social Survey statistics from 2001 to 2016 show that the decline in fertility in those years can be almost totally accounted for by the decline of the marriage rate over the same period.
https://ifstudies.org/blog/no-ring-no-baby
By fixing marriage, globalist, out-of-touch, politicians will no longer have any excuse to import people from the alien cultures of the Middle East, Mexico or elsewhere from the global south, in the name of celebrating diversity.
An essential basis for the success and sustainability of modern civilization, apart from equality before the law, is monogamous marriage. My proposed natural justice measures will strengthen the institution. Both men and women will be incentivized to enter into a marriage contract. What is the point in forcing, for example, a man who does not wish to be a father to be a father? How is that in the best interest of the child?
(b) Disabusing Ourselves of Magical Thinking and Genetic Fallacies.
The sobering finding of an adoption study and the lesson to be drawn.
We need to walk away from magical thinking and genetic fallacies, for example, the fallacy that biological parents automatically make better parents than adoptive parents. Another one is the fallacy that a woman automatically makes a better parent than a man. Once we liberate ourselves from these fallacies we can think more clearly. Once the dust settles, we can see that the critical question we should ask ourselves is do we want our society’s children to be raised by only one parent or two? Clearly, the optimal arrangement is 2 parents, a man and a woman. Longitudinal studies show that the biological children of two parent homes have better career and educational outcomes and commit less dysfunctional and criminal behaviour than the biological children of one parent homes. In short, they become more productive citizens who more often contribute wealth to society rather than be a drain to it.
One comprehensive study was conducted by William Bradford Wilcox and Nicholas Zill for the Institute for Family Studies who analysed data from a 2016 survey conducted by the US Department of Education. The data was from the parents and guardians of a nationally-representative sample of 14,075 students in public, private, charter, and home schools across the United States. The sample included 436 adopted students. It shows that the children of biological 2 parent homes both outperformed academically and had fewer psychological and physical health impairments than the biological children of one parent homes or one biological parent and a stepparent who, in turn, both outperformed academically and had fewer psychological and physical health impairments than the children of adoptive parents.
For example, it found that 12% of adopted students had been diagnosed with a severe emotional disturbance, compared to 3% for non-adopted students and just 1% for those students living with both married birth parents. It also found that a “54% majority of adoptive parents reported that a health or education professional had told them that their child had a condition that affected their ability to learn, get along with other children, or engage in physical activities. The comparable figure for students who were not adopted was 23%, and for students living with both married parents, 18%.”
In relation to outcomes for adopted children, this is certainly a sobering finding. Their relatively poor academic and emotional attainment could be the result of disrupted attachment issues during the child’s formative years of life. The authors write: “Based on the circumstances surrounding their births, it is perhaps not surprising that adopted children tend to struggle in school. Infants and older preschool-aged children who become available for adoption are usually the results of surprise pregnancies. Their birth parents may have given them up voluntarily, feeling unwilling or unable to care for the child themselves. In some cases, they may have had the child removed from their care by a court or child welfare agency after allegations of alcoholism, substance abuse, mental illness, neglect or child abuse on the part of one or both parents. Thus, the circumstances surrounding the birth and early care of most adopted children can be problematic, to say the least. At worst, their family conditions were highly stressful or downright toxic.”
They however point out: “There is little question that adopted children are better off than they would be in long-term foster or institutional care.”
The challenges that the children of adoptive parents face draw attention to the importance of aligning the custom of monogamous marriage with clear and precise positive law. It specifically draws attention to how important it is that children are adopted quickly and smoothly particularly during the first year of a child’s life before deep seated attachment issues in the child may present themselves and the problems that often arise from that that could have lifelong implications, if left untreated.
(c) What is Marriage, What is the Purpose of Marriage and Where does Marriage come from.
The biological origin of marriage.
Another important question to ask ourselves is what is marriage, what is the purpose of marriage, and where does marriage come from. It seems to me many people are confused enough to think that marriage is the creation of and is in the gift of a master manipulator of organized religion or of the state who doles out marriage certificates to the favoured. In fact, marriage is the expression of human behaviour that likely has been part of our species for millions of years. A legitimate question to ask ourselves is how do we behave as a social animal. It seems fair to say that social monogamy characterizes our species in contrast to chimpanzees who enjoy more haphazard sex and the polygyny of gorilla societies. Certainly, we are not perfectly socially monogamous, we are not machines but we tend towards social monogamy.
I offer the case that this behaviour first arose around 5 million years ago in the savannah of East Africa where in contrast to the jungle of West Africa enjoyed by our chimpanzee ancestor cousins, our ancestors had to contend with less food and less forest cover. We had to forage more. Faced with extinction, the sexual licentiousness of our common chimpanzee/human ancestor was abandoned and replaced with monogamous behaviour – “a man and wife”, “a woman and husband”, long term pair bonding, monogamous marriage or however you wish to term it. The anatomist, C Owen Lovejoy, offers his insight into how this new monogamous behaviour acquired millions of years ago was related to our new ability at that time to walk with facility on the ground freeing up our two hands so that our male ancestors could forage more efficiently for food in the resource scarce environment.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/1/text_pop/l_071_04.html
In return for his work for his bonded pair, he was rewarded with sex with a partner who remained his partner for at least as long as their children were to be nursed and raised, if not for life. Both achieved a win-win outcome out of the negotiation. He got sex with one partner who committed to him alone and thus he got a guarantee of sorts that any children that she subsequently gave birth to were biologically related to him. This fulfilled his biological imperative as a man to pass on his own genes to the next generation. She got food security by having a man forage for food and resources for her and the baby she was pregnant with and which she subsequently nursed. Over her lifetime, she could conceive more babies. She could resume ovulation sooner after each pregnancy because of the improved nutrition she received by having a male “breadwinner”. Monogamy it would seem is as integral to our species as walking on two legs. The average interbirth interval for human hunter gatherers is about 2 to 3 years. For chimpanzees, it’s 5 to 6 years and for orangutans, it’s 7 to 8 years.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/evolution-motherhood.html
There is an observed correlation between marriage and greater frequency of sex. Charles Fain Leyman, a writer for the Washington Free Beacon argues that “married people have sex more often on average than unmarried people.”
https://ifstudies.org/blog/sex-recession-blame-marriage-stagnation
He continues: “Television’s depiction notwithstanding, the single life is filled with barriers to sex. Ceteris paribus, any two single people potentially interested in coitus have less reason to trust one another, have less ground for shared emotional intimacy, and less steady “access” to one another as compared to a married couple. For millennia, the great appeal of marriage to many has been that it generally provides consistent access to at least some sex.”
I would adapt his final sentence to argue that that has been the case for millions of years. This advantage of monogamous marriage remains in evidence today.
Charles Fain Leyman refers to an analysis of General Social Survey data from 2010 to 2016 by the Institute for Family Studies that found that whereas only around 17% of married Americans never had sex or had it once or twice a year, the equivalent percentage for unmarried Americans was around 33%. For Americans, aged between 25 and 34, it was found that around 5% or less of married Americans never had sex or had it once or twice a year. The equivalent percentaqe for unmarried Americans was around 23%.
W Bradford Wilcox and Samuel Sturgeon similarly report on this finding that young married people have more sex than their unmarried counterparts: “From 2014 to 2016, 89 percent of young (18 to 30) marrieds had sex twice a month or more. Only 60 percent of their unmarried peers had this much sex. Moreover, 22 percent of unmarried young adults had no sex in the preceding 12 months from 2014 to 2016, compared with an infinitesimal 0.5 percent of young marrieds.”
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/08/why-young-americans-having-less-sex-216953
A couple of surveys from China and the United States have found a correlation between sex and happiness. They also find that the happiness-maximising number of sexual partners is one.
Blanchflower and Osmond (2004) had a sample size of 16,000 American adults.
Click to access 02_sjoe002.pdf
Cheng and Smyth (2015) had a sample size of 3,800 Chinese adults
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265126388_Sex_and_Happiness
The Cheng and Smyth study goes further than Blanchflower and Osmond by claiming that more sex causes more happiness. Cheng and Smyth also “identify important gender differences between men and women. For men, there is a stronger relationship than for women, between the frequency, and physical aspects, of sexual intercourse and happiness. For women, there is a stronger relationship than for men between giving, and receiving, affection to/from their primary sexual partner and happiness.”
Another study by Muise, Impett and Schimmack, published in 2015, found that more sex, at least up to once per week, is correlated with more happiness.
So sex is, at the very least, correlated with happiness and marriage has historically been the primary means for providing sex.
An analysis in the Washington Post of the latest 2018 data from the US General Social Survey shows a steady increase in the percentage of Americans who had no sex in the previous year. Less than 20% of Americans in 2008 did not have sex in the previous year. This rose to 23% in 2018. Broken down further, this includes an alarming increase in the percentage of young Americans, aged 18 to 29, who didn’t have sex in the previous year: 9% in 2008 compared to 23% in 2018. Broken down by sex, 10% of men, aged 18 to 29, didn’t have sex in the previous year in 2008. This skyrocketed to 28% in 2018. For women, aged 18 to 29, 8% didn’t have sex in the previous year in 2008. This rose to 18% in 2018.
Are policy-makers and legislators going to continue to ignore this aversion to sex by young women and, especially, men?
Another study by Jean Twenge, Jean M. Ryne Sherman and Brooke Wells, published in 2017, found that the average adult in the 2010s has sex about 9 fewer times a year than he or she would have had in the late 1990s. About two-thirds of this decline reflects the decreasing likelihood of being married.
https://ifstudies.org/blog/why-has-married-sex-declined
Ardipithecus Ramidus:The First Human Being?
In the documentary, “Out of the Cradle”, C. Owen Lovejoy, points out that our ancestor, Ardipithecus Ramidus, which lived 4.4 million years ago, had similar sized canines between both males and females in contrast to earlier primates of our hominin lineage (by hominin I mean those species more closely related to us than to chimpanzees and bonobos) such as Sahelanthropus Tchadensis and Orrorin Tugenensis but similar to humans today. Today’s chimpanzees and bonobos have very large canine size differences between male and females, perhaps 25% larger canine size or more for males. Dr. Lovejoy believes that this large size difference in chimpanzees today is evidence that males fight over females. But, the minimal canine size difference in Ardipithecus, indicates that even then, males and females had evolved cooperative monogamous relationships which today correspond to monogamous marriage. Even before our ancestor lost its opposable toe that helped it to climb trees and grasp branches, monogamous relationships appear to have been the norm in Ardipithecus society. The less resource rich savannah of East Africa over 4 million years ago encouraged this behavioural change in Ardipithecus to maximise the collection of resources for the benefit of the bonded pair and their children.
Also, the brain of Ardipithecus was only one fifth the size of a modern human’s. It was even smaller than the brain of modern chimpanzees and bonobos. The vast majority of the increase in the size of our ancestors’ brains took place only over the past 2 million years, long before the time of Ardipithecus Ramidus. Yet, if the observations of C. Owen Lovejoy are correct, then monogamy or marriage was already the established practice of Ardipithecus Ramidus, 4.4 million years ago. This suggests to me that the practice of monogamous marriage is instinctual to us humans and not just the result of calculation.
Our last chimp human common ancestor is believed to have lived between 7 to 8 million years ago. For those species of our hominin lineage, those species more closely related to us than to chimpanzees and bonobos, a reduction in the size of the canines has been observed in the fossil record as time went on from the late Miocene epoch into the Pliocene epoch. For Sahelanthropus Tchadensis which lived 7 million to 6.1 million years ago, the size of the canines was large, as opposed to very large in modern day chimpanzees. For Orrorin Tugenensis which lived between 6.1 and 5.7 million years ago, the size of the canines was moderate and for Ardipithecus which lived between 5.7 and 4.4 million years ago, the size of the canines were comparable to humans. This is especially the case for Ardipithecus Ramidus that lived 4.4 million years ago.
Whereas for a male chimpanzee, the size difference between male canines and female canines are between 19% and 47%, for Ardipithecus Ramidus, the male and female canine size difference had been reduced to between 10% and 15%, not dissimilar to that of humans, whose male canines are between 4% and 9% larger than female canines.
Moreover, “Ar. ramidus lacks the canine honing complex whereby the upper canine is sharpened on the anterior surface of the lower premolar, a feature found in all living apes and no hominin species. Ar. ramidus retains a diastema (gap) between the incisors and canines, which is seen in apes and variably in Au. afarensis; however, this diastema is much smaller than that seen in apes and more like that found in Au. afarensis.”
http://www.becominghuman.org/node/ardipithecus-ramidus-essay
The canines of Ardipithecus Ramidus had become deweaponized. Unlike modern day chimpanzees which use them to fight or to scare off male competitors in relation to gaining sexual access to a female. You only need to google to read the horror stories and to view the photos of humans attacked and mutilated by chimpanzees with their weaponized canines.
It could be argued that Ardipithecus was human without intelligence. Its brain was even smaller than that of a modern chimpanzee. If Dr Lovejoy’s observations are correct, male and female individuals entered into what we call today marriage or matrimony, a mated pair relationship. Like almost all other animals, its behaviour was static. It had only one dimension of competence, which was to gather resources using its grasping hands, now no longer functioning as mere paws. The male would gather resources for his mated pair and children. He sufficiently trusted his wife to believe that his children were his. So long as he was good enough in this one dimension of competence, he would be selected by his wife as her husband and biological father of her children.
Doctor Jordan Peterson points out that selection pressure from females is one of the defining characteristics of human beings that sets us apart, for example, from our nearest relative, chimpanzees.
“We certainly choose each other for self-awareness and consciousness and intelligence. If you’re choosing a mate, there’s an arms race in human beings. We’re choosing intelligent mates and that is especially the case for women in relationship to men. So, the idea that is a choice. That’s partly the reason why Eve makes Adam self conscious in the Garden of Eden. She offers him the apple. She’s the one who makes him self conscious. I think that is actually accurate because the evidence from the evolutionary biologists is that female sexual selection is one of the driving factors that differentiated us from chimpanzees. It’s a major factor. Chimpanzee females are not selective maters. They go into estrus; they’ll mate with anything. What happens is the dominant males chase the subordinate males away and so they end up leaving more offspring. But, it is not a consequence of selection on the part of the females. In human beings, it’s completely different. Concealed ovulation and intense selection pressure from women on men. You have twice as many female ancestors as you have male ancestors. People have a hard time working that out arithmetically. But, it’s not that problematic. You just think, on average, every women had one child; half of men had none and the other half had two and that’s approximately correct if you average across the entire history of human sexuality. So, males in particular are subject to vicious selection pressure on the part of females. I also think that’s partly why nature is represented symbolically as female among human beings. After all, nature is what selects. There is no better definition of nature than that which selects.”
Doctor Jordan Peterson argues that, related to this, what sets modern humans apart from all other animals is our capacity to create a multiplicity of domains of competence or “dominance hierarchies” as Dr Peterson puts it. Whereas an elephant seal better be big, healthy and aggressive, whereas beavers better build a good dam et cetera, humans, particularly over the past 2 to 3 million years, have evolved many more domains of competence than the mere gathering of resources. Some of them became good at cooking, making stone tools, hunting, making fire et cetera and, as time went on, and, as our brains enlarged further, our skill sets became increasingly cerebral driven.
It’s worth noting that even the single dimension of competence that Ardipithecus possessed required little or no aggression. The production of testosterone in the male Ardipithecus Ramidus would have helped him to stay alert, to bolt for the nearest tree if there was any sign of a predator nearby and to generally complete his mission to gather food and resources, for example, for his trusted mated pair and their children.
In the modern age, we place value on cerebral driven skill sets and even on being a jack-of-all-trades who is competent, though not necessarily excellent, on many dimensions of competence. It looks like a myth that the woman doesn’t choose a nerd as her sexual partner. Increasingly, in the modern age, the nerd prospers by creating and monetizing value and, as a consequence, a female will select him to have her children. In our increasingly knowledge based society, there will be more and more successful nerds.
The Effect of Testosterone
One of the most corrosive and toxic lies bandied about by public figures in our society today is the idea that testosterone (the levels of testosterone in males is 7 to 8 times than of females) leads directly to male aggression and violence. Studies show that this is not the case.
For example, regarding domestic violence, the Partner Abuse State of Knowledge project resulted in 5 reports being published in 2012 and 2013. It was a project that spanned over 2 years in which 42 family violence scholars and 70 research assistants at 20 universities and research institutions participated. Approximately 12,000 studies were considered and more than 1,700 were summarized.
It found “rates of female-perpetrated violence higher than male-perpetrated (28.3% vs. 21.6%)” and that “Among large population samples, 57.9% of [intimate partner violence] reported was bi-directional, 42% unidirectional; 13.8% of the unidirectional violence was male to female (MFPV), 28.3% was female to male (FMPV)”
Below, I write on the falsehood that men are more violent than women in domestic relationships here as well as other falsehoods.
https://paulcarr.wordpress.com/2019/06/12/countering-the-feminist-narrative/
The evidenced fact that women are more violent than men in domestic relationships throws a spanner into the works of the idea that testosterone leads directly to male aggression and violence.
Rather, testosterone primes men to attend to their position in the social hierarchy. A study, published in Scientific Reports in 2017, shows that men could be at the top of the social hierarchy or they could be at the bottom but still have high testosterone. This study looked at players in a Japanese university rugby team. Players in their senior year and who were more assertive towards their freshmen counterparts were found to have higher testosterone levels. Conversely, freshmen players who were submissive towards their senior year counterparts were also found to have higher testosterone levels. Players who did not follow the social hierarchy rule described above were found to have lower levels of testosterone.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-05603-7
Testosterone can rise from winning a chess match as well as from winning in a sporting match. It rises from watching your favourite team win. Correspondingly, it falls when we lose in an endeavour or your favourite team loses.
In these politically correct times, often, it is comedians who have a high enough public profile to share viewpoints with many that counter the social constructivist view of the world, favoured by many in academia. One such person is Harald Eia, a comedian and sociologist from Norway, who presented a 7 part documentary on Norwegian television in 2010 called “Hjernevask” meaning “Brainwash”.
In this 7 part series, he challenges the various social constructivist dogmas. One such dogma is the idea that men and women are essentially the same in how they think and that they are only acculturated to think and behave differently after birth – the blank slate hypothesis. Most of the Norwegian academics and researchers he interviews think that the sex differences in the mind between men and women are the result of acculturation. But, a minority of them as well as the various researchers he interviews in the UK and the US believe that there is a biological explanation for the differences in male and female mindset and behaviour. He also interviews members of the Norwegian public who intuitively agree with the minority of Norwegian researchers and the UK and US researchers that sex differences in our mindset and behaviour are biological and innate and not learned.
One such sacred cow of the social constructivists is the idea that men and women have an equal sex drive. However, research conducted by the psychology professor, Leif Edward Ottesen Kennair, shows that of the 1000 + Norwegian men and women he interviewed, men, on average, wanted about 25 sexual partners and women, only 7. This is corroborated by a study done by David Buss, a psychology professor at the University of Texas, who did a huge cross-cultural sex survey in which 12,000 men and women in 50 different cultures were asked how many sexual partners they would like to have in their lifetime. He found that men wanted between 16 to 18 during their lives and women 4 or 5. Psychology Professor Richard Lippa at California State University did a survey in 53 countries, with more than 200,000 respondents. He found that men in every country he looked at, whether that be Scandinavian countries or countries such as Egypt, India, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, men were more interested in casual sex or sex without love or commitment than women were. He could find no exception to the rule. Women were more interested in casual sex or sex without love in prosperous western countries but, still, even there, men were still more interested than the women were. If the social constructivists are right, then, surely, you would find some place where culture would lead to women being more interested in casual sex than men are but none have been found. Clearly, there is an innate biological motivation for this. A study of gays and lesbians in San Francisco found that 28% of men had had more than 1000 sexual partners but only 2% of the lesbians had had sex with more than 100 and none with more than 1000.
And, clearly, the elevated levels of the hormone testosterone in male bodies has a role to play in the greater male sex drive.
The Stronger Male Sex Drive.
Study after study today shows that men have a stronger sex drive than women and that their sex drive is more directly tied to their biology, whereas the female sex drive is more tied to their environment and context. Women were also found to be more likely than men to call themselves bisexual and to report their sexual orientation as a matter of choice, hence the feminist phenomenon of the “political lesbian”.
https://www.webmd.com/sex/features/sex-drive-how-do-men-women-compare
For example, “The majority of adult men under 60 think about sex at least once a day, reports Laumann. Only about one-quarter of women say they think about it that frequently.”
Also, “Prostitution is still mostly a phenomenon of men seeking sex with women, rather than the other way around.”
Also, “Men also say they want more sex partners in their lifetime, and are more interested in casual sex.”
Also, “That doesn’t mean men don’t seek intimacy, love, and connection in a relationship, just as women do. They just view the role of sex differently. “Women want to talk first, connect first, then have sex,” Esther Perel explains. “For men, sex is the connection. Sex is the language men use to express their tender loving vulnerable side,” Perel says. “It is their language of intimacy.”
The nature endowed stronger male sex drive is, of course, a politically incorrect fact to point out. Many of those on the political left and feminists for example will assert that we are all subject to “gender sameness”. They assert that the female and male brain are essentially the same, an assertion undermined since the 1980s by neuroimaging technology that show about 100 differences between the male and female brain in terms of structure, chemistry, processing and brain flow and brain activity.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hope-relationships/201402/brain-differences-between-genders
The study of evolutionary biology also undermines their assertion of “gender sameness”. The stronger male sex drive is nothing to be embarrassed about, it is not evidence of “patriarchy” or male oppression of women, but rather it is something to be acknowledged as a biological fact of our species, as corroborated by study after study.
(d) Marriage has been bottom up for the vast majority of our history.
Human behaviour from an evolutionary standpoint.
Marriage predates organized religion and the state. It is just another name for long term pair bonding and we, as a species, have been practicing long term pair bonding for millions of years. In an anthropological sense, marriage is integral to our behaviour. If an alien David Attenborough were to observe our species, surely he would remark on our tendency towards social monogamy or pair bonded loyalty between one male and one female of our species. Our social behaviour is more akin to the social behaviour of gibbons than it is to our genetically closer relatives of chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orangutans. This social behaviour is, in fact, truth, a truth about ourselves that the psychopathic manipulators of state or religious power would deny in their thirst for power as exercised by their self-imputed right to dole out marriage certificates only to the approved. For the vast majority of its 5 million year old history, marriage has not been top-down but bottom-up.
I think there is an increasing awareness from the public of this bottom up nature of marriage when you consider the growing acceptance over the past 60 years for interracial marriage in the United States and, in more recent times, gay marriage in the United States.
Social monogamy gave men a crude guarantee that his female partner, with hidden ovulation and permanently enlarged breasts, would not sleep with other men and that his genes would be passed on to his children along with hers. That crude guarantee made long-term pair-bonding or marriage work for millions of years. Prior to the 1960s in the west, it remained in place. The sexuality of women was repressed. Women who had children out of wedlock were forced by the threat of ostracism to give the baby up for adoption. Marriage was successfully defended by custom, fashioned by our classical and Judeo-Christian value system. That arrangement has since broken down. The stigma of having children out of wedlock has been removed and, indeed, single mothers nowadays are huge beneficiaries of the welfare state.
Women can now marry the state who becomes her provider. A man, nominated by her, can be shaken down by the state for child support payments and more. This social change over the past 50 years is nothing short of civilization destroying which is why I propose the natural justice measures below to restore the balance, specifically to restore and improve further upon the guarantee that men always had under monogamous marriage to pass on his own genes to the next generation. If my proposals are implemented fully, indeed, he’ll have a rock solid guarantee as paternity DNA tests these days are more than 99.99% accurate. The sexual freedom of men and women will not be sacrificed as female sexual freedom most decidedly was prior to the 1960s.
Do we want the 21st century to be the empathic century of unprecedented human peace and prosperity? My proposed measures will ensure that that is the case.
(e) Monogamy, not polygamy, is more attuned to our human nature.
The Impact of the Toba Eruption
It cannot be emphasized enough how important monogamous marriage is to civilization. I believe that sometime after the Toba eruption that is believed to have taken place approximately 73,880 years ago, the evolution of the brains of our species had reached a point where we started to become aware of our own mortality.
The second most powerful volcanic eruption ever that we know of is believed to have taken place approximately 73,880 thousand years ago, the eruption of Mount Toba, which is now a lake in Sumatra. It ejected approximately 2,700 cubic kilometres of rock and ash into the atmosphere. Its ashfall is believed to have covered almost the entire littorial of the Indian ocean and beyond. The sulphur ejected is believed to have caused an intense 6 year volcanic winter and it is believed to have contributed significantly to a 1800 year long exceptionally cold period when temperatures were even colder than during the last glacial maximum 21,000 to 18,000 years ago. Summer time temperatures are believed to have been reduced by as much as 12 degrees centigrade. Rainfall is believed to have fallen by as much as 90% and much of the vegetation died. During this time, even in the tropics, rain forest receded to be replaced by savannah, especially in equatorial Africa.
Professor Stanley Ambrose, a professor of anthropology at the University of Illinois, believes that the Toba eruption caused a human population bottleneck. Our species, Homo Sapiens, came close to extinction. Under the categorization provided by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, human beings almost became a threatened species. It is estimated by geneticists that the population of breeding age females dropped to as little as 5,000 women with a total population of 30,000. Human populations in Northern China and Europe were completely eliminated. Remaining human populations sought refuge in isolated tropical pockets, for the most part, in Africa.
Other animal species went through population bottlenecks at this time including the Eastern African chimpanzee, the Bornean orangutan, the central indian macaque, the cheetah and the tiger.
Professor Stanley Ambrose believes that these difficult conditions led to the evolution of more pro social behaviour in our species, perhaps even leading to a tipping point where we began to organize along the lines of a tribe with open networks of mutualistic support rather than that of a closed territorial troop, more akin to modern chimpanzee troops. During field trips to east Africa, he discovered that the tool making materials that humans made were nearly always sourced locally before the Toba eruption but, afterwards, they were from quite a distance, perhaps up to a 100 kilometres, which would have necessitated cooperation with surrounding groups of people.
He also found in his digs in sites in east Africa, dated to after the Toba eruption, that there was an increasing number of smaller, disposable, replaceable, specialised tools found, many made of the volcanic glass, obsidian, rather than of generalized large tools such as those used by humans before the Toba eruption and also used by Neanderthals. He observes regarding the Neanderthal tool kit, that it is easier to say what they did to a rock than what to call it. Humans were beginning to plan their activities in advance and they were bringing the right specialized tools and replacement parts for that day’s planned activities. Earlier humans and Neanderthals “planned for the unplanned” and brought along generalized large tools that could be modified as needed if they encountered something.
Wider networks of humans, after the Toba eruption, started to cooperate more. Professor Ambrose observes among African tribes today such as the Kalahari bushmen, the importance of exchanging egg shell necklaces between each other with each necklace worn representing a friendship perhaps with someone from another tribe. This outsourcing of trust beyond the bounds of one’s own tribe and territory enabled the implementation of what Professor Ambrose describes as the original social security system where humans could, for the first time, venture far away from home to enter more risky habitats and, should their resources run out, they could move in with someone from a close by tribe. After 60,000 years ago, this gradually enabled humans to exit Africa and populate Asia, Europe and Australia. Humans were beginning to appreciate the power of cooperation as opposed to the zero sum calculation of my gain is your loss.
He believes that during the period subsequent to Toba, the 1800 year long exceptionally cold period and then after a brief warmer period, another 13,000 year long period of cold weather, alterations took place in our genes that made us more susceptible to pro-social hormones such as oxytocin, some varieties of serotonin and vasopressin and less susceptible to anti-social hormones such as testosterone. Greater susceptibility to these pro social hormones made people more reciprocal, trusting and generous. Perhaps, related to this, certain re-wiring took place in our neo-frontal cortex that led to more cooperative trusting relationships between more distant human groups.
http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/stanley_ambrose.php
Around 18,000 years when the last glacial maximum started to retreat, the carbon dioxide content in the air was down to as little as 180 parts per million, perhaps the lowest in the history of complex life. Plant life can’t grow if the carbon dioxide content falls below 150 parts per million. Then when the Northern Hemisphere glaciers started to recede 18,000 years ago, carbon dioxide levels recovered quickly and plant life started to thrive again as well as the primary and secondary consumers that depended on it directly and indirectly. Especially with the onset of the Neolithic revolution 12,500 years ago, the pressing need to survive would have subsided somewhat and mankind would have had more time on his hands to contemplate his own mortality. This would have been by definition a disturbing contemplation which could have literally driven some of our species insane.
“Food for Worms”
Ernest Becker compares this disturbing contemplation to knowing that we are “food for worms”. He writes in his 1973 book, “The Denial of Death”:
“What does it mean to be a self-conscious animal? The idea is ludicrous, if it is not monstrous. It means to know that one is food for worms. This is the terror: to have emerged from nothing, to have a name, consiousness of self, deep inner feelings, an excruciating inner yearning for life and self-expression and with all this yet to die. It seems like a hoax, which is why one type of cultural man rebels openly against the idea of God. What kind of deity would create such a complex and fancy worm food?”
Also:
“Yet, at the same time, as the Eastern sages also knew, man is a worm and food for worms. This is the paradox: he is out of nature and hopelessly in it; he is dual, up in the stars and yet housed in a heart-pumping, breath-gasping body that once belonged to a fish and still carries the gill-marks to prove it. His body is a material fleshy casing that is alien to him in many ways—the strangest and most repugnant way being that it aches and bleeds and will decay and die. Man is literally split in two: he has an awareness of his own splendid uniqueness in that he sticks out of nature with a towering majesty, and yet he goes back into the ground a few feet in order to blindly and dumbly rot and disappear forever. It is a terrifying dilemma to be in and to have to live with. The lower animals are, of course, spared this painful contradiction, as they lack a symbolic identity and the self-consciousness that goes with it. They merely act and move reflexively as they are driven by their instincts. If they pause at all, it is only a physical pause; inside they are anonymous, and even their faces have no name. They live in a world without time, pulsating, as it were, in a state of dumb being. This is what has made it so simple to shoot down whole herds of buffalo or elephants. The animals don’t know that death is happening and continue grazing placidly while others drop alongside them. The knowledge of death is reflective and conceptual, and animals are spared it. They live and they disappear with the same thoughtlessness: a few minutes of fear, a few seconds of anguish, and it is over. But to live a whole lifetime with the fate of death haunting one’s dreams and even the most sun-filled days—that’s something else.”
In response to the contemplation of our own mortality, the symbolic self would have arisen in opposition to our original animal physical self when we had been blissfully unaware of imminent death or had successfully sidelined its contemplation because of more pressing survival needs during the last Ice age. We constructed our symbolic self as the engine to embark on what Ernest Becker called the immortality project, a project that would transcend death itself.
Some of our species would have found peace in ourselves as an outcome of this process but others took a tumble down the proverbial hill into the valley of insanity. Some of us, unable to come to terms with our own mortality, sought to manipulate our human environment and human relationships.
The emergence of agricultural settlements, walled towns and early civilizations: the emergence of political correctness and the demise of biological monogamy.
The comedian, John Cleese, provides some insight into the dynamic where people who cannot control their own emotions seek to control the behaviour of others, as if he seeks to control environmental inputs or triggers as a substitute to seeking internal peace. This often corresponds to political correctness today.
“The idea that you have to be protected from any kind of uncomfortable emotion is one I absolutely do not subscribe to. And a fellow that I helped write two books about psychology and psychiatry. He was a renounced psychiatrist in London called Robin Skynner. He said something interesting to me. He said, “If people can’t control their own emotions then they have to start trying to control other people’s behaviour”. And when you are around supersensitive people, you cannot relax and be spontaneous because you have no idea what is going to upset them next. And that’s why I have been warned recently don’t go to most university campuses because the political correctness has been taken from being a good idea which is let’s not be mean particularly to people who are not able to look after themselves very well. That’s a good idea. To the point where any kind of criticism of any individual group can be labelled cruel.”
As we sought to appease “supersensitive people”, during the Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods, many of us, betas, in the emerging city states became psychologically enslaved, which later would become more reified as literal or institutional slavery, as unhealthy and relatively unproductive codependent/counterdependent relationship dyads and narcissistic pathological spaces emerged. The biological monogamy that we had practiced up to that point was gradually abandoned in favour of institutional top-down polygamous relationships as the “immortality projects” of some men clashed with those of others and impinged upon them. Egalitarian reciprocal symbolic relationships that had transcended bonds of kith and kin had already arisen after the Toba catastrophe but now even more impersonal, remote but hierarchical symbolic relationships evolved such as the relationship between ruler and ruled or the priest and his believing flock. “Strong men” monopolized sexual access to a much greater number of women undermining biological monogamy that has been practiced unimpeded up to that point. It paved the way for highly inefficient early societies such as settled agricultural tribes, walled towns and later civilizations from the Middle Neolithic period and onward. Excess men had to be enslaved, tortured or killed in order to reduce the risk of revolt.
Biological Monogamy ⇒ Cultural Monogamy ⇒ Legal Monogamy
However, around the 6th century BC, the ancient Greeks adopted a new variety of monogamy, called cultural monogamy, the enforcement of biological monogamy by cultural norms, as the gold standard and, as a consequence, from around 600BC onwards, there was a flourishing of Greek civilization, art, thought, philosophy, individualism and technology as energy was released from coercing others to be employed in cooperative and creative projects. This more advanced Greek civilization eventually replaced the less advanced civilizations of their neighbours. Monogamy was also adopted by the Romans and it was, in turn, adopted by the Christians. Islam re-embraced the pre-classical Greek practice of polygamy, giving it legal protection, allowing a man to have up to 4 wives. Christianity approves of only one. Largely because of this fundamental choice, the Christian world would thrive in the centuries ahead while the Islamic world would decline.
It is monogamy that has resulted in the splendid civilization we enjoy today. It is monogamy that we must defend for this civilization to continue to thrive. For men to consent to monogamy, he wants, as a social animal, his guarantee that his offspring are his. This can be given to him by making a DNA paternity test at birth mandatory. They’re now 99.99%+ accurate. Before the 1960s, cultural monogamy entailed putting in place crude, manipulative and psychopathic structures in western societies that gave men a guarantee that he could have faith in. Unfortunately, it entailed the ostracism and ostracization of women who had children out of wedlock and the sexual repression of women in general who wished to be part of “polite society”.
I certainly don’t propose that we rewind the clock back to the days before we had contraceptive pills, legal abortion and no-fault-divorces. Fundamentally, all we need to do is deliver to men the scientifically accurate legal guarantee that he is the biological father of his child. That, nowadays, can be delivered by means of a mandatory DNA paternity test at birth. It was the pursuit of that guarantee 8 to 5 million years ago that drove our ancestors to get down from the trees and start walking on our hind-limbs (biological monogamy). It was the pursuit of that guarantee that drove Greek civilization to unprecedented heights from 600BC onwards and the Roman, Christian and modern civilizations after that (cultural monogamy). Let men continue to have this guarantee and society will continue to thrive. This provision of a mandatory DNA test at birth would be the bedrock of what could be termed institutional or legal monogamy.
(f) Securing the biological imperative of both sexes to pass on their own genes, not someone else’s, to the next generation.
Sperm count and hidden ovulation.
Our innate inclination towards monogamy is further evidenced when we compare the sperm count of our species with related species. Male chimpanzees send forth billions of sperm with each ejaculation. This suits their promiscuous lifestyle and maximizes their chance of passing on their genetic material to the next generation in a one-off encounter with a female. Male gorillas, on the other hand, only send forth 65 million sperm or so with each ejaculation. This reflects the fact that an alpha male gorilla already has his harem of female gorillas and he doesn’t need to worry so much about getting a female gorilla pregnant the first time trying. Humans lie somewhere in the middle, sending forth between 200 million and 500 million sperm per ejaculation.
Men neither have the overt ownership of a harem like a gorilla nor the promiscuous behaviour of a chimp. Rather, he seeks a mated pair, a monogamous pair bond. He fulfils his biological imperative by entering into such a mated pair relationship, built on trust and mutual benefit. By doing so, he secures a crude guarantee that the children of the woman he provisions are biologically his.
Female chimps have pronounced genital swelling when ovulating in order to signal to a passing male chimp that he can mate with her. By contrast, women have hidden ovulation in the sense that they don’t have this pronounced genital swelling during ovulation. Additionally, a woman’s breasts are permanently enlarged so no visual signal can be sent to a potential mate as to whether she is ovulating or not. This is more evidence of the monogamous, trust based nature of human pair bonding, otherwise known as marriage. This trust based pair bonding gave men a crude guarantee that his children were biologically his.
Modern technology in the form of a paternity DNA test at the birth of his child will give the man of the 21st century a cast iron guarantee of his biological paternity of a child, fulfilling his biological imperative with scientific accuracy.
My Legislative Proposals
1) A mandatory DNA test at birth to ascertain the paternity of the child.
A mandatory DNA test at birth will determine who the biological father is.
According to this Newsweek article from 2014: “Ten years ago, 46 states were screening for just six conditions; now all 50 states and the District of Columbia routinely screen newborns for at least 30 genetic conditions, with some states testing for nearly twice that number.” Thanks to these newborn screening tests, conditions such as cystic fibrosis, sickle cell disease, congenital hypothyroidism, PKU and other inherited metabolic diseases can be identified early and effectively treated.
https://www.newsweek.com/2014/08/01/whos-keeping-your-data-safe-dna-banks-261136.html
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/pregnancy-and-baby/newborn-screening/
Why not add one more DNA screening test for paternity? Will the heavens fall upon us? The test will be mandatory and copies of the results of the test will be conveyed to each of the parents. The parents will have the option to opt into submitting their de-identified data to state, federal and private company databases. Otherwise, the default will be that the record of the results is destroyed with the exception of the copies given to the mother and father. This is the case for example in Texas law. This addresses privacy concerns people have about their data being used by third parties without their consent.
It’s important to emphasize that, though I propose that the paternity DNA test is mandatory, the default will be that once the results of the test are conveyed to the parents, the results of the test are destroyed, unless the parents direct otherwise.
The same rule will remain in place when whole genome sequencing becomes available to replace current blood spot tests.
Why not use DNA screening technology that is now 99.99%+ accurate to establish paternity? The culture bound practice of monogamous marriage has traditionally been a means for providing the father with a crude guarantee that his children are his biologically. Now, it can be scientifically established. We should take advantage of this technology in much the same way that flowering plants harness pollinators like bees, hummingbirds and bats to assist them in their reproduction as well as many other animals besides for seed dispersal. Rather than repressing female sexuality which was part and parcel of traditional marriage, we should take advantage of DNA technology to scientifically establish the paternity of a child.
A Paternity DNA test should be mandatory. The emerging consensus in the west is that vaccinations against vaccine preventable diseases should be mandatory. This is the case in all but name, for example, in Australia.
https://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/13/asia/australia-anti-vaccination-welfare-cut/index.html
It is in the public interest that there is no outbreak of an infectious or a communicable disease, which is what a mandatory vaccination program helps counter. Similarly, it ought to be in the public interest that the father is given 99.99% + scientific proof that his child is his biologically.
Also, the Newsweek article I linked to earlier points out: “Every year, approximately 4 million newborns in the U.S. are screened for congenital disorders, and about 12,500 of these infants are diagnosed with an inherited condition.”. Would it be all that costly and administratively onerous to add one extra blood test for paternity to the 30 to 60 already done in each of the US states as of 2014?
A mandatory DNA test at birth should be adopted in combination with other measures.
2) Abortion on request for mothers up to and including 13 weeks gestation.
I propose that abortion on request is provided for mothers up to and including 13 weeks gestation.
After that, abortion will only be permitted to save the life of the mother or preserve her physical health or if there is a fatal foetal abnormality.
The Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that gathers statistics on abortion in the United States and internationally, estimates that in 2014, 926,200 abortions took place in the United States. It also estimates that 1.3% of these abortions are on or after 21 weeks gestation. That comes to 12,041 abortions on or after 21 weeks gestation.
It has been estimated that, give or take, 20% of these late term abortions are for reasons of foetal abnormality or maternal physical health, as opposed to purely elective reasons where the baby is perfectly healthy. This is evidenced, for example, from official late term abortion statistics obtained from Arizona between the years 2012 and 2017 inclusive. An analysis of that data found that only 20% of the late term abortions on or after 21 weeks gestation that took place in that state were for reasons of foetal abnormality or maternal ill-health. The rest were purely elective on a perfectly healthy baby.
http://blog.secularprolife.org/2019/05/making-sense-of-arizonas-late-term.html
The testimony of late term abortionists and their employees corroborate this.
In 1995, the late term abortionist, George Tiller, told the National Federation Convention in New Orleans:
“We have some experience with late terminations; about 10,000 patients between 24 and 36 weeks and something like 800 foetal anomalies between 26 and 36 weeks in the past 5 years.”
This means that only 800 out of 10,000 post-24-week abortions were on unhealthy children.
“Dr. Martin Haskell, the pioneer of the “partial-birth abortion” procedure (a method of late term abortion) brought this issue to the attention of the nation, when he said that 80 percent of the abortions he performed this way were purely elective. Only 20 percent involved foetal defects.”
https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/328629-most-late-term-abortions-are-elective
The approximate 20% figure for foetal abnormality would include conditions such as a lip cleft, a club foot or microtia that can be treated after birth.
Related to this, a “U.S. study [by the Elliot Institute] examined Medi-Cal records for more than 173,000 low-income California women who had experienced abortion or childbirth. Linking these records to death certificates, the researchers found that women who had state-funded abortions were 2.6 times more likely to die from suicide compared to women who delivered their babies. Giving birth, on the other hand, was shown to reduce women’s suicide risk compared to the general population.”
This was corroborated by similar studies conducted worldwide in places such as Finland, Denmark, U.K., Australia and New Zealand. A Finland study from 1997 found that “the suicide rate among women who had undergone abortions in the prior year was three times higher compared to women in the general population and six times higher compared to women who gave birth.”
Giving birth has been found to be a protective factor for women against poor mental health, depression, attempted suicide and suicide.
It seems reasonable to extrapolate that women who abort at a later stage of their pregnancy are particularly vulnerable to suicidal ideation, attempted suicide and suicide. If we take the figure, I gave earlier, of an estimated 12,041 abortions in the United States annually on or after 21 weeks gestation, 80% of that would be 9,632 abortions. That is, approximately 9,632 abortions are performed annually in the United States on perfectly healthy babies 21 weeks old or older which have no foetal defects whatsoever. Is it too much to surmise that this act of killing a perfectly healthy child at such a late stage of the pregnancy will have a negative impact on the mental health of the woman who let it happen? Is it too much of a stretch to suggest that some of the women in California who take their own lives after having had an abortion, as uncovered by the Elliot Institute, are the same women who contribute significantly to the 9,632 abortions performed annually in the United States on perfectly healthy babies 21 weeks old or older and which have no foetal defects whatsoever?
By their own admission, abortion rights advocates brazenly lie through their teeth when they claim that most late term abortions are performed only in cases where the woman’s life is in danger or in cases of extreme foetal abnormality.
A 2008 study, led by Professor David Fergusson, found that “Although some studies have concluded that abortion has neutral effects on mental health, no study has reported that exposure to abortion reduces mental health risks.”
It is important to implement the will of the public.
The public is opposed to both 2nd trimester and 3rd trimester abortion. A 2013 Gallup poll found that 80% of the US public believe abortion should be generally illegal in the third trimester as opposed to just 14% who said it should be generally legal – a yawning gap of 66 points. 64% believe it should be generally illegal in the second trimester (gestation weeks 14 to 27) as opposed to 27% who think it should be generally legal – a still significant gap of 37 points. This flips around somewhat for the first trimester. Just 31% of the public think it should be generally illegal in the first trimester as opposed to 61% who think it should be generally legal – a 30 point gap.
Also, according to a 2011 Gallup poll, 97% of pro-choicers and 69% of pro-lifers support the legal option of abortion when the woman’s life is in danger. Likewise 96% of pro-choicers and 68% of pro-lifers support it when “the woman’s physical health is endangered”.
http://blog.secularprolife.org/2016/07/no-most-late-term-abortions-are-not_13.html
My proposal therefore that abortion on request be provided to mothers up to and including 13 weeks gestation and, after that, abortion only being available to save the life of the mother or preserve her physical health or if there is a fatal foetal abnormality would align with the nuances of the public’s view on the issue.
Whilst I propose that abortion on request is available up to 13 weeks gestation only, by way of compromise, I propose that there will be only a couple of administrative hurdles on abortion on or before 13 weeks gestation. I suggest those be a mandatory waiting period of 3 days and mandatory counseling where alterative options available to the woman intending to have an abortion are presented such as bringing the child to term and giving it up for adoption. This is the situation, for example, in Germany.
Over and above that, I propose that a sonogram be offered to the woman/girl intending to have an abortion but she has a right to refuse to take one and to see the result. Also, I propose that it will not be a requirement to inform the parents or obtain their consent with regard to an underage abortion. A 2004 survey by the Guttmacher Institute found that 1% of women who had an abortion said one of the reasons for their having an abortion was that they had been raped and up to 0.5% of women said one of the reasons for their having an abortion was that they were the victim of incest.
3) The Legal Provision of Paternal Abortion/Paternal Surrender.
I propose the provision of paternal abortion/paternal surrender.
Regarding the mechanics of paternal abortion/paternal surrender, I think an opt in arrangement would be best.
If the assumed father is informed before the birth that the child is his, then he should be given a maximum timeframe of 7 weeks to decide if he wants to be the father (opt in timeframe). Within that timeframe, if he decides to raise the child, he opts in. Within that timeframe, if he refuses, he opts out. If 7 weeks elapse, and he makes no decision, he forfeits his right and responsibility to raise the child. In effect, he opts out.
I base 7 weeks on the fact that abortion is available to women on request up to 12 to 14 weeks gestation in most western countries. I calculate a maximum 7 week timeframe from this. 13 weeks minus 6 weeks – a woman on average finds out she’s pregnant at around 6 weeks gestation. Let’s say that a woman tells the assumed father that she is 6 weeks pregnant with his child. The man then has a legal right to consider whether he wants to opt into the duties of fathering that child up to the 13th week of her pregnancy – up to 7 weeks after she has informed him. To be clear, even within this 7 week window, she may abort her child if she wishes.
I think the same maximum 7 week timeframe can apply after birth too if the father is not informed until after the birth of a child that is biologically his and the same opt-in timeframe will apply.
If the man was informed before birth he was the assumed biological father but the subsequent DNA test at birth reveals that he is not the biological father, then he is automatically opted out and the biological father is sought out and offered the maximum 7 week process of opt in/opt out instead – the opt in timeframe.
If the man opts out before or after birth, he’s not to be punished with child support payments. If he opts in before or after birth, then he still has joint-responsibilities with the mother to support the child.
So that’s two new things, a mandatory DNA test at birth and legal paternal surrender, that are going to cause a lot of short term pain in society before the long term gain kicks in.
4) A new Ministry or Department for Adoption.
I think a new Ministry for Adoption will help tide things over in various jurisdictions.
As things stand, an estimated 1% to 3% of children are not biologically related to the man who is assumed to be the father.
https://theconversation.com/what-are-the-chances-that-your-dad-isnt-your-father-24802
http://insidestory.org.au/the-fatherhood-myth/
I can anticipate that many men, upon learning from the DNA test at birth that he is not the biological father, will be happy to be opted out of fathering the child. I can perfectly understand this. Both men and women have a biological imperative to pass down their own genes, not someone else’s. Additionally, many men may feel betrayed by a woman who led him down the primrose path of believing that the child was biologically his when, in fact, it was not. The mother who has no father to support the child will be free to give her child up for adoption (or she can keep the child but will not receive coerced child support payments from an unwilling father) and the new Ministry for Adoption will have a remit to place these children with psychologically stable two parent families.
My proposed Ministry for Adoption will also have an investigative division tasked with tracking down biological fathers. It may not be possible to track down the biological fathers in all cases, for example, in the case of jet-setting romeos who live overseas. We mustn’t make the perfect the enemy of the good. There should also be a time limit on this investigation to minimize psychological disruption to the newborn infant.
5) Mandatory joint custody of children in the event of a separation or divorce of parents.
Over and above this, there ought to be mandatory joint custody so that in the event of a subsequent separation or divorce the child will have the benefit of continuing to be raised by two parents.
This right is provided for in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (article 9). Secret family courts must also end. All orders of family courts including orders for joint custody or visitation must be enforced. Custodial sentences will be imposed on those who refuse to comply. In the UK, one senior judge, Mr Justice Coleridge, stated in 2010 that around 5000 parents a year – almost always mothers – defy orders to let the other parent have contact with their children.
They’re not punished. They should be punished with incarceration.
Tragically, linked to this, research in the UK by the Sunday Daily Express has found that between June 2003 and January 2015, 8,515 non-resident parents have died compared to 3,090 residents. “It was unearthed by Sunday Express staff who compared the number of Child Support Agency (CSA) cases closed after “nonresident” parents died with cases closed due to the death of the “parent with care””. “According to the information released under the Freedom of Information Act, 94.8 per cent of CSA cases involved a male nonresident parent.”.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/550037/Family-separation-fatal-toll-absent-parent-die-earlier
In Manchester, in the UK, in September 2015, a man got a 3 month prison sentence for filming crown court proceedings.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/man-caught-filming-court-mobile-6503841
Why not give parents who defy visitation orders issued by a family court a similar punishment?
Whether we like it or not, part of the role of law is to deter. For the personality disordered, the threat and execution of punishment is probably the only thing that is going to adjust their behaviour in a way conducive to the public interest.
I emphasize that my proposals grant reproductive freedom to both men and women. A child can be transferred in a timely fashion to adoptive families by the Ministry for Adoption before attachment issues for the child become a problem. That window is generally considered to be the first year of the child’s life.
Conclusion
One study estimates that 47% of all jobs in the US are at risk from automation.
Click to access future-of-employment.pdf
Similarly, up to half of all UK jobs are at risk from smart machines, across many industries, over the next 20 years.
One such industry at risk is the trucking industry. According to the American Trucking Association, there are approximately 3.5 million professional truck drivers in the United States. “The total number of people employed in the industry, including those in positions that do not entail driving, exceeds 8.7 million. About one of every 15 workers in the country are employed in the trucking business, according to the ATA.”
http://www.alltrucking.com/faq/truck-drivers-in-the-usa/
Driving for a living in the single most common job for high school educated men in the United States in all 50 states.
Self driving trucks are certain to be introduced on a large scale over the next decade. The biggest global automakers are already investing hugely.
Many of the trucking jobs in this one industry alone will be lost. Imagine the social cost of men being laid off en masse. We are at risk at creating a marginalized class of erstwhile middle class men who not only will be deprived of their erstwhile middle class income but also will be deprived of access to their own children by feminist family courts. Since December 2018, the discontent of the “Gilets Jaunes”, the yellow vests, seen on the streets of Paris and other cities in France marks the beginning of a mass malcontent of the male sex.
My proposed reforms amount to making marriage child-centred, rather than patriarchal or matriarchal. The purpose of marriage is to raise children well. In the 21st century, the divide is not one between the material haves and have-nots, but, rather, between the emotionally impoverished and the emotionally enriched. Monogamous marriage has been the vehicle to produce a motivated, focused, hard-working and creative next generation. When I look at the vandalism, violence and domestic terrorism of the protestors of ANTIFA and Black Lives Matters, I see people who are re-enacting their experience of parental abandonment in socialist/globalist sponsored day-care centres when they were infants and toddlers. Well raised, psychologically stable, motivated, focused children are the basis for any successful society. We ignore that at our peril.
The successful nation state of the 21st century will not be based on tradition, ethnicity or race but, rather, it will be an outcome of well-designed law, which is, in turn, the outcome of well thought out ideas. Marriage law, as I outline above, that respects the biological imperative of both sexes to pass on their own genetic material to the next generation, that validates monogamy, that is bottom up, based on love and mutual respect rather than parasitism, and that thus instantiate our innate human nature, millions of years in the making, will perhaps be the most important body of law that forms part of the totality of law that will constitute the successful nation state of the future.
The United States, for example, has always been built upon the idea that everyone is equal before the law. Before independence, the people of the 13 colonies believed that there were certain fundamental or unalienable rights that no parliament, not even the British parliament, could violate. The first sentence of the preamble of the Declaration of Independence declares, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”. Abraham Lincoln, in his Gettysburg address revisited this idea: “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” A nation that is based on the idea of equality before the law for all its citizens is far superior to a nation based on the self interest of protecting a particular ethnicity, religious group or ethno-religious group that constitutes the demographic majority, plurality or a minority within the nation. All that a country, such as the United States, needs to do is not forget itself. My legislative proposals for marriage are similarly based on the idea that men and women, husbands and wives, are equal before the law in the raising of their children and this idea is consonant with the very idea upon which the United States was founded.
My own personal experience of monogamy.
I grew up in a outwardly intact marriage and family with both a biological mother and father, as well as a brother and a sister. In my opinion, neither of my parents had good negotiating skills in the context of their marriage to one another. In 1981, when I was 7 years old, my father lost his job as a captain of a fishing trawler because of a medical emergency. It was a job he loved with his own crew that he was responsible for. Because of the medical emergency, he was unable to return to that line of work. After he had recovered from the medical emergency, my mother urged him to return to work in one of the local fish processing factories. My father was well-capable of doing that less-stressful type of work. However, he resisted my mother’s entreaties. She was unable to lay down a red line against my father, telling him to work or else she would leave him and take us kids or kick him out of the house and keep us kids. My father, consequently, could walk all over her, cooking up a series of lame excuses for not working, as soon as he learned that her bite was non-existent compared to her bark. He then proceeded to brainwash me, a 7 year old child, to caddy for him in a local golf club, providing him with the adulation, worship and praise that he had previously received from the crew of his fishing trawler, as well as psychologically alienating me from my mother.
I have mixed feelings about feminism. My mother is a Catholic in her disposition. I would not describe her, in any way, as a feminist. The modern second and third wave feminist message is that a woman can leave a man in a marriage and take the kids or kick him out of their house and keep the kids or divorce him and keep/take the kids, if she is dissatisfied with her husband or with her husband’s performance as a husband or father. The problem with that message is that only women can benefit from this. So much for equality, which has hitherto been the basis for the prosperity of western civilization! Men are supposed to “suck it up” or “man up” even if he is dissatisfied with his wife or with his wife’s performance as a wife or mother.
My mother would certainly have benefited from the feminist message had she had taken cognizance of it at the time, for example, by laying down a red line, as I mentioned. Also, I think I would have benefited from it, had my father backed down and worked in the fish factories as she would have insisted by laying down a red line in my hypothetical what-if scenario. Had he backed down, my father would have been much less likely to, consequently, brainwash me to give him adulation, worship, praise et cetera since he would have found a sense of self-worth and purpose providing for his family by working in the local fish-processing factories even if the income there was considerably less than what he earned in his previous career. His previous career, which he forlornly desired to return to, was now off-bounds to him because of his declining health.
Even if my father had not backed down and, consequently, my mother did leave him and took us children with her, it would still have benefited me. I was corrupted by my father’s influence to serve him as a co-dependent adulator and worshipper. It had a long-term negative psychological impact upon me. I think that if I had become a child of a single mother who left my father at age 7 or shortly thereafter, it would have benefited me insofar as I would have been free from my father’s toxic influence at that time.
My own experience of monogamous marriage was, in many respects, a bad one. Despite this, I am of the opinion that monogamous marriage remains the best field of play for children to learn proper negotiating skills and relationship skills. Parents in a functioning marriage can model constructive negotiating skills for their children. Social scientific research shows that the children of parents in intact marriages have the best long-term outcomes in terms of career, health, life expectancy, income, quality of life, education level, quality of relationships and so on. The negotiating skills that they observe in their parents will serve them well in negotiating life’s inevitable obstacles and frustrations.
Update (March 24th 2019)
During President Trump’s February 5th 2019 State of the Union address, he stated that he wants “people to come into our country, in the largest numbers ever, but they have to come in legally.”
Go to 27 minutes and 47 seconds on the video of the address below.
In addition, President Trump highlights the low unemployment rate which does not take into consideration discouraged workers who have given up looking for a job. He ignores the declining labor force participation rate for men which has dropped from around 87% in 1950 to around 70% today.
When we look at men aged 25 to 54, then the prime-age labor force participation rate has declined from around 97% in 1960 to around 94% during the 1980s to just over 89% today.
Men with only a high school education or less have been the hardest hit.
The number of people not in the workforce has increased from 68 million in the year 2000 to 95 million today.
For men, aged 25 to 34, there has been a decline of over 2% in labor participation (working or looking for work) since 2008.
The overall labor force participation rate for both men and women has declined from an all time high in the year 2000 (67%) to around 63% today.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/labor-force-participation-rate
According to statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, from February 2018 to February 2019, about 1.8 million more jobs were created in the United States for workers between the ages of 16 to 64. Only 3% of those new jobs went to people born in the US. In other words, only 3% of net job growth went to US born men, around 60,000 jobs of 1.8 million new jobs.
The takeaway from all of this is that President Trump is sandpapering over the declining labour force participation rate of the native population by highlighting the current low unemployment rate, which doesn’t take into account discouraged workers who have given up looking for a job, and he is actively seeking to import other populations from overseas much like his globalist predecessors had done.
Can this be called demographic replacement? The Hispanic population in the United States has skyrocketed from just over 3 million in 1950, or 2% of the total population then, to nearly 59 million by 2017, or over 18% of the total population. The Asian population has grown percentagewise even more rapidly. It was just over 300,000 in 1950 (or 0.2% of the total population then) and had risen to nearly 22.5 million by 2017 or 6.9% of the total population. President Trump wants still more.
The Reduced Productivity of Millennials and Generation Z.
A significant proportion of the native population in the United States and throughout the West has been deliberately sidelined. This is an inevitable result of the now decades-old neglect of the institution of marriage. Monogamy builds strong families. Strong families build a strong people. According to Pew Research, in 2014, 35% of 18 to 34 year old men were living in their parent’s home and only 28% of 18 to 34 year old men were married or cohabiting, reversing a decades old trend.
Pew Research has also found that “In 2014, for the first time in more than 130 years, adults ages 18 to 34 were slightly more likely to be living in their parents’ home than they were to be living with a spouse or partner in their own household.”
There is a lot of evidence that speaks to the reduced productivity of millennials and generation z compared to previous generations. The economist, Walter Williams, has exposed and analyzed the flaws in current US government economic data and reporting and has calculated different measurements for the money supply, unemployment, inflation, the consumer price index, GDP and the dollar. For example, he calculates that the real unemployment rate in the United States as of October 2019 is 21%, not around 4% which is the headline U-3 unemployment measure.
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts
He explains: “The seasonally-adjusted SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated long-term discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994. That estimate is added to the BLS estimate of U-6 unemployment, which includes short-term discouraged workers.”
He also claims that major changes to the Consumer Price Index were made between 1997–1999 in an effort to reduce Social Security outlays, using changes by Alan Greenspan that include “hedonic regression”, or the increased quality of goods. He argues that the concept of the CPI has moved away from being a measure of the cost of living needed to maintain a constant standard of living.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadowstats.com
He estimates that if present-day inflation was calculated the same way it was calculated using methodologies in place in 1980 then present-day inflation, as of October 2019, in the United States is closer to 6% rather than under 2% as the headline inflation rate (the CPI-U published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics) would have us believe.
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts
Based on his adjusted inflation estimate, he calculates that US GDP has reduced significantly since the recession of December 2007 to June 2009.
A decline since the noughties is in evidence not just in relation to adjusted real GDP but is corroborated by other indices of productivity such as aggregate consumption of crude oil petroleum, the Cass Freight Index, a measure of North American freight volume, and S&P 500 revenues, not to mention the shadowstats alternative unemployment rate (inverted scale), the civilian employment population ratio and the labor force participation rate which has steadily declined since the recession is supposed to have ended in 2009. It has declined from 65.7% in June 2009 to 62.4% in September 2015. It currently stands at 63.3% as of October 2019.
https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-labor-force-participation-rate.htm
New US Census Bureau data shows that the US population has probably never been less mobile than it is today. Just 9.8% of Americans moved in the year ending in March, down from 20% in 1985. That was the smallest percentage since the Census Bureau started tracking it in 1947, and the first time it had fallen below 10 percent. The decline is particularly pronounced for younger people. 29 percent of 20- to 24-year-olds moved between 2005 and 2006. That dropped to 20 percent in the most recent period.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/20/us/american-workers-moving-states-.html
Reduced economic productivity is evidence of “a failure to launch” by young people and especially, young men. President Trump, much like his predecessors, has no policies to help such people. In fact, he’s happy to ignore the alarming statistics of economic decline/reality.
The Importance of Jobs.
Fox News Talk Show Host, Tucker Carlson, pointed out on his show on January 2nd and 3rd 2019 that there is a relationship between men having jobs and good paying jobs and the marriage rate.
https://archive.org/details/FOXNEWSW_20190103_050000_Tucker_Carlson_Tonight/start/0/end/60
He referred to a 2015 study by the Brookings Institution that found that falling male wages caused a quarter of the decline in marriage rates over the previous 35 years and a 2017 MIT study that found that when factories close, marriage rates go down and single parenthood goes up.
Yet, fewer and fewer people are working. Democratic party Presidential Candidate, Andrew Yang, has pointed out that the Labour Force Partipation Rate in the United States is now 63.2%, the same level as Ecuador and Costa Rica. He points out that with recent significant advances in Artificial Intelligence that number will be put under further downward pressure. He asserts that automation will be replacing many jobs in the near future such as picking fruit, cutting trees, manning warehouses, driving cars and operating machinery. He points out that 30% of malls are going to close because of Amazon, that there will be self driving cars and trucks on the roads in 5 to 10 years and 2.5 million call-centre workers in the US replaced by Artificial Intelligence.
Western countries have made the mistake of underinvesting in people including the institution of monogamous marriage. Andrew Yang points out that while in the US 4 trillion dollars were given to the banks since the 2008 financial crisis, young people are burdened by student loan debt that amounts today to 1.5 trillion dollars, or $38,000 per person, up from 100 billion dollars in 1999, a 15 fold increase. These financially burdened young people have less incentive to set up their own businesses. Business formation rates are now at multi-decade lows. Andrew Yang points out that the underemployment rate for recent college graduates is 44%. In other words, they have a nearly 50% chance of getting a job out of college that doesn’t require a degree. He points out that 94% of jobs created presently are gig, temporary and contractor jobs.
With the advances in automation, the labour force participation for men in particular will be under further downward pressure. This, in turn, will force down the marriage rate, already at an historically low level. The present solution of the Trump administration and other globalist governments is to import a replacement population rather than invest in their own people and the institution of monogamous marriage.
It is undoubtedly true that marriage today discriminates against men but there is something even more sinister going on underneath this, which is the destruction of the cultural institution of marriage itself, an institution that predates the foundation of the United States by hundreds of years, to be replaced by a new institution of single parenthood, mostly single motherhood. It is the cultural institution of monogamous marriage that western civilization has been built upon, with the civilization of the United States built, in turn, upon that.
Update (July 12th 2019)
Considering that immigrants overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats, it makes no sense for the Republican party to support any more legal or illegal immigration.
Why should Republicans feel browbeaten when Democrats accuse them of racism? Aren’t Democrats being racist for accepting huge numbers of productive people from the global south who, if they instead stayed in their home countries, would contribute to the prosperity of their country of origin? If those productive people stayed in their home countries, that could potentially lead to a Trumpian win-win in future trade deals. Republicans appear to be intent on supporting policies that will lead to the extinction of their own party, at least, if they continue with the small government policies that they have traditionally espoused. Trump has not bucked this trend. As he made clear during his 2019 State of the Union address, he’s all in for supporting further mass immigration and thus ignoring the growing native population that is unemployed or underemployed which will likely grow further because of increasing automation. Conservative commentators such as Ann Coulter have warned that states such as Florida and Texas could permanently flip blue because of immigration, legal and illegal, just as California has already done in presidential elections since 1988.
Instead of a Republican party that opposes both legal and illegal immigration, we have a virtue signalling Republican party that opposes illegal immigration only and abortion. Highly restrictive anti abortion bills have been signed into law in a number of US States. For example, this May, in Georgia, the Republican controlled legislature passed a bill that was signed by the Governor that prohibits abortion after a heartbeat is detected in an embryo. That is something that usually happens between 5 and 6 weeks into a women’s pregnancy, before many women know they are pregnant. Also, this May, in Alabama, the Republican legislature passed a bill signed into law by the Governor that bans abortion in almost all cases including rape and incest. In true virtue signalling style, these highly restrictive laws, and others like them, will almost certainly not be implemented, unless ruled constitutional by the US Supreme Court. That would entail overturning previous US Supreme Court rulings – Roe v Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992).
Simultaneous to this, we have a Republican party that has been successfully gaslighted by the opposing Democrats into convincing itself that it is racist.
When Trump says, “America First”, he means putting the idea of America as a land of immigrants first, minus unauthorized immigrants, rather than putting the citizens of the United States first.
The abortion research organization, the Guttmacher institute, has found that 7 US States are “very hostile” to abortion rights in 2019, compared to no such States in 2000 and 14 are “hostile” in 2019, compared to 4 in 2000. It has found that between 2000 and 2019, the proportion of women aged 13 to 44 living in US States that have demonstrated overall hostility to abortion rights has increased from 49% to 59%; over the same time period, the proportion of women, aged 13 to 44, living in US States that have demonstrated either a “hostile” or a “very hostile” attitude to abortion rights has increased from 7.3% to 43%.
https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2018/12/state-abortion-policy-landscape-hostile-supportive
Celebrities, Alyssa Milano and Bette Midler, have called for a sex strike against men as a result of the new extremely prohibitive abortion laws that are being introduced in more and more US States. This would appear to reflect a breakdown of dialogue between the sexes.
My proposals to bring the historically culture bound institution of monogamous marriage into alignment with the principles of natural justice by applying clear and precise positive law to it will help mediate a restoration of dialogue between the two sexes.
Update (July 15th 2019).
The population of the United States increased from 309,330,000 in 2010 to 325,719,000 in 2017. However, over that time period, the estimated White alone population (non-Hispanic) has only grown by 300,000 or so from 196,929,412 million (63.66%) to 197,285,202 million (60.57%). By contrast, the estimated Asian alone population, fueled by immigration, has increased from 14,728,302 million (4.76%) in 2010 to 18,215,328 (5.59%) in 2017. Similarly, the estimated Hispanic population has increased from 50,740,089 in 2010 (16.4%) to 58,846,134 (18.07%) in 2017, also largely fuelled by immigration.
Is it racist to wish that the growth of the white population in the United States keep pace with the overall population growth of the United States? I don’t think so. In fact, it is a quintessentially conservative position to take.
White people are not having enough kids to ensure that their growth in numbers keeps pace with nationwide growth in the population. Why isn’t the Republican party all over this? By contrast, this clearly benefits Democrats, as immigrants, and especially first generation immigrants and illegal immigrants, tend to vote for their political party because of its promise of bigger government providing more services.
Some Conservatives may continue to fool themselves that Hispanics can be persuaded to vote for them in large numbers on the basis of their pro-life stance on abortion. Hispanics tend to be more pro-life than the population generally but this is not translating into votes for Republicans.
From: https://www.prri.org/research/hispanic-values-survey-2013/
My Thoughts. 