I am reading “The End of Woman” by Carrie Gress and she mentions this 1934 book. She says of the findings, “the greater a culture’s sexual restraint, the greater that culture’s accomplishments... but “as soon as a culture abandoned monogamy... it collapsed within three generations.” If this English ethnologist from Oxford is correct, I say the US is not looking so good for longevity.
I bought the book but have not started reading it as I'm finishing another book. Your section on female influence in society is not accurate I think. Women have never had much influence in society until the last 100 years.
So the argument that lack of monogamy made everybody promiscuous and therefore women started going into position of power and cause societal decline is not true.
Women going to universities to study useless subjects such as communications, english, or art history can be blamed for a lot bad things in society, chiefly the decline in fertility. Those HR ladies think they're above marrying a plumber who makes money than them.
But again, this is a recently event. We can't blame the decline of the Dutch golden age on promiscuous women going to universities right?
I look forward the reading the book. Thanks for the summary!
Indeed, there is a lot about Unwin's theory that simply doesn't add up. The cherry-picking is pretty obvious, and correlation is not causation. Athens, Sparta, post-Constantine Rome, and Nazi Germany come to mind as just some examples that don't really fit his theory very well, if at all.
“There is no need for the whole society to suffer the same continence. So long as the sexual opportunity of one social stratum is maintained at a minimum, the society will display productive energy.”
Can this apply to the lower classes? One often hears of degenerate elites
Very insightful article. Any thoughts on to what extent female de-emancipation should occur today, and what steps should be taken to achieve this? I have read your article on the Baby Boom and the actions you propose at the end. Am wondering if you have additional ideas in the context of this article.
Though I am a man, I for one would still throroughly oppose any form of "de-emancipation" for women (or any other demographic group for that matter). There is literally NO ethical way to do that, and it is a dead end that on balance would do more harm than good for everyone, men included. Women hold up (at least) half the sky, after all.
Excellent review. I had never heard of Unwin, but his observations are intuitive—I already knew them to be true in my bones. You have convincingly filled in the blanks for me.
I generally disagree with you here, but you are correct on one thing that Unwin clearly got wrong: Absolute monogamy (which I do not favor) is clearly incompatible with gender equality or female emancipation and empowerment. There is absolutely zero precedent for that, and for good reason: the iron laws of supply and demand in regards to the "sexual marketplace", for lack of better and less crude and blunt term.
And by the iron laws of supply and demand, I mean that, at least in the absence of severe repression of women, any attempt to impose absolute monogamy and/or premarital chastity would create a massive "black market" of illicit sexual activity. There has never been a non-patriarchal society that has been able to achieve such sexual repression for very long, if at all.
As for "WTF happened in 1971", four things come to mind: 1) the Powell Manifesto and the rise of neoliberalism, later built upon by Reagan and Thatcher, 2) decolonization of the Global South, following by later economic recolonization, 3) Peak Oil domestically in the USA, and 4) ending the Gold Standard, while still following some of its old zombie arcane and archaic rules.
This may have been relevant in Stone Age conditions, with little understanding between sex and reproduction. But, in the modern world, their children, especially boys, lose the benefits of unique paternal investment, encouragement, discipline, mentoring. Fluxional fathers and 'blended' families are a good indicator for future academic failur, juvenile delinquency, welfare dependency, economic failure.
If feminism wishes a return to Stone Age reproductive preferences, it will bring about a Stone Age to accompany these.
I am reading “The End of Woman” by Carrie Gress and she mentions this 1934 book. She says of the findings, “the greater a culture’s sexual restraint, the greater that culture’s accomplishments... but “as soon as a culture abandoned monogamy... it collapsed within three generations.” If this English ethnologist from Oxford is correct, I say the US is not looking so good for longevity.
Well-written and on the mark.
I bought the book but have not started reading it as I'm finishing another book. Your section on female influence in society is not accurate I think. Women have never had much influence in society until the last 100 years.
So the argument that lack of monogamy made everybody promiscuous and therefore women started going into position of power and cause societal decline is not true.
Women going to universities to study useless subjects such as communications, english, or art history can be blamed for a lot bad things in society, chiefly the decline in fertility. Those HR ladies think they're above marrying a plumber who makes money than them.
But again, this is a recently event. We can't blame the decline of the Dutch golden age on promiscuous women going to universities right?
I look forward the reading the book. Thanks for the summary!
Read Fate of Empires - women being able to leave the house unsupervised leads to promiscuity.
You're forgetting that these things happen over a century.
Indeed, there is a lot about Unwin's theory that simply doesn't add up. The cherry-picking is pretty obvious, and correlation is not causation. Athens, Sparta, post-Constantine Rome, and Nazi Germany come to mind as just some examples that don't really fit his theory very well, if at all.
I cannot believe this doesn't have more recognition. Absolute gem.
“There is no need for the whole society to suffer the same continence. So long as the sexual opportunity of one social stratum is maintained at a minimum, the society will display productive energy.”
Can this apply to the lower classes? One often hears of degenerate elites
Very insightful article. Any thoughts on to what extent female de-emancipation should occur today, and what steps should be taken to achieve this? I have read your article on the Baby Boom and the actions you propose at the end. Am wondering if you have additional ideas in the context of this article.
Though I am a man, I for one would still throroughly oppose any form of "de-emancipation" for women (or any other demographic group for that matter). There is literally NO ethical way to do that, and it is a dead end that on balance would do more harm than good for everyone, men included. Women hold up (at least) half the sky, after all.
small error: "Single men work like women, because they have little to work for. Married me work hard for their families"
Married me instead of men.
This is much more convincing and well-written than Unwin's book. Your magnum opus. Amazing work!
This was a sincerely good article. Thanks!
Rip Dalrock links
At least some of them are available through https://archive.ph
Excellent review. I had never heard of Unwin, but his observations are intuitive—I already knew them to be true in my bones. You have convincingly filled in the blanks for me.
absolutely fascinating
How is AI an exception lol, this is fear mongering, artificial panic about AI is far more impactful than AI itself, just like the atomic bomb
I generally disagree with you here, but you are correct on one thing that Unwin clearly got wrong: Absolute monogamy (which I do not favor) is clearly incompatible with gender equality or female emancipation and empowerment. There is absolutely zero precedent for that, and for good reason: the iron laws of supply and demand in regards to the "sexual marketplace", for lack of better and less crude and blunt term.
And by the iron laws of supply and demand, I mean that, at least in the absence of severe repression of women, any attempt to impose absolute monogamy and/or premarital chastity would create a massive "black market" of illicit sexual activity. There has never been a non-patriarchal society that has been able to achieve such sexual repression for very long, if at all.
As for "WTF happened in 1971", four things come to mind: 1) the Powell Manifesto and the rise of neoliberalism, later built upon by Reagan and Thatcher, 2) decolonization of the Global South, following by later economic recolonization, 3) Peak Oil domestically in the USA, and 4) ending the Gold Standard, while still following some of its old zombie arcane and archaic rules.
Women gain significant genetic benefit in their offspring through polyandry.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003347200917056
This may have been relevant in Stone Age conditions, with little understanding between sex and reproduction. But, in the modern world, their children, especially boys, lose the benefits of unique paternal investment, encouragement, discipline, mentoring. Fluxional fathers and 'blended' families are a good indicator for future academic failur, juvenile delinquency, welfare dependency, economic failure.
If feminism wishes a return to Stone Age reproductive preferences, it will bring about a Stone Age to accompany these.