After deregulating the sexual market we saw a transition away from monogamous matriarchy, which has been the societal order for almost 2,000 years. This system has been instated by the Roman Empire and then perpetuated by the Roman-Catholic Church, before the availability of contraceptives essentially abolished it.
Monogamous matriarchy has several advantages for the ruling powers. It requires one man to pair up with one woman permanently. The men are required to provide for the women and that requirement can be taxed. The leftover men can be drafted as cannon-fodder into wars.
These small and powerless "family units" can be kept in tight control, which is the reason why the Roman Empire together with the church leaders chose this model. These units never grow large enough to become dangerous to the power structure. That's why even after the Roman Empire disappeared, the church kept this model around.
Now we're in a transition back to polygynous patriarchy, which was the previous system in the Western world. In that system there are two classes of women: wives and concubines. Both have to work for men. This is also mirrored in the corporate world, were women essentially are concubines of their corporate bosses, even if what they're doing is something different than sex work.
The slurs used to enforce the old order don't make much sense after the transition. For example being a "corporate whore" isn't even connotated negatively and the "incel" unable to acquire an exclusive matriarch needs just a $100 bill to get his concubine. The top 3 % men, patriarchs, gather both men and women (wives and concubines) around them and build powerful tribal empires instead of having to submit to religious elites or egalitarian governments.
The common narrative to sell monogamous matriarchy is that the remaining 97 % of men are losers in a polygynous patriarchy. However looking closer that's not really true. The remaining 97 % of men aren't weighted down by the burden of marriage, they don't have to provide and that not existing provision cannot be taxed either. Enforced monogamous matriarchy means that a man has no sex without entering marriage first, that doesn't apply once monogamous matriarchy is abolished completely.
In fact in a fully developed polygynous patriarchy it's mostly women who are working, and do so exclusively for men, that means if any government wants to collect taxes, they have to tax women instead of men. Men are mostly free to do whatever they want. Covert concubinages are already a reality described with terms like "LTR", since marriage has been abolished by most men.
tl;dr: The polygynous patriarchy in the process of being established in the West now is a total win for men (all of them): They gain real freedom from government control, taxes and provision requirements, while women do the majority of work. The top 3 % are going to have tribal empires on par with small countries.
RiggzHatesYou 1y ago
Still waiting to see broads at work doing concrete.
[deleted] 1y ago
[--removed--]
Lionsmane8 1y ago
I think you have a point there, pimping economics (women doing most of the work, men managing) doesn't produce hard stuff like bridges and towers. But maybe that is the natural state of things? Some pimps, lots of hoes serving the pimps and lots of tricks paying for hoes.
[deleted] 1y ago
[--removed--]
Positive-Lifeguard80 1y ago
There won't be anything resembling "advanced civilization" with without the necessary social order. The good news is that all the dystopian mass control fantasies using technology are impossible to implement without having lots of beta providers forced to provide for women forced making more beta providers.
The "tech revolution" was just too a few decades too late for that happen. What a bummer, not!
Long-term the infrastructure will probably crumble, including the Internet.
Positive-Lifeguard80 1y ago
A core restriction of monogamous matriarchy is "no sex outside marriage", which is still in effect, if someone (both male and female) is not high SMV. That is what made the marriage scam so appealing to average beta guys.
The current transitional state what makes it the raw deal. Getting divorced-raped after spending years in a dead bedroom is not the future state of things for the 97 %. They will have access to sex, they just won't be in a marriage or reproduce. The actual reproduction will be limited to the 3 %, all others will lack the economical power to that.
The new societal contract is already emerging while old women and blue-pilled beta men are still living with an expectation of the old one. This favored women temporarily, but it won't last. Just look at all the late 30s popping up at WAATGM trying to get their ticket to a ship, what not only has sailed, but the entire cruise line has been abolished, because we moved to air travel.
Polygynous patriarchy is generally aligned with lower economic output and much less conventional military power. The latter was also the primary reason why the Roman Empire enforced monogamous matriarchy. Elon Musk's idea of doing manned Mars missions on the backs of millions of beta providers isn't going to happen. Some things "moving society forward" only happen, because someone is leeching off governments, those will have to go.
What we already can observe is that there are lobbies trying reestablish monogamous matriarchy. Those "tradcons" are aligned with military spending. They literally need new conscripts for their wars. However these lobbyists won't put the invention of hormonal contraception back into the box. They also just have to face the fact, that women now decide if and when they want children and the exploitation of beta men based on providing for mothers is just over. It won't come back, and all the business models based on that won't come back either.
There is a story in the Old Testament, where the slaves in Egypt fight against getting freed from slavery, because it's so comfortable being enslaved. Lots of beta providers do not want to be freed from their burden. They complain about getting discriminated in the corporate world by HR, while the future is that they don't have spend 40 hours weekly at a corporate cubicle.
Lionsmane8 1y ago
I don't know how i feel about that. The carrot of sex and by extension offspring has been dangled in front of most men to get them to conform to "social expectations" (another word for the ruling class wanting you to do shit for them). My concern is that most men will still conform, those who don't will either become bandits and ruffians. Some of course will be able to establish harems or "free love" and some will just become monks and devote their lives to some other ideal. Really, we are witnessing to a breakdown of modern society (and the nation-state by extension) right before our eyes and i have no idea what it will look like in the near future. All i know is where i want to be
[deleted] 1y ago
[--removed--]
Positive-Lifeguard80 1y ago
Their dual mating strategy will take full effect in full sight.
Indeed, this is why polygynous patriarchies succumbed to the West featuring a productive army of beta providers. However the change in contraception affects anyone, so the playing field is leveled and no-one is going to be able to keep up monogamous matriarchies and with it nation states (which are founded on monogamous matriarchy). Militant conflicts will be lower scale patriarch warlords against each other, and not large scale nation state wars.
Nation borders already lose their meaning now and won't mean shit in the future. Ironically the leftist dream will come to fruition, but not how they imagined it. In polygynous patriarchy collectivism is completely dead and this includes taxation and other means of transfers. We might see going back to city states and uncontrolled rural areas. Without familial bonds, you will just die from starvation. Welfare leeches won't exist.
Of course, there will be industrial-military-complex trad-cons trying turn time back to the pre-contraception age for example by employing prohibition on women. This will probably work as well as the ban on prostitution already does and the ban of alcohol previously did.
Lionsmane8 1y ago
I disagree,again, the arguing case is Islam. The Islamlic Caliphate first spread out by defeating the two largest (and monogamous societies) of the area: the Byzantines and the Persians. A case of polygynous patriarchies being very militarily (and by extension economically, culturally etc.) successful in comparison to its more established neighbours. I think the case for a superior productive output of monogamous matriarchies is not solid, in my opinion. I'd argue that polygynous patriarchies are more productive (the men have more to protect), it's just that they are much harder to govern under a single rule.
_Imperator_Augustus_ 1y ago
Arabs beating byzantines and persians is not a case of polygamous society beating monogamous societies though.
Because Persia was also a polygamous society. Persian emperors like Khosrow and nobles like Surena had harems of thousands of women.
[deleted] 1y ago
[--removed--]
Lionsmane8 1y ago
man, i am not western, but essentially that is what the Islamic polygynous relationships are supposed to be for. In most Muslim countries today, polygyny has been replaced with state enforced monogamy. The only countries that are somewhat open to polygyny frown on it, or it is the exclusive domain of the ruling elite. It makes me laugh when CIA brainwashed westerners believe that somehow women are oppressed in Muslim countries whereas they are the ones that run the household (and society by proxy) and men are mostly beta provider slaves that cannot ever hope to challenge the established authority. Nationalism had destroyed tribalism, and globalism is destroying nationalism. No matter what people want to say today, tribalism (social order based on kin relationships) makes more biological sense than abstract notions of nations, empires and the EU. In this era of deglobalization we will witness a return to nationalism from globalism and tribalism from nationalism. Power centers are shifting from the west to the east and intergender dynamics will shift back to favor men. We will have more soft harems (corporate slaves, LTRs, plates etc.) and women will chose to be one or either, wives or concubines.
Positive-Lifeguard80 1y ago
That is essentially modeled after the Roman Empire model of control. However in the West that has been abolished by women, which is lamented by "male rights activists", tradcon nationalists and others stuck in the past.
Since sex outside marriage became legal, men are favored. It's just brainwashing that keeps them on the plantation. Of course, the brainwashing mostly appeals to ego and pride. Every John Doe Average raising his own offspring in a suburb house is actually a really inefficient model, aimed at keeping the peace (Pax Romana) and allowing for heavy taxation of each of them. However, we already see how women flock to the top 3 % for reproduction, so tribal structures will reappear, where the burden of provision is shared on multiple (primary female) shoulders, just as it used be.
Lionsmane8 1y ago
Yeah, i cannot really dispute what you are saying, I am thinking the same. Somehow a man providing his whole life for an ungrateful aging female while she just sits there and does the dishes and occasionally puts out is somehow supposed to be a model a lot of men in the world consider to be ideal. it's crazy to see how many are willingly lining up to give up their freedom, happiness and self respect for a shot at slavery.
whytehorse2021 1y ago
Meanwhile I'm playing on the computer while my wife is working... I need to get a 2nd wife so we have two income streams.