Recent protests in Minneapolis have taught us something damning and cruel about ugly women, and it is that they are dangerous and reprehensible to the functioning of a moral, logical society. Never mind the fact that they clamor for the replacement and ultimate extinction of their race—that in and of itself is bad. What is worse, however, is the vicious motive behind such action. It is that motive, I believe, that illuminates something far more sinister about their social-genetic dynamic not only in our timeline but throughout the fall of civilizations.
It is commonly understood that tribal communities have comparatively less social deviancy. Rather, tribespeople adhere to the strict cultural hierarchy. One reason is that survival depends on such adherence. Serious deviancy threatens the longevity of the tribe and individual members. As such, antisociality is treated much more severely and detected much earlier to be corrected. Even in such cases, it doesn't reach the same level of antisociality we're seeing among white women in Western countries.
Anthropologically, the habitual practice of gender-based rituals solidifies a necessary power dynamic that allows for the survival and propagation of a race. These gender roles, which are so decried among feminists, form a social adhesive among these tribespeople. When tasks are seen as "female" and "male" and performed daily, it creates two separate power hierarchies within the culture. The male hierarchy is naturally dominant over the females. As such, men compete and cooperate with one another in terms of productivity, mainly hunting. As for the women, they compete and cooperate. Still, because their hierarchy is gendered, they operate on a different register—mainly, one of femininity and feminine production, such as sewing, cooking, or nurturance.
These feminine acts—nurturance, kindness, obedience—provide fertile soil for the cultivation of femininity. While menial tasks may appear to be just that—basic and not too important—what is occurring in the psychology of the superego is vastly important: the superego is being trained in duty, shame, guilt, ideal self, and prohibition. These Freudian terms are played out clearly when tribes are observed. In contrast, in Western kitchens where feminine rituals have been abandoned, and women shun the idea of cooking for their men, these so-called "primitive" women are closer to the ideal and not only enjoy the act of provision but also instinctively gravitate toward such roles. But they are not acting on an institutional level, but on a training level.
By all appearances, Western women operate in obedience to the Id—desire, pleasure, aggression, sex, hunger, immediacy. They have not been well trained, and it shows in the screaming marches, the violence, and the vacuous expressions. Their more "primitive" tribal counterparts act, oddly, more civilized, for they have learned to respect and honor their culture. These same Western women would turn their noses up at their superior tribal counterparts. A turn of phrase is required: Western women are primitives because they lack higher-civilization functions.
Two critical failures in society have brought us to this point: the first is that women's superego and ego—restraint and obedience to social norms—is not being trained. The opposite is true: their Id has grown more rapacious and unsatisfied. Second, there is a correlation between luxury and civilized behavior. The more opulent and safe a society becomes, the more egregious the women behave. That is because they are sheltered from the reality of consequences. I say "reality" strategically here because that is exactly how the superego and ego are developed: through the painful clash between irrational desire and the principles of reality.
When a woman in a tribal culture becomes socially deviant and refuses to honor the patriarchy, she is either shamed, starved, or exiled. While weak Westerners would label such treatment as an abuse, it really is a social adhesive mechanism. When disobedience leads to death, there is no luxury to consider a woman's feelings. They feel this truth at a physical level; coldness, exhaustion, and hunger remind them daily. Consequently, they gravitate toward feminine roles almost instinctively—or rather, logically.
Ugliness plays an increasingly important role in social deviance when a society can afford to be beautiful. That is, wealth permits society to distance itself from savage reality and exist in a collective delusion of safety. When this transition to luxury occurs, both men and women prioritize civilizational-making rituals to strengthen the delusion of security. These rituals include adhering to beauty standards. The more beautiful are worshiped as manifestations of civilization, away from savagery.
That leaves a curious, so far unexplored, philosophical territory in feminist literature—although such a topic wouldn't be touched because it clarifies something demented in their nature. As the United States and other Western powers emerged as economic powerhouses following World War II, a noticeable shift occurred in the attitudes of not-so-attractive women—the suffragettes and eugenicists. These sexually disenfranchised women fell into a new category: the sexually dispossessed; it is akin to the idea of "excess men." Only in this instance, the "excess female" part is self-inflicted. It is self-inflicted because even unattractive women can find mates of comparative attractiveness—but that is not good enough for them.
As society continues to worship beauty, these women feel they cannot compete at a genetic or physical level. And since the thought of marrying what they consider an inferior male is apparently so beneath them, the only other alternative is to rebel against a system that has—in their eyes—demonized their physically undesirable attributes. Compound this with the fact that such deviancy doesn't lead to immediate survival risk as in a tribal community with fewer resources, and that these women are not punished with the same severity, an environment of dissent and hatred toward the patriarchy and beautiful women naturally develops. It is, ultimately, an act of biosocial revenge.
Two solutions exist, and they inhabit polar-opposite spectrums of the power hierarchy. At the societal level, laws and policies may be enacted to protect patriarchal and societal norms. Feminist doctrine would fall under criminalization—as it should. After all, other societally destructive acts are criminalized. By contrast, feminism is far more destructive than most illegal behavior, since it undermines the foundation of society and threatens to destabilize cultures, families, and cultural trust. The second solution involves stronger families and communities, especially fathers. These smaller units would be far more effective and precise in detecting and punishing anti-social behaviors. Women also respond, like their tribal counterparts, much more favorably to shaming, ridicule, and exiling.
Many are not quick to employ Freud's psychoanalytic model of the Id, ego, and superego in a sociological framework. The reason is that his theoretical frameworks operate best at a personal level. My argument, however, is one of biosocial determinism, thereby recognizing the importance of individual contribution to group dynamics. When we dissect the group into what it really is: an amalgamation of individuals, the solution moves away from vague, general sociological theory toward a more applicable model. Simply, women need to be taught restraint. When fantasy is not restrained by consequence, delusion hardens—sap entrapping the insect.
Comments to the editor are welcome: thedeidaily@gmail.com