The why vs the what

I don't subscribe to the biological determinism of many theorists of Game, but it would be hard to deny the logic of the connection that Delusion Damage draws between the herd imperative of historical women and the behavior of modern women today:

Nothing was as important for a woman’s survival and that of her children as being socially accepted. That imperative to survive, imprinted deep into the female brain by countless years of natural selection, is still there. Even today, nothing is as important to a woman as being in good favor with the herd. There is only one general case in which women can, with any reliable frequency, be seen going against the wishes of the herd – when they’re catching a man. The scientific explanation is simple – the entire surplus labor supply of a privately owned man, caught in the net of a sexual pair bond and never set free again, can do even more for her than a share of the collective plate.

It is in this special case when the seeming contradiction in female behavior appears – where normally she’d do everything she can to be just like all the other girls, not to single herself out in any way for instinctive fear of being kicked from the herd, she must now do the opposite. In order to ensnare a man so completely that he can be relied on not to break free from her spell until he’s fed and protected the children through their helpless growth phase, she must make herself seem so incredibly special that there’s simply no other woman he could even consider sharing some of his – now, her – surplus labor with. She must indeed make herself the only girl in the world for him.

The underlying mechanism is the same – the prime directive to make sure she’s always provided for by someone else – only its target changes from the collective to the individual, and the behavioral manifestation of the dependence instinct changes to what can on the surface seem like its opposite. It’s the same instinct of unfaltering attachment to a meal ticket, with a new coat of paint.

Due to the paramount importance of fitting in for survival, the idea that anything popular is good is irremediably built into the female brain. Human brains have not changed since tribal times. Today’s woman is still looking for the approval of the herd before anything – no matter how harmful, how illogical or how ridiculous a thing is, if it’s popular, she must have it, love it and defend it with all her power. It feels to her like a matter of life or death – because that’s exactly what it used to be.

Give women money, they’ll buy what they think others are buying. Let them vote, they’ll vote for what they think others are voting for.

Give them influence over every aspect of society, and every aspect of society will be permeated with the idea that everything popular is great and all other alternatives are death. Give them control over education, and they’ll discourage experimentation, achievement and discovery, extolling the virtues of conformity, conformity and conformity. Ordinary will become the new extraordinary.

Give them a majority share in the workforce and fill the rest with boys educated by the twelve-year feminine conformity program mandated by law, and you’ll get a workforce that’ll take anything lying down. Give them sole custody and put their fatherless male children in female-run conformity training for their first twenty years, and you get a population of men who won’t lead others or even stand up for themselves.

While there is no need to cite evolutionary fairy tales or logical explanations in order to construct a reliable model of predicting female behavior, they serve a useful purpose whether they are eventually shown to be true by the historical and scientific evidence or not. Even if they are absolutely fictional, such devices still serve to put us in a state of mind allowing us to clear the cobwebs of the literal decades of propaganda to which every man and boy under the age of 45 has been subjected since kindergarten.

In the end, it's not the historical explanations that matter, but the reliability of the Game models. The Why may be an interesting question to ponder, but it is much less important than the What or the How. Still, it is useful to have a conceptual understanding underlying the observation of the female craving for security and social acceptance, so that we do not delude ourselves into thinking that convincing women such priorities are not in their long-term benefit is a simple matter of presenting them with a logical case.

It may not, in fact, even be possible, in which case there is no solution for a society once it reaches the equalitarian stage beyond a) violence and tyranny, or b) waiting for its inevitable collapse. I do not accept the idea that equalitarianism is an intractable problem any more than I believe that men and women are nothing more than meat puppets subject entirely to their biomechanical imperatives. Man is more than the physical sum of his parts as both the intellect and the spirit are capable of surmounting the body. But I am certainly open to the possibility that the situation may be intractable, and indeed, there is an increasing amount of evidence that the quasi-democratic societies of the West do not have the structural ability to address the economic and demographic problems that they are presently facing.