# Feminists + Alphas vs Civilization **URL:** \ **Category:** Lounge\ **Created:** [April 29, 2010, 11:59am UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/feminists-alphas-vs-civilization/38153 "2010-04-29T11:59:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![PheroQuirk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9e8a1a/32.png) [@PheroQuirk](https://pheromonetalk.com/u/PheroQuirk)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2010, 11:59am UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/feminists-alphas-vs-civilization/38153/1 "2010-04-29T11:59:06Z")
[Feminists and Alpha Males vs. Civilization](http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/04/29/feminists-and-alpha-males-vs-civilization/) > [@](#): > > Polygamous societies are notoriously politically unstable. They are prone to civil wars. Further, they tend to have high levels of poverty and crime and very little scientific advance or artistic achievement. > > The most that any government (authoritarian or otherwise) can do to control the behavior of its citizens is to threaten them with death. From an evolutionary psychological perspective, as Rubin himself (2002, 120–21) recognizes, the threat of death does not carry much weight for young men in highly polygynous societies faced with the distinct possibility of total reproductive failure because of a lack of reproductive opportunities. From the perspective of the genes, total reproductive failure—not leaving any offspring—is death. Thus, for the same reasons that polygyny (and a consequent lack of reproductive opportunities) inclines men to murder, rape and assault, despite the distinct possibility of state criminal penalty, the same desperate situation can lead them to wage civil wars for potential reproductive opportunities (Kanazawa 2007). There is very little the state can do to control the behavior of young men in polygynous societies even with the threat of death. ---
**Author:** ![Butterfly](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/pheromonetalk.com/butterfly/32/1942_2.png) [@Butterfly](https://pheromonetalk.com/u/Butterfly)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2010, 5:16pm UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/feminists-alphas-vs-civilization/38153/2 "2010-04-29T17:16:20Z")
Well, to be honest, I think this is mostly a problem when these men are actually in exclusive long term relationships with multiple women. I’m not a fan of players; but there is no reason to believe they are robbing men of reproductive opportunities, precisely because they only date each woman for a few days or weeks and move on. Even if we calculate a year or two of heartbreak, that leaves plenty of time to have children with another man. I would say that it is actually poverty, or to be precise a harsh socioeconomic climate with inequality in career and financial opportunities that causes polygamy, whether the law allows for it or rich men simply keep poor women as mistresses. In my mom’s country, you also frequently see a poor married woman having a rich, also married lover, in exchange for support. Kind of like how poverty goes together with prostitution. ---
**Author:** ![PheroQuirk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9e8a1a/32.png) [@PheroQuirk](https://pheromonetalk.com/u/PheroQuirk)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2010, 9:51pm UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/feminists-alphas-vs-civilization/38153/3 "2010-04-29T21:51:28Z")
> [@Butterfly](#): > > Well, to be honest, I think this is mostly a problem when these men are actually in exclusive long term relationships with multiple women. I’m not a fan of players; but there is no reason to believe they are robbing men of reproductive opportunities, precisely because they only date each woman for a few days or weeks and move on. Even if we calculate a year or two of heartbreak, that leaves plenty of time to have children with another man. > > I would say that it is actually poverty, or to be precise a harsh socioeconomic climate with inequality in career and financial opportunities that causes polygamy, whether the law allows for it or rich men simply keep poor women as mistresses. In my mom’s country, you also frequently see a poor married woman having a rich, also married lover, in exchange for support. Kind of like how poverty goes together with prostitution. The best single predictor of the incidence of prostitution is the degree of male income inequality. This applies to wealthy cities too - not just poor ones. So there is a link between fiat money credit inflation and the decay in morals of a city. Thomas Mann wrote about this in “Disorder and Early Sorrow” (in the context of Weimar Germany). The blurring of the line between amateurs and professionals during bubble time is striking, and has been discussed in various pieces on the Manhattan scene pre-2007. With respect to the question of monopolisation of the reproductive potential of nubile women, dominant men pursuing this kind of strategy don’t just date each women for a few days or weeks then move on. A single man might in effect be taking several (and potentially tens) of women off the market for months to years. The practice is likely to be very different to the theory even if it is supposedly not an exclusive thing - by nature men have a much easier time dating multiple women concurrently than do women juggling men. And then after a fling with a dominant man, the self-assessed market value of a woman may rise, possibly to unrealistic levels. In comparison other men (who may be the more realistic candidates for a long term relationship) may just sink beneath her notice. Multiple flings may weaken the ability of some women to form a very durable long-term bond. So marriage is very much less appealing to a provider sort of man in our age than it would have been in a world with greater social and moral constraints, even without the changes in divorce mores and laws. The above is controversial, and hardly aesthetically very appealing but seems somewhat founded in human nature to me.