I suppose I should have figured this out earlier, but it seems that feminism is a dysgenic social movement. Why? The mechanism is very simple. From the perspective that women need to “rise up” and “take their place in the world” by taking on what was previously a traditionally male career path, it only makes sense that such a social expectation would be disproportionately placed on women of higher intelligence since, after all, they are “better able to compete.” And perhaps they do, for a time. Those who are able should pursue higher levels of education and career advancement; “to whom much is given, much shall be expected.” It is only a small disappointment for a dumb blonde to settle down in her 20′s and be dedicated to a family, but it is a great disappoint for an intelligent woman to forego her place in the workplace.
But the result of this is that more intelligent women are less likely to pass on their genetic material. As such, it is the less intelligent women who breed, which is a dysgenic effect.
Does it not seem weird that we are effectively saying to our best and brightest women that their most enlightened lifestyle is materialistic nihilism? Get a job, make a bunch of money, be independent. Don’t have children. Die alone without any genetic legacy. Women are to discern their calling to the Spinsterhood. If such a calling is unable to be undertaken, they may receive a dispensation from the sugar daddy government to have children paid for by taxpayers and divorced fathers.
Can we call it that? This generation of feminist spinsters, which by the nature of its prohibition of sexual reproduction, is memetically suicidal. Feminism guarantees its own extinction, because those most likely to live their life according to its precepts also have the most potential to forward it, but these precepts specifically prohibit partaking in the grand tradition of having a family and raising children. They opt out of societal continuity, and so choose their own ruin.
The Spinsterhood: 40+ year old women without children. This population has a higher-than-average intelligence, which means that the following generations are essentially quarantined from both their superior genetic stock, a great tragedy, and their inferior ideological disposition, a great mercy. Women are incapable of ruling the world because as soon as they have some power they immediately use it to secure their own immediate material desires, rather than laying down foundations for the future.
Not having children is selfish and stupid. It is a privilege to have children, a privilege much more available to women than to men. Under a feminist social environment, intelligence in women is an evolutionarily maladaptive trait. That’s strange. Intelligence, maladaptive? Were a eugenics program otherwise touted specifically in order to reduce the intelligence of successive generations, you would be led to think some great evil or psychological disability is afoot.
I imagine it is more difficult to raise the intelligence of a population through successive generations than to lower it. How many generations would it take to cover the ground lost by feminism in a single Spinster generation?
Yet another reason to favor patriarchy: so that successive generations of society may be more intelligent than their forebears. Indeed, within a patriarchal society, the intelligence of a lady actually becomes an attractive quality, since a better intelligence will help her to manage the affairs of the household better. This is certainly at a contrast with female intelligence in a feminist society, where it is a repellent quality, as it is so highly correlated with very un-attractive lifestyles, behaviors, and attitudes.