In the End, it is Patriarchy or Bust! By Mrs Vera West
A convincing case for the inevitability of patriarchy was made by Steven Goldberg in his book, Why Men Rule: A Theory of Male Dominance, (Open Court, 1999), which argued that ultimately, male physiology, such as higher testosterone levels, let to greater male dominance, and hence to men ruling most areas of life. I am quite happy with this, so long as men strive to be men, and not cucked wimps. On this topic, I notice this:
“If a theory recently presented by two female researchers from Britain is correct, then patriarchy only evolved because of the male need to give women what they wanted, females are literally evolved to like and accept the patriarchal system, and, by implication, we’d have no civilization if it hadn’t developed. Zoologist Dr Rachel Grant, of the University of Northampton, and biologist Dr Tamara Montrose, of University Centre, Hartpury, presented their explosive findings in the Spring 2018 issue of the “racist” and “sexist” journal Mankind Quarterly. In their study, entitled It’s a Man’s World: Mate Guarding and the Evolution of Patriarchy, they argue that there is fundamental conflict of interest between men and women. Men have nothing to lose from a sexual encounter, so they want to have sex with as many good-looking (and thus genetically healthy) and young (and thus fertile) women as possible. But women have a great deal to lose from a sexual encounter, because they can get pregnant and they produce a far smaller number of gametes than men. They and their offspring are more likely to survive if they get a man who will invest in them and look after them.
So the rigours of Darwinian selection have made women far pickier than men when it comes to who they’re prepared to have sex with. They are attracted to high status males—and, indeed, are prepared to have extra-marital affairs to obtain a child by an even higher status male than their husband—so that their more limited number of offspring, compared to what a male can achieve, has better genetic qualities and is more likely to survive. And among our pre-modern ancestors there’d be severe punishment—from brothers or the girl’s father—if you tried to force yourself upon her. Therefore, argue Grant and Montrose, it was Strike One for the Sisterhood. Men had no choice but to invest their resources, and signal commitment through marriage, if they wanted to have sex with a desirable female.”
The social system of patriarchy evolved because human females, the authors argue, are not monogamous, but polyandrous, who will marry the lower beta male, but will get pregnant by the higher ranking alpha male if possible. Patriarchy is a system that seeks to control this female reproductive strategy. A parallel argument about the human female hypergamous nature is F. Roger Devlin, Sexual Utopia in Power: The Feminist Revolt Against Civilization, (Counter-Currents, San Francisco, 2015). This is a departure from Steven Goldberg’s hypothesis, but not necessarily inconsistent with it, that is to say, it is complementary. The really interesting question is: what is the future of human society when these basic evolutionary universals are deliberately broken down in a grand social experiment? Many believe that civilisation itself will fall apart, ultimately, like a badly glued box.