Life in the Longhouse

G.K. Chesterton, was an English writer, philosopher, Christian apologist (as though admitting to a crime – I wonder who edited this Wiki?), a literary and art critic was famous for many things, writing around 80 books and countless essays and newspaper comments. Amongst his prodigious volumes of work he is noted for raising the caution in respect of customs and values, and being ultra cautious when considering changing them:

“Don’t ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up.”

C.K. Chesterton

Basically it is a simple rule of thumb that suggests that you should never destroy a fence, change a rule, or do away with a tradition until you understand why it’s there in the first place. It is an exercise in second order thinking.

Custom and social prohibitions don’t exist to discriminate or oppress – they mainly exist to solve a serious social problem that emerged in the past. The fact that it so effectively dealt with the underlying problem has meant that in many cases the reason for these customs or social prohibitions existing in the first place has been forgotten.

What happens when we remove this customs and social prohibitions is the sudden reemergence of the original social problem that gave rise to the custom.

Of all the social prohibitions and fences that have been torn down, the biggest one has been the empowerment of women and their increased representation in our social narrative.

By progressively increasing the proportion of our social narrative and decision making that is influenced by women, we have proportionally increased the representation of people in leadership who are higher in neurotic worry, overly cautious and have an excessively negative response to risk taking. This is fundamentally changing our society, how we see ourselves and how we prioritise the issues we collective need to resolve.

So what is the “Longhouse”? The Longhouse is a theory that life prior to the Yamnaya expansion 4,000 years ago, life in Europe was an idyllic communist Matriarchy, where the tribe (essentially clan or extended family) all basically lived together communally in literally one large long house, where they raised their kids in common, and all lived happily under one roof with together under the leadership of the “Den Mother“. Imagine the ‘Queen Bee’ from High School – life in the Long House is under her leadership for all eternity… basically the 15,000 years of Early Neolithic European Farmers was spent under this type of society.

Consequently that civilization went NOWHERE for 15,000 years – Europe entered a social and technological stasis that made no progress in that time. The Matriarchal belt of Africa is probably the closest modern day approximate comparison to today.

Men were reduced to beta workers, alpha men who challenged the status quo and the Den Mother were neutered or expelled by coalitions of Beta’s seeking the Den Mother’s favours, consequently when the Yamnaya expansion occurred they were completely defenseless against the invaders. Within the space of about 500 years the Y Chromosomes of early Neolithic Farmers was virtually completely wiped out in Europe, with only small pockets remaining in Sardinia and the Basque regions of Spain.

Probably the closest approximity to Yamnaya thinking was the Spartans. While we think of the Spartans as warlike Greeks they still contained the vestiges of Civilization – large scale structures, trade, institutions, etc. Now imagine them as a primitive tribal culture. Women were even more the property of the chiefs and leaders, as was the land. The warrior culture and fearless acceptance of death characterized the men. They still had the Agoge, but now rather than being temporary the Agoge saw excess young males cast out of the village/tribe permanently, and expected to make their own way in the world i.e. band together with other young excess males as “lost boys”, and attack and take over another Neolithic Farming community for their own conquests. This was the cultural values that saw the Yamnaya people expand so rapidly – or at least the Y chromosomes of the Yamnaya people.

This topic came back to me when I recently responded to this tweet that had been linked into last weekend comments at MB:

It was my contention that the noticeable shift in the use of language has corresponded to the rise of the Matriarchy or Longhouse Culture in the West.

Social policies of emancipation, then equality (of opportunity) to now equity in terms of equal female representation of leadership have broadly corresponded with a 3 or 4 generation period since the 1900s, which also corresponds with the change in the use of language noted in the chart that we are responding to, that the researchers say defines our social narrative.

By increasing the representation of people who are higher in neurotic worry, overly cautious and have an excessively negative response to risk taking, our societies have collectively become more focused on “Caution, worry & risk“, rather than “Progress & Future.”

While this cautious psychological profile makes sense for women, who are frailer and more vulnerable, being less robust than men, it twists social decision making away from risk taking and advancement towards self protection and worry. While the differences may not seem that large, subtle changes in social behavior can have long term social consequences, most obviously in declining birthrates but also in other areas, like how we collectively react to social issues. When you are on a long term journey, like an Oil Tanker crossing an Ocean, all it takes it to be off by a few degrees to end up thousands of kilometers away from where you would have otherwise ended up travelling.

The period where women are most different to men in terms of neuroticism is also an important issue – basically the period that corresponds to most women’s working lives. This fact is important because it emphasis my point that policies of equity are seeking to directly increase that portion of the population who are not only more neurotic, but are also at their most neurotic points in their lives. I would also speculate, and here I have no evidence, but I would say the pool of women that they are seeking to promote, are probably higher in neuroticism anyway, because i) they are competing against men in the workplace, and ii) their less neurotic sisters are off having babies and raising families.

Women are also generally more dependent on collective agreement for their security, this means they are generally higher in agreeableness and thus more susceptible to group think – like deferring their own decision making to what everyone else thinks.

A great example of all these issues collectively would be the excessive fear response to COVID, first with the disease itself then in response to the social enforcement of getting a vaccine.

With few exceptions it quickly became apparent that this was a disease that was basically an old person disease. Yet the fear response in society was akin to a estrogen driven Cytokine Storm – our economies were basically shut down to prevent one in hundred 85yr olds from carking it.

Contrast that with the more masculine response of ‘grin and bare it‘ attitude of a hundred years earlier, when the Spanish Flu decimated young healthy teenagers and adults – a truly tragic outcome when compared to the average COVID death of 85yr, which was still 3yrs above the average life expectancy!

Then there was the ridiculous social enforcement and effort to get people vaccinated, when 5 minutes research would have indicated that the vaccine and claimed benefits were next to non-existent for most people. Yet the group think and un-informed social pressure to get vaccinated in my circle of acquaintances was 100% driven by neurotic female worry.

Median female personality traits, while working well at the small scale – like neurotically worrying about ‘fairness’ around the dinner table for her children, don’t scale up well for large scale civilizational advancement.

Which brings us to the question – are we already living in a Matriarchy, a long house culture already? And if so what are the criteria that we can use to determine that we are in fact living in a Matriarchy. How do we know it exists?

This means not only considering the first order definitions of female leadership, actual female leaders, but also second order effects what sort of influence does it have on the males that are chosen by women to represent them or who they will tolerate working with?

Women control education. As of 2022, women held 52 percent of professional-managerial roles in the U.S. Women earn more than 57 percent of bachelor degrees, 61 percent of master’s degrees, and 54 percent of doctoral degrees. So clearly women now the majority of University graduates, and it will consequently come as no surprise that women also dominate academia, both on the teaching and administrative sides.

The ridiculous problem the US has at the moment where teaching is swinging away from literal science to emotive science, and teaching around concepts of privilege further reinforces this. IMHO their influence and that on the men that they will accept working with, is one of the main reasons behind this graph:

Women control the work place, and not only that but the women in the work place are more generally liberal than men in the work place – the feminist ideals that made them aspire to climb the social ladder under equality demand that as being true. Consequently work places are becoming more liberal simply because a) women are more liberal and employers are seeking to increasing women in the work place, and b) liberal women don’t like conservative men, and seek to drive them out of the work place. Universities are an extreme example, but it is spreading, look no further than woke Woolworths:

Women are overrepresented in professions, such as human resource management (73 percent) and compliance officers (57 percent). These are the places that determine workplace behavioral norms, they have an outsized influence on professional culture, which itself has an outsized influence on American culture more generally. This is important because it also determines the type of man that women will chose to place in leadership positions. This has been an empowering factor behind the rise of the SoyBoy.

The majority of working age women are also on the Pill, the only real exceptions are menopausal women (which as the chart further above shows, is when female neuroticism starts falling) or women trying to get pregnant and likely to leave the workforce.

But the Pill means Women’s preference for men noticeably changes – this is a significant Second Order effect of women in the work place. Who they will tolerate and the sort of men who they will be threatened by:

Facial masculinity was assessed by having the faces rated by a separate sample of participants. What they found was that pill-taking women not only prefer somewhat less masculine male faces; they are also more likely to choose such men as partners.

Albanese is a good example, so to have all the recent ALP leaders and the Green’s too for that matter. The reason is simple – both these parties have pursued policies of increased female representation hardest, and gay faggot soyboys like Albanese, Rudd, etc appeals to women with permanently repressed luteal cravings. Just look at the visicral hatred and mockery that our last arguable ‘Bloke’ PM being Tony Abbott received or someone like Trump – especially from the professional class of liberal corporate women. However with the LNP seeking to further increase female representation I envisage the LNP to become even more filled with catty Soy-Boys.

So in order to accommodate women’s workplace preferences, work places become less overtly competitive and more agreeable, as disagreement goes against women’s baseline survival strategy. One of the paradoxes of agreeableness though is that as you increase the level of agreeableness as a trait within a group, the only thing that will come to enrage that group will be disagreeable people. This can have a devastating impact on innovation and ‘out of the box’ thinking, which requires a fundamentally disagreeable personality in order to be prepared to challenge the status quo.

So women control the work place and they change the way work gets done – not necessarily for the better. Female approaches to conflict and competition have become normative among the professional class.

From early childhood onwards, girls compete using strategies that minimize the risk of retaliation and reduce the strength of other girls. Girls’ competitive strategies include avoiding direct interference with another girl’s goals, disguising competition, competing overtly only from a position of high status in the community, enforcing equality within the female community and socially excluding other girls.

Joyce Benenson

Female strategies does not eliminate conflict, rather it yields “a different kind of conflict. There is a greater emphasis on what someone said which hurt someone else, even if unintentionally. There is a greater tendency to respond to an offense by mobilizing social resources to ostracize the alleged offender. The focus become study of individuals emotional minutia right down to the smallest feelings, because hurt can always be buried in there somewhere if you are neurotic enough.

Anyhow, I’m starting to drift off into nit-picking and have probably already more than made my point at this stage, which wasn’t to senselessly and pointlessly bitch and moan about gender differences, but more being a lone voice questioning whether the msm’s near 100% complete saturation of articles and discussions of the unquestioning benefit and importance of increasing female representation, is truly correct and truly a good thing and may there possibly be some serious problems and issues are being overlooked because it goes against the narrative of ‘more female representation always and everywhere being a better thing’?

Last weeks comments at MB caused me to re-start this article that I began to write months back after I ready this blog “What is the Longhouse” (I recommend anyone who has read this far through go have a read as it contains far more interesting facts that the ones I stole). It was also an opportunity to tie it back to my opinions that I have expressed on previous occasions on some of the the underlying reasons why society has changed so much in recent years; from national panic attacks to over empathetic responses to social issues like immigration I believe much of it is due to policies that have sought to deliberately increase female representation.

While I am liberal enough to believe that in a relatively homogenous society female representation should be allowed to co-exist with male representation on the basis of merit, I believe that once societies start becoming diverse their higher empathic responses to social situations, and preferencing emotional reality “feeling like a good person” above long term second order thinking on these decisions – like immigration and refugees, becomes problematic.

When we get to the point where we are today, where equality of opportunity is not enough and that gender equity is the desired social outcome then my views harden, and I become opposed to these social policies for the reasons I have outlined above.

That said, while I currently support female representation on the basis of merit the larger philosophical question I am still grappling with is whether there is something in human behaviour and particularly group female behaviour that makes a “steady state” basis of female representation in society impossible? Because once the tinniest bit of empowerment is allowed it continues to cascade for ever greater freedoms until the social power structure is completely reversed and in 3 or 4 generations we always end up in a Long house society there appear to be no ‘steady state’ societies to have existed in history

If female leadership offered any social, economic or cultural advantages, history would be resplendid with civilizations founded, built and maintained by female leadership – instead there are none. It is a luxury belief of the West and feminism that female leadership offers any long term benefits.

Hence “there will be no reaching for the stars when those who neurotically fuss about fairness around the dinner table are involved in setting the agenda around our social narrative and prioritizing the problems we need to solve.”