Women And The Left

Something I've always considered to be true, that (Western) women are more supportive of mass-immigration, multiculturalism and a generally consensus based (rather than rationally based) interpretation of reality, is vindicated by InsideMAN:

http://www.inside-man.co.uk/2014/10/17/are-men-more-right-wing-and-women-more-left-wing/

"This wasn’t a one off result. Men and women in the U.S.A have been voting for the “masculine” Republicans and the “feminine” Democrats along gender lines for 50 years now. Obama won the 2008 election by one percentage point amongst men and 12 points amongst women, while Clinton’s lead amongst women in 1996 was event bigger at 18 per cent"

The multiculturalization of Sweden is a prime example of the hand in glove relationship between feminization and multiculturalism. 

I propose that the reasons for this gender dichotomy are rooted in our stone age heritage and the tens of thousands of years of selective pressure based around task demarcation. In the world of the hunter gatherer man was the principal hunter and woman the principal gatherer*. This is attributable to women's child bearing role; hunting in the stone age was a very dangerous occupation for a pregnant woman. 

Hunting is a multi skilled occupation that is most effectively accomplished by specialization and a command structure based on skill, experience and knowledge. Even the most primitive hunting method, the persistence hunt, requires a tracker, a runner and one or several strong men to transport the prey. The realities of hunting (and its cousin warfare) mean that men learned to accept a hierarchical system of social organization based on merit, and became comfortable within an inclusive hierarchy that simply recognizes the value of their specific contribution. The essentiality of a cohesive team strategy in hunting accords value to every level of contribution and makes men more likely to admire group members than to envy them. This may be the reason for the seemingly more obvious veneration of great athletes, sportsmen, and actors among modern men than among modern women. What this vectors to is that men gravitate toward hierarchical, unegalitarian, forms of social organization in which exceptional skill and ability brings higher status.

Gathering is a mono skilled occupation, once the basics of the tasks involved are mastered there is little significant differential ability in skills involved in gathering. Gathering, because of the dangers posed to lone females by wild animals is a collective activity, probably engaged in by most of the available female labour force. Women would also talk whilst working; hunting is largely conducted in silence. The selection of traits favourable to this type of labour probably explains much of modern female behaviour. Gossip in popular culture is accepted as a mostly female proclivity. Despite the fact that there is in gathering, by its very nature, unlikely to be any great contributory difference between individual members of the collective, human nature being what it is, each member of the collective secretly suspects that their individual contribution is greater than their peer's. in hunting these suspicions are reality tested and are unsustainable, in gatherer bands the underlying tensions caused by this fundamental human overvaluation of one's own contribution and undervaluation of one's comrades, demands a group cohesion strategy. This strategy is scapegoating. This is purely anecdotal, but I have noticed that when any group of women are employed in any collective occupation they very often select an individual to be the scapegoat for the anxieties caused by the underlying frictions within the group. The victim will be selected on entirely superficial grounds, but most often simply on the basis of a passive nature. If the victim seems to be less adept they will be "holding back the team", if the victim is obviously highly capable they will be a "suck up". The contribution of the victim is essentially irrelevant, if the scapegoat leaves, a new scapegoat will emerge.

Interestingly, this is also a universal strategy of collectivist, left-wing regimes. A lack of success in left wing utopias is never attributed to bad planning, bad strategy, or bad luck, it is blamed on invented victim groups, kulaks, the bourgeoisie, saboteurs, reactionaries and revisionists. Collectivist regimes are essentially feminine in nature.

Despite the historical )prehistorical) occupational dichotomy between men and women, the human species (both genders) is fundamentally a status seeking species, however, the gender role dichotomy means that men and women employ different strategies to seek and display status. Male status is derived from superior ability, skills and knowledge. Female status is derived from association with alpha males and is displayed by possessions and decorations conferred upon her by these alpha males. Women admire and value beauty and possessions, this explains why 80% of consumption is driven by women, and a large percentage of consumption consists of beautification products like clothes, makeup and and such ephemera as shoes and handbags. 

The functionality of the system depends upon the best men, the superior hunter, being rewarded with the most beautiful (women of the highest genetic fitness), in this model the man is the creator and the woman is the client, this creates a favourable and healthy selective bias. The problem in modern societies that, under the fraudulent pretext of "equality" the state has gradually subverted this healthy gender relationship and replaced man as the client. As women throng into the workplace the very nature of work has been transformed. Work is no longer a place in which one individual's skills, aptitudes and talents are pitted against another's in a search for excellence, but has become "inclusive" collective enterprise full of "team players", working to fulfil trite corporate "mission statements". In order to conform to these collectivist strictures men are being ritually emasculated and marginalized. The male drive for excellence is a threat to the primacy of the state collective which governs through the manipulation of a collective of client groups identified by gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity and culture, each one being suckled on the teet of the state. Under this new, neo-Marxist system of social control it's becoming increasingly obvious that the he newly assigned role of men in general and white men specifically is as the scapegoat of the collective.