Male control of the female body is a hallmark of a patrifocal society, the Right Wing and hierarchical societies. It is no mistake that the contemporary Republican Party has its roots in the anti-abortion movement. Traditionally, in a patrifocal society such as China or the Yanomamo of South America, society seeks the death of girl infants. If a child is killed while still in the womb, there is no guarantee the male will survive.

In a highly patrifocal society, it is vital that the pool of potential wives be repressed. With few child-bearing females, only the males considered most ideal as husbands will be chosen by the fathers or families of the available woman. In a warrior society, or a very competitive, highly hierarchical society, the males that fail to perform will go mateless. Aggressive, competitive males will procreate and bring higher testosterone warriors into society.

The abortion battle is not over whether killing babies is moral. The abortion battle determines the social structure of society. If females can kill an unborn infant, then future mate selection also reverts to female choice. Females can choose to abort and they can choose their husband according to criteria that support her personal point of view.

Female infanticide is practiced widely in China and India. Targeted female abortion has become a problem with the new technologies. Until the last century there is evidence to suggest that Europeans widely practiced female infanticide. I know of no studies in the United States that track the percentages of males and females born to Right Wing and Left Wing families. With the availability of sex-determining technologies in the first trimester, there is a good chance that even today in the United States it could be observed that social conservative Republicans give birth to more males than members of the Green Party. Every generation that lacks Right Wing control over a woman’s ability to bear children is another generation in which the Right Wing observes the dissolution of male dominance of the society at large. The more females that can choose a mate, the more nonideal males (from a patrifocal male point of view) become fathers.

Among those fathers now easily finding mates are those maturational delayed, noncombative pattern manipulators and creative types. “Wimps”, “nerds” and sensitive males are marrying in greater numbers than in the past. They are giving birth to maturational delayed sons and maturational accelerated daughters, thus introducing to society greater numbers of the autistic (characterized by extreme male maturational delay) than have ever appeared before. Not only has an increase in abortions contributed to a plummeting in crime, abortion has resulted in an increase in autistics as women choose males that would have less problem with her having an abortion. These are nonpatrifocal, relatively female-centric males.

In just the way that Darwin observed humans breeding pigeons, pruning features not desired in an evolutionary thread, humans prune themselves by killing embryos and babies in order to guide society in the direction of matrifocal or patrifocal points of view. There may be few differences between Republicans and Democrats in foreign policy (or domestic policy, in many cases) but there are major differences when it comes to death. How life is trimmed, when the young are killed, has everything to do with how aggressive the future society will be. As long as Democrats struggle to preserve abortion, providing choice for woman whenever possible, the future will be far less aggressive than the past.

(Click here to review now female foeticide effects these issues.)


Comments

This entry was posted on Thursday, October 9th, 2008 at 7:24 am and is filed under 10-Most Visited, Female Infanticide, Sexual Selection, Sexual Selection/Social Structure, Social Structure, Society. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
13 Comments so far

  1. Rishi on October 10, 2008 9:26 am

    I just wonder what life will be like in the near future when we can “customize” all facets of our offspring (including gender). If a mutual decision must be reached between the husband and wife, which side will predominate – matrifocal or patrifocal?

  2. Andrew on October 11, 2008 7:03 am

    Some emails I received after visitors read this piece suggest the point I’m seeking to make got lost while working within a Left Wing/Right Wing explanatory paradigm. It felt to some like I was denigrating all conservatives labeling them as baby killers. That was not my intent.

    The point I am seeking to make has to do with understanding how social structures maintain their integrity. Matrifocal partnership societies emphasize female choice, allowing abortion, providing an ability for the female to pick her mate. Progeny proliferate with a different set of characteristics than a patrifocal society including low testosterone males exhibiting cooperative tendencies and maturational delay, commanding females with high testosterone and maturational acceleration. This, when tied to other factors, can result in individuals experiencing extreme maturational delay and acceleration such as autism.

    Female infanticide is an extremely powerful tool that encourages patrifocal hierarchical male dominance societies by reducing the number of males than can mate. This leaves the ideal patrifocal prototypes siring children, but not the non ideal males. These societies tend to be vary stable long term, exhibiting little innovation. Men are not selected for their creativity or cooperative tendencies.

    The United States is in transitional times, transforming from patrifocal to matrifocal, or transforming to a synthesis of the two. Both the political Left and Right manifest multiple tendencies. Neither is an integrated whole. Female infanticide is not common in the U. S.. We are far less patrifocal or conservative than we could be. Still, the woman’s womb is a political and social battleground. Conservative forces seek control of the woman’s womb. American patrifocal culture does not engage in female infanticide. American conservatism does include adherents of males domination.

  3. Crinkle on October 24, 2008 6:56 am

    http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/63/9/1026

    and

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/04/AR2006090400513.html

    If you dig round in this area you will find that schizoprenia increases and aspergers have recent studies along the same lines.

    I’m going to interpret this in light of my experience and your theory. My experience is that my mother, girlfriend, mother in law and grandmother are/were all slightly high testosterone and picked men (like myself) that will bend to their agenda to some degree. they all picked older men by 10 to 20 years who had creative traits. Under your theory this would likely be that being older the men had lower testosterone.

    If matrifocal agendgas suceed they weaken the male system by giving rise to more asperger / schizotypical men who are more creative. These (us) types are not much good at taking a significant part in physically building the world within an agressive hierarchy in response to environmental challenges.

    Ok once again i thought i had a point, well i have a point and a question. It seems matrifocal agendas create unhealthy genetics, so why mark them out as important ? What these high T women need to have to produce T is an inefficiency of the enzyme alpha reductase which derives female estrogen from testosterone. This i think needs to be selected for (unless you know of another way it occurs).

    So however it is that females end up with high T, it’s specifically a quite focussed genetic mechanism they have, and the result of it, is this mechanism replicating, is to introduce weakness, disorder and disease into males ? I understand your reasons, why the structure of living systems can tend towards this manifestation, but not why this would be a trait which should rise and predominate with equal value. These women do not appear to be doing any good to themselves or their offspring. If anything the results of this matrifocal line continue towards more T in females resulting in lesbiansm and increaseses in homosexual men. A state of non reproduction.

  4. Andrew on October 24, 2008 7:28 am

    Norman Geschwind and Marian Annett have talked about balanced polymorphisms in human societies with the outlier or most extreme examples at the anomalous dominant or random handed individuals (what I suggest are the high T females and low T males) exhibiting higher rates of specific diseases and conditions AND high rates of profound mental and physiological skills such as mathematics, professional sports, creativity.

    Matrifocal societies don’t create “weaker” men, they create men with greater gifts in cooperation, men more likely to address, for example, the environmental emergency.

    Look at this as balancing act between the two social structures, each evidencing their strengths and weaknesses. There are weaknesses with the new matrifocal order, but there are deep strengths, strengths we specifically need right now.

  5. Crinkle on October 24, 2008 8:40 am

    I should explain myself better here. My agenda currently is scientific. My interest is in learning about decoding complex systems into structures. Part of this is understanding what male female/systems really are and giving time to understanding all credible sounding theories related to that. (there arent that many surprisingly) Your work has a great deal of self realisation, originality and integrity in attempting to discover the truth about living systems. It also appears to making accurate predictions, for example the research on paternal age and autism is newer than your work. (although i am still not sure if I have made a bogus interpretion that it’s linked to women selecting low T men) I guess what i am trying to say is that i am very surprised at what sounds like a semi-political call in reply to a scientific question.

    What i thought we might have in common is not thinking about why we need the phenomena you describe. As humans we have brains wired up to enable us to easily sit and invent political systems to debate why green bottles are better than clear.

    I kind of want to bypass that and would like to discuss, understanding and defining more precisely what this is in bare systems terms.

    For example what happens if matriarchy increases from being a minority effect adding a bit of creativity towards what you propose as valid and central to your hypothesus. That humans swing from one to the other with equal proportion, and that either is as valid as the other. Is that what your saying ? I’m not sure i understand at all why this is beneficial in the equality ratio of 50/50 you see possible. Disease and structural disintegration of male society appears to increase when gene pools move towards say 66 / 33 (one third matriarchy).

    In the scenario you promote populations would be similiar to the jewish one, which does not appear able to maintain itself succesfully anywhere on the planet with any independence or stable health.
    ( I’m ashekanzai so i know a thing or two about that)

    In your scenario of equality to matriarchy populations could shrink to a fraction, with a dramatic increase in genetic disease and disorders of the nervous system. I can’t help percieving that what you are creating here is a not really a valid independent scientific overview of human genetics which you claim, but a complex and modern justification which twists things to reason the importance of a minority genetic agenda. In that sense it’s political/scientific.

    My interest is in science and how systems work. Perhaps you could provide better examples or maybe inform me if i have misintrpreted your work. My position was that the phenomena you describe is a minority phenomena and not something i could see should be ascribed to with the equal terms you propose.

    Sorry to be so hard here. I can see you have a decade or more of work and more in here. I’m not saying it’s irrelavent. My problem is with the interpretaion of equality for matriarchy you are deriving from it. In light of your last reply I have now moved to thinking that your theory could actually be scientific political in nature.

    Crinkle

  6. Andrew on October 24, 2008 11:32 am

    First, what is the research on paternal age in autism that you’re referring to? I’m only now just starting to get caught up with what been published since 1999.

    My writing sounds political though it rarely feels political to me, but matrifocal. This particular piece indulges in exaggeration to a degree, but more as a writing affectation.

    In other words, matrifocal and patrifocal forces both have profound uses, strengths and weaknesses. We’ve been living in a patrifocal world for several thousand years with most neurologies skewed in that direction. Things are swinging back. Personally, I think this is a very good thing, but I’m a matrifocal thinker, specializing in seeing interconnections, and feeling responsible (response-able) for the larger environment.

    It is useful that with a swing back in a matrifocal direction that we retool toward viewing the commons as sacred. It seems to me that is part of what this election is about, electing a left handed half black, half white man.

    Marian Annett’s work strongly suggests that we live in a balanced polymorphism with about 18.5% anomalously dominant, random handed folks at the left end bleeding into about 30% of the population with matrifocal (my interpretation of her work) tendencies. 70% represent gradations of the conventional brain.

    I am suggesting that the balance is shifting with increases in the number of the anomalously dominant, revealing more high testosterone women and low testosterone men. I predict the percentage of lefthanders to increase.

    There are parts of the world with higher percentages of lefties. West Africa, and certain American Indian populations have higher percentages of the left handed. I believe this it the direction world society is going, led perhaps by what is happening in parts of the U. S and Europe (particularly Scandinavia).

    As Norman Geschwind notes, the outlier populations will exhibit increased diseases, disorders and conditions characterized by anomalous dominance. I would suggest this can be evidenced by those high testosterone women and low testosterone men at the far left end, and high testosterone men and low testosterone women at the far right end. (I hypothesize estrogen influences integrated into this model, but more on that another time.)

    A shift to say 70% matrifocal, 30% patrifocal, along a seamless graded balanced polymorphism would reveal a dramatically different society than the one we have now, no doubt more driven by aesthetics, reverence for the commons, respect for women, and caring for those with fewer resources. I’m not suggesting this is good for always, but for now, it seems a useful balance to the experience up til now (for the last 6,000 years). Whose to say whether 6,000 years from now a shift will be needed back in the patrifocal direction.

    I estimate the particular balanced polymorphism we settle upon in the next hundred years or so will feature the strengths of both matrifocal and patrifocal paradigms.

    In reference to the Jewish issue that you’ve noted, that’s best addressed in another post.

  7. Bryan on January 28, 2009 6:19 am

    The choice for women is whether or not to have sex or simply unprotected sex. If you do and conceive a child then both you and the father have already made your choice. The decision making process is already over. You must now live with the consequences of your choice and have the baby.

  8. crinkle on May 13, 2010 11:35 am

    Great website redesign..and nice vids.

    I still think you need to pull out the essential components of your theory, and lay them out in some easy to understand graphs and hypothesis, that are clearly available on the first page. E.g. Imagine you had to make a poster explaining your ideas for a science conference.

    Scientists like myself are often extremely busy so require the essential meat laid open in a clear and concise manner. We just dont have time to watch 5 videos and read a book just to see if something is going to work.

    Then if the basic version looks interesting, we would think about putting time into exploring the depth you provide.

  9. Mast on September 8, 2018 5:43 pm

    mother

    Abortion, Female Infanticide and Autism – Neoteny, sexual selection, cause of autism, human evolution, social transformation, left organizing and internet activism – how they all connectat Neoteny, sexual selection, cause of autism, human evolution, so…

  10. Shit on September 9, 2018 2:49 am

    Blow

    Abortion, Female Infanticide and Autism – Neoteny, sexual selection, cause of autism, human evolution, social transformation, left organizing and internet activism – how they all connectat Neoteny, sexual selection, cause of autism, human evolution, so…

  11. Whore on September 9, 2018 9:41 am

    maso

    Abortion, Female Infanticide and Autism – Neoteny, sexual selection, cause of autism, human evolution, social transformation, left organizing and internet activism – how they all connectat Neoteny, sexual selection, cause of autism, human evolution, so…

  12. Find here on September 12, 2018 9:10 pm

    discuss

    Abortion, Female Infanticide and Autism – Neoteny, sexual selection, cause of autism, human evolution, social transformation, left organizing and internet activism – how they all connectat Neoteny, sexual selection, cause of autism, human evolution, so…

  13. This contact form on September 13, 2018 2:44 am

    blog

    Abortion, Female Infanticide and Autism – Neoteny, sexual selection, cause of autism, human evolution, social transformation, left organizing and internet activism – how they all connectat Neoteny, sexual selection, cause of autism, human evolution, so…

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

Share your wisdom