...or 'More Ways Fundamentalism Screws People'
As you have probably surmised, I am a huge fan of loyalty, faith and devotion. I am not a big fan of dogmatic fundamentalist social rules.
Here's another angle that you may not have considered. How many women complain that they can't find a good man or they complain about the one they have? If you said you don't know anyone like that you are a statistical anomaly.
But why are women saying that? Are they just being silly? Well, women haven't always had science on their side, but their intuition is nothing to scoff at. The fact is they are right.
World census figures show that the male-to-female population ratio is about 49:51, so there are 49 males to every 51 females living. This is more often for health reasons than anything else. Female babies tend to be healthier and premature births are more common in male children. Men tend to have more physically dangerous jobs, and they are more likely to be killed as the result of a violent crime.
But the bare figures do speak. With a ratio like that, and a world population of 3 billion, that means that 60 million women are doomed to be without mates. Scaling it down to the United States, with a population of about 300 million, that means roughly 147 million men and 153 million women (a difference of 6 million people). But that's only if the circumstances are optimal. And they are not.
While the actual number of men is obviously offset, the number of available men is totally skewed. Men are three times more likely than women to be incarcerated for criminal activity. (that totals roughly about 1,650,000 men). They are five times more likely to suffer from mental illness (that's as many as 9 million males, about 1,836,000 of which go untreated according to NIMH). As previously mentioned, for every 3 women that are victims of a violent crime, there are five men (which is about 845 thousand men according to the FBI). Men are more likely to be involved in a crippling accident (their drunk-driving rates are much higher) or suffer from a debilitating disease (they are less likely to look after their own health.)
What this means in the simplest possible terms is that if there are 153 million women who are interested in mates, there are only about 132 million 'available' men. A difference of 21 million people. 13 percent of women are destined to be completely matchless. That would be the same as if the ENTIRE populations for New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, and Detroit were ALL single people who would NEVER find a mate.
But this is where forced social monogamy kicks itself into high gear, steps up and results in a method of social control. This is where it becomes a tool to oppress women. If the rules (that are dictated by men, mind you, mostly church and political leaders) state that one-man-one-woman is the way it is supposed to be, then as a woman you have no choice but to accept whichever man comes your way. It might seem strange, but this wasn't always the way things were. The platform banishing multi-person relationships didn't emerge in the United States until 1856. Big surprise: it was a push by the Republican party.
Is it a wonder that competition between women can be so vicious under circumstances like these? Advertising (both commercial as well as media in movies, books, magazines and such) informs women that they are mandated by society to find a single mate and reproduce, with family sizes of 2 or more based on the cultural background. This is just insane. How can this be sustainable with a 13 percent gap in resources without social competition that borders on the violent? But this is part of the plan in my opinion. If you keep women in such fierce competition they are less likely to realize they are being manipulated.
What if we expand the data, though, to include the men who are actually in society but are substandard? Mentally or physically unsuitable males. Men who have histories of past social violence. Cheaters. Abusers. Stalkers. Date-rapists. The list goes on. Because of that 13 percent gap, women are forced to compete over these types of men just because they are available. A woman is considered 'lucky' to acquire a man who's a mental abuser who is not such a bad guy he is in prison. And if she tries to complain, she stands a chance at loosing her man. Which is fine for him, because there are tons of available women out there that will do what her wants. Just to hold on to him.
How fucked up is that? This whole system just works wonders for social evolution and dumping sewage into the gene pool.
I can't say this enough. You are a woman. You have a choice. If every woman stepped forward and said they weren't going to put up with it anymore then they would solve their own problems. It has always been within your power. Or you could just accept it when someone tells you that you have to live in a way that hurts you, hurts other women, and completely screws up natural selection.
You know what I have learned. Women actually love to share. Using an analogy; a woman has no problem lending a favorite sweater to a friend. It's a bonding experience. It brings them closer. As long as the friend doesn't try to steal the sweater or ruin it then it's a good thing for them both. So I have to ask...why does a woman have to tolerate an abusive, unintelligent, unattractive male when she could just share a good man with her best friend?
But hey, that man over there in the religious robes is telling you to ignore science and math. The congressman in the blue suit says female intuition has no legal importance. Really. What he tells you to do is the way to go. Right?
...or 'More Ways Fundamentalism Screws People'