Happier Abroad Forum Community

Does anyone know of any societies that had a strong state and centralized distribution of resources that weren't feminist to some extent?

Nazi Germany had a touch of centralized distribution, in the form of autobahns, vacations, decent wages etc.... And no feminism I guess, unless you count their breeding experiments (hypergamy).

The Soviet Union had total state control of production in the Slavic republics, and feminism in none. Since men had to work for the state (or for a collective), they could no longer make use of their wife's free labor, so she too had a state job. But the man was still master of the home. No feminism. When I was in the Soviet Union in the early 1970's, they highlighted a female scientist -- similar to how the West discussed Amelia Earhart back in the day. (Or Julia Child working in British intelligence.) Not feminist quotas, just allowing an unusually talented woman to use her talents.

Nazi Germany only lasted about six years pre war. It was showing the signs of going feminist. For example, females had been given the vote and the Nazis gained electoral success partly by consciously catering to the then-new female voters. Feminism was retarded slightly by the desire to up the birth rate, but would probably have eventually taken hold. The early Soviet Union had the most radically feminist divorce and child support policies possible which served as the model for later Western feminist policies. Obviously having females to work for the state and be scientist and such is intrinsically feminist.

What are you getting at ?

Moretorque wrote:What are you getting at ?

Maybe an efficient centralized rationing system is inherently feministic in that it gives control to the men at the top while rendering the labor of ordinary men and patriarchal family structures irrelevant.

Cornfed wrote:Does anyone know of any societies that had a strong state and centralized distribution of resources that weren't feminist to some extent?

Your question is hard to answer because most people (including me) don't know too much about the economics of history. How centralized was early Rome or the early Islamic empire? I just don't know.

fschmidt wrote:

Cornfed wrote:Does anyone know of any societies that had a strong state and centralized distribution of resources that weren't feminist to some extent?

Your question is hard to answer because most people (including me) don't know too much about the economics of history. How centralized was early Rome

I'm not an expert, but my impression is that early Rome consisted mostly of a yeoman farmer citizenry from whence the army was drawn, so was not very centralized and highly patriarchal. This changed with the acquisition of the provinces, which required and outflow of resources from the state to maintain and provided a subsequent inflow of resources. This exchange proportionately benefitted the wealthy and well connected who were able to consolidate land and use slave labor to outcompete smallholders. Since there was no longer a yeoman citizenry for the army to draw from, it had to become a professional force. Hence Rome became a feminist model like today where there were a few super rich men at the top running everything, their whores and hired goons in the middle and most non-slave men rendered largely obsolete at the bottom dependant on the grain dole and such, with slave labor taking the place of the modern internal combustion engine. Over time females moved up the chain of authority, as the men at the very top sought to insulate themselves with compliant (often foreign) women from other men who might want to replace them.

A related question would be - can a beyond scarcity society exist for any length of time? Possibly it couldn't, because in a society where resource generation was no longer necessary the male R breeding strategy and associated scumbag personality type would have an overwhelming reproductive advantage. At least it would if breeding were not strictly controlled by force, and there is good reason to think that it would not be, since doing so would be unnecessary as far as acquiring resources goes. Therefore, it seems that such a society would be socially dystopian in the short term and bring about its own social and genetic collapse in the long term. If you were trying to design a utopia that would last indefinitely, it is hard to see how it could work.

Cornfed wrote:A related question would be - can a beyond scarcity society exist for any length of time? Possibly it couldn't, because in a society where resource generation was no longer necessary the male R breeding strategy and associated scumbag personality type would have an overwhelming reproductive advantage. At least it would if breeding were not strictly controlled by force, and there is good reason to think that it would not be, since doing so would be unnecessary as far as acquiring resources goes. Therefore, it seems that such a society would be socially dystopian in the short term and bring about its own social and genetic collapse in the long term. If you were trying to design a utopia that would last indefinitely, it is hard to see how it could work.

Religious groups like Hasidic Jews and traditional Anabaptists are examples of this working. The reason it works evolutionarily is that monogamous cultures that encourage many children actually out-reproduce promiscuous cultures. This is because the women don't waste time seeking the biggest thug and instead are pregnant by their husband for most of their fertile years.

fschmidt wrote:Religious groups like Hasidic Jews and traditional Anabaptists are examples of this working. The reason it works evolutionarily is that monogamous cultures that encourage many children actually out-reproduce promiscuous cultures. This is because the women don't waste time seeking the biggest thug and instead are pregnant by their husband for most of their fertile years.

Presumably in a hypothetical beyond scarcity world, such groups would have to corral and control their females by force, since such an arrangement in the circumstances would go against natural female instincts. I wonder if it would actually work. My impression is that there generally needs to be the objective feedback of reality in the form of resource shortages coming back to bite people on the ass to keep them in line.

Cornfed wrote:

fschmidt wrote:
Religious groups like Hasidic Jews and traditional Anabaptists are examples of this working. The reason it works evolutionarily is that monogamous cultures that encourage many children actually out-reproduce promiscuous cultures. This is because the women don't waste time seeking the biggest thug and instead are pregnant by their husband for most of their fertile years.

Presumably in a hypothetical beyond scarcity world, such groups would have to corral and control their females by force, since such an arrangement in the circumstances would go against natural female instincts. I wonder if it would actually work. My impression is that there generally needs to be the objective feedback of reality in the form of resource shortages coming back to bite people on the a** to keep them in line.

Do tightly knit communities actually do BETTER when surrounded by a hostile or alien environment?

Cornfed wrote:

Moretorque wrote:What are you getting at ?

Maybe an efficient centralized rationing system is inherently feministic in that it gives control to the men at the top while rendering the labor of ordinary men and patriarchal family structures irrelevant.

I have said if the PTB really want communism just let the ladies run it but I believe mother hates herself to much for that. I just look at how women hate one another and that is very telling.