Programmability

Posted by Jew from Jersey
22 September 2024

Women are famous for drawing up long lists of must-have criteria they require in a man. Yet men who meet every requirement are often found to be “boring” and are dumped or cheated on, while the man a woman throws it all away for often possesses none of the demanded traits. This is in fact one more example of how everything women say and do should be taken very seriously, just not at face value. The long list of demands is significant. It says: “See how selective I am? I would rather do without than settle for just anyone!” However, the exact content of the demands is not the significant part. It is in fact highly mutable.

This mutability of criteria is what opens women up to so much heartbreak. Men who seemed to be “the one” at the time later stand accused of have taken advantage by manipulation. Relations that were consensual at the time are remembered as rape. Every past relationship was toxic and each ex was an abuser. The more sexual partners a woman has, the more likely this is to happen and the more likely she is to suffer from mental anguish because of it, subjecting all future potential mates to even stricter filtering.

It also makes women particularly susceptible to conformity. The one fail-safe mechanism for women to retain their sanity is to all share the same one man. Any woman who speaks ill of this one man or who shows any interest in any other man is then a clear and present threat to the wellbeing of the group and is targeted accordingly. This is why girls’ games are so mean. It is why women are much more likely to perceive opinions they disagree with as personal attacks on a par with violence. Numerous observers of cancel culture have pointed out that cancel campaigns are invariably initiated and led by small groups of women. Other women are then intimidated into supporting them while men remain cowardly bystanders to the process.

In the absence of polygamy with a single male, the next best way to keep women from constantly doubting their own choices is to ensure that they at least agree amongst themselves on the ideal criterion for a male partner. This is not difficult as long as the message in all social environments is consistently policed. Women very much want to reach consensus and will do most of the policing themselves once some parameter is supplied.

If you ever went to a school where one girl was a recent immigrant from a very different country, you might have noticed that she was attracted to some guy most of the local girls never showed any interest in. By comparison, a boy recently arrived from another country was likely attracted to the same girls as all the other boys.

This programmability of women’s selection faculty was in the past put to use by powerful social elements to control women, and through them, men. Do you need men to spend long hours working dreary or dangerous jobs or to volunteer for military service in wartime? Just tell women not to marry men who don’t have a good job and to wait until marriage to have sex, with a possible exception for a man who is about to deploy into combat. But it can work for pretty much any purpose. Orthodox Jewish women are told to only marry men who distinguish themselves as Torah scholars. So young orthodox Jewish men spend much of their lives studying Torah. Those who are expelled or drop out of yeshiva know their marriage prospects will immediately dwindle to only the most damaged women with known personal problems.

This may be why Jews tend to be slightly more intelligent, but also slightly shorter, than the populations surrounding them. It’s not that Jewish women are selecting for shorter men. All else being equal, they likely select the tallest Torah scholar. But since Torah scholarship is considered before physical characteristics, over time average height can’t help but suffer somewhat.

Control the women and you control the men. And women are easy to control because they have a powerful need to apply a stringent filtering algorithm but have few hard pre-specified metrics to filter for.

The reason men can only be controlled by such an indirect method is that men’s selection faculty is not so programmable. Men invariably want physically fit young women. There’s not a lot more to it than that. For this men will sacrifice everything else: their country, their religion, their property, their sacred honor, even their lives. A man cannot be induced to prefer older, sicker, obese women. Even if you threaten to bankrupt him, humiliate him, or kill him, it will not have much of an effect on his sex drive. However, if you tell women to only make themselves accessible to, for example, men who are ping-pong champions, they will torment girls who date non-pingpongers and within one generation men will be spending all their time practicing ping-pong.

A society that will not control its women cannot control its men. You can punish men for expressing their opinions or doing anything offensive in public, but you will not get them to actually perform any useful action. As they are threatened or shamed into not expressing themselves, they will just disengage and do less and less.

In addition to making men more productive, setting criteria on women’s preferences for men is also greatly beneficial to women’s mental health. It helps them accept their own place in the social order. The best woman can realistically expect to become the wife of the best scholar, soldier, etc. and the second best will, etc. Women can accept this kind of ranking because it is determined to the extent that men have themselves met the standards the women have agreed upon and no one has to feel cheated or taken advantage of. This kind of certainty is balm to a troubled mind. It is far more effective than Prozac or Lexapro. It allays women’s fears and restlessness and allows them to focus on building a life instead of constantly competing amongst themselves and doubting their own choices.

In the absence of consensus, even the most desirable woman will never accept that the selection of men she’s seen is really the complete set or that the criteria she’s used to select them are really the right ones. Perversely, the most worthless woman will never be satisfied with any man either, and for exactly the same reasons. Both women will constantly feel they were tricked and could have done better.

Women are now experiencing this constant uncertainty and regret as “oppression” by the “patriarchy.” It does indeed feel oppressive and women seem to have no idea where it’s coming from.

Feminism has attempted to fill the void by telling women to set the criteria not on men but on themselves by pursuing their own achievements. Women experience some fleeting happiness at this consensus as they experience happiness from any consensus. The rude awakening comes when they are no longer young and attractive enough to continue receiving attention from the most desirable males and they realize they were still being judged by the old criteria all along. It turns out men were never a party to the new consensus and we get the familiar accusations of “misogyny” and the lament that “something’s wrong with men!”

In the past, men would immediately step up to fulfil whatever demand women had set on sexual access: men had to be soldiers, millionaires, Torah scholars, etc. So, it seems surprising this same mechanism shouldn’t work now in getting them to select older, overweight, and disagreeable career women. But here’s why it doesn’t work: Consensus among women can indeed set tasks for men, but only so long as the male “winner” of the task gets access to women based on male preferences. Consensus among women cannot set those preferences for men. Women are in fact now trying to run the programmability backwards. If you tell men to all be trapeze artists and that the best, most daring trapeze artist will get the youngest, fittest girls, then they’ll all risk their lives practicing to be trapeze artists. But tell men they have to pick you based on your own preferred criteria — and they’ll sit around playing video games, smoking weed, and watching porn because you haven’t set them any task to get what they want. There’s no question that women, especially young healthy women who act feminine, are the prize. You can dictate any price for the prize and it will be paid, but you cannot dictate what the prize is.

Now, women’s programmability is not endlessly malleable either. Like men, there are certain physical and material attributes they tend to prefer. All else being equal, women prefer tall, socially prominent men with large penises. This is universal. However, the importance of these things can be overshadowed by other factors. This doesn’t just mean that a woman will “settle” for a short man, etc., but that she will actually “fall” for such a man because she becomes convinced that some other attribute of his is more important. But this only works if women are told that some other attribute is important. The reason there are so many fewer men of courage or character today than there used to be is that women are no longer being told to select for those traits anymore and so they default to selecting for power and physique.

Of these attributes, the one women are least likely to overlook is social prominence. This is why societies must elevate to socially prominent positions the kind of men they want women to select for. This is the master cue that overrides all other considerations, even the physical ones. Stephen Hawking divorced his first wife to marry a younger woman even after he was completely paralyzed.