After the last text about the pro-sexual revolution propaganda, I came across two interesting texts. One is a scientific column by Natália Pasternak n’
O Globo, which basically says that the sexual revolution is a scientific thing and anyone who doesn’t like it is an obscurantist. Another is the Aceprensa article on feminists who reject the sexual revolution, which the editor suggested I translate for this Gazette.
Let’s start with Pasternak’s. As is well known, there is a biological explanation for why men tend to be more promiscuous than women: a man can impregnate several women and thus have a lot of offspring at once. A woman, on the other hand, will be pregnant for 9 months, normally with only one child; moreover, she will be fragile for a good part of this period and also afterwards, when she will have to dedicate herself to a totally helpless baby. Reproduction is much heavier for the human female; therefore, she will be much more selective when choosing to have sex. (If you have a choice, of course.) The invention of contraception doesn’t erase millennia of evolution, and this can be easily seen in the latest dating apps: men say “yes” and women say “no.” In the male homosexual scenario, the apps are not just for flirting, they have immediate sex, dispensing with a selection step. If sexual behavior were explained by the degree of oppression, gays should be more chaste than women.
Well, according to Pasternak, in the article “The myth of the passive female”, all this it is science produced by men, therefore, sexist, even if “unconsciously”. Everything changed when women entered science. I quote her: “Anthropologist and primatologist Sarah Hrdy demonstrated, in her study with langur monkeys from Southeast Asia, that copulating with diverse males was a female strategy to prevent the common practice of infanticide. If the males didn’t know whose offspring they were, they were confused and didn’t kill any. Brooke Scelza, a behavioral ecologist at the University of California, studied the Himba, an indigenous society in northern Namibia, where extramarital affairs are common for women, and they have children by several different partners. Scelza says that during the time she lived in this community, the women didn’t understand why she didn’t take the opportunity to take men to her tent.”
I find it quite implausible that such a degree of intentionality can be proved in this little monkey here:
Shantanu Kuveskar, CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Chimps using tools are one thing; little monkeys with a much smaller brain plotting sexual release, another, far more implausible. With a google, it turns out that the history of the langurs is a feminist workhorse especially in anthropology. This anthropologist would have shown that evolutionary social scientists are wrong, and that women are by nature just as promiscuous as men. All the differences between male and female behavior are explained by the oppression perpetrated by social constructions. The usual spiel.
As anthropology today is perhaps the most toxic environment for the humanities, no politically correct consensus that emerges from this discipline deserves credit.
The primatologist anthropologist is still an old woman; she has, for better or worse, a consecrated work. The other anthropologist is active and doesn’t seem to have gained enough relevance to have an entry on Wikipedia (in English they do an entry about the whole world). On Google Scholar, when we searched the Himba people, her name doesn’t seem to have much relevance, and the anthropologists who study her don’t seem to be particularly committed to female sexuality either. In the English-speaking Wikipedia, we learn that the Himba people have been studied by anthropologists for a long time, that they are a pastoral people and that the Himba are, little by little, receiving influences from Western culture. As for their customs, the entry says: “The Himba are polygamous, with the average Himba man being the husband of two wives. They also practice early marriages. Himba girls are married to their male partners by their parents. This happens at the beginning of puberty, which could mean that girls with years or less are married by their father. This practice is illegal in Namibia, and even some Himba dispute it, but it is nevertheless widespread. Among the Himba people, it is a traditional rite of passage to circumcise boys before puberty. Upon marriage, a Himba boy is considered a man. A Himba girl is not considered a full woman until she has a child. Marriage among the Himba involves transactions in cattle, which is the source of their economy. These transactions involve the dowry; this can be negotiated between the groom’s family and the bride’s father, depending on the relative poverty of the families involved. For the bride’s family to accept the dowry, the cattle must appear to be of high quality. Standard practice is to offer an ox, but more cattle will be offered if the groom’s father is rich and able to offer more.”
A Wikipedia article is only as good as the references it contains. brings. The sources for this section of the article are the government of Namibia, which aims to combat child marriage, and anthropologist David Crandall, who spent a year living as a herder among the Himba.
An Anthropology Problem
The fact that we can so easily disprove an anthropologist’s gossip was due, in this case, to the fact that we have the work of a serious anthropologist . However, the easiest thing in the world is to be a constructivist charlatan in anthropology. Let’s say you have an agenda to prove that values are merely arbitrary social constructions, and that an entirely different culture – that of the sexual revolution, for example – is possible. Now, his field is anthropology: it suffices to find a people where such a thing is not valid to show that it is a social construction, and not a universal of human nature. And anthropology has an advantage compared to other sciences: the object of study is sometimes very difficult to access.
Thus, back in the years 1920, anthropologist Margaret Mead went to Western Samoa to live with a tribe and wrote that it was the real paradise of the sexual revolution: a real woohoo where everyone had sex before of marriage; a casual sex tribe. Who goes to Western Samoa? Who goes to Western Samoa and learns the language of the natives studied by Margaret Mead? The story was given as indisputable truth until the death of bam-bam-bam (a disciple of founder Franz Boas), and only in the decade of 10 another anthropologist revealed that this is not the case. To anyone with mere common sense, the story would have to seem very strange. But “Science”, based on the wallet, said that Margaret Mead saw that in Western Samoa everyone had casual sex; therefore, any alternative to generalized woohoo is a mere invention to oppress women.
It is clear that here Pasternak will play the scientists’ sex card. In that case, maybe I should declare myself trans, since if objectivity doesn’t exist and truth has sex, I’d rather stick with masculine truth. On the side of the engaged luluzinhas, it’s just zucchini.
Value of anthropology
On the other hand, anyone who wants to defend universality of certain human characteristics will have much to gain from studying different cultures. Is monogamy a social construction? Yes, of course. Monogamy doesn’t grow on trees, it’s a human invention made to manage an invariable human reality, namely: sex between fertile men and women results in babies, babies need stability to be created. A baby-free society may exist for a short time, but it does not perpetuate itself. Therefore, every society that has come this far has some stable arrangement that allows for the creation of babies.
There are monogamous arrangements; there are polygamous arrangements. If you “deconstruct” current monogamy, the result is not a polygamous “state of nature”. The Himba have a very common polygamous social construction, which consists in the father selling the bride to whoever can support her; thus, polygyny is a predictable and common form of polygamy, unlike polyandry. (A man with more than one wife is much more common than a woman with more than one husband.)
It is curious how the “Science” class deals with social constructions . In the end, it is the apology of a fictitious state of nature. We women should give it away, because some monkeys from India do that. Or because Samoans untouched by Christianity come out giving. Or because it’s the Himba who do it instead of the Samoan. And anyone who denies it is sexist. Well deconstructed all things, it turns out that in the state of nature everyone has OnlyFans and has orgy.
Return to male domination?
There are societies whose constructions are more distant from nature, and others less. How long will it have taken to arrive at an arrangement where a man has only one wife? Jews were polygamous in the Old Testament. The Romans, from the earliest times, could be called monogamous – but it was rather a question of heritage. A man had several children, but only one heir. It is to be expected that he had several teúdas and manteúdas, but only one – the wife – capable of generating the heir.
We can say that monogamy is a social construction that equates man and woman, and that distances it from the condition of a commodity to be traded between men. In our society, women have come to freely decide who to marry and who to have sex with – something that sounds like a privilege for Muslim women, or at least educated Muslim women.
However, the Aceprensa’s text brings another provocation: liberal feminism, which considers that the key to the male-female relationship is consent, is not considering the conditions of consent. The sexual revolution morality ignores that women want commitment. At the same time (as I stated in my previous text) the propaganda insists that to be successful in life is to have sex with half the world. The predictable result is that women nod to what they don’t want, feeling obligated. Then there’s MeToo, misandry, fake lesbianism, gender dysphoria.
Before we limit ourselves to cursing grown women who don’t know how to say “no” (maybe even under the influence of drugs they chose to consume), it is necessary to take into account that younger women, those in the household of 09, were born in a world where having sex is an obligation and where pornography is preparation for life. Put bluntly, it’s a world where women have everything to be crazy.
These crazy women have the legal capacity to consent, but they don’t have the real, mental capacity to do so. That’s why they ask for more and more paternalistic laws that separate men and women, and treat us like big babies. In the end, they ask for a world so unfree that they end up leading Westerners to behave a bit like Islamic theocrats, who do not take into account the freedom of women’s will.
E it is not surprising, since this freedom was defeated in its most important sphere: the very head of the woman.
An anthropological post scriptum
In Frases da Semana, the indigenous Ysani Kalapalo said that, for the Indians, blacks are referred to as white men. What she says is perfectly intuitive.
When the government and the press refer to the action of non-Indians, they always deal with the “white man”. Who did the cartography of the Empire, crossing indigenous villages and studying Tupi? “The white man”, the universities and bureaucracies respond in unison, according to which “the white man” makes everything that is civilizational advance. In this particular case, it was Theodoro Sampaio, a dark mulatto from Bahia, who did it.
It had already occurred to me that this jargon makes Theodoro Sampaio a member of this entity “the white man”. Now put yourself in the place of an Indian io who only speaks Portuguese as a second language, who lives in an area with little white presence and who hears that “the white man” did this and that (deforested, for example). What are the chances of this Indian thinking that the so-called white man is white?