Feminism and R/K Selection

Nature abhors a reproductive vacuum. Where one exists, much that appears to be mere politics arises to fill it. But it may be that instinct (and its perversion) are at work in thought. Perhaps underneath all ideology are necessities only dimly glimpsed. Such may be the case with immigration. But here the law of unintended consequences cannot be suspended as easily as border enforcement. The law of unintended consequences states that the result of any action (thus any public policy) to achieve a given end will be consequences that are unintended. This is something to do with incomplete information, a human absolute. An unintended consequence of feminism is that it's Newtonian--its appearance generates an equal and opposite reaction.  Feminism is in essence anti-reproductive, and nature has a way of destroying what opposes her. Deflation is one of her weapons.

If you end or significantly pause immigration, deflation will--eventually--fix the psycho-social pathogen of feminism. It is no coincidence that feminism arose concurrently with liberalization of immigration policy. Pro-immigrationism is an antibody produced by feminism. It imports inconsequential people to do things we're told are inconsequential, or "Jobs Americans won't do." This enables women to worship at the Temples of Diana and Venus, where the augurs all look like Chris Hemsworth. As long as there is a steady supply of human grist, this system works. Cut off the supply and bad things happen.  Nature (and by implication nature's God) will not be mocked. Societies that do not reproduce, and are not highly K-selected, do not have impressive longevity, and they take their anti-human ideologies with them. We're not amiss in describing feminism as anti-human, since it redirects the energies nature would deploy toward maintenance of the species (and group) into maximizing self-gratification.

There is no contradiction here. The same forces that diminish K-selection can also diminish R-selection in human populations, i.e. the 60 hour work week leaves little time for high reproduction or for rearing children. Thus children become accessory, become kitsch. This is not to say that motherly love doesn't exist in such scenarios, but it clings at the margins, where self and offspring compete in a limited resource world (time and location). Wherever modern finance capitalism has taken root, native populations are declining. This is not merely correlation. It is only in socialistic societies that the consequences of this mechanism can be temporarily suspended by burden shifting. More and more, one of the inconsequential things that immigrants do is watch, teach, and rear our children. If the standard one attains to in child-rearing is parental resemblance, then nothing will seem out of place when single-parenthood becomes a permanent fixture of society.

The schedules of most professional women barely accommodate their nascent alcoholism, much less high-investment parenting. Between gymnastic self-flagellation and roving in female wolf-packs, there's so little time to be auditioned by an unattainable Alpha-male at whose hands one may revel in delicious abuse, all whilst rebuffing a legion of good-but-attainable men. Ah, the wages of hypergamy-cum-polygamy. It produces ad hoc harems alongside millions of unmarried men. Still, enough martinis and a willing donor is ready-to-hand, to facilitate acquisition of the lifestyle accoutrement de rigueur for social climbing women -the latchkey kid. Should the latter option fail to satisfy the hunger for feminist virtue signalling, dusky orphans are simply dropping from the eaves. All this to say social theory that opposes quality of child rearing to quantity of children is based on an axiom of modernity: the presumption of 2 working parents. This is a vicious circle created by treating economics as if it were gravity, or the strong nuclear force, and not merely a flexible accommodation among men for the production and distribution of material goods, subject to the variables human psychology. "Libertarians" have been flogging away at the naturalistic fallacy for the better part of a century, but they still can't stop trying to derive their ought from their is, because they treat the latter as given.

It is not mysterious why birth rates are higher in so-called developing nations. High time-preference coupled with the ample leisure provided by "alternative economic understandings" produce opportunity for -um, reproduction. The latter is not lightly dismissed. Pieper, et al., have pointed to the necessity of leisure to attain high culture. Thus it is understandable why the U.S. has none. These same economic factors (high time preference + leisure) also produce low K-selection, which is why  such areas (i.e. the "Global South") are perpetually developing, yet never quite developed.  High R can be produced in feminist societies; high K cannot. Complementarity of High R and High K is an atavism so rare as to be nearly unexampled in contemporary life. Evolution did not generate the reproductive strategies. They are the result of the presence or absence of sin in society. Where sin flourishes, the complementarity of R/K is undermined--i.e. one will rise without the other. But the two reproductive strategies are not inherently mutually exclusive; they are only made so by sinful economics. In one scenario, high reproduction without high investment produces societies where human life is cheap. In the opposite scenario communities wither by the hand of narcissism.

I enjoyed the following response to a comment on an article in the Spectator UK warning of the excesses of feminism:

"Having children DOES cause difficulties as work has put itself in opposition to family life relationships and parenting." 

Yes, that's how reality is meant to work. You cannot be in two places at once, correct. This however is not like the patriarchy decided, hey lets design reality so women can only be in one place at a time, because oppression: Literally every person who has ever or will ever exist is likewise effected by only being able to be in once place at a time.

Just so. But feminism, among its other wondrous benefits, proposes to bend the laws of space-time, creating alternate universes in which female directors of HR or marketing also have 2nd and 3rd children, teach them to read, bake cookies, and attend soccer practice. House husbands are a sign that men are adapting to feminism's stratagem of reality-inversion. Yes, deflation might fix feminism, for it is then that the grim forces of mere existence begin to teach hard lessons to the native stock. But for it to do so, a nation must stare into the abyss. If you want to see what happens to a non-immigrating country that has not come to grips with the poison of modernity, you have only to look at Japan. In fact, modern Japan may be a perfect exemplar of gnostic NRx in action.

If you want some stimulating bloggage on R/K Selection from a Christian perspective, I highly recommend the blog Koanic Soul. It's Cheateau Heartiste meets J. Philippe Rushton, meets G.K. Chesterton.