Male and Female Calculus and Realm: A Propertarian Perspective

For background, see Could Propertarianism Be the Grand Unifying Theory Libertarians and Objectivists Have Been Seeking? That’s my first post on the topic and I’m tearing my way down rabbit holes with a thirsty enthusiasm I’ve not experienced since about 1990 when I first realized all the regurgitate that’s called food really creates a fat and dumb social and commons parasite in various manifestations that libertarians, conservatives, and progressives are all guilty of (more on that in a subsequent post).

In a private comm channel today, Megan Kusui proposed a pithiness:

Men’s exclusion of women’s opinions about government is balanced by women’s exclusion of men’s opinions about procreation. Yang & Yin.

I didn’t get it at first. As comments developed, I did. I’m new at this but am also a very quick study, and once I’ve got it, I’m down my own rabbit holes again, to come up with new and wider honest integrations I can synthesize into a new paradigm of considered thought.

So let me unpack the pith for you. Throughout history, men have dominated government, or, public policy you could say, and have not generally been interested in what women think about it. Conversely, women are the gatekeepers over mate selection and aren’t interested in a too-short, too-bald, too-fat, too-unskilled, too-unacomplished, too-undesireable, too-“nice,” etc. dude—nor their pathetic complaints and whining about it. They want the best spreading peacock they can get.

Someone wrote:

Politics, economics, and other manly domains we might properly call “civilization” give men decision making power over reproduction. 

This is important because only men are willing to pay the short term costs and risks of Eugenia in order to obtain the benefits in the long.

Women use political, economic, and other power which they can obtain only by duplicity and parasitism, predominantly to retake control of reproduction, and use it for dysgenia. 

Women spend down civilization on risk aversion for themselves and their offspring.

Given my misunderstanding of the post, I initially thought this was an excellent rebuttal from one of the top identities in the burgeoning Propertarian movement to surpass and leapfrog libertarianism.

As a point of order, there are two ways genetic selection turn for humans: eugenic or dysgenic. It’s simply the same thing as evolution or devolution. You’re getting generally better, stronger, smarter, more capable, competent, peacock-desirable as a social species; or you’re getting worse—defaulting to laziness, despair, resignation, entitlement, and parasitism. You could say it’s: enhanced selection, natural selection, or pernicious selection of the weak, stupid, and lazy.

Megan retorts:

“Chaos, the eternal feminine, is also the crushing force of sexual selection…. It is Women as Nature who looks at half of all men and says, ‘No!'” – Jordan Peterson

This is the point at which I understood the too-pithy-by-half post. She follows up with:

Is it not true that just about any woman can mate whereas 1/4 of males (outside of prostitution) cannot?

This seemed to be an opportunity for yet another commenter to introduce new contexts, vastly expanding the realm of fully integrated honesty.

This seems implausible in terms of “can’t.” Won’t maybe. If a fertile man’s primary goal is procreation, anybody can find someone no matter how short, fat, ugly and bald. 

But if his goal is enjoyable sex, a trip to PI or Thailand is a better option than 90% of western females, and it does not operate like street corner or call girl prostitution, either.

Ante is upped. A challenge. She goes again:

In reply to your sexpat comment this ability is only recent due to affordable travel. South East Asia travel had opened up unprecedented access to sex for the less desirables.

Ante and challenge upped again. Seen, raise. Double down.

“this ability is only recent due to affordable travel”

That’s like dismissing the fact that a man can now expand his search for a mate from a 10-mile radius of his birthplace to a few hundred miles because cars.

Economies of scale and technological advancement generally give everyone opportunities to “settle for more,” and that continually reshapes the selection criteria for everyone. Here’s another one: male hair restoration has become very good, giving men a ton more possibilities by regaining attractiveness.

“South East Asia travel had opened up unprecedented access to sex for the less desirables.”

“Well everything is unprecedented until it happens for the first time.” – Tom Hanks as Sully

The caricature of the old, bald, pot-bellied, Speedo-sporting Euro male just isn’t true. Besides, they go for the boys, anyway.

Predominant over there is, rather, highly desirable males. I’ve hung with many an expat. Largest representation is retired military (they can retire at 50% of salary in early 40s) and retired oil workers from the Middle East.

So you have fighting-men mentality combined with a lifelong commitment to being in shape, combined with first-cause military selection criteria.

Then you have the offshore rig workers with huge bank accounts because you have nothing to spend your money on 2/3 of the year, who are rough and tumble rugged men who can handle 24 hour shifts at sea busting ass around flesh grinding machinery.

And in both, you have the requirements of expat status where you have to keep your paperwork and Visas in order and stay out of tangles with the law, precluding being a drunk or drug addict.

Nothing “less desirable” about these guys at all. They’re just smart enough to know better.

So there. I agree. Yet another commenter rings in:

SE Asia not very eugenically competitive. With both gene pools in their present state, I can see the advantages. On the other hand both countries take a hit each time this happens. PI is multi-ethnic so this complicates matters. But what do their children call themselves? A new race. Alone.

The shut-down-the-convo dude replies:

In the general that’s true, but many specific contrary examples when you introduce western DNA and nurturing. Many expats father children over there and combined with low cost of living, can really afford to give excellent care.

I have an English mate I met in Thailand 30 years ago. I told him about a place in PI. He has a stellar wife and his daughter by her just graduated top of her class at an all girls private school. She’s smart and aware as can be, because she has a smart Englishman for a father with the means.

The introduction of western DNA has been a thing since top-down colonization. Mestizo/a is a classification that accounts for that, used in Latin America and the PI. So to some extent it’s not unprecedented or shocking, but a known quantity. Which is good.

From a Propertarian standpoint it seems to me that there’s many ways to spread western moral ideals to the unwashed parasitic masses globally, and bottom-up “Neo-Colonialism” via expat is one good way.

Later, he continues:

…Last night in some other comment thread M argued to me that it’s men who need to wake up (in the context of the disaster tearing apart western families and precluding them in the first place) because they let it happen in the first place. I can’t argue with that, but, why fight a losing battle?

The term “sexpat” gets used as a sort of way to engender an automatic negative reaction without having to explicate.

Can’t men wake up by just going to “The New World?” There, he can live twice as well on half the money. It’s not only the role-reversal ability where expat areas draw vast numbers of young and hot women so you can have fresh young, hot ‘P’ every day if you want, but more “bang” for your buck across the board, har har.

And with a bit more money, you can buy your yourself petty-aristocrat status. Nice little walled villa, full time staff, spiffs to local police so your place is watched with diligence, wining and dining the local who’s who so you’re an insider and everything public policy goes mostly your way, etc.

So, the dude pretty much dominated the convo.

Fully integrated honesty.

What is the value of a human being?

  1. To whom, and for what?
  2. It depends.

See you next time. I’m planning a whole series of posts, one every week or two and have been graciously granted lots of reference material from which to select topics and run down my unique sense of rabbit holes.

This is going to be fun. I’ve been waiting for something to overcome the meaninglessness for a while and give me something to live and stand tall for.

It’s all right up my alley.

To access all Propertarian posts in one place, visit The Propertarian Project Table Of Contents.

Curious about Bitcoin and the cryptocurrency phenomenon, or not, but just want to support all of my work on all channels? Then check out my Patreon Profile.

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More


  1. […] Male and Female Calculus and Realm: A Propertarian Perspective […]

  2. Matthew on April 27, 2018 at 03:45

    Is it not true that just about any woman can mate whereas 1/4 of males (outside of prostitution) cannot?

    Yeah but the second guy missed the whole point of this comment. The bottom 25% of American men are not going to be the guile/militant businessman he describes.

    They are the prototypical nice guys you’ve described previously and most will NEVER have the balls to travel to SEA or make any significant amount of money.

    This class of people is why arranged monogamt worked for so long. Trading the labor value of lower class mate bodies for access to passing on their genes.

    • Richard Nikoley on April 27, 2018 at 07:13

      So, two problems I have.

      First is the Peterson quote. Well hell, I look at 7-8 out of ten and go nope. And that’s just in terms of a hookup or very short term casual thing. Start talking long term and it probably goes to 99 of 100 or more. So I’m not seeing the profundity there. Now, if you qualify it to say that 50% of males who desire a particular female are a nope, still not particularly profound because if she’s something to be desired average or better, then all the losers desire her of course. I’m just not seeing it.

      Add to that the increasing percentage of fat girls and 20 something’s who would otherwise be fantastic and the problem deepens for women. I think stuff is shifting because males tend to keep their bodies in shape for longer (though that’s slipping too), but lots of more opportunity for less desireable males who are willing to settle for something that would have been out of their league up to two to three decades ago.

      The other problem is Megan’s assertion that 1/4 “cannot.” I would buy that they have to settle for less than they want (they have to anyway because everyone wants the hot chick, but they have to settle deeper), but virtuallly anyone can get someone. Just Google up a site on hilarious wedding pics and it’s dysgenia both ways.

Leave a Comment

Follow by Email8k