Too Good for Guys: Thoughts on the Sexual Trades Union Thesis
An interesting strand of thought in the Manosphere maintains that feminist antagonism to mass sexual freedom arises from the need of old/ugly/obese women to maintain their SMV (sexual market value). There is much truth in this; indeed, the puritanical and repressive nature of the Anglosphere is largely maintained by a loose coalition of feminists and neo-Christian conservatives, albeit for different reasons.
However, the feminist desire to suppress all manifestations of sexual freedom transcends mere self-interest. After all, most feminists profess sexual indifference or outright antagonism towards men. Male sexual freedom hardly troubles the likes of Katherine MacKinnon and Germaine Greer, femihag spinsters who consider all heterosexual sex a form of rape. Men using prostitutes, watching porn or marrying foreign women has no direct impact on the SMV of these prominent feminists; they are way past breeding age, anyway. And as celebrated members of the upper-middle class cultural establishment, they derive status from their socio-economic prestige rather than their sexuality.
No, in most cases the feminist antagonism to sexual choice and liberation arises from a simple puritanical revulsion at sex itself. Indeed, many Anglo-American women seem to hate both men and sex at a deep, intrinsic level which transcends any kind of biological self-interest. I have written elsewhere about Anglo-Saxon homosexuality, the way women in Anglo countries shun male contact and prefer the company of their own sex whenever possible. At a deeper historical level, homosociality and sexual phobia spring from the Anglosphere’s puritanical religious heritage, a force which still exerts enormous influence at a subliminal level (consider the perennial appeal of ‘sexless’ Disney movies featuring princesses, fairies and so on).
Indeed, the real roots of modern Anglo feminism lie in the temperance movements of the nineteenth century; modern feminists are typically white, middle-class and Protestant, exactly like their forebears in the temperance movement. In sum, Anglo feminism is not ‘revolutionary’ at all; to the contrary, it springs directly from Anglo-Saxon culture and is really a reactionary, traditionalist movement. This explains not only why feminism remains so linked to distinctive Anglo-Saxon institutions like class and race, but also why right-of-centre political parties in the Anglosphere typically lend unstinting support to feminist agendas.
Besides the cultural and historical factors, there are probably biological factors underlying the Anglo female’s antagonism to sex. Selection theory posits that organisms evolve one of two reproductive strategies that trade off between quantity and quality of offspring, r and K: r sacrifices quality for quantity, while K does the opposite. The minimalist blogger Relampago Furioso has suggested Anglo women evolved a high-K mating strategy specific to the racist, stratified and imperialist Anglo-Saxon world: a form of hyper-hypergamy which views almost all sex with horror. While viable in the imperialist nineteenth century, this mating strategy became acutely dysfunctional when women gained access to education and employment: since virtually no men could meet their impossible standards. The British economist Steve Clarke augments this case for Anglo sexual exceptionalism – he claims that English people are disproportionately descended from socio-economic elites with distinctive high-K values, explaining the conservatism and sexual repression that define the Anglo-American matrix.
A young American once said to me: ‘I’m just waiting for these snotty American girls to jump the fence; they all think they’re too good for guys – any guys.’ But in the last analysis, too many women thinking they are simply too good for men – any men, however rich or handsome – leads to genetic extinction, the ultimate biological failure. Perhaps Anglo hyper-hypergamy should be redefined as an example of evolutionary over-specialization rather than a cogent mating strategy. Like salmon dying en route to their spawning grounds, Anglo-American women cling to a Victorian sexual morality that leads them to spinsterhood, loneliness and self-loathing in the modern world. Left-liberal attempts to unshackle female sexuality in the 60s and 70s were a resounding failure, largely because Anglo women are socially and biologically impervious to such agendas for the reasons outlined above.
So, while there is some truth in the Sexual Trades Union thesis, the sheer sterility of Anglo-American feminism implies it is not the sole explanation for the movement’s puritanical obsessions. The STU thesis exaggerates the role of rational thought in framing feminist perspectives, while ignoring the cultural and biological factors in play. In truth, rational self-interest interplays with culture and biology to produce the well-attested feminist loathing to sex in all its forms. A high proportion of Anglo feminists (indeed, Anglo women in general) don’t want to raise their SMV relative to other women: they want sex abolished, period.
Help us grow by making a purchase from our Recommended Reading and Viewing page or our Politically Incorrect Apparel and Merchandise page or buy anything from Amazon using this link. You can also Sponsor The New Modern Man for as little as $1 a month.