Chapter 9: The Dominance Instinct
- Manhood Shitty Shit
- Jun 18, 2018
- 10 min read
Updated: Jan 8, 2020
Chapter 9: The Dominance Instinct
- Jane Goodall–
“We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.”
The dominance instinct and can either be a beneficial or hurtful tool.
But first allow me to divert with a quote from ‘‘Pedigree.com’’ about the dominance instinct in dog packs so that you may observe the similarities that we share with man’s best friend. Note that the statement from pedigree.com is based on behaviorist Sarah Heath's work.
[‘‘Dogs are social animals who have a pack instinct-that is, a natural need to be with other dogs.
In the wild, a pack does not establish a natural hierarchy immediately. For a chain of command to be established within the pack, individual dogs need to be familiar with one another, and some need to be prepared to show subordinate or submissive behavioral responses. Other dogs will want to establish their rank in the group, and will start a series of confrontations. These confrontations will take place until each dog has been defeated into submission and one dog is left as the dominant animal.
Because it is important to avoid injury during these competitions, the subordinate dog in an encounter will give clear signals to the other animal that confrontation is unnecessary.
The dog that wins the majority of encounters with a range of individuals is given the job of leading the pack. This is the highest accolade but, as with any high-flying job, the position brings with it responsibility as well as privilege. The top dog maintains his position of authority through respectful communication with his fellow pack members, and bullying tactics are unwelcome and unnecessary.
Many dogs within the pack are not interested in being a leader and are happy to be lower ranking members of the workforce. These dogs often find responsibility difficult to handle, and feel pressured by privilege. While the top job is filled by a stable and secure boss, everything is fine, but any signs of instability in the higher ranks can lead to problems. This insecurity can become a source of anxiety to those further down the ranks, and the pack can be thrown into disarray. A pack without a strong leader is a pack under threat. If the leader fails to demonstrate his position consistently, trouble can often break out in the lower ranks. These lower ranking dogs will jostle for the top position.’’]
The dominance instinct comes from the sex drive, or the impulse to reproduce. In a wolf pack, only the alpha male and the alpha female can reproduce while the others do not get to enjoy this privilege. Therefore, it is necessary for both male and female to possess that drive for dominance. If they didn't, they would lose their chance to participate in the mating game. Sex is the primary reason why most species developed a dominance instinct.
Even with bonobos, one of our closest primate relatives, where every member of the group has sex on a daily basis (including all the males), researchers observed that less than 50% of the males have children. When the females are fertile and go into heat, the dominant males closely monitor their sexual partners, and they don't allow others males to copulate during this period. Thus, only the dominant males can reproduce and pass on their genes, which create dominants traits in their offspring. And remember that bonobos use sex as a form of greeting. Every individual has sex multiple times every day, yet, less than half of the males can reproduce when the females are in heat.
Humans, just like dogs, are social creatures that exhibit submissive and dominant behaviors. Like our canine friends, we have a powerful dominance instinct that is expressed with a definite hierarchy. This is particularly the case with men. While women also establish hierarchies, it is never as prevalent.
When humans lived in tribes, researchers estimated that roughly 30% to 40% of men could reproduce. Some died too young and didn't even have the chance to breed, and the rest were pushed aside by more dominant men. Meanwhile, the entire population of women reproduced. If all women could easily breed, then it was not necessary for them to possess dominant traits because they would pass down their genes either way. But for men the game was different. Only those with dominant traits could pass down their genes. Generations after generations of dominant men passed down their DNA which gave rise to even more dominant characteristics in men.
When something like this happens to a species, the males and females evolve in different directions, and scientists call this sexual dimorphism. Let's look at gorillas, for example. In groups of gorillas, you find a silverback alpha male possessing a harem. This dominant male is usually the biggest of the group. Only the strongest gorilla with enormous bulk can pass down his genes. Thus, we see female gorillas who are 40% smaller than the males. As you can plainly see, there is a lot of sexual dimorphism with gorillas.
In wolf packs, the females have to be dominant to reproduce and there is little to no size difference between the genders. Except for sex-specific differences, there is little to no sexual dimorphism with wolves.
What about humans? There is an average of 8% difference in size between men and women. Men would be the bigger and bulkier ones if you couldn’t guess.
Men are usually bigger than women, and their muscles can produce more intense bursts of energy. This is another effect of sexual dimorphism.
Dominance is not a bad thing. It is the product of evolution, and it has its purpose. When a healthy hierarchy is established, when every man has the opportunity to achieve a higher position of power if he possesses the necessary capabilities, then dominance is a good thing. It brings out the best in everyone and it allows civilization to progress.
But when social ranks are established by birth, when it is impossible to achieve a higher position through hard work or when one has to go through corruption to gain power, problems start to arise.
One example of human foolishness is communism. By inhibiting people's chance to climb higher in society, this ideology destroys the dominance instinct in men. People lose their drive, work less, and social cohesion cannot be maintained. Every single society who tried communism or far-left socialism throughout history ended up in failures partly because those ideologies fail to recognize men's basic need for dominance.
In a socialist welfare state, the taxpayers’ money is being redistributed, which means that men’s sexual market value is also being redistributed. What am I talking about exactly?
Women are attracted to powerful and dominant men; a fact already established in previous chapters. Since it increases his personal power, money is also a part of a man’s dominance. Men are the biggest taxpayer in every single country, and it is estimated that we pay about 70% of all tax money (Statistic Canada). At the same time, women use about 65-70% of welfare program money, which means that welfare states take men’s money and give it to women via governmental programs. Cash is transferred from men to women via the government. A part of men’s personal power, ‘‘money’’, is redistributed to every woman, free of charge. Since women have access to the collective wealth, the resources that a man brings to the table are less valuable. This portion of his personal power loses its value. A woman no longer needs a man because she can go to the state for money and special welfare programs.
You don't believe me? I base my argument on a 2013 study about public finances from Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand titled ‘‘The Distribution of Income and Fiscal Incidence by Age and Gender: Some Evidence from New Zealand.’’
The study points to the fact that at every point in a man’s life, he will pay more tax than the average woman of the same age. From age 24 until age 65 (the average graduate's working lifetime), the average man will pay more taxes than the average woman in any age group. Meanwhile, women never repay what the state spends on them, while men do so unless they live past 85.
One other example would in England where men pay 71% of the total income taxes.
On a more humoristic note, the equivalent thing to do to be fair would be to redistribute women’s vagina.
The welfare state extends to every woman, with no exception and free of charge. They can all share a slice of the pie (men’s money). Then, the redistribution of the vagina would need to extend to every man. That would be the only, genuinely equal thing to do. After which, women’s sexual market value would plummet in the same fashion that it has already happened for men. If every single man could have sex with any women without making any effort, just because the government enforced it, then women’s youth, beauty, and fertility wouldn’t be worth much. If, for example, a beautiful woman wanted to marry a young and successful man, she would have to compete with all the ‘‘free sex’’ that he gets handed by the state. This woman would need to put in an extreme amount of effort just to be worth this man’s time!
In case it was not clear, I want to clarify that this was just an example to demonstrate a point. I do not advocate for ‘‘free sex’’ handed by the state.
Socialism is a sinful ideology that ignores the most basic principles of human nature and I think that is important to know about those facts to navigate efficiently into the waves of the modern world.
Let's look at one of the founding colony in America.
On November 11, 1620, the Mayflower landed at Plymouth Rock. When the ship left, 27 adults and 23 children were left to form a colony. Their governor was William Bradford, and under his leadership, these first Americans began to make a new life in the New World. In the colony, there was a common store where everyone could take food and resources without payment, and everything that was produced was placed there.
For two years the colony worked to create a socialist utopia, but even with an additional 30 settlers who arrived a year after the Mayflower, the colony barely survived. Each winter the colonist would go hungry, being reduced to rations of a quarter pound of bread at times.
About half of the colony died of hunger during the socialist regime.
Young, strong, and capable men could produce much more resources than the rest of the population, and they had to share the spoils of their hard work without receiving anything in return. The fruits of their labor were handed to others while they received less than what they gave. The members of the colony quickly figured this out and stopped working. Everyone became lazy to the point where half of the colony died of starvation.
At this point, Governor William Bradford intervened and made a public declaration that eventually became a famous catchphrase: ‘‘He who will not work shall not eat.’’
From this point on everyone worked hard and the colony flourished. People stopped eating what the neighbor produced, and they cultivated their own food. Governor William introduced the concept of private properties for every member of the colony, and the free enterprise system that we now have in America was born.
This failed experiment in American socialism isn't taught in today's schools. If it was, our children might grow up to doubt the governmental programs that redistribute wealth.
Attacking the dominance instinct is terrible for society, and it will only hurt us. But apparently, our government hasn't learned from the past. Our Western nations are becoming more and more socialist every year, and it will have very severe repercussions in the long run. Socialist measures are feminizing the workplace as well as the schools. Man's sexuality is repeatedly bashed in the media and our instinct for dominance is seen as predatory, dangerous, or even criminal. Men are ‘‘opting out’’ now more than ever, choosing to work fewer hours while letting go of their ambitions.
Men are lions, but in today's world, those lions had their claws and balls removed. This is what socialism does to men. Too many men opting out would have a catastrophic impact on the economy of any given country. It is already happening in Japan with the ‘‘Herbivore man’’.
Herbivore man is a term used in Japan to describe men who have no interest in getting married or finding a girlfriend. The term herbivore men was also a term that is described as young men who had lost their ‘‘manliness’’.
While those aren’t official numbers, a few surveys from the ‘‘Japan Times’’ show that an increasing number of Japanese men fit these criteria:
[‘‘Among male respondents, 17.9 percent reported little or no interest in having sex — or even an extreme dislike of it. The proportion came to 20.3 percent for men between 25 and 29, up 2.5-fold from the level in 2008.
74.3 percent of the nation’s 20-year-olds were not in a relationship, compared with 50.0 percent in 1996. 40 percent of singles in their 20s were ‘‘not looking for a relationship’’ to begin with, thinking ‘‘romance is a hassle’’ or that they would rather prioritize enjoying their hobbies. A survey in 2014 found 44.6 percent of married couples in Japan were not engaging in sex for an extended period.’’]
The rate at which Japanese men are opting out is so alarming that economists in this country are fervently panicking. Only 1.001 million babies were born in Japan in 2014 (a record low) and 1.269 million people died.
That's an overall loss of 268,000 people, and a signal of a population crisis in one of the world's most developed and debt-ridden economies.
Just like dogs in a pack, men's instincts should not be repressed. They should be expressed in productive and healthy ways, or it will end up badly for everyone. Socialism will always fail because it refuses to acknowledge men's instinct for dominance. That’s what you get when you refuse to see the obvious.
The same people that are maintaining the system are being beaten down by society. Do you know what we call this type of behavior? We call it biting the hand that feeds you.
I believe that it is important to understand our dominance instinct to figure out how to navigate in society wisely. Understanding those concept may also help to figure out our place in this world.
Dominance instinct in dog packs:
Comentarios