In the first part of this essay Rick Bradford examined the relationship between the collapse of sexual mores and cultural decline. In this second of our four-part series he examines further historical evidence of possible correlation.
BEFORE returning to that question, let’s look at some further historical evidence for the claimed correlation.
Consider Sir John Glubb’s The Fate of Empires and the Search for Survival, 1978. ‘The life histories of great states are amazingly similar’, opined Glubb. His thesis is that the rise, the chief characteristics and the final demise of a culture follow broadly similar patterns repeatedly over history. Contrary to Popper, but in agreement with Spengler, Toynbee and Unwin, Glubb sees history as a great teacher.
The stages of the rise and fall of great nations Glubb identifies as being ‘the Age of Pioneers, the Age of Conquests, the Age of Commerce, the Age of Affluence, the Age of Intellect and finally the Age of Decadence’.
Decadence is marked by pessimism, materialism, frivolity, an influx of foreigners, the welfare state and a weakening of religion. Sound familiar?
Glubb noted that the emancipation of women and the decline of sexual morality were symptoms of the decadent stage and the incipient collapse of the culture, but he did not claim the connection to be causal.
In the context of the collapse of the Arab/Muslim Empire of the 8th and 9th centuries, Glubb noted: ‘The works of the contemporary historians of Baghdad in the early 10th century are still available. They deeply deplored the degeneracy of the times in which they lived, emphasising particularly the indifference to religion, the increasing materialism and the laxity of sexual morals . . . The historians commented bitterly on the extraordinary influence acquired by popular singers over young people, resulting in a decline in sexual morality . . . In the second half of the 10th century, as a result, much obscene sexual language came increasingly into use, such as would not have been tolerated in an earlier age.’
And as for the Roman Empire, Glubb wrote: ‘An increase in the influence of women in public life has often been associated with national decline. The later Romans complained that, although Rome ruled the world, women ruled Rome. In the 10th century, a similar tendency was observable in the Arab Empire, the women demanding admission to the professions hitherto monopolised by men . . . Many women practised law, while others obtained posts as university professors. There was an agitation for the appointment of female judges, which, however, does not appear to have succeeded.’
Glubb added: ‘Soon after this period, government and public order collapsed, and foreign invaders overran the country. The resulting increase in confusion and violence made it unsafe for women to move unescorted in the streets, with the result that this feminist movement collapsed.’
I cannot resist including that Glubb also explodes the idea that Western white people were the first in history to indulge in state-funded welfare.
Noting that the ‘rise of women’ and the emergence of the welfare state might be expected to be correlated, it is of interest to note that Glubb wrote: ‘When the welfare state was first introduced in Britain, it was hailed as a new high-water mark in the history of human development. History, however, seems to suggest that the age of decline of a great nation is often a period which shows a tendency to philanthropy and to sympathy for other races . . . The Arab Empire of Baghdad was equally, perhaps even more, generous. During the Age of Conquests, pure-bred Arabs had constituted a ruling class, but in the 9th century the empire was completely cosmopolitan . . . State assistance to the young and the poor was equally generous. University students received government grants to cover their expenses while they were receiving higher education. The state likewise offered free medical treatment to the poor. The first free public hospital was opened in Baghdad in the reign of Harun al-Rashid (786-809), and under his son, Mamun, free public hospitals sprang up all over the Arab world from Spain to what is now Pakistan . . . The impression that it will always be automatically rich causes the declining empire to spend lavishly on its own benevolence, until such time as the economy collapses, the universities are closed and the hospitals fall into ruin.’
I conclude that there is reason to suppose that the association between the ‘rise of women’ and cultural collapse has been a common, perhaps so far universal, phenomenon. But the open question remains: by what mechanism?
In my review of Unwin and Glubb I also discussed the opinions of Dr Dani Sulikowski, Australian evolutionary psychologist.
I did so because she faces up to that open question and offers an answer. She suggests that the missing causal factor which explains the correlation is Manipulative Reproductive Suppression, a feature of female intra-sexual competition. She is rightly cautious about making any definitive claim in this respect, noting that it is a hypothesis only.
At least some aspects of the hypothesis are potentially capable of empirical examination, but this is outstanding. I note, though, that it meets the minimum requirements of a hypothesis, namely that it is internally consistent, has broad explanatory power, and is capable of being refuted. You can hear her expound her views in many YouTube videos (see, for example, Female Psychology and The End of Empires and How Intrasexual Competition Suppresses Female Fertility).
Ultimately I don’t buy that hypothesis either, but it does have one major success. Here’s an exercise for you. Draw up a list of all the ‘progressive’ causes, policies and ideologies. Then ask of each one ‘is it anti-natal, or even anti-human’? I include such a list in my review. It is remarkable that they are all anti-natal or anti-human.
This cries out for explanation, and at least Sulikowski’s Manipulative Reproductive Suppression (MRS) succeeds in providing one. That observation is a challenge to alternative ideas, including my own (in-group preference).
Sulikowski even goes so far as to claim that men are not the primary target of the denigration of men that has occurred under feminism. Rather, it is a play in the MRS strategy and so its target is other women. That fails to convince. It is too reminiscent of Hilary Clinton’s infamous remark that women are the primary victims of war (and hence that men are not the primary victims of their own deaths). No, feminist animus towards males is horribly real. Moreover, it is consistent with in-group preference, where we go next.
