The Consequences of Feminism

This is another hard-hitting, subversive article by Brother Derek. Visit his blog to say thanks, or show him some love in the comments section.


My book critique mentioned the evolutionary consequences of feminism from the historical perspective. Now, in light of this article series on Fabius Maximus (with commentary by Dalrock), it’s worth asking what the future holds.

Women have successfully decoupled sex and career from procreation and family. Some men have reacted by using Game to acquire casual sex without commitment. MGTOW are signing out completely. The common thread? Decreased fertility, both male and female. Yet, the sexual revolution that took hold in the 1960’s that seems so entrenched is going to unseat itself. These parties are headed toward evolutionary extinction because they fail to reproduce. Slowly but surely the natural consequence of feminism is the extinction of its proponents and those that participate in it (either willingly or unwillingly). It is an evolutionary inevitability. The result is (1) economic chaos and (2) genetic replacement.

We see the trouble brewing as the population pyramids invert in the world’s most prosperous nations. A population pyramid that isn’t a pyramid means that there are too few young supporting too many old. The tax base is shrinking (relatively) because there are not enough babies. It’s an impending economic nightmare. But the economic chaos caused by feminism gets worse. Dalrock writes:

“I think we will see a creeping panic from our ruling class as they realize that by replacing the marriage based family model with one founded on child support they have removed the incentive for men to produce the kinds of excess wealth that our progressive tax structure requires. Even worse, fatherless children are (on average) far more expensive to society than fathered children are, and this is true for life. So the income stream is at risk, and the expenses are going up.”

It’s a toxic mix of a shrinking tax base, ballooning demand for social services (and government debt), expensive fatherless children, and lower per-capita wealth generation. Expect ever-lowering standards of living as this process accelerates. Eventually feminism will die. The only question is how much economic damage will it do before it dies?

Among all the doom and gloom, most people are surprised to hear that by most quality-of-life metrics, humanity is in a golden age. Never before has their been so much health, wealth, and prosperity. Indeed, were in not for feminism we would likely be able to maintain it. Instead, we stand at an inflection point wondering “What is to come?”


Feminism is taking us down a dangerous path towards economic ruin. At Fabius Maximus, Larry Kummer rejects calls for traditional marriage and family as a response to feminism, claiming it is too late. Yet, if we want any say in our future, we must do this. It will be far more painful to do nothing. Inaction will lead to genetic replacement.

Babies will be born to somebody. If one subset of the population refuses to breed, and there is no indication that this is going to change, then they will be removed from the gene pool. Those that still breed and/or immigrate will be the new masters. You don’t need a crystal ball to see where this is going. Look to the effects of immigration as it collides with feminism in Europe. Unfortunately, a timely reversal of society’s downward trajectory through replacement is unlikely, even if it manages to bring the end of feminism.

The only other option is to clamor for a return to traditional marriage and family. Overthrowing feminism and restoring our path of prosperity requires changes. We can either be a participant in the process or, through genetic replacement, have those decisions made without us.

First, abortion must end. Over 500,000 babies die a year. Ending abortion would drive a stake into the heart of feminism and simultaneously end the population pyramid inversion. This is the greatest issue of our lifetime. Without abortion, women would be much more likely to have children. Society needs both “Man up and get married” and “Woman up and get pregnant.”

Second, men must refuse to have sex unless it can lead to procreation and birth. It can only do this by embracing monogamous marriage or celibacy as the only valid options for sexuality. Feminists cannot be enabled. They must, instead, be sexually ignored and bred out of existence.

Third, embrace Christianity. This is the only way we can restore fatherhood and prevent cohabitation, single-motherhood, and no-fault divorce. The promotion of traditional marriage, absent Christian sexual morality, is not enough. Not everyone who hates feminism is a Christian. This is a mistake. Christianity is the greatest enemy of feminism: consider good and evil by the fruit it bears (and who its enemies are).

In short, we need more fathers, more marriages, more babies, and more Christians.

Email Hassles

So, wordpress is only forwarding about half the e-mail messages which get sent to me, to the e-mail address I provided as a destination. I have no idea why this is so.

If you have recently contributed a guest article or a meme, and it didn’t show up, please feel free to resubmit directly.

box210 at protonmail dot com

Apologies in advance for the inconvenience. I have no idea what is going on, but future communications ought to always go directly to the address above.


Part of the fun of online dating is trolling outspoken feminists, be they progressive or conservative. Dolores here was especially funny. Her profile and photos suggested she was on the young side (22-23). She’s a student, majoring in, of all things, wimminz studies.

“Just looking for friends” says Dolores, as she flashed everything but the nips on PoF. I found that funny enough to text the number she gave me.


Dolores “would love to be mine.” For those of you older, chaste, Christian brothers, what Dolores is saying in the above message is that she wants to have sex. At this point I imagined that this was straight up prostitution, and ignored her for a few hours. In that span, she convinced me that she lived alone, on the other side of town, and that she could “be mine” without a straightforward monetary exchange, but that she would like to meet me at a restaurant first, the next morning.


I guess the old saying about feminism ending when the bill comes has some truth to it. I respond directly, in this message, by telling her that a 15 dollar pancake special breakfast, at the end of a half-hour commute, is too high a price to pay for Dolores’ cunt. Despite her age, her pics give her a hard look, and I’m sure there’s about ten years of wear-and-tear on that thing.

Needless to say, Dolores didn’t text back after this, so I moved on to Tinder, where the pickings are always entertaining…

I know lots of you brothers would like a shot of this prize-catch of a himminz. Zhir’s waiting for you.


And what the fuck do you think you’re doing here, you stupid bitch?


It’s one thing to have no pride in yourself, but another to embarrass your husband, kid and dog. Could someone please call this poor sucker and tell him what his wife is up to? Thanks in advance.

Evolution, Population and Feminism

This is a critical review of Simon Sheppard’s “All About Women” by Brother Derek (a/k/a Ram-Man). Show him some love in the comments section.


Per our host’s suggestion, I read Simon Sheppard’s “All About Women.” Sheppard develops his central theses around (quasi-)Darwinian evolutionary theory. It has a science-explains-everything foundation with no room for Christianity’s explanations. It mistakes approximations of truth with reality[1], and is thus doomed to failure. In this it does not disappoint. It fails because he, ironically, embraces the primary ideal of feminism (and leftism): moral inversion.[See Footnote] But rather than refuting with Christianity, I’ll show how his points are self-defeating.

Sheppard associates low population density with males and high density with females. Overpopulation, the alleged fault of women, is the ultimate cause of most modern-day problems.[2] He defends this with various Darwinian arguments centered around control of sex. Yet for all the talk of evolution, he does not understand it.

Evolution claims that the fittest women will try to find the fittest mates and reproduce. For all his harping on sex, it is irrelevant; just a means to an end. Reproduction is the only Darwinian goal. To do this, men use the power to offer sex and women use the power to refuse sex. Women cannot find the fittest mate by whoring. They must find a fit mate through tightly controlled selection. Indeed this very thing he condemns through his evolutionary arguments is the very thing evolution says must occur. It’s a hopeless contradiction.

Sheppard does not understand what drives population. The increase in population has been driven by medical, economic, scientific, technological, and social innovations. By most metrics the world is the best it has ever been. Population growth is strongly correlated with mostly positive outcomes. The exception, of course, is feminism.

Modern sexual liberation is enabled by birth control and abortion, not evolutionary factors.[3] When we look at the evidence, what is the primary symptom of feminism and sexual liberation? Low birth rates, stagnant or decreasing population, and increased mutational accumulation and its corresponding risk of mutational meltdown. Many of the ills he blames on overpopulation are the result of sexual liberation and feminism. His conclusion is almost a complete inversion of reality.

Women who are not reproducing are removing themselves from the gene pool. So are the MGTOW. Both are acting genetically defective and unfit. Deselection is inevitable. The book, and perhaps much of the sphere, suffers from selection bias. For example, none of the “Female Stereotypes” (Chapter 5) even remotely describe my wife, just like it didn’t for this Amazon reviewer.

Sheppard associates the Old Reverse with feminism: reversing cause and effect.[4] Ironically, his argument suffers from this same inversion. The Dynamical Laws[5] are self-defeating: If women only have power given to them by males, then males are to blame. All men have the free option to engage in at least one of the following: Marriage (myself) and celibacy (Brother Earl), ideally in their proper Christian forms. Any other choice enables feminism.


Sheppard correctly notes the reversal of cause and effect[4], or perhaps more generally, mistaking correlation for causation. The inevitable result of these mistakes is moral inversion: claiming that good is bad and bad is good. By making various errors of the former, his conclusions suffer from the latter. These mistakes are easy for him to make because he has only science to guide him. Just like feminism (and leftism), he lacks the objective moral grounding required to avoid these mistakes.

Selected eBook References:

[1] location 371-372

[2] location 334-336

[3] location 842: Bizarrely, he blames abortion (bad?) on women failing their birth control (good?) duties.

[4] location 399

[5] location 588

Don’t Miss Dana!

your.girls.phoneAbout a year ago, I published a piece encouraging the young brothers to “always be closing.” It’s good to revisit certain concepts from time to time.

The notion of keeping one’s options open is counterintuitive to men, who find success in most areas of life by naming a goal, and working relentlessly for that goal. Sociobiology has engineered women to exploit male qualities, and this one has an inherent weakness. Men who go all-in for one single woman are at a competitive disadvantage, as women generally have more options than men.

In short, the game is rigged. In the game of sex, whoever cares most, loses.

Patriarchy re-balanced the scales with social sanction for sluts and playas, but patriarchy is gone. If you like having sex (I do) then you must learn the rules, as your feral mistresses have set them. The rules dictate that if you want to be successful, then you should always be closing. As it happens, I have an example, which occurred less than 24 hours ago.

I knew Dana (not her real name, of course) was a flake when I first sexed her, but she hadn’t flaked on me until yesterday. Let’s check out her work…


We had made these plans several days ago. Every day, Dana would send me a “good morning” text, telling me she was excited to meet me yesterday. Wouldn’t you know it… less than an hour before our rendezvous, she decided to make some excuses and cancel.

As I said in my original article, my standard practice is a one-word answer. Dana is probably used to desperate guys who beg to reschedule. I don’t do that. I merely move on to the next girl in line. We’ll call her Marie.


I had earlier told Marie that I had some vague shit to do yesterday. Once I got Dana’s cancellation, I told Marie I was free. I was out with a woman at 2 pm, and it wasn’t Dana.

Marie is not only cuter and nicer than Dana, she also drove across town, picked me up, took me on a hike at her favorite local park, and later she bought me dinner at a great little Chinese place she knew. This was all before I took her back to my place.

Oh, and Dana?


“Dana” might be telling the truth. She might have made her excuse up so that she could get horizontal with some other sucker. I don’t care either way. When it happens to you, it will make no difference. Your time is valuable, and you should always have backup plans when the primary ghosts out. In this case, Marie was younger, hotter, tighter and (most importantly) more compliant than Dana.

What is also guaranteed is that it will be a matter of weeks before Marie pulls some shit like this herself. On that day, the next girl in line will take her place. Rinse and repeat.

Today, Dana didn’t send me a good morning text. I don’t miss her. You shouldn’t miss your Danas either.

Always be closing.

Wimminz & Sorge

Sorge is either a Heideggerian or presocratic term, depending upon whether you love or hate Heidegger. (And there are only two ways to feel about that particular thinker.) Either way, sorge implies a general love for the world, a concern for society, or a similar general care. I think wimminz’ bad choices are indicative of a lack of it in the general female population.

Down below, Caspar writes:

Screen Shot 2018-03-14 at 07.46.20

Black Pill’s articles are almost always solid, so I have to hope that he’ll follow up his Space-Travel as Ghosting piece by expounding on these sentiments. Either way, he has so far missed his chance to talk about wimminz as they have historically existed: as the primary ecological pillagers. This facet of wimminz (mis)behavior transcends race, temporality or culture.

It is not that wimminz are uncaring. It is that they are actively engaging in sabotage of the environment, seemingly for its own sake.

copypasta from Simon Sheppard’s “All About Women” (Kindle edition, loc 1135)

It is not merely their tendency to overpopulate the immediate area (with devastating results), but also their infantile obsession with disposable consumer goods, and their wasteful refusal of monogamy. All of these female traits became apparent in the late 19th century, and became dominant cultural aspects in the 20th.

Sheppard’s work is really quite good, and you guys ought to give the first release a look. The paperback is difficult to find, but the kindle version is easily accessible and cheap.

All About Women: What Big Sister Doesn’t Want You to Know

Environmental Conscience

Screen Shot 2018-03-13 at 06.52.30
Stolen from Simon Sheppard’s book: All About Women

Over on Black Pill, there’s a new deconstruction of the feminist critique of space exploration. It’s a response to some kooky feminist babbling about how the space race is “patriarchal” and etc.

Black Pill Author writes:

The environment is a red herring.  It is not the real issue.  The real issue is that on Earth there is nowhere to escape the gynocracy.

What Black Pill misses is the point, which suggests that no one cares less about the environment than wimminz. Look at the most matriarchal cultures in Africa, for example, and you’ll find the most poverty-stricken, famine-ravaged areas on earth. The minute women got their sexual liberation, the population shot up, as wimminz started reproducing with no thought of the future, generally with the trashiest cohort of men available.

It is men who concern themselves with the future, and wimminz who live in the eternal now. In this regard, wimminz are not unlike children, with the important difference that children respond positively to a kind man’s correction, while wimminz hate a good man and will rebel at every turn.

This process is generally visible in microcosm. If we look at relationships, we find men who want relationships with women who respect them, and wimminz who will go through life with a “don’t need no man” attitude, having sex with men who positively do not care about them. Simon Sheppard points out, in his “Introduction to Procedural analysis,” that both men and women have identical sex drives, but that evolution has overlaid the female drive with instinctual aversions which cause neurosis. This is largely due, in his analysis, to the real dangers women faced if they encouraged the men they had sex with to meek (or civilization-inducing behavior). A wimminz will always see decency as weakness, and will instead choose to mate with the most potentially violent man in her vicinity.

As Black Pill points out, wimminz are so insecure that they instinctively realize that space colonization will be led by the best (i.e. most violent, most daring, and most novelty-prone) male specimens. Wimminz desperately need validation from these men. The men who will stay behind will not interest them. Moreover, wimminz know they have neither the skills nor the drive to get into a spacecraft bound for Jupiter’s largest moons.

Wimminz know their own lack of worth, on a subconscious level. This is something that a brother can use to his advantage. If you are comfortable with debasing yourself by putting on a convincing show of your own brutality (I am), and hold out validation as a reward (I do this), while never actually giving it to a wimminz, she will do almost anything for you.

The flaw many young brothers have is a tendency to give these filthy wimminz the validation that they seek. Once that is gifted over, it can not be taken back, and the spell is broken.

He who hath ears, let him hear: