If women want their children in the future not to live in a world where oppression of women increases, the attitude to men must be reassessed.
Assume a trait X that allows men with trait X to more easily make women with children than males lacking trait X. Women who mate with males with trait X will have sons with trait X who can make more women with children than other males whereby she can get more grandchildren than other women. This means that evolution will promote genes that make women experience men with trait X as more attractive than other men. Because the maximum number of children one can get by making more women with children is greater than the maximum number of children a woman can get by having children with several men, thus such genes will mainly occur in women. In our ancestors the mammals fought males fighting with each other about who should be allowed to mate with the females why X might be inclined. Since women living in cultures/countries that oppress women give birth to more children than women in cultures/countries that do not oppress women, X is female oppression, which is thus an evolutionary successfull strategy, which means that women oppressive cultures/countries will in the future take over the world.
That we today do not have women's oppression in our part of the world is due to the fact that in earlier generations it was survival and not how many children the women gave birth which was crucial for what was an evolutionary successfull strategy, which meant that oppression of women was not previously an evolutionary successfull strategy. Since survival decided what is an evolutionary successfull strategy, we could create a society with better living conditions, which before we got a higher standard of living mainly resulted in higher survival. What strongly contributes to women's oppression today being an evolutionary successfull strategy and thus will make our non-female repressive civilization a historical parenthesis, is that many women living in cultures/countries that do not oppress women consider men in cultures/countries who do not oppress women to be women's oppressors and experience the men's sexual interest in women as sexual harrasment, while women's oppressions of men in other cultures/countries that truly oppress women are relativized. Because it is the women's choice of men who, through sexual selection, determine what type of men we get, so instead of blaming all men, women should look for and choose the good men so that we can create a better world for our children. (http://www.levlin.se/Sexselection.htm)The answer to the question of whether violence in society has increased or decreased depends on what time perspective one has. Looking at developments during the last millennium up to the turn of the millennium in 2000, violence in society has decreased. However, in the last decade, violence has again increased with increasing crime, NoGo zones, group rape and more young men being shot to death. This is because it takes generations before changes in what is an evolutionarily successfull strategy result in changes of society.
Examples of when the survival determines what is an evolutionary successfull strategy are birds where the male helps to feed the chicks so that they should quickly grow up and be able to fly and thereby minimize the risky time in life that they cannot fly. In mammals, there is no evolutionary advantage for the male's genes that the male helps to feed the offspring so that they grow as quickly as possible but instead it is a more evolutionary successfull strategy that the male with violence defeats other males to get exclusive rights to mate females and make as many females as possible with children. In addition to giving rise to violent males, genes also arise that cause the females to experience violent males as sexually attractive, which is because a female who mates with a violent male can have sons who inherit the father's strength and aggressiveness and thus become more successful in the fight for females, thereby she can get more grandchildren than other females. Therefore, birds form couples where they help feed the young, which is not as common among mammals. The introduction of agriculture and the change from hunting and fishing to living on agriculture meant that the same area could support more people, which gave rise to a population increase, however, a work effort was thus required to produce the food, which, even for the mammal specie of humans, it became an evolutionary successfull strategy to form couples where the man through his labour contributed to supporting the children. However, this did not immediately give a less violent and more equal society but a development towards a less violent and a more equal society.
The figure to the right shows maternal mortality in the dead per 10000 live-born children in Sweden 1756-1980. (Ref: Gunnar Ågren, Folkhälsans historia, 2011-09-02) In 1756 died 100 women per 10,000 live births, which meant that if every mother on average had 10 children, some of whom survived to adulthood every tenth woman died due to childbirth. That many women died in childbirth vontributed to create oppression of women. In a society where women decide, women can avoid the risk of dying at childbirth by having few children, which they cannot do in a society where men decide. In the past, when people lived in difficult conditions, women in a patriarchal society depended on a man to survive, so the chances of survival were reduced if they avoided the risk of dying in a cot by not acquiring a man. So even though it was survival that determined what was an evolutionarily successfull strategy for the male's genes which counteracted female oppression, the great mortality for childbearing women affected the women's genes so that female oppression emerged.
A man can force others to work as slaves to produce food to support his children. If the male slaves are also castrated so that it is only the slave owner who can make the women with children, it is not an evolutionary successfull strategy to form couples where the men through their work contribution contributed to supporting the children but it is an evolutionarily successfull strategy for the man's genes to get the male to with violence defeat other men and make them slaves. If people form couples, more men have children to support and thus greater incentives to work than if they are forced to work as slaves to support other men's children. Cultures where slavery was allowed therefore did not receive an equally positive social development as in our part of the world where slavery was abolished already in the Middle Ages.
However, since it today is not an evolutionary successfull strategy today to form couples who are helping to support the children, we risk getting a development towards a more unequal society, whereby the more equal society we created risks becoming a historical parenthesis. Nowadays we have such good living conditions that it is not a prerequisite for the children's survival that their biological father, through hard work, produces food for them to get something to eat. The children have equal opportunities to survive even if the woman chooses a man who strives to make as many women as possible with children instead of a man who contributes to the children's livelihood as father of her children.Thus, it arises that in the human species, an evolutionary successfull strategy for the male genes that the man and the woman form couples that help to work hard to feed the young if people live in difficult conditions where survival determines which culture is most successful. While if they live in abundance and survival is not a problem, it is as with other mammal species, an more evolutionary successfull strategy for male genes that the male violently defeat the other males in order to have the exclusive right to mate with the females and make as many females as possible with children and for the female genes that she mates violent men so that she can get violent sons who can be successful in the fight for the females. Certainly there is a connection between crime and socio-economic factors. But that does not mean that crime can be counteracted by pouring money over the criminals. Pouring money over the criminals only exacerbates the problems. Children of women who are affected by a subconscious attraction to violent men with mammal behaviour will grow up in poorer socio-economic conditions and are more likely to become criminals than children of women who choose a man who through work contributes to the livelihood.
Christianity helped us create technological development and better living conditions (http://www.levlin.se/Religion_E.html) which meant that the cultures based on Christianity in the 19th century could take over the world domination. Before we developed machines that worked for us, survival determined what is evolutionarily successfull. The work of the machines, however, meant that we got prosperity that led to it no longer being survival where the men through hard work must produce food that determines what for the male genes is an evolutionarily successfull strategy, instead how many women the man can make with children. The development of pharmaceuticals and medical technology also contributed to the fact that it is no longer survival that determines what is an evolutionary successfull strategy. The change in what is an evolutionarily successfull strategy thus entails a subconscious desire of the women to mate with violent men so that they can have violent sons who can defeat the other men and make many women with children. This led to a decrease in interest in Christianity. Instead, the interest increased in different doctrine of violence such as communism, which promised a better world, a classless society, the dictatorship of the proletariat, if certain groups of fellow human beings were liquidated. There were many who were red in the youth to become attractive to women through revolutionary rhetoric of violence, to become right-wingers when they became older. The interest in communism decreased when it was discovered that the poor became poorer instead of richer and that society did not become classless, even though the Communists (Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot) killed over 100 million class enemies, leading to the fall of Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union.
How did the race biology ideas originate that created German Nazism and the Swedish Race Biology Institute? The success of Western civilization gave rise to the question why it was so successful. Why do we have so much better in our part of the world than others. A far to simple answer was that it must be because the people were of a better race. Christianity was not so popular among the intellectuals and in both Russian and French revolution, Christianity was to be obliterated. Many Christians were killed and in Russia, communist atheism was introduced, and in France, Christianity as the Enlightenment philosophers regarded as superstition would be replaced by belief in reason. The industrial revolution arose in the Protestant Northern Europe, whereby the Reformation and the conflict that arose with the Catholics meant that one could not see that something good would have arisen during the dark Middel age when the whole of Europe was Catholic, why one missed the great importance of the abolition of slavery had for social development. Therefore, it was not realized that it was that Christianity in the Middle Ages abolished slavery and not that we were of a better race that was the explanation. In large parts of the world, the people have a slave owner as prophet and the highest ethic moral model and therefore did not see slavery as something negative that should be abolished and thus missed the development of the society that we get in our part of the world. What we have for ethic moral model, a warfighting slave owner or one who died on a cross for our sins, is of greater importance to what kind of society we get than what race we belong to.
The disappointment that communism's promises were not fulfilled and as a reaction to Nazism gave rise to the cultural Marxist identity doctrine. Nazism, national socialism, was a combination of communism and racial biology, where the class struggle was turned into a race struggle there the oppressed Aryan race was to be libereted from the Jewish oppressors. The counter-Nazi identity doctrine did take over the race/class struggle of the Nazis, but turned it over so that the oppressed races shall be liberated from Aryan oppressors. The success of Western civilization is, according to the identity doctrine, proof of the Aryan race's oppression of other races. Despite the better living conditions we have received, the Christian Western civilization and the white man are according to the identity doctrine the root of all evil in the world. However, in order to create a society with better living conditions, people must become less violent. That is how we act towards each other, which determines what kind of society we get. According to the identity doctrine, however, the cultures that have created better living conditions "oppressed" those with poorer living conditions, which means that cultures that managed to counteract the violence and thereby created better living conditions are considered "evil" while cultures that did not counteract violence and therefore have poorer living conditions are considered "good". The Western men shall feel a collective guilt for all evil in the world while more violent men are seen as victims of "structural oppression". According to the identity doctrine, people are divided into "victims" and "oppressors" based on gender, skin color and sexual orientation, whereby western men with light skin who are interested in women are seen as oppressors based on both sex and skin color and sexual orientation.
Can a man be perceived as violent without being? Yes, by belonging to a religion that requires believers to kill unbelievers and take the women of the unbelievers as sex slaves (as ISIS did to the Yazidis) and show mercy by not doing what the religion requires, he can be perceived as violent without being so, thus becoming more attractive to women. Therefore, interest has increased for a religion that has a warfighting slave owner from the 7th century as prophet and supreme ethic moral model and sacred writings that, in extrem literal interpretation, give rise to women's oppression and violence-promoting extremism. The problems are that individuals who are inclined to violence can become radicalized extremists, make a literal interpretation and take the religion seriously (but that is considered to have nothing to do with the religion), and in countries there most other also belong to the religion, one must do what religion requires to be perceived as more violent than other men. Countries with a mojority belonging to the religion has therefore more violent extremists which creates a more violent society with poorer living conditions. More people are killed by extremists and the persecution of minorities such as Christians is severe. It is also difficult to introduce democracy as it requires a dictator to keep the extremists in shack.Becouse countries with this religion therefore usually are poorer (with the exception that some have large access to fossil fuels) since they fail to counteract violence as well as those with Christian religion, these are according to the identity doctrine "victims" an therefore "good". While many have not converted to religion, many, especially women, admire it so much that criticism of the religion is seen as hate crime. For example, according to a decision by the European Court of Justice, it is not allowed to label the Prophet's sexual intercourse with a girl of 9 years as pedophilia. According to extrem literal interpretation, the believers are superior to non-believers and can kill and enslave non-believers, using the women of the non-believers as sex slaves. In addition, the man is superior to the woman and also he has the right to beat his wife, which means that western women with subconscious desire to mate with violent men experience the men as sexually attractive, which is why it is much more common for western women to marry men with this religion than that women with this religion marry men not belonging to the religion. For the super rich who own the media and finance politicians, it is better that the radicalized violent men kill unbelievers, those who do not have the war fighting slave owner as moral model, than that they become revolutionaries and kill the rich in order to create the dictatorship of the proletariat. The communists promised a reward in this life while the holy warriors are promised a reward after death (72 virgins in paradise) why no one will discover if the reward is missing. Extreme interpretations of the scriptures as well as a supreme moral model that beheaded Jewish men and took Jewish women as sex slaves**, combined with that it is a hate crime to criticize the religion and the subconscious desire of women, due to mammal origin of humans, to mate more violent men, mean that women experience the men as alpha male that have defeated the other males, why the men can more easily make women with children, so due to demographic trends it can be predicted that the religion will gradually take over the society. To achieve the benefits of christianity, a more prosperous society, you do not need to be christian, just chose to settle in a country there most other are christians. In large parts of Africa where it is still survival that determines what is an evolutionarily successfull strategy and the Christians are not persecuted, however, Christianity is growing strongly. Christianity that gave us a society of better living conditions is despised even though we have received living conditions that our Christian ancestors could only dream of, but which they have given as a gift to us.
Erik Levlin 2018-12-26 Rev. 2019-04-19