In Defense of Bio-Socialism as Foundation of Family Formation — Free & Bad vs Unfree & Good — Pitfalls of Christian Sanctimony

Marriage of Feminism and Consumerism was bound to lead to miscarriages of biological justice.

In tandem, they go against nature and upset the organic balance of life and society.

To better illustrate this, imagine 4 people: 2 men and 2 women.

Suppose there are 2 well-paying jobs.

First, we need to take human nature into consideration: Men will marry women without jobs, but women don't want to marry men without jobs.

These are the possible outcomes.

Scenario 1. Two men get the jobs. Each man can afford to raise a family, and each is willing to marry a woman without a job. So, each man marries a woman. As a result, two men have jobs and they have wives with whom to raise a family. Everyone gets something. Men have jobs and wives, women have husbands, wives have family. Two incomes support two families.

Scenario 2. One man and one woman get the jobs. Each can afford a family. The man with the job marries the woman with the job. In contrast, the man without the job cannot a find a mate because women don't want men without jobs. So, the woman without the job doesn't marry the man without the job.
As the man with the job and woman with the job married, both of their incomes serve just one family. Meanwhile, the man without the job has no money and no family. And the woman without the job doesn't want to marry the man with no job, so she has nothing too.
So, we have all the good stuff in one family and nothing for the other man and woman. Also, because both the married man and married woman work, there is a chance that they will have no kids or just one kid. All that combined income goes to serve very narrow interests. Two get it all, the other two get nothing.

Scenario 3. One man and one woman get the jobs. Each can afford a family. The man with the job marries the woman without a job. In contrast, the woman with the job remains unmarried because she doesn't want to marry the man without a job. Under this formulation, three get something while the man without a job get nothing. The man with a job has a wife, the woman without a job, and they can have a family. The woman with a job has money even if no husband. She has no family but she has money to have fun with. But, the man without a job has no money and no wife. Such a man is destined for something like White Death.

Scenario 4. Two women get the jobs, and that means the two men have no jobs. Since women don't want to marry men without jobs, the women blow all their incomes on themselves in unfettered consumerism. They don't want to have families with 'loser' men with no jobs. Since the two men got no jobs, they lack status, pride, and hope.

Of the four options, only #1 offers something for everyone.

#3 isn't so terrible since 3 out of 4 get something.

#2 is awful because 2 get everything while 2 get nothing. Still, its saving grace is there is the formation of at least one family.

#4 is horrible because 2 get everything but there is no family. All that money is spent on fleeting vanity and hedonism.

Now, one might hope for a world where 4 people can have 4 good jobs, but such a world doesn't exist. There is only a limited number of jobs that can support families.

When women entered the work force in big numbers, they took away lots of good jobs from men. Every woman who got a good job robbed a man not only of a job but of a family. When a man takes a job from a woman, he doesn't take away her chance of having a family because men with jobs will marry women without jobs.
When women take jobs from men, it leads to men losing their market value as marriage prospects. Women not only take the jobs from men but also the hope of marriage and family, the most important thing in life(because people, as life-forms, are created from families and pass down their genes and memory by forming their own families); after all, it's no big deal to quit one job to take another, but it'd be terrible to dump one's family and go off with someone else. Also, in one's golden years, what does a man or woman think back on? Family(children and grandchildren) OR some 9-to-5 job he once had, some consumer item he once owned, or something he once ate at a restaurant? True meaning of human life comes from family, through which the continuity of life, culture, and memory is preserved.

When women have high-paying jobs, their standards go up in the mating game. But since fewer men will have good jobs because women took them, the 'ideal man' will be harder to find. So, women with jobs face a drought in marriageable men. Since they only want to marry successful men and will not settle for anything less, many women would rather blow all their earnings on vanity and self-indulgence. So, the income that, in the hands of a man, could have supported a family ends up serving the vain piggery of a woman hooked to SEX AND THE CITY lifestyle.
Capitalist Feminism is not about the equality of anything EXCEPT the equal(even preferential)opportunity for intelligent and/or attractive women to rise as high as possible to find superior men to be with or submit to. It's about the elitism of seeking liberation from 'beta-males' to be with 'alpha-males'. The psychology of capitalist feminism is essentially quasi-polygamist. Women are encouraged to feel that most men are not good enough for them and seek out the super-male as depicted in FIFTY SHADES OF GREY. Capitalist Feminism is less about liberation per se than liberation from the 'average guy' in search of the 'superior guy' to submit to. It is, ultimately, profoundly hierarchical and exclusionary. Given that people do want the best, such psychology among women is not surprising, but the social consequences of Capitalist Feminism have been devastating to the Modern World.

How did we end up like this? It's because we forgot the lesson that we are, first and foremost, sentimental organisms or life-forms. The role of life-form is to sustain itself. Everyone will die one day and so will his/her loved one, the partner in life. So, how do they 'survive' after death? Through their children who, as continuations of their forebears' genetic lineage, are cultural/personal torchbearers of the community. That's what Judaism has been about, indeed how it got started. It was about remembrance of ancestors by descendants, and it all went back to the Covenant.

Now, we are more than mere life-forms like animals. We have advanced brains that produced and have a need for ideas, values, and culture. Still, all those precious things exist and matter because of the living. All the books in the world mean nothing without people to read them, and every person is the product of a man and a woman(unless we create a BRAVE NEW WORLD scenario of cloning operations by the state). We are more than biology, but it begins with and is made possible by biology. Without biology, there is no being.
And the main source of meaning is in the family since every person was created by a father and a mother and since every person can only 'live on' after death through the DNA passed down to his/her kids who are also the cultural/personal torchbearers of their parents' memory.

But for some reason, the cult of narrow individualism made us forget that every individual is a 'continual', merely one link in the long chain of life. He didn't pop out of a book or materialize out of thin air or come into existence as a figment of someone's muse. Every person is born biologically and become human emotionally.
Because we are surrounded by books, movies, and fantasy, we seem to think reality can be constructed via imagination, 'creativity', or wish-fulfillment. Look at all those families where kids are raised to care more about Disney movies and HARRY POTTER books than about real people around them and those who came before them. (Or, too many people assume that, even if they don't have families and create the new generation, SOMEONE ELSE will. But the chances are, other people think the same way, leaving it up to OTHERS to pass the torch of life and culture.) We've replaced creation with creativity. It's no wonder we've come to accept something like 'gay marriage'. We confuse reality with fantasy, as if the world is created and sustained by Peter-Pan-ism. We confuse production of fantasy with reproductive fact. So, if two lesbians want to believe that they 'had a kid' together, we better go along with this charade. If a man says he is a 'woman', we are expected to agree. After all, how care we pop his bubble of desire? If a bunch of freaks want to turn the study of sexes into a hair-splitting game of ever-multiplying 'genders', we are supposed to accept it as cutting-edge 'science'.

As for consumerism, it divorced pleasure from purpose. Life-forms feel pleasure of food and sex because they must eat to survive and must have sex to produce new life. But consumerism created technologies that allowed wanton eating and wanton sex for pleasure alone. So, gluttony became the New Normal, as with fatso Lena Dunham who gorges on cakes while sitting on the toilet. It's as if she has to eat and excrete at the same time. And like an animal, she humps everyone, and she can sustain such behavior because there are contraceptives, pills, and abortion. Gluttony and Sluttony gone out of control in this one gross woman. This kind of porno-propaganda or 'pornoganda' has become America's main cultural message to the world. America is an exceptional country? Or an excessive cunt-ry?

Also, the idea of freedom has become nihilistic. It's good to be free, but for what purpose? In the end, we must make use of our freedoms. And in making any decision, we are choosing one freedom and losing the others. If we choose to study medicine, we don't have much time to study other things. We must commit to mastering the practice of medicine. If we study chemistry, we must neglect many other fields. If we decide to read a book, then we can't read another book. We have only so much time and energy at any given moment. So, even though we want freedom, every choice 'imprisons' us within one endeavor and locks out all the rest. It's like the scene in the first SUPERMAN movie. If Superman is to save one bunch of people, he can't save another bunch of people. He can't do everything. He fails to save Lois Lane and brings her back to life only by cheating.

So, we must raise the question as to what is more important than freedom. We must ask, what is the main purpose and meaning of life? Is it better to be free & choose not to do what one must or be unfree & have no choice but to do what one must? To the extent that prisons exist, we obviously don't believe in unfettered freedom. Those who use freedom badly go to jail as they are deemed unfit to enjoy freedom as a right. Of course, a libertarian would argue that a criminal must be locked up because his misuse of freedom violates the freedoms of others. In contrast, a man or a woman who commits his/her life to idiotic fun than grows into a mature person and has a family hasn't committed a crime or interfered with other people's freedoms. If we take a narrow individualist view, that is true enough, but if we take a deeper & wider civilizational view, such a man or woman has done a grave wrong to society. If such selfish people are few and far between, it's not a problem, but when they come to comprise a vast proportion of the population, the result is the demographically declining West and dying Japan. Freedom is good, but it is not the highest good.

After all, suppose there's a society where everyone is forced to be a husband or a wife. They are all forced to have families and to devote their main energies toward taking care of their children, the next generation.
Next, suppose there is another society where everyone is free and uses his/her freedom to only indulge himself/herself and not have families.
In the end, isn't the former society ultimately better off since it has families that create new life to carry on the torch? It lives on and sustains itself.
In contrast, what good is the other society in the long run? Sure, freedom is nice and individuals(esp in their youth) can have a good time, but if people used their freedoms to mainly indulge themselves and leave behind no legacy(like so many hedonistic white folks are doing today), is that a meaningful life? And how can there be meaning in the future if there are no new people to strive for meaning?

Now, we want freedom, but we need to use that freedom responsibly, soberly, and wisely. Sadly, everything about our ideology and culture fills our eyes, ears, hearts, and minds with the wrong lessons and vile temptations(designed to lead to addictions). If Lena Dunham, madonna, Emma Sulkowicz, and Ashley Judd are the 'role models' for womenfolk, it's no wonder our society is so diseased and dying. Indeed, even Stalinism or Sharia is better for women. After all, the Muslim Order, repressive as it is, has lasted for over one thousand years. For how much longer can the current debauched and degenerate West last? No matter one's elaborate theorizing about justice and the good life, if those ideas result in a civilization that fails in the most basic tasks of life-making and cultural preservation, they are BAD ideas.
In the end, the worth of a civilization isn't measured by trending ideas or fashionable values. It is measured by its ability to survive and continue. The current West smugly(and sometimes shrilly) pontificates about 'Western Values' as the 'most evolved', but if they lead to socio-demographic decline and demise, the test of time will have proven them to be the wrong values. It's like medicine. No matter what the researchers and doctors say, if it kills the patient, it's more poison than medicine. (Also, keep in mind that 'Western Values' are like the 'Constitution'. Those with the Power get to define what they mean. Jews who currently control the world say 'Western Values' are about Diversity, Homomania, Jungle Fever, Jew-worship, and hating-whitey. It's like Jews say the US Constitution guarantees 'gay marriage'.)

Now, we are not saying that the only viable choices are Western decadence/excess and something like Sharia Law. There is something sane, healthy, and balanced in between. We don't need to see the world in stark terms of either Sharia or Gayria/Whorea. It's like Aldous Huxley in BRAVE NEW WORLD REVISITED called out his mistake in the novel BRAVE NEW WORLD of having presented only two possibilities: Either neo-primitive brutality or orgy-porgy techo-hedonism.

We can have both freedom and meaning.
As life-forms, we are made by biological processes that allow for families to pass down the genetic code, keep alive the memory of ancestors, and preserve the culture/heritage. Family is bio-socialist. The essence of socialism is the subordination of absolute individualism to serve the greater need of the whole community. So, even though taxing the rich at higher rates than others is 'unfair' by libertarian principles, it is deemed necessary by socialism because the rich can afford to pay more for the GOOD of society. Socialism takes into consideration the difference between being rich, being middle income, and being poor. It doesn't just regard everyone as an individual. In a similar vein, bio-socialism takes into account that men and women aren't identical and/or interchangeable individuals on the basis of abstract theories, no more than atoms are individual-and-independent actors in chemistry. Atoms, as parts of a molecule, are always interdependent with other atoms, each of which has a specific role in any chemical combination. If not, there would be no difference between CO and CO2. If atoms are merely independent players, the only difference between CO and CO2 would be that the latter has MORE atoms. But in fact, the chemical formula for CO is deadly to life whereas C02 feeds life.

It's not just about individuals and choice. Men and women are life-forms born into existence by a certain biological process, develop ideally in a sound family environment, and whose legacy is assured by forming families of their own and having children(who will, in time, do the same). So, family must be recognized as the foremost bio-socialist unit in our formulation of what is best for society. In the aforementioned four scenarios of 2 men and 2 women competing for jobs and love in society, bio-socialism will favor the scenario of 2 men getting the jobs since everyone will get something. 2 jobs held by 2 men can support 2 families.

But the family has come under attack by capitalist feminism and other nut-job ideologies. Also, the role of mother has been mocked as 'having babies' as if that is all a woman does: Laying babies like a chicken laying eggs. In fact, babies soon grow into children, and raising a child is about molding him or her into a human with mind, heart, ideas, values, and etc. Every day, millions of new neurons are added to children's brains, and the process of their growth is amazing. Besides, what is ultimately more rewarding for a man and a woman to create than another thinking & feeling human being with heart and soul? Besides, all the products and services offered by professions and jobs exist only to serve human beings. So, creating and developing a new human being is the richest experience in life. It is the foundation of everything. The fact that the current West suppresses the creation of new life and relies on OTHER parts of the world to supply more life goes to show how decrepit our society has become. What good are 'Western Values' if they can't even encourage the creation of new life to carry on with the civilization? Progs say non-Westerners will come to the West, take on Western Values, and carry on. Even if we tell ourselves this is true(though it is not), won't Western Values eventually destroy the newcomers as well because they will be similarly affected and quit creating new life as their white predecessors? Globalist logic of 'Western Values' is like a death cult. You can have more freedom and more stuff to enjoy yourself, but the chances are you won't produce life and will die alone in misery. Therefore, newcomers from the Third World must be taught to carry on with Western Civilization, but then, even if everything according to plan, they will become just as non-productive as whites and fade away, requiring yet more newcomers to take up the slack. It's sort of like the scenario in LOGAN'S RUN where people can have a real Good Time as youthful citizens but must die before they get old so that a new batch of young people can take over. There is no sense of continuity. There's a reason why most of science-fiction offers dystopias than utopias. Technology is no substitute for life.

Life matters. It is why Michael Corleone says at the beginning of GODFATHER III that the most precious things in this world are children. "The only wealth in this world is children, more than all the money and power on Earth. You are my treasure." No matter how much wealth and power Michael accumulates, he will one day die, and then the ONLY people who will remember and care about him are his survivors, his children and grandchildren. His money, mansions, cars, and jewelry have no mind, no heart, no nothing... just like all the dead objects collected by Charles Foster Kane, after whose death, they will be disposed of or sold off to strangers. Only life loves, values, and remembers life.
But in our world, the Ideal is for a guy with well-paying job to marry a woman with a well-paying job(which means one less man with a well-paying job who can afford a family), and since both are too busy with work, the moral-and-mental development of the children is left to PC ideologues(teacher hacks) and the Mammon of Pop Culture that corrupts children from a young age.

The modern world is great for giving us freedoms that our ancestors didn't have and didn't know how to have(or what to do with them). And initially, modern people had both freedom and meaning, a sense of liberty and purpose. They were freed from traditional bonds but still morally and culturally informed by those bonds and values. It's like Michael Corleone has freedoms that his forbears didn't have in Old Sicily, but having grown up in a culture of family and values his sense individuality is informed by those bedrock values centered around family, life, and tradition. He has freedom but also cultural compass.

But as the cult of freedom took on a life of its own via ideological arrogance and hedonistic excess, the connection to a sense of purpose was lost.
Ideology gave people a sense of permanence through ideas when, in fact, ideas only exist in the organic minds of people as life forms. No people, no ideas. Ideas are nothing without minds to appreciate them, and minds are bio-mass of living matter.

If ideology filled people with a false sense of permanence via books & arts, entertainment made people feel that the Moment is Forever. Thus, people lost sight of the larger sense of time and history as they became hooked to pop music, TV, and movies that glorify the orgiastic hysterics of the moment. Humans went from organismic to the orgasmic. So, even middle aged men and women still feel like teenagers as they listen to pop music, watch Hollywood movies about caped heroes, or play dumb video games. And abortion has turned into child sacrifice on the altar of Orgasm-over-Organism.

We need to find a way to reconnect freedom with meaning and purpose.
The pussyhat feminists bitch and whine about 'freedom', as if Trump is going to turn them all into chattel slaves. But in fact, the real problem women face today is the sheer lack of meaning and purpose with all their misguided freedoms. They have freedom, but the choices they've made are terrible, not least because our reigning ideology and culture encourages women to act like tramps in SEX AND THE CITY, Lena Dunham, Miley Cyrus, Emma Sulkowicz, or one of those trashy shallow pseudo-intellectuals who write for NYT or yammer on NPR.

In a way, the oddly perverse alliance of feminists and Muslims suggests at something repressed within the modern feminist psyche. There is something deep inside that is crying out for meaning, order, purpose, and continuance. Is it any surprise that Lindsey Lohan and Sinead O'Connor are leaning toward Islam?

The history of mankind has offered people four basic choices:

1. Forcing people to do what is the right thing.

2. Forcing people to do what is the wrong thing.

3. Giving people freedom, and people freely doing the wrong thing.

4. Giving people freedom, and people freely doing the right thing.

The best of all possible worlds will have most people in #4 mode.
The worst of all possible worlds will have most people in #3 mode.

Now, why is #3 worse than #2? Why is a world where people are forced to do the wrong thing better than one where people freely do the wrong thing?
Because in the #2 scenario, there is still a political/social power that can make people do the right thing under a new policy. It is currently forcing people to do the wrong thing, but with a change of course, the system can correct its ways and force the people to do the right thing.
In contrast in the #3 scenario, the people have the freedom/power to do the wrong thing, and there is no higher power to stop them or correct them. This is why black problem today is worse than black problem during slavery. During slavery, whites forced blacks to be slaves, the wrong thing. And slavery had to end. But since whites still had the power, they could make blacks do the right thing with the end of slavery. In contrast, the corrupt and free blacks of today won't listen to anything since they got Agency and Power. But to do what with them? For many blacks, freedom means turning cities into more Detroits and Baltimores. Since the 1960s, blacks used their freedom to turn entire communities into neo-jungles and to bitch, whine, and holler like mad baboons. And since they have all the freedoms and rights under the law, they can just go on acting loutish.
In contrast, blacks in Cuba are in scenario #2. Cuban-style Socialism premised on Marxism-Leninism doesn't really work. It is the wrong thing. It keeps blacks doing what is economically backward and inefficient. However, the state still has control over the blacks, so if state policy were to change one day for the better, blacks can be pressured to do the right thing. In contrast, a lot of American blacks are hopeless. They got the power and freedom, but they use it for total lunacy and jungle behavior. And there is no power above them to say NO. Freedom can liberate but also corrupt, and there is nothing worse than corruption-under-freedom. Unlike corruption-under-tyranny where the people can't be blamed(as they must do as told), corruption-under-freedom means the people themselves freely chose to be vile and venal.

One might say #1 and #4 have same results and so are equally valid. Whether people are forced to do the right thing OR use their freedom to do the right thing, the end result is people doing the right thing. Still, we want freedom. We don't want to be forced to do things. We want liberty(or at least its semblance) than tyranny.

Under system #1, even those who want to do the wrong thing have no choice but to do the right thing.
Under system #4, those with the freedom to do the wrong thing still choose to do the right thing. That is true morality, but it's increasingly harder to come by these days because of family breakdown, cultural decadence, moral degeneration, and etc. After all, in order for people to freely do the right thing, they must be inculcated with good, sound, and healthy values, outlook, and understanding. But just look at the state of PC and Pop Culture. We are raising kids to be self-absorbed tards and snowflakes and loons. Why do so many kids get tattoos? They have no sense of time, of tomorrow and the long-term. They don't think, "Years will pass, and I will regret putting this ugly shit on my skin." No, all they care about is the NOW. If they think it's cool NOW, they must get it and the hell with tomorrow. And if they come to hate their own tattoos, they thinking adding more will fix the problem. What idiots.

In order for #4 to work, we need a society that promotes culture and values of maturity, sobriety, dignity, and integrity, like what Vito Corleone had(except for his role in organized crime, but then he was pressured into that life by thug Fanucci who was fleecing the neighborhood).
But if #4 is rendered impossible because our culture creates tons of idiots with PC and junk culture, then the only option is to go back to #1.

#1 is unpleasant even if it forces people to do the right thing because we want to be free and want people to do the right thing out of moral sense than out of social coercion. Still, #1 is the only option when #4 fails and slides us into a state of #3. The black American community, at this point, can be fixed only through the #1 option. Too many blacks have freely chosen to be total tards and stupid chillun.

Life is a form of energy.
The modern world has tons of energy made possible by electricity. Look at Earth at night from space, and entire areas are lit up with vast networks of electricity. We see the most lights in Western nations and East Asian nations. So much industrial and recreational energy... and yet, so little life energy, so little energy of reproduction. Modern folks are like moths before an artificial light. They are addicted to the false life of industrial energy that fills them with bright light, convenience, and entertainment, but they have lost the sense of real energy, that of life itself, the source of all things. Because industrial energy is so powerful and dazzling, those huddled around it feel so alive, but it's all an illusion. Watching TV filled with flashing images or playing some roller-coaster video-game may feel vibrant and alive, but it's all an illusion. Being around all that industrial energy has sapped modern man of life energy, that of family and creation of new life for legacy.

In contrast, the dark continent of Africa is having lots of kids and producing lots of life. They lack in industrial energy but they have something far more valuable: life energy.
And they will eventually move to the modern world with its aging and dying populations who prefer the artificial 'life' of industrial energy over the real energy of life around family and culture. The problem with black Africans is they have much in life energy but little in moral-and-mental energy that can shape life energy into meaning and purpose. Black behavior is in the mode of hump-and-jump, hardly different from those of chimpanzees and baboons.

Some people say we need to return to Christian values, but it's complicated. For starters, Christianity has always been a mixed blessing.
Christianity is like coal. It offers lots of spiritual heat and moral warmth. But it has to be handled with care with good ventilation. Why? What does coal produce? Carbon Monoxide or CO which is odorless and lethal.
The Church needs a good ventilation system. Yes, the Church teaches white folks to love mankind and be forgiving, and etc. That is a good message to warm the soul. But too much of anything is never any good. And excessive utopian save-the-world sermonizing of Christians can have the effect of CO.
So, we need to ventilate the Church. Give us the sermon about love and forgiveness, but air out the excess sanctimony that 'toxifies' people with holier-than-thou pied-piper-ism of racial extinction. Also, Christians need to be reminded that Jesus never said the world of man could be saved. He only said that man should try to be good and seek the Lord's grace in the afterlife.

Bio-Socialist Defense of Men-at-Work and Women-at-Home, or Why the Workplace is Far More Essential to Men than to Women / Humans as Organisms first and Econo-viduals second

German National Socialism turned evil with imperialism and war, but its family policy was sound. Feminists shriek that the NS policy put women in the home and placed men at work, but it made good sense(and New Deal Era in America wasn't all that different; in both US and Germany, women entered the workplace in huge numbers only during the wartime due to manpower shortage; when men returned from war, they took up the bulk of jobs again). Both NS and ND understood the relation between biology and sociology. Men's role is to 'hunt' and bring home the bacon. Women's role is take care of home and hearth. So, jobs are many times more important to men than to women.

Also, functionally speaking, women have TWO places in society. Most women can function as homemakers or as workers. In contrast, men have only ONE place in society: at work. Sure, men return home, but they must bring home the bacon from work. It's like primitive men must bring home the meat from the hunt. Now, among many animals, males play no role in 'family life'. Family consists of just mother and offspring. So, the animal-mother has to do everything. But human society developed so that both man and woman play role in raising of kids(though less among blacks). So, what is the man's place and woman's place in this? Women have two places. She can work or she can take care of home. Man has only one place. He has to work. So, even if workplace is taken from the woman, she still has a meaningful place in society. Place in the home. But if workplace is taken from the man, he has no place in society, esp because most women will not marry 'losers'(men without jobs or lower-paying jobs). When women take jobs(esp well-paying ones), they are taking jobs from men who need them far far more than women do. If women were to lose their positions in the workplace, they still have the home-place. But if men lose positions in the workplace, they cannot go home(because they can't even start a home life).

Consider the One-and-Two-Dic*-Hypothesis. Imagine there are two guys. One guy has one dic* while the other guy has two dic*s. Suppose there is a need for a dic* donation. Who should lose the dic*? Obviously, the guy with two dic*s. Even if he loses one dic*, he has one left, whereas the other guy will have no dic* if he loses his.
The fact is women have 'two dic*s' whereas men have only one, metaphorically speaking of course. (If dic* talk is too vulgar, replace dic*s with hearts. Surely, a person with two hearts is in a better position to give up one of his/her hearts than a person with only one heart is.) The problem of the Modern World is that men have been browbeaten into letting women dic* around too much. Women are told that it's great to have well-paying jobs AND be mothers too. So, women should be super-women and have it all, and society must do everything possible to ensure that women can be both the most successful workers and most fulfilled mothers. Such a society not only leaves men dic*less but ball-less. It pegs them in the arse.

In order to have meaningful bio-socialism, we must have a law that says a family can only have one earner with income higher than $90,000. If a family is allowed to have two high-earners, it leads to concentration of wealth in elite communities. Two incomes that could have supported two families just go into ONE family, esp one that is likely to have only one or two kids. Bio-libertarianism sucks. We need bio-socialism that takes into account the biological underpinnings of social reality.

Also, too much of the discussion focuses on the premise that people are essentially individuals and economic units. But this is a shallow view of reality. Individuals didn't just pop into existence out of the blue. No life was ever created by ideas or ideology(just like no life was ever created by homo activity). No life ever leaped out of the pages of a book or the screen of a TV or mobile device. All humans are biological products of their parents who are biological products of their parents and so on. Before they are anything, they are life-form and organisms. Life is created through union of men and women, and males and females are most fertile, moral, and mutually fulfilled under certain conditions. While every man or every woman is an individual, a male individual has his male needs/abilities and a female individual has her female needs/abilities. Men and women may be interchangeable in most professions(that are asexual in function), but they are NOT interchangeable in life. Men produce sperm, women produce eggs. Men are stronger and better able to protect the home. Women are warmer and kinder to the kids. Fathers and mothers impart different influences on the kids, and both are essential in a yin/yang manner. But because so much of the discourse is about individual rights and economic competition, we overlook that men and women are not mere interchangeable individuals in the actual saga of life. Sure, the tranny cult would have us believe a man is a 'woman' with a wig and hormone injections and a woman is a 'man' with a dildo-strap-on, but that's just decadent and delusional(not to mention batshit crazy).
Feminism makes no sense because it emphasizes womanhood as identity but then ignores and neglects what makes women distinct from men. Feminism is really asexualism. It says women should take part in professions where their female-ness doesn't matter. After all, a female accountant is just like a male accountant. An asexual number-cruncher. Emphasis on professionalism makes one's sex irrelevant. There is no such thing as a good FEMALE law clerk or good FEMALE baker. The skills necessary in those jobs can be done by men or women. Professions, with few exceptions, are asexual in their design and operation. Now, some professions are better with men because they require lots of muscle strength and manly attitude. And some are better with women(or homos) because they involve lots of 'dainty' or whoopity stuff with fingertip than hand-grip work. Because most professions are asexual in purpose, it makes little sense to emphasize female-ness in relation to them. There is little to distinguish a female short-order cook from a male short-order cook, a female insurance agent from a male insurance agent. They are given a job to do, and they do it.
Where women are truly different from men is in the way of life, sex and reproduction, and parental role. So, if feminism is really about the special role of womenfolk, it should focus on what is unique and special about them: What women can do that men can't do and why women must do them to fulfill their womanly roles in the river of life. The question must be asked, Why did nature design women that way? With that understanding, a better society can be conceived in which women do their womanly things in partnership with men who do their manly things. (Feminism also fails as an egalitarian ideology. While it calls for equal opportunity for women in the workplace, it is only because women with extra-smarts want to rise as high as possible to marry and have kids with high IQ men who are just as rich or richer. So, it's about elitist-minded women wanting to be equal with elite men. It's not about the equality of all sisterhood or equality of women with the under-privileged of society.)

While it makes good sense to regard ourselves as individuals with rights and economic units with utilitarian roles in society, we mustn't put individualism or economism at the core of our consciousness. At the center must be the sense of ourselves as organisms. Laws, culture, society, and freedom arose from organisms, not vice versa. While it's not enough for us to be mere organisms -- like brutish animals -- because we are creatures of culture, ideas, and civilization, the fact is we are organisms before we are anything else. And even the abstract ideas and values in our heads exist only because we have organic matter like brains with neurons and hearts that pump blood. If all of culture were to vanish, humans could create new ones through more imagination and inspiration. After all, so much was destroyed by barbarian invasions and wars, but surviving humans revived or reinvented culture and civilization(even surpassing the earlier cultures that were destroyed and turned into dust). But if all human organisms were to perish even as all the culture -- museums, art works, architecture, libraries, etc -- were to remain, it would be the end of everything. After all, culture is useless without people to appreciate them. And people are organisms, and they appreciate culture through organic senses such as eyes and ears.
As people age, they grow a bit tired of culture because they'd seen it already: Been there, done that. That is precisely why they need to have kids because children experience culture(and nature) with fresh eyes, and then, the adults/parents can share in the wonderment. This is why Christmas continues to be special for families with kids and grandkids. Even as the adults don't feel much excitement themselves, they share in the magic through their kids' eyes.

If our core sense of self is organismic than individualistic or economic, we need to ask WHAT KIND OF SOCIAL ARRANGEMENT optimizes the existence of humans as creatures of continuity in the endless cycles of life and death. How are men different from women and vice versa, and how can that truth be acknowledged to arrange for social and professional roles that produce the greatest good for most people. This is where the (bio)socialist element comes in. Purely from a libertarian view, every woman is primarily an individual. And if all women, as individuals, want to take well-paying jobs from men, they should have the freedom to do so. The ONLY thing that would matter is the demand of the individual. But what would be the long-term and wider consequences of such socio-economic practices? It would spell doom, ultimately for women as well as for men because neither sex can survive/thrive without the other. It'd be like a society where everyone on the football team decides to do his own 'individualist' thing instead of knowing his place in the game. Imagine if an offensive lineman demanded that he be the quarterback and if the kicker said it's his turn to play running back. It'd be chaos.

Also, humanity must understand that home, not work, is the center of life. In other words, work exists so that people can bring something home. It's like a primitive savage goes hunting not just for the hell of it but to bring the kill back to the community to share with his family and kinfolk. Home should be the constant in life. People may go from job to job, from place to place, but the one constant must be family and home. It's no great deal to leave a job to take another, but it's a serious matter to leave one's family, though, to be sure, in our decadent-degenerate age, much of the stigma has been removed from people abandoning or rejecting their spouses or children. It's no longer shameful for men to renege on their obligations as husbands/fathers. It's no problem for women to get pregnant and raise kids on their own(with government assistance) while they shut the door on the fathers of the children. Or worthless skanks shunt off the kids(often mulatto) to be raised by the grandparents while they whore around some more. (Obama's mother was just an higher variation of whore-life.) The current culture doesn't put home/family at the center. Rather, the ego-driven individual occupies the center. Even when a man or woman decides to have a family, it is not to serve the family but to have it serve one's own 'needs' on the conceit that 'one can have it all'. It's just another trophy in the game of leggo-my-ego.

In an ideal society, people work so that they can bring home the bacon. It is in the home that genuine attachments and deep devotion exist. There is love for spouse and kids. And when people grow old, the only people who are going to care are the members of the family. After all, how many co-workers over the years in the various companies are going to be at one's deathbed and funeral? Because the Home is central and because Workplace really exists to serve the Home-place, a sane society must prioritize the MAN's position in the Workplace because that is his ONLY WAY HOME. Without a place at work, men cannot go home because they can't get married and build a home. In contrast, women have a place at home even without a place at work. They can marry someone and take care of the home while the man labors at work to bring home the bacon.

Anyway, the basic fact of life-and-culture is that women have two dic*s and can afford to surrender one. In contrast, if men lose their one-and-only dick*s, it's all over now, baby blue.