Muddy – Primal

The original human intra-species violence was between females competing for resources. The prime resource was a strong male who could not only provide food, but also physical protection. For a female without such a resource, one means of gaining the attention of Barney Bigstick was to knobble his present cuddle-mammoth.

Oops, I dropped a small boulder on her head while she was sleeping. How clumsy of me!

Oh, sorry about forcefully poking you in the kidneys with a sharp stick that had been dipped in animal entrails. My bad!

Naturally, such competition between females would vary according to the composition of the group, and the environment in which they lived.

Millenia later, this primal violence has resurfaced.

Now, however, the motivation is not so much an active competition for (male) resources – an attempt to physically replace another female with oneself (there is no need when the state will provide) – but an envy verging on pathological that other females have succeeded where an individual perceives she has not.

The concept of misogyny is flung about with abandon these days, but this primal envy underlying the desire to inflict violence (not necessarily physical) on another of the same sex, via the males in their life, must surely fit snugly with the original definition of misogyny.

Were we able to dip a spoon into the chunky cognitive soup of the female prime movers of recent political controversies, it would not be surprising to discover that while the visible targets of their allegations are predominantly male, their true desire – conscious or otherwise – is to inflict as much damage as possible on the close females who surround those identified males; wives/girlfriends, daughters, mothers, female friends and work colleagues.

While large amounts of both taxpayer and other resources are expended on the amelioration of male-origin misogyny, the long-term damage caused by the violence of primal misogyny – the undermining and disintegration of the male support structure surrounding a female, by other females – is neither acknowledged nor measured. Such damage – reputational, financial, emotional – may result in a seriously diminished quantity and quality of resources available to the targeted females, disadvantaging their opportunity to pursue their chosen goals. It is stating the obvious that these outcomes are not in anyone’s best interest to ignore.

It is time to chip away the façade that primal misogynists build to escape responsibility for their violent behaviour.

This entry was posted in Guest Post. Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to Muddy – Primal

  1. Damon says:

    Whether this idea is true or not, it will not go anywhere.

  2. Perfidious Albino says:

    So will it be open season on Mr Holgate now I wonder?

  3. Petros says:

    Careful with that evolutionary psychology stuff there. You might get cyber-lynched.

  4. C.L. says:

    I think there really is something to this thesis. But we need a less confusing description for the perpetrators than ‘primal misogynists.’

    the undermining and disintegration of the male support structure surrounding a female, by other females

    The state has been doing this for several decades – though, arguably, that too arose in the context of a newly universal suffrage.

  5. Daily llama says:

    What a pile of garbage. Surely Catallaxy can do better than this nonsense

  6. Rex Anger says:

    You’re welcome to try yourself, Spitter…

  7. PB says:

    Women over recent decades have achieved structural power through Law and regulation, which has replaced masculine protection (“Wait ’till your father gets home”, or “My husband will hear of this outrage!”)…gone.

    They are now protected by systems of administration and bureaucracy (” I wish to file a formal complaint…) and social media-generated outrage (….and his employer is….go get him..).

  8. mem says:

    Ha, ha! As a woman who reached the top in her chosen and well earned career I can tell you in practical experience that this thesis has a great deal of merit. Those that “back-doored” me, undermined and bad mouthed were primarily of the same sex. I have had two previous bosses ring my home some years after their attacks and they had moved on, actually apologize for trying to wreck my career. ( One of whom said she envied my looks, the other because I was so competent and she felt threatened). I went on and did other things even more successfully. In the old days there was also what I called the tea room/coffee circle that mostly involved female clerks and secretaries that conspired together to bad mouth and throw stones at any female that rose above the secretary pool. Today these are the same women that use social media to gang up on women who are high achievers and who are not interested in talking about “Married at First Sight” around the latte machine. Thank you to the author for daring to broach the subject.

  9. Baa Humbug says:

    Yeah nah the violence between women was more emotional and psychological than physical. They had too much to do what with raising the giblets and gathering food and cooking etc. All hands were needed.
    If the violence was physical our species would not have succeeded as well as it did. It was more like making sure the young uppity one was last at the water and the fire etc.

    Imagine a clan where a jealous bitch offed a couple of the other sheilas. The clan would now be short of women, a recipe for disaster because now youv’e got the blokes killing each other over the remaining roots.

    The men would not have allowed women to off each other because women were needed to keep making babies. More security in numbers for the clans and tribes.
    That’s why when a clan attacked another, one of the first things they stole were women and girls.

  10. Muddy says:

    C.L. says:
    April 17, 2021 at 5:58 pm

    But we need a less confusing description for the perpetrators than ‘primal misogynists.’

    That’s a sound point, and one I pondered prior to submission.

    Hesitant as I am to inflate the ghost concept of misogyny, I wanted to challenge the ‘female as exclusive victim’ element.

  11. Tintarella di Luna says:

    mem says:
    April 17, 2021 at 6:23 pm

    Good for you mem and I concur having operated a business that employed women almost exclusively, for no other reason than that was the nature of the work, enjoyable, fun, because we were always ‘in the field’ with only an hour or so in the office – but there were ructions and those that were the bullies found a reason to leave, whew, but there is 40 years of fond memories

  12. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare says:

    Baby-makers are precious, so women and children need protection by men if communities are to survive. It takes a man two minutes to make a baby; it takes a woman ten months, and then there’s the breast feeding and care of it, helped by grandmothers. It’s also always been that men are bigger and more powerful than women so you will do what we say, and we have learned biologically that submission is interesting in many ways. Live with it, feminists.

    Earliest communities probably traded women (men trading their sisters) as much as they traded good quality stone adzes or sticks for clubbing recalcitrant females; marrying out was essential for group genetic survival. The socio-biology of human evolution in lock-step with the development of language and human cultures is very complex. And biology matters, it matters so very much. Women are co-operative gatherers and love to natter, men keep silent during a long hunt. Women understand birth, men don’t: so a big religious divide opens up. Women also compete for men as resources; that much is true. Thus women compete with each other in skills and attractiveness to men and they will diss other women if they really feel they need to do so to achieve or feel happy. Women are more subtle than men but can be violent – that’s in all humans, not just men. We are different from men, but the two sexes have evolved as beings who need each other. Go figure. My random thoughts.

    CL is right that Big Daddy State has replaced what men used to do; so has being Top Girl made women more bitchy to each other if Top Girl has had to forgo getting her man. I agree with Mim there, similar experiences myself.

  13. Albatross says:

    The original human intra-species violence was between females competing for resources.

    This is dumb and false.

  14. roman says:

    Being told we’re all individuals is the great lie, allowing us to then be told what to do and have us believe we thought of it ourselves.

    People, but especially women, will do as the culture predominantaly suggests. If it suggests that being a good wife and mother is most important then that’s what most women will do. Suggest being a ho until 37 then have kids with a man that you can no fault divorce as soon as the kids are settled in school, then a lot of women will do that.

    Feminism was __designed__ to destroy European culture.

    Men __need__ to be in-charge. Progressive rot is the fault of men __neglecting__ their natural leading role.

  15. m0nty says:

    What a pile of garbage. Surely Catallaxy can do better than this nonsense

    It’s as if there a competition to see who can be the biggest dickhead.

    Not so much an arms race as a dick race.

  16. Albatross says:

    m0nty says:
    April 17, 2021 at 11:20 pm
    What a pile of garbage. Surely Catallaxy can do better than this nonsense

    It’s as if there a competition to see who can be the biggest dickhead.

    Don’t be concerned mate. You’re still miles ahead.

  17. Rex Anger says:

    O hai m0ntylini!

    How are you feeling after that full-NPC head explosion you suffered last night?

    Or are you another freshly-decanted clone?

    m0nty #11143357999C#2255887-Hexadecimal/Purple reporting in for troll duty?

  18. Rex Anger says:

    (For those not acquainted, our dear m0nty went full Kryten on the Daunte’s Inferno thread last night. It was quite spectacular…)

  19. Arky says:

    A weird and under rated post.
    The war between the sexes is fundamentally illogical.

  20. Albatross says:

    Arky says:
    April 17, 2021 at 11:51 pm
    […]
    The war between the sexes is fundamentally illogical.

    Not if you’re a mega-corporation or a statist politician it isn’t.

  21. Arky says:

    Imagine a clan where a jealous bitch offed a couple of the other sheilas. The clan would now be short of women,

    ..
    Two words: Witch trials.
    The accusers were often hysterical women.

  22. Rex Anger says:

    Not if you’re a mega-corporation or a statist politician it isn’t.

    It’s still illogical.

    It’s just politically convenient and always exploitable…

  23. Faye says:

    I have never been a “dish the dirt with the rest of the girls” person. At work I didn’t join cliques of women but always found a good female workmate. In my twenties, at a large very high security government workplace on the outskirts of Sydney, I proved by not joining female cliques which were on parade in the Canteen at lunchtime, I was picked to work for one of the four Directors in a confidential capacity.

  24. Center_Field says:

    This short piece has merit, especially because the topic is so little explored. Those who dismiss the mentality/sociology of powerful women as blather are burying their heads in the sand. Some apropos comments too: PB, mem, Muddy, Tintarella, Elizabeth, roman.

  25. Michael K says:

    My wife, when she was young and beautiful (Still not bad), used to say “A party is to a woman as a battle is to a man.”

  26. The Sheriff says:

    This article was a very interesting read. We need more discussion of topics like these – many women are known to say that their time in the workplace was most unpleasant when working with other women and that they found male bosses more straightforward

  27. tgs says:

    The original human intra-species violence was between females competing for resources. The prime resource was a strong male who could not only provide food, but also physical protection. For a female without such a resource, one means of gaining the attention of Barney Bigstick was to knobble his present cuddle-mammoth.

    What’s the evidence for this seemingly pseudo-scientific thesis?

    Doesn’t pass the sniff test.

  28. min says:

    Probably when we were hunters , the men and gatherers , the women , the hunters had more than one partner . This is seen further down the evolutionary road as well but may have been originally because men were more likely to get killed either hunting or fighting other tribes and women had to be looked after to keep the tribe going by producing more members.
    In some religions the dead relative’s wife becomes the ward of the male to look after the females in the group. However where there were number of women kept as chattels of their owner eg harems , to be number one was the aim of some whilst others were happy enough to only be chosen once a year or never.
    This practice seemed to hangover into later evolutionary times even to this day in some cultures.
    Having more than one woman is maybe a sign of male prowess, superiority or just plain wealth , like Masai and their cows . Even if not taken into the household many men still have mistresses or a bit on the side these days . Cost may have been one of the prohibitive factors that prevented this behaviour becoming more common .
    Thinking back to training for relationship counselling, until recent times , either because of war or accidents males did not live too long and childbirth often killed off the women . It was said that until maybe well into the 20th century , long term marriages were the exception and humans now had to learn to live in a long term monogamous relationship.
    So is it competitiveness in females for limited resources, an attractive male that make females bitchy to one another . An evolutionary hangover as these days with the pill , abortion on demand , and the ability to be self sufficient with better pay , apart from sex and that can also beep outsourced these days , males are not needed.
    So here is another observation as the oldies , mainly women who could not keep up with a tribe were left under a tree , current behaviour to some is to leave them elsewhere in one place with little check ups or visits by relatives .
    Perhaps an evolutionary psychologist can give us some clues as why there seems so much anti male behaviour these days . Jordan Peterson’s lobsters may have the answer .
    Just being facetious there as Jordan and others have written about these changes so the query is evolutionary behaviour , post modern propaganda or what is causing these drastic changes in society today .

  29. Tailgunner says:

    Game saves lives.

  30. tombell says:

    It takes a man two minutes to make a baby

    Gee. That long!

  31. another ian says:

    Might have been here that I saw this quote athe other day –

    “A misogynist is a man who hates women almost as much as other women”

  32. Russell says:

    No such thing as a single Oz culture that is supposedly driving the male-violence narrative. We are now, thankfully, very multicultural and great swags of intelligent female population are not buying into the current victim regime. Time for men to move their attention away from white-princess and Marxist types. So much easier to deal with people who not so precious about every tiny thing. Darwinism has always been stronger than Primal.

  33. Chris says:

    What’s the evidence for this seemingly pseudo-scientific thesis?

    Doesn’t pass the sniff test.

    Well I don’t know where you are coming from, but I read the piece as an unnecessarily arch statement of underlying reality. Trying to weasel the label misogyny onto female activists is pissweak. They deserve a more forthright spite.

    It seems to me that the world I grew up in had two spheres: the male work sphere and the home or joint sphere. We had different languages for the two.

    Then one day my little daughter was watching a horrific chronicle of persons’ inhumanity to persons on the TV. I was horrified, and proposed turning it off; but my wife said ‘This is the world she has to live in! Let her watch it.’
    It was called ‘Saddle Club’.
    Over time it has become clear to me that humans have two primal status competitions operating; one was based among males in the past, but has become the ‘public sphere’; the other is savage competition between women. NOTE that the competition is primarily to establish social hierarchy, not necessarily to grab the most resources.

    But in the service of that status competition, some women are now demanding all the resources and status of the public sphere be theirs. I refer to whiny pink-haired athletes playing sports that were an arena of male competition demanding ‘equal pay’ (ie un-earned prestige) because their little selves are entitled to earnings that the male game accrues.

    But these are the symptom, not the disease.

    This I believe is also the truth behind the story of The Magic Flute, and lots of other forms of fairy tales.

  34. Muddy says:

    The greater percentage of commenters seem to have missed the underlying reason for publishing this thesis.

    It’s challenging to explain a concept clearly enough that people understand, but not so much that it ‘gives the game away.’

  35. Albatross says:

    I’m sure that’s the problem: you’re just too smart for everyone here.

  36. Baa Humbug says:

    Russell says:
    April 18, 2021 at 2:11 pm

    No such thing as a single Oz culture that is supposedly driving the male-violence narrative. We are now, thankfully, very multicultural

    Not thankfully mate, tragically.
    Name me some successful multi culti societies in history. Then I’ll name some that went to shit with tragic circumstances. I’ll outnumber you 10 to 1 or more.
    Note, I’m asking for multi culti, not multi ethnicity. For example, religion is a core basis of culture. Name successful societies with multi religions and languages.

    Here’s a thought. If you mix all the cultures, eventually and inevitably, you no longer have multi cultures, you have a mono culture. That’s the future the “multi-culti under the one roof” people don’t seem to get.

    If we want future generations to travel and enjoy the delights of different cultures, then we need to keep those cultures separate and allow them to develop at their own pace, in their own accord, within their own national and regional borders.

  37. Muddy says:

    You’ve read my mind, Albatross, so that makes you smarter than me. Congratulations.

  38. Albatross says:

    Muddy says:
    April 19, 2021 at 11:25 am
    You’ve read my mind, Albatross, so that makes you smarter than me. Congratulations.

    Buddy, when your thesis begins:

    The original human intra-species violence was between females competing for resources.

    …you had better being some solid argumentation or a novel re-evaluation of existing evidence.

    Women’s mode of competition suits their traditional role as custodian of the household. It debases politics when applied in the public sphere. This point you’ve largely missed by seeking to re-cast feminine competition as “violence”.

Comments are closed.