For foreign conquest and alien rule, the evolutionary psychological perspective suggests that women should fear alien rule much less than men, but only so long as they are reproductive, because they then have a good chance of being spared by the conquerors and have the option of marrying into them. Accordingly, the analyses of the Eurobarometer data show that young women are much less xenophobic than young men, but the sex differences disappear around age 50. […]
Interestingly, a separate analysis (not shown) demonstrates that the interaction term between sex and age in a combined sample of all ages is not statistically significant, except for religion. It means that, at least for nationality and race, women do not gradually and linearly become more xenophobic over the life course. They suddenly become qualitatively more xenophobic sometime between the ages of 40 and 50.
This reminds me of an interesting anecdote recounted in Thomas Asbridge’s The Crusades: The Authoritative History of the War for the Holy Land:
The Turks burst into the camp in strength, striking with arrows from their horn bows, killing pilgrim foot-soldiers, girls, women, infants and old people, sparing no one on grounds of age. Stunned and terrified by the cruelty of this most hideous killing, girls who were delicate and very nobly born were hastening to get themselves dressed up, offering themselves to the Turks, so that at least, roused and appeased by the love of their beauty, the Turks might learn to pity their prisoners.
Women are the weaker sex, and are generally aware of their weakness. Consequently, they are more sensitive to power dynamics across macro, mezzo and micro social levels. Being the weaker sex, they are much more inclined to align themselves with whoever is most powerful (or, alternatively, whoever is powerful enough). This is simply the nature of reality; it is impossible to change.
In keeping with this, it should come as no surprise that women detest male weakness. Consequent to this, women also hate male apathy. A strong man who will not defend what is his is no better than a weak man who cannot defend what is his. Therefore, it should not come as a surprise if women decide to deride or desert men who are or choose to be weak. There is no absolutely no point for a woman to be with a man who can’t or won’t be strong enough to take care of her.*
Moreover, there is little point for women (or men, for that matter) to be loyal a country that is run by a suicide cult of gelded elites. If political leaders are so weak-willed as to allow invaders to cross their border without so much as even a passport check (to say nothing of defensive gunfire), they should not be surprised if those whom they rule have nothing but contempt for them and wish to desert them and all that they stand for. Put simply, a position of authority has an implied responsibility of providence and protection for those who elect to live under said authority.
Thus, it would be stunningly hypocritical for a man to complain about how his political leaders are allowing people to invade his country and making him pay extra in taxes to support said invaders and also complain that women don’t like nice guys but are always chasing assholes who are mean. Girls chase assholes because assholes are willing to fight for what’s important to them. Nice guys try to avoid fights.**
The lesson to draw from this is that if you want a woman to be loyal to you, you need to be strong and committed to taking care of her. More broadly, if leaders want people to be loyal to them, they have to be strong and be committed to taking care of their followers. The failure of Western society is primarily a failure of men; men have become weak and apathetic. No wonder women find them repulsive.
Ultimately, the choice for men is pretty simple: commit to be a strong provider or commit to be weak and impotent. There is no point in splitting the difference. I would guess that the frustration Western women have with Western men is that the men are mostly content with merely existing. They don’t seek to destroy Western society, but they don’t want to do whatever it takes to defend it either. They are neither hot nor cold, but lukewarm. They seek the path of least resistance and would rather complain about what little resistance they face than simply push through it.*** They will have their reward.
* Of course, this truism doesn’t pertain to short-term and inconsequential decisions like whom to brunch with and which PUA to casually fuck after a night of clubbing.
** In fact, when you think about it, the entire argument for accepting refugees is that it enables the refugees to escape the conflict in the place they’re fleeing, and it would be cruel to prevent them, by threat of violence, from escaping said conflict.
*** No blogger encapsulates this attitude better than MGTOWs like Captain Capitalism. The general mindset is along the lines of, “we didn’t make the mess and we sure as hell aren’t going to clean it up.” The nobility of this sentiment is beyond compare.