Male Vs Female Forms of Group Cohesion

Recall the aphorism, “Men invade, women invite“. I wrote not too long ago that Western White women are at the forefront of pushing open borders multikult annihilation.

Now, reader Passerby forwards a study (with commentary) which provides evidence of a deeply rooted, evolved sex-based psychological underpinning for women’s generally higher rate of enthusiasm for welcoming the mud world onto historically White shores.

Circle of Friends (women) or Members of a Group (men)? Sex Differences in Relational and Collective Attachment to Groups

http://gpi.sagepub.com/content/6/3/251.full.pdf

http://gpi.sagepub.com/content/8/2/159.full.pdf

In two studies, findings showed that the extent to which a woman was relationally attached (i.e. felt close to the other members of her group) was sufficient to explain the group’s importance to her. In contrast, men’s ratings of group importance depended upon the extent of both relational and collective attachment (i.e.attached to the group identity).

Men perceive the bigger picture. Women primarily perceive their feelz. Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing… until the scope of women’s influence extends beyond their immediate childcare-recruiting social group to the scale of a nation, with all that entails (e.g., border control).

One interesting consequence of women’s lack of interest in a group’s collective identity is that it may lead to important sex differences in group-related outcomes. For example, if women value a group based only on their attachment to individual members of that group, then their group membership may be less stable than men’s. Prentice et al. (1994) suggest that groups with strong common identity attachments may last longer because their existence is less contingent on good relations between current group members. It is possible that this extends to individual group membership as well. The importance that men place on a group’s identity may result in greater longevity and stability in the face of changing group membership. If common bonds dissolve, men may remain in a group for its sense of common identity, whereas the group would lose all value for women.

What is the practical meaning of this? Women care mostly about close people, their “circle” , and not about larger groups based on common identity. If her lover is from another group, then she will (most likely) no longer care about her original group (her ethnicity).

Women are more trusting of foreigners and friends who are not from their ethnicity. In contrast, men are less trusting of foreigners and friends who are not from their ethnicity.
Among children and adolescents, female play-groups tend to emphasize interpersonal interactions (relatives, friends), while male play-groups emphasize teams and large groups (tribes).

Basically, women are loyal only to close people who directly benefit them. Men, in comparison, are also loyal to people with common identity (their own tribe).

Loyalty is a mostly alien concept to women. They JUST DON’T GET IT.

Thus, we can expect any ethnic group with large female influence and female leadership to self destroy, as the female leadership will not care about preserving their own ethnicity or group cohesion, leading to the feminised group opening their borders, accepting anyone in, and eventually becoming a minority in their own country.

Mutter Merkel is a childless spinster. That alone should have disqualified her from running a country.

This could also be observed in the real world. All currently feminised groups have open borders policies and are becoming minorities in their own countries. Sweden, the most feminised country on the planet, took more refugees per capita than anyone else. In contrast, less feminised ethnic groups (Eastern Europeans, Muslims, Israeli Jews, East Asians) have closed borders and are more openly nationalist and xenophobic.

Like I’ve written before, feminization of culture and politics can be beneficial to the stability of a nation when it’s exploited during high T times to mitigate the worst excesses of rugged, expansionist, lassez faire, free-for-all masculinity. But those times are rare and brief. When societal feminization hits an inflection point of weepy vaginatude, and establishes itself deep into every institution’s nook and cranny, the result is Death of the Nation… invasion by migrant foreigners, gibsmedats are far as the eye can see, and glorification of the feminine vices at the expense of the masculine virtues.

The results of this study are interesting in that they somewhat contradict tangential studies of the online dating market which have found that women, especially White women, prefer to date same-race men. In fact, White women, if those OKCupid data analyses are to be believed, are the most racist group of prospective daters.

Maybe these conflicting findings can be reconciled by understanding that online dating market environments like OKCupid are evolutionarily atypical, aridly calculating simulacra of the real world contexts in which women sift through potential mates. Online, women have to fill in profile information explicitly asking for mate preferences, but in the hustle and bustle of the meat market women are buffeted by an extraordinary array of male mate value signals (Game) that affect their choices.

Online, a White woman, given time to mull it over in her head, will state a preference for White men, but offline (aka 99.99999999999999% of the time in which human interaction evolved) her choices will be susceptible to the frothy currents of social spindrift, and in that environment she’ll choose whichever intimate relations — native or migrant — best satisfy her immediate needs.

PS Women’s differently evolved group cohesion strategy partly explains why White wives vote more like their Republican husbands than like their Democrat single lady friends. Once married, a woman’s husband is her MOST INTIMATE relation, which means she will adopt her husband’s views as her own as her prime feminine directive subconsciously instructs her to do.