Are you smarter than a primitive Stone Aged woman?

fifth grader

Today, the primitive women of 1830s West Africa whose culture was unchanged from the Stone Age era are up against Ivy League educated third-wave feminist Millennial women.

Let’s start with the Stone-agers.

J.L. Wilson was an American missionary to Africa beginning in the 1830s.  In 1856, he wrote Western Africa: Its History, Condition, and Prospects in which he described some of his observations about social and family structure.  He writes (highlighting mine):

Polygamy is a favorite institution here as it is in every other part of Africa.  In their estimation, it lies at the very foundation of all social order, and society would scarcely be worth preserving without it.  The highest aspiration to which an African ever rises is to have a large number of wives.  His happiness, his reputation, his influence, his position in society all depend upon this.  The consequence is that the so-called wives are little better than slaves.  They have no other purpose in life than to administer to the wants and gratify the passions of their lords, who are masters and owners rather than husbands.  It is not a little singular, however, that the females upon whom the burden of this degrading institution mainly rests, are quite as much interested in its continuance as the men themselves.  A woman would infinitely prefer to be one of a dozen wives of a respectable man, than to be the sole representative of a man who had not the force of character to raise himself above the one-woman level.

…Each [wife] is mistress of her own household, and is not liable to be interfered with by any of her co-wives.  She provides for herself, her children, and entertains her husband as often as he favors her with his company.

Let’s add up their score:

  • Relationship status (+1 for monogamy,+0 for being part of a harem)? Harem +0
  • receive reciprocal sexual pleasure? No (they exist to gratify their lords’ pleasure). +0
  • provided for? No. +0
  • married? Yes. +1
  • children? Yes. +1

Total score: 2

And now let’s see how the Ivy League educated third-wave feminist Millennial women fare:

At a booth in the back, three handsome twentysomething guys in button-downs are having beers. They are Dan, Alex, and Marty, budding investment bankers at the same financial firm, which recruited Alex and Marty straight from an Ivy League campus. (Names and some identifying details have been changed for this story.) When asked if they’ve been arranging dates on the apps they’ve been swiping at, all say not one date, but two or three: “You can’t be stuck in one lane … There’s always something better.” “If you had a reservation somewhere and then a table at Per Se opened up, you’d want to go there,” Alex offers.

“Guys view everything as a competition,” he elaborates with his deep, reassuring voice. “Who’s slept with the best, hottest girls?” With these dating apps, he says, “you’re always sort of prowling. You could talk to two or three girls at a bar and pick the best one, or you can swipe a couple hundred people a day—the sample size is so much larger. It’s setting up two or three Tinder dates a week and, chances are, sleeping with all of them, so you could rack up 100 girls you’ve slept with in a year.”

[…] But Marty, who prefers Hinge to Tinder (“Hinge is my thing”), is no slouch at “racking up girls.” He says he’s slept with 30 to 40 women in the last year: “I sort of play that I could be a boyfriend kind of guy,” in order to win them over, “but then they start wanting me to care more … and I just don’t.”

…[The girls] are seniors from Boston College, all in New York for summer internships, ranging from work in a medical-research lab to a luxury department store. They’re attractive and fashionable, with bright eyes highlighted with dark eyeliner wings. None of them are in relationships, they say. I ask them how they’re finding New York dating.

“New York guys, from our experience, they’re not really looking for girlfriends,” says the blonde named Reese. “They’re just looking for hit-it-and-quit-it on Tinder.”

“There is no dating. There’s no relationships,” says Amanda, the tall elegant one. “They’re rare. You can have a fling that could last like seven, eight months and you could never actually call someone your ‘boyfriend.’ [Hooking up] is a lot easier. No one gets hurt—well, not on the surface.”

They give a wary laugh.

…“A lot of guys are lacking in that department,” says Courtney with a sigh. “What’s a real orgasm like? I wouldn’t know.”

They all laugh knowingly.

“I know how to give one to myself,” says Courtney.

“Yeah, but men don’t know what to do,” says Jessica, texting.

…“I’ll get a text that says, ‘Wanna fuck?’ ” says Jennifer, 22, a senior at Indiana University Southeast, in New Albany. “They’ll tell you, ‘Come over and sit on my face,’ ” says her friend, Ashley, 19.

Oh, that’s rough!  But let’s see how they scored:

  • Relationship status (+1 for monogamy,+0 for being part of a harem)? Harem +0
  • receive reciprocal sexual pleasure? No. +0
  • provided for? No. +0
  • married? No. +0
  • children? No. +0

Total Score: 0

So there we have it.  The primitive Stone-Aged women had to put up with being part of a harem, didn’t get to enjoy the sex, and weren’t provided for, but they got to belong somewhere, be part of a family, have a husband, and children.  The Ivy League Millennial third wave sex-positive ladies got…nothing. Zip.  Nada.

So why do they do it?  Mr. Free Northerner, who takes a dim view of the modern men and women portrayed in the VF article, believes the women do it because they are addicted to the attention and affirmation:

This article by itself is justification for patriarchy. These young women are addicted to attention. They are not enjoying themselves, they are neither respected nor loved, they are starved for affection, and they are willingly making themselves sex toys for men who don’t care in the least about them and enjoy hurting them. It is destroying their emotional core, but they can’t quit their addiction.

They need a stern father to drag them back home and force them to respect themselves.

The men are aimless and alienated. They need responsibility. Instead, they get untold free poon. Why do they need to care, when they can drown themselves in hedonism? They need the women’s fathers to to be cut off from empty masturbation with their breathing sex toys and be forced to contribute and care before hedonism can take them, so they can grow into men.

On the other hand, Mrs. Susan Walsh suspects this is the usual sex-positive propaganda hit piece that doesn’t truly represent Millennial women.

But no matter who is right, I think we can safely say to those Millennial women who swallowed the sex-positive feminist lie:

YOU are NOT smarter than a primitive Stone Aged woman.