Prior to the sexual revolution in the 60s, you could be reasonably certain that a man’s socially accepted position in society was directly related to his sexual market value. For example, a laborer got laid less than a plumber, who got laid less than a teacher, who got laid less than a banker, etc.
The existence of legalized prostitution almost guaranteed this. Since men have no control over how much their constitution drives them to seek sex with more than one partner, society offered a way to satisfy their sex drive without disrupting the meritocratic order of society, even for men with the lowest status in society.
A promiscuous man would either be naturally upper class- with access to many lower class women- or he would be naturally low class, with access to lots of prostitutes.
However, for the most part of lesser promiscuous men, you could directly assume that sex was allotted based on meritocratic standing in society. Hence the everlasting stigma surrounding blue collar work, its standing in relation to white collar work, etc. The color of your sleeve and the nature of your work proclaimed to the world how much sex you have.
People today have no concept of this kind of openness about your sexual standing.
After the sexual revolution, sex is now ‘to each according to his ability,’ where even low class men can obtain status simply by nature of having a high sex drive. The bottom of the ladder, men who have no self control, get elevated to levels of status only enjoyed previously by the most productive members of society.
Take a luxury brand like Cristal; it gets marketed to rappers, billionaire entrepreneurs, and corrupt rich oligarchs. The only thing these three have in common is the level of cash in their pocket. Brands care nothing about their personal traits, integrity, productivity. Indeed, brands are required to not discriminate as a factor of doing business.
The sexual revolution, feminism, corporations, labor laws, non-discrimination – all of these are related, and they all point in one direction: a world which is dismantling hierarchy.
The problem is that hierarchy is vital to operation of markets and social infrastructure. Markets and infrastructure do not exist without hierarchy. What is bad about a world without hierarchy? On a basic level, market goods and services will disappear along with infrastructure like bridges, railways, etc. On a worse level, people would become ‘equal’ within a commoner class and a very few would become rich oligarchs.
Once gone, nature fills the vacuum. Absence of hierarchy would not result in ‘equality.’ Destruction of hierarchy leaves behind the raw state of tyranny or conditions prime for a new royalty. The most dominant will declare themselves leaders and will seek to monopolize any gathering of resources or any semblance of order.
In the current state of the western world, we see an alignment of dominant individuals rising toward what have the potential to become royal positions, or dictatorial positions. Consolidation of international corporations or governments into international interests exist only as long as necessary as a springboard for the leader positions, who are trying to avoid falling in with commoners.
Why is hierarchy disappearing? The biggest factor is that women do not grasp its utility, despise life under it, and have a biological incentive to continually undermine it.
Women want society to cater to their own individual egos, in order to provide the best opportunity for sexually dominant men to impregnate them. Women don’t care about the rights of men or other women, only their own interests. An abolishment of rule and order helps dominant men find the freedom to have casual sex with many women as possible.
The current social narrative is that women must be permitted into any previously male role under the auspice of ‘equality.’ Movement toward equality is synonymous to movement for women. If society were to suddenly reevaluate the importance of hierarchy, women would be abruptly removed from the focus of the social narrative.
As of now, society speaks little on the importance of hierarchy, only doing so to give it lip service before it tidily disappears.
How do we restore hierarchy, and therefore restore the strength of civilization?
As previously mentioned, society would need to restore a high valuation of hierarchy to it’s prime focus. It would need to think that having lots of hierarchy is a necessary and important part of life.
At the most basic level, men would need to rediscover the efficiency of hierarchical systems.