In every facet of history there has been the male need to not just explore, but escape. This shows in multiple facets, where anywhere “society” has existed, the need to find somewhere else always spawns from two conditions, women and weak men. This is why every society immediately starts to stagnate over time, why the trope of weak men and strong men exist, and why men have always led the need to separate and move beyond versus the female led need to invoke status, to expand subjectivity, and to force those more capable than them to their knees.
Comments (7)
sorted by:
I feel that need myself. It manifests as a desire to live alone in a quiet rural area away from busybody retards. I wonder how many adventurers and explorers did it to get away from the bitch at home. Some of history's greatest men were bachelors (Isaac Newton comes to mind).
Certainly a lot of the explorer-type men in history have probably been motivated by a desire to get away from women, but Newton is a different case entirely. He's not the only extremely high-IQ individual who never bothered with women. Nikola Tesla, Leonardo da Vinci and other individuals with very high IQs never showed much insterst in women at all. All of the speculation that da Vinci was gay is just leftist revisionist bullshit. The fact is that guys like that are simply not motivated by the same things that motivate the rest of us. Their brains and bodies just work differently.
But yes, frontiersmen and explorers throughout history have often been motivated by a need to get away from women. Not only that, but also to get away from female-dominated society, which really ties in with Ahaus' point.
The American Old West, for example, especially the really violent period of rapid expansion from the 1860s-1880s, was dominated by Civil War veterans with undiagnosed PTS. They had just gone through one of the bloodiest conflicts in human history up to that point, watching brothers and cousins on both sides being massacred, and then as soon as it was over they went back to hometowns where everyone wanted to pretend it hadn't happened.
Far from the empathetic, compassionate image that women like to project, what those guys got to deal with instead were mothers, sisters and sweethearts who didn't understand and refused to understand that you can't just move on from some of the things those guys went through. There are plenty of writings, including from some of the early suffragettes like Susan B Anthony and Mary Ann M'Clintock, decrying the unwillingness of men in late 19th century America to live up to their responsibilities, with no acknowledgement that some men can't just go through such a traumatic experience and then conform to all of the rules and expectations of a "civilized" (read: feminized) society. So a lot of those guys just went west to a place where they wouldn't have to live with all of those expectations, and they built a new civilization there instead.
I've heard multiple times that the notion of the "wild" west is actually in itself revisionist history and that while often having much less formal government oversight and laws, it was nowhere near as violent and chaotic as is portrayed. Never went and done the research on my own to verify that, but it does pass the bullshit filter.
There's a very good reason I love reading about Dick Proenneke or Bernard Montessier.
It's disturbing in how so short a period of time we've gone from having isolated places you could go to escape the world to being almost totally interconnected.
Colonial expansion always has two phases. The first is all male, and gets along well with locals. The second brings in wives from home, and society takes on the more rigid system of caste and place in society.
The only problem with this is that it means building a civilization in general is a waste of time. Best to live the nomadic hunter life.
Not specifically, the only reason we even have the push to habitat other planets exists entirely because of this. It’s almost like a biological default setting that keeps humans constantly expanding.