The psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg created a model of “stages of moral development” that remains useful. He was later criticized as creating a model of specifically male moral development — which is probably true. It illustrates the thinking process of advanced (not all) males. Kohlberg found that no women advanced beyond the third “conventional” stage: it is OK if everyone else is doing it.

Wikipedia provides more detail on these different stages.

Pre-conventional

The pre-conventional level of moral reasoning is especially common in children and is expected to occur in animals, although adults can also exhibit this level of reasoning. Reasoners at this level judge the morality of an action by its direct consequences. The pre-conventional level consists of the first and second stages of moral development and is solely concerned with the self in an egocentric manner. A child with pre-conventional morality has not yet adopted or internalized society’s conventions regarding what is right or wrong but instead focuses largely on external consequences that certain actions may bring.

In Stage one (obedience and punishment driven), individuals focus on the direct consequences of their actions on themselves. For example, an action is perceived as morally wrong because the perpetrator is punished. “The last time I did that I got spanked, so I will not do it again.” The worse the punishment for the act is, the more “bad” the act is perceived to be. This can give rise to an inference that even innocent victims are guilty in proportion to their suffering. It is “egocentric”, lacking recognition that others’ points of view are different from one’s own. There is “deference to superior power or prestige”.

An example of obedience and punishment driven morality would be a child refusing to do something because it is wrong and that the consequences could result in punishment. For example, a child’s classmate tries to dare the child to skip school. The child would apply obedience and punishment driven morality by refusing to skip school because he would get punished.

Stage two (self-interest driven) expresses the “what’s in it for me” position, in which right behavior is defined by whatever the individual believes to be in their best interest, or whatever is “convenient,” but understood in a narrow way which does not consider one’s reputation or relationships to groups of people. Stage two reasoning shows a limited interest in the needs of others, but only to a point where it might further the individual’s own interests. As a result, concern for others is not based on loyalty or intrinsic respect, but rather a “You scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours” mentality,^[5] which is commonly described as quid pro quo, a Latin term that means doing or giving something in order to get something in return. The lack of a societal perspective in the pre-conventional level is quite different from the social contract (stage five), as all actions at this stage have the purpose of serving the individual’s own needs or interests. For the stage two theorist, the world’s perspective is often seen as morally relative. See also: reciprocal altruism.

Conventional

The conventional level of moral reasoning is typical of adolescents and adults. To reason in a conventional way is to judge the morality of actions by comparing them to society’s views and expectations. The conventional level consists of the third and fourth stages of moral development. Conventional morality is characterized by an acceptance of society’s conventions concerning right and wrong. At this level an individual obeys rules and follows society’s norms even when there are no consequences for obedience or disobedience. Adherence to rules and conventions is somewhat rigid, however, and a rule’s appropriateness or fairness is seldom questioned.

In Stage three (good intentions as determined by social consensus), the self enters society by conforming to social standards. Individuals are receptive to approval or disapproval from others as it reflects society’s views. They try to be a “good boy” or “good girl” to live up to these expectations, having learned that being regarded as good benefits the self. Stage three reasoning may judge the morality of an action by evaluating its consequences in terms of a person’s relationships, which now begin to include things like respect, gratitude, and the “golden rule“. “I want to be liked and thought well of; apparently, not being naughty makes people like me.” Conforming to the rules for one’s social role is not yet fully understood. The intentions of actors play a more significant role in reasoning at this stage; one may feel more forgiving if one thinks that “they mean well”.

In Stage four (authority and social order obedience driven), it is important to obey laws, dicta, and social conventions because of their importance in maintaining a functioning society. Moral reasoning in stage four is thus beyond the need for individual approval exhibited in stage three. A central ideal or ideals often prescribe what is right and wrong. If one person violates a law, perhaps everyone would—thus there is an obligation and a duty to uphold laws and rules. When someone does violate a law, it is morally wrong; culpability is thus a significant factor in this stage as it separates the bad domains from the good ones. Most active members of society remain at stage four, where morality is still predominantly dictated by an outside force.

Post-conventional

The post-conventional level, also known as the principled level, is marked by a growing realization that individuals are separate entities from society, and that the individual’s own perspective may take precedence over society’s view; individuals may disobey rules inconsistent with their own principles. Post-conventional moralists live by their own ethical principles—principles that typically include such basic human rights as life, liberty, and justice. People who exhibit post-conventional morality view rules as useful but changeable mechanisms—ideally rules can maintain the general social order and protect human rights. Rules are not absolute dictates that must be obeyed without question. Because post-conventional individuals elevate their own moral evaluation of a situation over social conventions, their behavior, especially at stage six, can be confused with that of those at the pre-conventional level.

Some theorists have speculated that many people may never reach this level of abstract moral reasoning.

In Stage five (social contract driven), the world is viewed as holding different opinions, rights, and values. Such perspectives should be mutually respected as unique to each person or community. Laws are regarded as social contracts rather than rigid edicts. Those that do not promote the general welfare should be changed when necessary to/that meet “the greatest good for the greatest number of people”. This is achieved through majority decision and inevitable compromise. Democratic government is ostensibly based on stage five reasoning.

In Stage six (universal ethical principles driven), moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles. Laws are valid only insofar as they are grounded in justice, and a commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws. Legal rights are unnecessary, as social contracts are not essential for deontic moral action. Decisions are not reached hypothetically in a conditional way but rather categorically in an absolute way, as in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant.^[21] This involves an individual imagining what they would do in another’s shoes, if they believed what that other person imagines to be true.^[22] The resulting consensus is the action taken. In this way action is never a means but always an end in itself; the individual acts because it is right, and not because it avoids punishment, is in their best interest, expected, legal, or previously agreed upon. Although Kohlberg insisted that stage six exists, he found it difficult to identify individuals who consistently operated at that level. Touro College Researcher Arthur P. Sullivan helped support the accuracy of Kohlberg’s first five stages through data analysis, but could not provide statistical evidence for the existence of Kohlberg’s sixth stage. Therefore, it is difficult to define/recognize as a concrete stage in moral development.

Further stages

In his empirical studies of individuals throughout their life, Kohlberg observed that some had apparently undergone moral stage regression. This could be resolved either by allowing for moral regression or by extending the theory. Kohlberg chose the latter, postulating the existence of sub-stages in which the emerging stage has not yet been fully integrated into the personality.^[10] In particular Kohlberg noted a stage 4½ or 4+, a transition from stage four to five, that shared characteristics of both.^[10] In this stage the individual is disaffected with the arbitrary nature of law and order reasoning; culpability is frequently turned from being defined by society to viewing society itself as culpable. This stage is often mistaken for the moral relativism of stage two, as the individual views those interests of society that conflict with their own as being relatively and morally wrong.^[10] Kohlberg noted that this was often observed in students entering college.^[10][17]

Kohlberg suggested that there may be a seventh stage—Transcendental Morality, or Morality of Cosmic Orientation—which linked religion with moral reasoning. Kohlberg’s difficulties in obtaining empirical evidence for even a sixth stage, however, led him to emphasize the speculative nature of his seventh stage.

***

It is interesting to me in particular that the specifically Masculine Stages (Stage 4 and later) are systems-based thinking. What are the consequences to the system of this and that. Here again is the description:

In Stage four (authority and social order obedience driven), it is important to obey laws, dicta, and social conventions because of their importance in maintaining a functioning society. Moral reasoning in stage four is thus beyond the need for individual approval exhibited in stage three. A central ideal or ideals often prescribe what is right and wrong. If one person violates a law, perhaps everyone would—thus there is an obligation and a duty to uphold laws and rules. When someone does violate a law, it is morally wrong; culpability is thus a significant factor in this stage as it separates the bad domains from the good ones. Most active members of society remain at stage four, where morality is still predominantly dictated by an outside force.

In short, it is Frame. It is the building of civilization. The organization of systems. Law and order. Women, apparently, cannot do it.

For example, women apparently cannot figure out, no matter how many years and decades pass, that 80% of the women can’t marry 10% of the men (without polygamy). Even if you explain it to them, it makes no mental impression. You might as well be describing the airflow dynamics of helicopters. They go back to their regular default, which is: conforming to the norms of their social group.

Women are able to choose their social group — and may do so for reasons even of self-preservation. They choose which Frame to participate in.

Typically, being otherwise lost, they will choose some kind of Frame to participate in, no matter how destructive.

Women’s morality typically involves Mercy as opposed to Justice. Justice would say: If you steal, you must be punished — even if it is “for a good reason.” If we allow people to steal, the consequences to the system would be catastrophic. And, any fool would soon figure out that if we allowed stealing “for a good reason,” then everyone would have a good reason. Mercy would say: But, this child must not be allowed to go hungry. It is not a systems-based approach of general principles, but a specific case-by-case approach of real-world situations in personal interactions. You could say that the two complement each other nicely. Perhaps there is a valid hierarchy of Mercy-oriented moral development appropriate for women, beyond the adolescent Stage 3 of Kohlberg.

Mercy can operate because of the Frame of Justice. It provides the exceptions to the Rule. But, if there are no rules, and only exceptions, then there is anarchic chaos. Everyone is stealing from everyone else, and everybody goes hungry. Eventually, you would have to rebuild Justice again, probably beginning with the extended family.

The natural conclusion here is that men must fix everything. Women can’t fix anything. Haven’t you noticed that? Women can maintain and preserve things, just as women today have been the chief maintainers and preservers of most Christian congregations. Women can be told how to fix things, by men. But, they can’t fix anything themselves.

In other words, Matriarchy does not exist.

Mrs. Midwest is a mom.

Brittany Sellner is pregnant. (But her sister might be single!)

Ashley St. Clair is pregnant.

Miles Mathis weighs in on the difficulties facing young women today, and what to do about it.

The highest and most shocking number is for under-30 white liberal women: 56.3% of them report mental illness! While conservative women report less than half that, 27.3%.

Why is this?

In short, I have shown you that women and liberals have gone crazier than most because they have been targeted psychologically more than most. The CIA and other institutions— including the big ones like Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford, and Gates—have, as part of Operation Chaos, targeted women and liberals above all others. You will remind me that I have recently shown how men are targeted in the gender wars, but psychologically women have been targeted earlier, more, and more directly. Men have been targeted physically and psychologically, but with men the targeting has been more on the surface. Physically, men have had their sperm counts targeted, for instance. They have also been targeted with fluoride and estrogen and other things. They have also been attacked by destroying their relationships. In this way, men are attacked through the loss of women. In other words, women are driven crazy, men lose them, then the men collapse, either physically or mentally. But the women were the first and primary target, you see. Men were the secondary target, since they would be brought down through the loss of women.

How has this come about?

I would say depression is a symptom of induced inertia. What we are taught is upside down, as usual, probably on purpose. What I mean by induced inertia is simple: the CIA wants to ruin a woman, so it targets her. She is taught a hodgepodge of conflicting information that cannot possibly be assimilated, hence the confusion. Once she is confused this way, she cannot make a rational decision in a real-life situation, because she is being pulled in opposite ways at the same time. Her instincts tell her to love a man and trust him, while the media tells her she cannot trust him. So her body is telling her go and stop at the same time. She tells the man to go and stop at the same time, so he doesn’t know what to do and eventually gives up. This ruins not only her relationships, but his. Both the man and the woman have been targeted through her.

What should women do about it?

As I say in every paper like this, the main thing you and the men around you must do is get back together and stay together. You must resist the project to split you, since the male-female alliance is the most basic and most powerful one that exists. It not only produces children, it produces almost everything else of value. It is the source of all stability and the source of all resistance to tyranny. Single men and women who do not believe in one another have no reason to resist tyranny or anything else and the governors know this. It is why they have split us. Isolated people have very little reason to care, and are ripe for oppression. But families and communities do care, because they are protecting a future that is greater than themselves.

To reconstruct the alliance of the sexes, you have to believe in men again, which means you have to mark all the recent propaganda return-to-sender. You have to tell the news and the media to go away, retapping into your primal instincts, which are far better and more trustworthy than the mainstream. If you are a progressive, you have to realize that all the “progress” of the last century has been an illusion or a con. Society has not progressed, it has regressed into chaos and confusion, idiocy and vulgarity, corruption and squalor. On purpose. All this has been done as part of a plan to disempower the average man and woman, to separate them and squash them, so that they are no threat to their rulers. You have to realize the governors have no desire to raise you up or enlighten you, man or woman. Their only goal is to make sure you cannot compete, so that you do not inconvenience them as they take everything of value, including all money, all property, all commodities, all the interesting jobs, all the attention, and all the promotion.

So, as you see, you are in a deep hole, one you cannot possibly climb out of yourself. First you need a partner, then you need a family, then you need a community. Only with all of them can you begin to organize against your powerful oppressors. That means the very first order of business for most women is finding a good man—same as it always was. That isn’t sexist, because the reverse is equally true: the man must find you. That is his first order of business. This isn’t something you should be doing after age 30, it is something you should be doing in your late teens, as in the old days.

This has been a primary point of miseducation, since if the governors can mess you up early and separate you from your power structures, you are likely lost for life. Once you have gone adrift, it is very hard to get back to shore, and they know that. So they have told you to concentrate on college and jobs, which is actually the last thing you should be doing at that age. In your late teens and early twenties you should be finding a partner and a community and starting a family. Work is also important, as is continuing to learn, but they are both secondary and in support of family and community. Most young people think they can start a family later, after they have finished college and made bank, but that is going about it all wrong. For the majority of people that won’t work, since it doesn’t match Nature’s timelines. Besides, the majority of people never make bank. The notion comes out of the aristocracy, which is the only place it can work. Rich people can wait until they are middle aged to start a family, since they are born with the connections we are talking about. They don’t have to claw their way up or resist oppression, because they are from the oppressing class. Odds are you aren’t, so you best pursue your personal alliances early, starting with a husband or wife.

Tara Blair Ball writes some pretty good “6 Common Mistakes Single Women Make When Seeking a Relationship.”

#4. We go for the alphas/f*ckbois.

Alphas don’t need no partner, and they’re likely to have some nasty personality traits too that would make for an awful long-term partner.

F*ckbois want to bang your brains out and then vamp. If that’s what you want, cool. Just look for the guy with all of all the shirtless profile pictures bro-ing it up.

If you want a relationship though, avoid both. They won’t change just because you want them to, and in the meantime, you might be missing out on a perfectly nice guy who is a little awkward in social settings or doesn’t love art museums.

Alphas/f*ckbois are shiny like bits of tin foil in the sun, but they’ll blow away at the first gust of wind. Good guys are solid like a tree. They may not look as shiny, but they’ve got roots and they’re going to stay.

The problem is, the whole world is full of 29.999 year-old women who have figured this out after doing everything wrong for the last 15 years. These worn-out Carousel Riders don’t make good wives. The good girls are gone by 26.

From a man’s perspective, the winning strategy is to Be The Fuckboy and have your fun while she is Age 18-30 and doesn’t know any better. It’s all upside and no downside. Let the Good Guy marry these worn-out leftovers at Age 32, and then get torn to shreds in divorce court at Age 40. It’s all downside and no upside.

I am mentioning this for women, who think they are accomplishing something. Didn’t we already tell you about the Epiphany Phase?

Since women really can’t govern themselves productively, it must fall upon men, in particular their Fathers, to fix things. In the past, this meant that a woman lived at her father’s house until marriage, and maintained chastity.

Here’s RooshV:

It is completely your responsibility to create the environment of a good home, a good city, and a good country to prevent the fall of your women. It’s your responsibility to create the right environment where all women remain good instead of succumbing to an evil where within a short amount of time she becomes a useless, tattooed, overweight, and masculine slut. It should be clear to you by now that women absolutely can not save themselves, and have no inherent resistance to the pollution that tempts them in this world. It’s solely up to us men to shield their natural virtue so that they become the wives and mothers that allow you to fulfill your biological destiny while furthering the health of your society.

Matriarchy does not exist. There are only strong Patriarchies, and weak Patriarchies that either reform themselves, or disintegrate.

We must move beyond just complaining about the present situation, and start developing alternatives. One such proposal is “My Money, My Choice,” presented by comedian Dave Chapelle.

Basically, this means that financial child support is optional. If an unmarried woman gets pregnant, the biological father may or may not give her money, depending entirely on his own choice. I don’t know if this is a good idea, but we can imagine some of the immediate effects. Women would become a lot more careful. There might be more abortions. The present 40% rate of children born to unmarried mothers (25% among Whites) would plummet. Marriages where children are born less than eight months afterward might become more common, as they were in the past.

The point is, this little change would definitely be effective. We don’t have to suffer indefinitely with our present state of affairs. We can change it.

The way to change things is not to whine to women about what we would like them to do. We can ask women to support our plan, because if it is good for society as a whole, it would be good for women too, and also their sons. (Women tend to become capable of understanding “men’s issues” after they have sons.) If you can get 80% of men to support it, and 30% of women, it is a done deal.

A similar change might be to make childcare after divorce entirely the responsibility of the parent with custody. If a woman takes the children, she pays for them. If a man takes the children, he pays for them. A man or a woman is equally capable of working for a living, and also, equally capable of dropping off the children at daycare or school before going to work.

Men have been joining together over “men’s issues,” mostly at blogs like Dalrock, or various YouTube personalities. But, they have not yet joined together politically. You must do this, even if it amounts to playacting. I have suggested making a small donation (perhaps $25) to the National Coalition for Men, or supporting people who are more focused on actually changing the legal structure today, rather than just adapting to it — people such as Paul Elam. Send them at least a little money.

But, divorce, domestic violence and other such laws are mostly State laws, and they are best pursued at the State level. Send a letter to your representatives in State Congress, expressing your views on the issue.

We will need more people to establish political groups at the State level. This is not very hard. It is something that a person could do on the weekends. It amounts to doing some research in the topic, and then bringing your case to the representatives of State Congress. Talk to some lawyers active in family law, or related topics such as sexual harassment. Create some proposals — if you don’t like the present situation, what should it be replaced with? What should the new laws look like? After you build some expertise, and can be legitimately taken seriously, ask for a personal meeting with State Congressmen. We don’t really need our 115th YouTube personality. We need one person addressing the situation in the State of Pennsylvania, and providing some leadership and organization to make changes.

In time, you can ask other men to send you some money, to continue this work. Yes, just ask for money. Organize a few gatherings of some sort, such as the usual rallies or speeches, or perhaps some new format. You might be able to rent a community center for $100.

Cut off their nose.

***

The earliest mention I can find of Native American women having their noses cut off for adultery is in a memoir by Alexander Maximilian, a Prussian prince, naturalist and ethnographer in the 1830s. He said this about the men of the Blackfeet tribe: “They generally punish infidelity in their wives very seriously, cutting off their noses in such cases; and we saw, about Fort McKenzie, a great many of these poor creatures horribly disfigured. When ten or twelve tents were together, we were sure to see six or seven women mutilated in this manner. The husband also cuts off the hair by way of punishment.”

Repudiated by her mate, the mutilated woman was no longer marriageable and ended her days laboring for other households-perhaps counting herself lucky she hadn’t been killed, as sometimes occurred. 

It’s as if there is a common element here.

Day and night woman must be kept in dependence by the males (of) their (families), and, if they attach themselves to sensual enjoyments, they must be kept under one’s control. – Manusmriti

Her father protects her in childhood, her husband protects her in youth, and her sons protect her in old age; a woman is never fit for independence. – Manusmriti

When creating them Manu allotted to women a love of their bed, of their seat and of ornament, impure desires, wrath, dishonesty, malice, and bad conduct. – Manusmriti

***

Lots and lots of laws.

Up to five years in prison. This was under British colonial rule.

***

Adultery was a criminal offence under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code until it was quashed by the Supreme Court of India on 27 September 2018 as unconstitutional.^[1]Under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, which was the section dealing with adultery, a man who had consensual sexual intercourse with the wife of another man without that husband’s consent could have been punished for this offence with up to five years imprisonment, a fine or both. When first enacted in 1860, the wife could also be punished as abetting the offence.

The Supreme Court called the law unconstitutional because it “treats a husband as the sole master.” However it is still a sufficient ground for divorce as ruled by the Supreme Court.

After being passed by the Legislative Council, the Governor-General assented to the Indian Penal Code on 6th October, 1860.

Section 497 read as follows:

Adultery.—
Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery, and shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both. In such case the wife shall [not]^[4] be punishable as an abettor.— Section 497 of IPC^[5]