“I’ve long argued that female intrasexual competition is the pink elephant in the feminist room, and that feminism itself shows zero duty of care towards women—only towards feminists.”
EXACTLY right. It’s a mistake to believe that feminism cares about women. Like all ideologies, its first priority is its own empowerment and growth.
Your welcome, keep up the good work. More women need to speak up and bring the inconsistencies and ideological BS to peoples attention and call it out for themselves. Especially where it concerns natal subject, which after all is a core aspect of female and by extension human nature and existence. No women, no children, no children, no humans. Of course the Chinese are developing artificial wombs, due to demographic collapse caused by the malignant insanity of socialism and the years of antinatal, anti-human policies, all socialists fetishise.
The connection between £2.3bn in annual costs and lateral aggression patterns is pretty striking when you line it up against the empirical outcomes. What's especially interesting is how these competitive dynamics get amplified in high-pressure, female-majority environments where the stakes involve life-or-death outcomes. I've seen similiar dynamics in tech startups where status competition creates suboptimal coordination failures—people protecting territory instead of optimizing for group outcomes. The fact that interventions haven't integrated evo-psych insights makes sense given how those frameworks are still considered somewhat radioactive in institutional policy contexts, but it's kinda wild to watch massive financial and human costs pile up year after year while the relevant research just sits undeployed.
A lot of this makes sense, but the maternity care part seems very off to me. The UK has pretty high rates of intervention, way beyond what is plausibly physiologically required, with the latest data showing a 45% c-section rate and 9% instrumental delivery. This compares to 26% of births by c-section a decade earlier, without any sign of benefit to outcomes for mother or baby. I haven't seen stats on the proportion of women working in maternity services over the same time, but it seems very unlikely to me that a feminist-driven culture of non-intervention has a stranglehold on the NHS.
(Personal experience is that midwives and obstetricians are very keen on interventions unless specifically told to back off, and will use emotional rather than statistically valid arguments to try to get women to accept interventions, but I checked the national datasets before commenting because that could just be my local trust being run by a dominatrix)
I can't find any data to suggest that babies are being born with increasing head circumferences, which runs counter to the idea that selection for larger heads will become less constrained now that c-sections are relatively safe and available. The paper you linked also agrees that c-section rates are rising rapidly for other reasons, so while I'm sympathetic to the notion that removing the selection pressure of necessary unassisted vaginal birth might result in selection for harder-to-birth babies, I don't think it's behind the trends we see in British maternity care.
(Another anecdote, a friend gave birth in another city last week, she was held down and given an episiotomy while the baby's head was partway out against her expressly withheld consent. I am personally more worried about women working on labour wards sabotaging other women, especially young first-time mothers, than I am about a feminist attitude against intervention.)
The model suggests that because of the unique, "asymmetric" shape of the human birth canal and the relatively large size of human newborns, there is a narrow, "cliff-edged" point where the baby just barely fits, after which delivery becomes impossible without intervention. ibid
Key causes and contributing factors to this phenomenon include:
1. Evolutionary & Biological Causes
The "Obstetrical Dilemma": A tradeoff between the narrow pelvis required for efficient upright walking (bipedalism) and the need for a wide pelvis for a large-brained baby.
Asymmetric Fitness Distribution: The "fit" of a baby is not a bell curve; it is a steep, sharp cliff. While small babies fit easily, a slight increase in size (or a slight decrease in pelvis size) beyond a certain point results in immediate, severe, and catastrophic failure of labor.
Genetic Mismatch: Because pelvic dimensions are heavily influenced by the mother's genetics, while head size is influenced by both parents, this can lead to a mismatch.
Intergenerational Predisposition: Women born via C-section (often due to CPD) are roughly twice as likely to experience CPD themselves, creating a self-perpetuating, hereditary cycle.
Increased Nutrition/Improved Living Conditions: As populations have gained better access to nutrition over the last century, this has led to increased average fetal size (larger babies).
"Stunted-Obese" Phenomenon: Women who grew up with poor nutrition (leading to a smaller, stunted pelvis) but later lived in environments with high nutrition during pregnancy (leading to a large baby) have an increased risk of obstructed labor.
Increased Use of Cesarean Sections: The widespread, life-saving use of C-sections has reduced the natural selection pressure against "narrow" pelvises or "large" baby heads. This has allowed genes for these traits to pass on more frequently, increasing the rate of CPD over the last few decades by an estimated 10-20%.
I read the whole paper you linked initially, it was a modelling exercise and included no population-level data. What I am saying I can't find data for is the real-world evidence to support a change in either average head circumference or average pelvic inlet that would explain the rise in c-sections I pointed to in my original comment.
I'm not sure why you're going back to the theory, the theory isn't what I'm disputing, the actual clinical practice on the actual population (specifically in the UK) is what I'm talking about. I can see how c-sections could lead to selection for traits that increase the need for c-sections in future generations...I just can't see the evidence in the real world that this is happening, let alone that this explains the trends in NHS care.
" I am personally more worried about women working on labour wards sabotaging other women, especially young first-time mothers, than I am about a feminist attitude against intervention."
So you are more worried about life saving interventions?
The evidence in the reports of the maternity scandals has women begging for c-sections and being refused and ignored by feminist midwives.
100% of women in my cohort that I have known to give birth in hospital had things done to them without their informed consent. I was threatened and harassed after catching my obstetrician mis-prescribing a contraindicated drug, my complaint took months and got an apology about my feelings but a cover-up of the substance of my complaint. Another had her membranes ruptured deliberately to induce when told she was just having an examination, a couple were strapped down on beds, some were put on medication without being informed...none has successfully sued for these incidents.
I'm not saying hospitals can't withhold care inappropriately, I have no trust in them to do anything right. I'm saying the data shows a much higher rate of intervention than is plausibly medically necessary, and that all my anecdotal experiences point to over-intervention rather than under-intervention as the prevailing problem.
The 45% c-section and 9% instrumental delivery rate, not to mention the 30% induction rate. There is no plausible way more than half of babies would die without induction or c-sections.
Do you think women have a reduced average pelvic inlet area, or am I misunderstanding the change you are proposing? I also can't find data on any population level changes in pelvic inlet, so would find it hard to comment.
Natural birth used to be natural selection, with the Industrial Revolution preserving lives that would have proved too dysgenic otherwise. Women promoting natural birth as a surreptitious way to kill babies causes me to think that dysgenic women are the chief targets in higher-eugenic women's aim to amass resources for their children.
“I’ve long argued that female intrasexual competition is the pink elephant in the feminist room, and that feminism itself shows zero duty of care towards women—only towards feminists.”
EXACTLY right. It’s a mistake to believe that feminism cares about women. Like all ideologies, its first priority is its own empowerment and growth.
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/feminism-as-entitlement-pt-5
Thank you, a very valuable insight
Your welcome, keep up the good work. More women need to speak up and bring the inconsistencies and ideological BS to peoples attention and call it out for themselves. Especially where it concerns natal subject, which after all is a core aspect of female and by extension human nature and existence. No women, no children, no children, no humans. Of course the Chinese are developing artificial wombs, due to demographic collapse caused by the malignant insanity of socialism and the years of antinatal, anti-human policies, all socialists fetishise.
The connection between £2.3bn in annual costs and lateral aggression patterns is pretty striking when you line it up against the empirical outcomes. What's especially interesting is how these competitive dynamics get amplified in high-pressure, female-majority environments where the stakes involve life-or-death outcomes. I've seen similiar dynamics in tech startups where status competition creates suboptimal coordination failures—people protecting territory instead of optimizing for group outcomes. The fact that interventions haven't integrated evo-psych insights makes sense given how those frameworks are still considered somewhat radioactive in institutional policy contexts, but it's kinda wild to watch massive financial and human costs pile up year after year while the relevant research just sits undeployed.
This post is a solid, data-driven piece that needs to see the light of day and be shared everywhere!
A lot of this makes sense, but the maternity care part seems very off to me. The UK has pretty high rates of intervention, way beyond what is plausibly physiologically required, with the latest data showing a 45% c-section rate and 9% instrumental delivery. This compares to 26% of births by c-section a decade earlier, without any sign of benefit to outcomes for mother or baby. I haven't seen stats on the proportion of women working in maternity services over the same time, but it seems very unlikely to me that a feminist-driven culture of non-intervention has a stranglehold on the NHS.
(Personal experience is that midwives and obstetricians are very keen on interventions unless specifically told to back off, and will use emotional rather than statistically valid arguments to try to get women to accept interventions, but I checked the national datasets before commenting because that could just be my local trust being run by a dominatrix)
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27930310/
I can't find any data to suggest that babies are being born with increasing head circumferences, which runs counter to the idea that selection for larger heads will become less constrained now that c-sections are relatively safe and available. The paper you linked also agrees that c-section rates are rising rapidly for other reasons, so while I'm sympathetic to the notion that removing the selection pressure of necessary unassisted vaginal birth might result in selection for harder-to-birth babies, I don't think it's behind the trends we see in British maternity care.
(Another anecdote, a friend gave birth in another city last week, she was held down and given an episiotomy while the baby's head was partway out against her expressly withheld consent. I am personally more worried about women working on labour wards sabotaging other women, especially young first-time mothers, than I am about a feminist attitude against intervention.)
You can't find them?! Just google "Obstetric cliff-edge causes". You're clearly not engaging in good faith.
OCE refers to the cliff-edge model of human obstetric selection, a theory explaining why obstructed labor (often due to Cephalopelvic Disproportion or CPD) remains a frequent, serious, and sudden complication despite millions of years of evolution. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27930310/#:~:text=Abstract,rates%20by%2010%20to%2020%25.
The model suggests that because of the unique, "asymmetric" shape of the human birth canal and the relatively large size of human newborns, there is a narrow, "cliff-edged" point where the baby just barely fits, after which delivery becomes impossible without intervention. ibid
Key causes and contributing factors to this phenomenon include:
1. Evolutionary & Biological Causes
The "Obstetrical Dilemma": A tradeoff between the narrow pelvis required for efficient upright walking (bipedalism) and the need for a wide pelvis for a large-brained baby.
Asymmetric Fitness Distribution: The "fit" of a baby is not a bell curve; it is a steep, sharp cliff. While small babies fit easily, a slight increase in size (or a slight decrease in pelvis size) beyond a certain point results in immediate, severe, and catastrophic failure of labor.
Genetic Mismatch: Because pelvic dimensions are heavily influenced by the mother's genetics, while head size is influenced by both parents, this can lead to a mismatch.
Intergenerational Predisposition: Women born via C-section (often due to CPD) are roughly twice as likely to experience CPD themselves, creating a self-perpetuating, hereditary cycle.
ibid and https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29078368/#:~:text=While%20this%20prediction%20is%20difficult,;%20obstructed%20labor;%20quantitative%20genetics.
2. Environmental & Modern Causes
Increased Nutrition/Improved Living Conditions: As populations have gained better access to nutrition over the last century, this has led to increased average fetal size (larger babies).
"Stunted-Obese" Phenomenon: Women who grew up with poor nutrition (leading to a smaller, stunted pelvis) but later lived in environments with high nutrition during pregnancy (leading to a large baby) have an increased risk of obstructed labor.
Increased Use of Cesarean Sections: The widespread, life-saving use of C-sections has reduced the natural selection pressure against "narrow" pelvises or "large" baby heads. This has allowed genes for these traits to pass on more frequently, increasing the rate of CPD over the last few decades by an estimated 10-20%.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5187675/#:~:text=Second%2C%20the%20genetic%20structure%20of,regular%20use%20of%20Caesarean%20sections.; https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9069416/#:~:text=Abstract,of%20a%20wider%20birth%20canal.; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329715899_How_human_bodies_are_evolving_in_modern_societies/figures?lo=1; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0029784496000646#:~:text=Results,the%20contemporary%20population%20is%203.5%25.;
3. Immediate Clinical Causes of Obstructed Labor
Fetal Macrosomia: An unusually large baby (often >8 lbs 13 oz), which is linked to maternal diabetes or post-term pregnancy.
Abnormal Fetal Position: The baby is not in the ideal position (e.g., breech or face-to-side).
Contracted Pelvis: The pelvis is anatomically too small or has an abnormal shape due to genetics, rickets, or previous injury.
https://americanpregnancy.org/healthy-pregnancy/labor-and-birth/cephalopelvic-disproportion/;
The "cliff-edge" model explains why this condition is a persistent, high-risk, "all-or-nothing" scenario for the mother and baby.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11673148/#:~:text=Several%20bioarcheological%20studies%20note%20that,impacted%20by%20rickets%20%5B6%5D.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1712203114#:~:text=(C)%20Women%20born%20vaginally%2C,to%20lie%20below%20our%20prediction.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002937822007335#:~:text=Clearly%2C%20neither%20pelvic%20canal%20form%20nor%20fetal,not%20further%20reduce%20cases%20of%20fetopelvic%20disproportion.
Now stop wasting my time.
I read the whole paper you linked initially, it was a modelling exercise and included no population-level data. What I am saying I can't find data for is the real-world evidence to support a change in either average head circumference or average pelvic inlet that would explain the rise in c-sections I pointed to in my original comment.
I'm not sure why you're going back to the theory, the theory isn't what I'm disputing, the actual clinical practice on the actual population (specifically in the UK) is what I'm talking about. I can see how c-sections could lead to selection for traits that increase the need for c-sections in future generations...I just can't see the evidence in the real world that this is happening, let alone that this explains the trends in NHS care.
" I am personally more worried about women working on labour wards sabotaging other women, especially young first-time mothers, than I am about a feminist attitude against intervention."
So you are more worried about life saving interventions?
The evidence in the reports of the maternity scandals has women begging for c-sections and being refused and ignored by feminist midwives.
100% of women in my cohort that I have known to give birth in hospital had things done to them without their informed consent. I was threatened and harassed after catching my obstetrician mis-prescribing a contraindicated drug, my complaint took months and got an apology about my feelings but a cover-up of the substance of my complaint. Another had her membranes ruptured deliberately to induce when told she was just having an examination, a couple were strapped down on beds, some were put on medication without being informed...none has successfully sued for these incidents.
I'm not saying hospitals can't withhold care inappropriately, I have no trust in them to do anything right. I'm saying the data shows a much higher rate of intervention than is plausibly medically necessary, and that all my anecdotal experiences point to over-intervention rather than under-intervention as the prevailing problem.
What data?
The 45% c-section and 9% instrumental delivery rate, not to mention the 30% induction rate. There is no plausible way more than half of babies would die without induction or c-sections.
https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/nhs-maternity-statistics/2024-25
I don't believe I have mentioned increasing head circumferences. The problems are with the mothers
Do you think women have a reduced average pelvic inlet area, or am I misunderstanding the change you are proposing? I also can't find data on any population level changes in pelvic inlet, so would find it hard to comment.
Thank you for providing an insightful, informative, well researched and presented article and analysis on a very important subject.
Hopefully, the Overton window is shifting back in the favour of sanity, practically, and reality, not ideological cultists fantasies, and fetishism.
Thank you
Natural birth used to be natural selection, with the Industrial Revolution preserving lives that would have proved too dysgenic otherwise. Women promoting natural birth as a surreptitious way to kill babies causes me to think that dysgenic women are the chief targets in higher-eugenic women's aim to amass resources for their children.
Certainly, women who's mothers or grandmothers needed assisted births will themselves be more likely to need them too