set jpg
(330.46 KB, 1080x1350)
>>/56407/
I don't think its exactly a conspiracy, but more like, a selfish choice. And basically the opposite of:
> implemented by the alphas of society in order to maintain or increase their power over others
Or perhaps an interaction of it, since you could reclassify the dominant class of today as the alphas.
Tribal human society had mostly a polygamous but not strictly monogamic structure. Your force defined how many women you could claim for yourself, leaders protected/claimed a bunch for themselves, but they shared them with underlings for power. Or traded with other leaders/tribes. About 70% of men never procreated from that period, based on gene studies.
Later, in Christian society, we had as fair as it got. But it was only a half measure. We didn't moralized women and made them deserving partners, we just made a social structure that created those circumstances without actually enforcing natural selection.
With technological progress, the structure of needs and fitness required for this system to perpetuate itself (le patriarchy) lost power, and I quite doubt the people who progressed technology did it to "free women", so this circumstance is not caused by a conspiracy.
BUT, at this point, the smartest folk could see it coming and they had the choice of remediating it to maintain the system or actually select women to adapt to this unavoidable future, or letting it go to shit/accelerate it and take advantage of it to "get their run at being the alphas", and that is what they did.
And that is how we got the Gates and Epsteins and so forth.
This becomes quite clear if you read about positivism -> modernism -> Marxism -> Post-Modernism, etc... its precisely about this question.