So why are women such predatory babies and men such manginas? Let Reddit’s User-31f64a4e lay down some science for ya! In a discussion of women’s predatory nature in the Men Going Their Own Way subreddit, Mr. 31f64a4e explains that:
Men and women co-evolved. Female “value” is partially a result of the selection pressure they exerted on men. Most female DNA has been passed on; most male DNA has not. At the dawn of agriculture, there was a choke point where this ratio was (if memory serves) 10:1. So men who didn’t worship pussy … didn’t pass on their seed. This is how evolution groomed male nature. Women shaped [men] genetically in ways that have always favored gynocentrism.
Men select only for reproductive fitness and youth (which is also about reproductive fitness.) We have breed neoteny (childish features in adulthood) into women – not anything related to a mature, fair or otherwise useful temperament.
So there is only nature, ours and theirs. The values men and women place on each other are biologically driven, with a veneer of minor variation layered on by culture.
Well that all makes complete sense, huh?
By the way, that was:
People just hang around in internet clots and stoke this insanity in each other? How sad!
Even if I was to accept his dumb scenario as valid (and I’m pretty sure I lost a few IQ points trying), at the dawn of agriculture, wasn’t financial success a much better indicator of who “passed on their seed”…?
Nope. Gotta stop. Stooping to his level, even to argue with him has given me a headache from the inanity of it all.
Do people like this live in back-to-front land? Men attaching arbitrary value to women is the fault of women, is that what he’s saying? Time and time again, if I didn’t know any better, I’d say they were deliberately trying to sound as ridiculous as possible.
‘Ours and theirs’ as well should leave no doubt as to who treats genders as natural enemies- and its not feminists, 31f6.
Who wants to bet that this person gets masses of upvotes (or whatever they give on Reddit)? Hang on- I already know the answer!
I can’t even begin to point out how many ways this is horribly wrong. The difference lies solely in the certitude of biological lineage, not in frequency of successful breeding. (In fact, if one accepts the standard manospherian bullshit of “beta cucks”, then one would expect most families with multiple children to have multiple biological fathers. So Biblical-era families, noted for their large size, would represent one successful woman passing on her genes, along with multiple successful men.)
BUY-OH-TROOFS!!
Oh good, the Dayquil has kicked in, so now I can’t talk, can’t breathe, can’t hear, and can’t stay awake.
Wonderful.
Uh, “youth” isn’t actually directly tired to reproductive fitness, unless you’re talking about it in terms of “being less than 50+ and therefore presumably still fertile”. If anything, “youthful” girls (which I’m sure MTGOWers define as “teenagers”) are at higher risk for complications during pregnancy, if memory serves.
Aren’t these the guys who fetishize recent history for having “real men” and complain about how men have been degraded in comparison to a time some of them can remember? Aren’t they the ones that make biotroof arguments to argue that certain sexist behaviors and beliefs are natural and therefore right?
Whatever happened to that?
Why do they always go that extra-mile to justify their mysogyny by latching onto pseudo-scientific explanations? Like, can’t they just be: “I don’t like women” and be done with it? Part of the problem with evo-psych is that these after the fact explanations can be used to explain anything and its opposite. So if one starts with a sexist thesis regarding women, it’s entirely possible to spin some sort of evo-psych explanation and call it science. Except, you know, without any of the rigor, stats, hypothesis testing, or for that matter, data.
So, he say that basically early human were using big harems, and that :
A – nobody cuckolded the harem holder via brute force or seduction
B – the harem chief is somewhat the less willfull, most manipulable men around.
I am not an historian, but that seem far off. I do have done a bit of biology, so I am pretty sure exactly 0 animal specie do that.
…soooo I guess he thinks that the genes carried on the Y chromosome are ones that counteract all this neoteny we’ve bred into women?
I just want a follow up where he explains how he thinks DNA works so I can break a world record for laughing without pausing.
Falconer: Yeesh. Hope you feel better soon.
Yeah, it’s a pretty novel idea to look at harem-style breeding arrangements and interpret it as women ganging up on men and oppressing them (a few through too much sex, the rest through not enough sex).
I have a feeling that evolution will not be kind to Subreddit Man. Leaving DNA in your mom’s basement isn’t the best adaptive strategy… so long as .jpeg’s can’t reproduce.
@Freemage: Thank you! Had to take my little boy to the hospital at 5 in the morning on Wednesday for croup. He’s doing better but I’m still on the downward slope of this thing.
@Falconer – while I’m glad that he’s doing better, I hope that you soon find the upswing too!
@Nerdnarok – you know they’re working on reproducing .jpegs, right? They’re gonna put them in the sexbots that replace all us wimmenz and let us rule the world.
@Joe Hanley,
Best laugh of the week, split my tea eveywhere!
Wait… So most women reproduced and passed on their DNA? But men bred neotony into women by only selecting women with youthful-looking features? Am I the only one seeing the contradiction here?
Come to think of it, manospherians will also argue these two things simultaneously:
1) Men are helpless horndogs who will stick their parts in anything vaguely warm.
2) Men can’t help only wanting women that look like supermodels because SCIENCE.
Believing contradictory things seems to come naturally to them. Maybe because in early agricultural times, women only ‘bred’ with men who could talk out of both sides of their mouths!
I think he believes more female DNA is based on because we use mitochondrial DNA to trace populations and that’s only passed on from the mother.
Of course, mitochondrial DNA has nothing to do with looks or personality and nothing to do with male success at mating. But, whatever.
Don’t forget that youthful looking features obligatorily come with puerile personalities!
Not growing a beard = baby forever!
You should always judge a book by its cover. No, wait, you should always judge a book by what you think its cover should be. There, that’s the logic!
“We have breed” – that’s great great, cos I’ve got all this burtter but I’m fresh out of breed.
I very like this idea of totally sciency science we’ve got here: must explain to my Genetics students that neoteny only affects women and only female DNA gets passed on
Falconer – all the best for you and the little one.
Oh…
Oh my…
That, oh, you sweet dear, that’s not how it works at all. You’ve been playing anthropology videos as you sleep again, haven’t you dear?
Neoteny emerged along with the separation of our species from the basal line, on the order of hundreds of thousands to millions of years ago – it’s why we have big brains. And yes, it happened to both men and women.
Men and women share the same genome, they don’t evolve. You do have an X chromosome, after all! And the X and Y chromosomes are only one of our 23 pairs!
The idea of “male DNA” and “female DNA” is silly. There’s “human DNA” though, with some interesting variation between! If you really want a distinction between the sexes for some reason, then you can have “male DNA” and “human DNA”, with male genes modifying the basal human genes when present. But that’s not really accurate either.
Mitochondrial DNA has to do with the development of mitochondria, not the development of women.
Natural selection isn’t based on willful decision-making. It’s based on the natural environment, largely (hence the name), with some artificial selection going on in the fringes. Women didn’t “shape” male behaviour any more than men “shaped” female behaviour.
I can understand wanting to let the dulcet tones of Sir Attenborough lull you to sleep, but really, do pay attention. The lovely sounds and ideas he’s delivering to you don’t mix well with your misogynist fever-dreams.
Never science while drowsy, folks!
So early in the thread and Joe Hanley wins it already? Congrats!
(Someone please correct my terrible science :C)