Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Scientific American)   Women are instinctively attracted to loud-mouthed mansplainers say evolutionary theorists. My wife says keep it up and I'll earn a Darwin Award   ( blogs.scientificamerican.com) divider line
    More: Awkward, demonic males, Gender, Sex, social injustice warriors, sexual selection, Female, women, book Demonic Males  
•       •       •

1901 clicks; posted to Geek » on 30 Dec 2017 at 2:09 AM (7 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



107 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-12-30 12:20:10 AM  
How dare you? I'm definitely triggered.

Women are smarter than men. They run the world.
 
2017-12-30 02:13:16 AM  
I predict nobody in this thread will take a comment intended as an on-average generalization of a group of people as a targeted personal attack against them.
 
2017-12-30 02:22:27 AM  
RedPill. Duh.
 
2017-12-30 02:25:13 AM  
Evopsych. Biological essentialism.

Whoooooboy... *eyes get stuck from rolling so hard*
 
2017-12-30 02:25:49 AM  
Probably programmed into them from being dominated for millennia. A hundred dead generations can't be wrong, can they?
 
2017-12-30 02:46:49 AM  
Did TFA mansplain it to us?
 
2017-12-30 03:07:40 AM  
Many women would prefer it otherwise, but in the real world, the tough guy finds himself besieged with female admirers, while the self-effacing friend sadly clutches his glass of Chablis at the fern bar alone.

It was Chardonnay! I mean... er... I bet a loser like that would be drinking Chardonnay.
 
2017-12-30 03:11:38 AM  
I am a perfect gentleman.  I just wish my female friends would notice, instead of hooking up with cro-magnons.

/You're too good for him, Michelle!!!
//call me...
 
2017-12-30 03:33:02 AM  
"...war "seems to have been rare until most humans abandoned the [nomadic hunter-gatherer] lifestyle. "

"War and patriarchy, in other words, are relatively recent cultural developments."

Well, by default war would have been rare if you only have 40-100 people in your tribal band.  Thst doesn't mean they weren't raiding and maybe eating the next tribe over. Violence related to resources would have been much more common than today and they weren't primarily sending their women out to fight. This seems to be a very weak point.

Since hunter-gatherers groups would not have had the scale settled civilizations did, and less formal cultural structure, maybe the "patriarchy" as it later existed wasn't the same, but I'd be curious to have them take a stab at the percentage of tribal leaders that were female. The hunter-gatherer groups in more modern history have had male leaders. But that's not patriarchy? I would guess that western countries now are more, and maybe much more, egalitarian than most groups 20,000 years ago, with women more able to choose their roles in society.

Also, the title of the article "Do Women Want to be Oppressed?" obviously is silly and slanted and isn't how the issue is looked at.

Also, "Another problem with the sexual-selection theory of male dominance is that it suggests women have been complicit in their own oppression." A scientist would or should not look at the question as a problem. It's just a theory to try to understand the world, not moral guidance.

The scientists proposing this clearly are not all essentialists. "Wrangham argues in Demonic Males that female empowerment is the best way to create a more egalitarian, peaceful world."
 
2017-12-30 03:46:10 AM  
In high school, a friend (and notorious asshole, but girl magnet) once told me "The first step in getting a girl to love you, is to get her to hate you. It's easy to flip the hate into love, but if you're unremarkable (kind, gentlemanly, etc., what we modernly think of as beta) you'll never make it on her emotional radar and are doomed from the start.  A strong initial emotional reaction, of any kind, is the key."

I didn't really want to be known as an asshole at school, so during summer break (I went to a boarding school) I decided to "play the asshole" at parties and whatnot. Sadly, he was right. The more of a jerk I was publicly (talking down to people, boasting about anything and everything, being rude about people's physical attributes, and worse) the more girls seemed to be interested in me. Strange, but it was true.

By college, I had figured out how to be an academic jerk in classes, but normal me in my personal life. It was almost a bait and switch technique, but it worked decently well and was less emotionally taxing than faking being a jerk 24/7.
 
2017-12-30 04:00:09 AM  
Talk it like a boss, womens be like tell me watta do.
 
2017-12-30 04:10:07 AM  

kyuzokai: In high school, a friend (and notorious asshole, but girl magnet) once told me "The first step in getting a girl to love you, is to get her to hate you. It's easy to flip the hate into love, but if you're unremarkable (kind, gentlemanly, etc., what we modernly think of as beta) you'll never make it on her emotional radar and are doomed from the start.  A strong initial emotional reaction, of any kind, is the key."

I didn't really want to be known as an asshole at school, so during summer break (I went to a boarding school) I decided to "play the asshole" at parties and whatnot. Sadly, he was right. The more of a jerk I was publicly (talking down to people, boasting about anything and everything, being rude about people's physical attributes, and worse) the more girls seemed to be interested in me. Strange, but it was true.

By college, I had figured out how to be an academic jerk in classes, but normal me in my personal life. It was almost a bait and switch technique, but it worked decently well and was less emotionally taxing than faking being a jerk 24/7.


All I had to do to get a shiat ton of female friends, and a few girlfriends, in college was treat them like human beings.  Two of my three girlfriends in college even said that they were initially intrigued by the fact that I wasn't an asshole but I also didn't play the Nice Guy™...they felt comfortable around me, which led to romantic feelings and fun times for all.  Hell, I'm still close friends with one of them some 25+ years later.

It's amazing what one's love life can be like when you don't think of women as puzzles to be solved, prizes to be won, or marks to be conned.
 
2017-12-30 04:19:03 AM  
It's always great when a bunch of comfortable older men in high-status positions decide that their besieged social views are actually Good and Natural and Ordained By God/Nature/Evolution, and in fact the social structures embodying those increasingly-unfashionable views actually exist for the benefit of the once-marginalised group now demanding greater prominence, so really what are they even complaining about, everything is fine.

That's the sort of argument that has really held up well every time it's been made over the past four hundred years.
 
2017-12-30 04:39:07 AM  
I think somebody is watching way too many sitcoms.
 
2017-12-30 05:13:16 AM  
Chicks are our equals now, guys.  We just gotta come to terms with the fact that what broads think is important, to.  Otherwise, you know how them skirts get...
 
2017-12-30 05:13:34 AM  
*Chuckles indulgently, pours another glass of wine.
 
2017-12-30 05:33:14 AM  
I love that old Kipling expression "Just-so story".
It perfectly describes all these pat, perfectly fitted "theories" people have been concocting to support their prejudices, lately.
Miller and Wrangham's "theories" sound like the "ladder" and "nice guy" memes from 4chan gussied up with fancy sceintifical bullshiat.
I don't actually believe most women like, or are attracted to assholes. I think asshole males get most of their power and support from submissive males - not from women.
There are exceptions, of course - but as a rule, women don't like jerks.
 
2017-12-30 05:38:42 AM  
I'd say this is a human trait amongst a large portion of the population, because we instinctively try to stay safe from death, even if that means suffering harm. You don't poke the bear, and even men know that.

Which is sad, because we CAN fight back now. We know better.
 
2017-12-30 06:01:48 AM  
lh3.googleusercontent.comView Full Size
 
2017-12-30 06:10:54 AM  

jso2897: I love that old Kipling expression "Just-so story".
It perfectly describes all these pat, perfectly fitted "theories" people have been concocting to support their prejudices, lately.
Miller and Wrangham's "theories" sound like the "ladder" and "nice guy" memes from 4chan gussied up with fancy sceintifical bullshiat.
I don't actually believe most women like, or are attracted to assholes. I think asshole males get most of their power and support from submissive males - not from women.
There are exceptions, of course - but as a rule, women don't like jerks.


The biggest problem with "evo-psych" theorists is that none of them are anthropologists specialising in hunting/gathering societies. They're psychologists and/or evolutionary biologists with a paper-thin understanding of sociology, anthropology, and archaeology.

Evo-psych is taking the traits they notice in middle-class American college freshmen taking surveys for five bucks, assuming those traits are atomic and isolatable, genetically transmitted, and eternal across all of humanity, and then rationalizing how they could have been advantageous in a Fred Flintstone fantasy past.

It's mostly popular an excuse for right-wing cranks to dismiss the academic consensus on whatever sociological issue they're bent out of shape about on any given day, since it's pretty easy to find an evo-psych theorist arguing that [whatever 1950s-ish American social habit is in today's left-wing crosshairs] is actually a natural evolutionary adaptation, so take that libs.
 
2017-12-30 07:37:24 AM  
If women didn't like assholes, assholes woun't exist in the quantity they do.

That's evolution, homes.
 
2017-12-30 07:44:30 AM  
Using sociology and psychology to interpret evolutionary biology is pretty funny.
 
2017-12-30 07:45:11 AM  

pkjun: It's always great when a bunch of comfortable older men in high-status positions decide that their besieged social views are actually Good and Natural and Ordained By God/Nature/Evolution, and in fact the social structures embodying those increasingly-unfashionable views actually exist for the benefit of the once-marginalised group now demanding greater prominence, so really what are they even complaining about, everything is fine.

That's the sort of argument that has really held up well every time it's been made over the past four hundred years.


Holy Naturalistic Fallacy Batman.  Just because something is from nature doesn't mean it is good or desirable.  Similarly, just because something is "bad" doesn't mean it isn't true.  It can be both true that women (on average) naturally desire status and power while simultaneously being bad that they do so.

It is an uncomfortable truth that our instincts aren't meant to serve us (as in our psychological sense of self), but our genes.  Usually these goals are in alignment but very often they are not.  We can have compulsions to act in ways that we know are bad for us but we do them anyway.  How many a cheating partner has thrown away a life they knew was ideal to satisfy destructive primal urge?

Thankfully we have come to recognize and understand this in modern times and have been swiftly moving away from it.
 
2017-12-30 07:49:34 AM  

Beta Tested: pkjun: It's always great when a bunch of comfortable older men in high-status positions decide that their besieged social views are actually Good and Natural and Ordained By God/Nature/Evolution, and in fact the social structures embodying those increasingly-unfashionable views actually exist for the benefit of the once-marginalised group now demanding greater prominence, so really what are they even complaining about, everything is fine.

That's the sort of argument that has really held up well every time it's been made over the past four hundred years.

Holy Naturalistic Fallacy Batman.  Just because something is from nature doesn't mean it is good or desirable.  Similarly, just because something is "bad" doesn't mean it isn't true.  It can be both true that women (on average) naturally desire status and power while simultaneously being bad that they do so.

It is an uncomfortable truth that our instincts aren't meant to serve us (as in our psychological sense of self), but our genes.  Usually these goals are in alignment but very often they are not.  We can have compulsions to act in ways that we know are bad for us but we do them anyway.  How many a cheating partner has thrown away a life they knew was ideal to satisfy destructive primal urge?

Thankfully we have come to recognize and understand this in modern times and have been swiftly moving away from it.


But you're a Beta and this is about Alphas.   Go tell it on the mountain to Beta, Gamma, Delta, & Epsilons.
 
2017-12-30 08:03:33 AM  

pkjun: jso2897: I love that old Kipling expression "Just-so story".
It perfectly describes all these pat, perfectly fitted "theories" people have been concocting to support their prejudices, lately.
Miller and Wrangham's "theories" sound like the "ladder" and "nice guy" memes from 4chan gussied up with fancy sceintifical bullshiat.
I don't actually believe most women like, or are attracted to assholes. I think asshole males get most of their power and support from submissive males - not from women.
There are exceptions, of course - but as a rule, women don't like jerks.

The biggest problem with "evo-psych" theorists is that none of them are anthropologists specialising in hunting/gathering societies. They're psychologists and/or evolutionary biologists with a paper-thin understanding of sociology, anthropology, and archaeology.

Evo-psych is taking the traits they notice in middle-class American college freshmen taking surveys for five bucks, assuming those traits are atomic and isolatable, genetically transmitted, and eternal across all of humanity, and then rationalizing how they could have been advantageous in a Fred Flintstone fantasy past.

It's mostly popular an excuse for right-wing cranks to dismiss the academic consensus on whatever sociological issue they're bent out of shape about on any given day, since it's pretty easy to find an evo-psych theorist arguing that [whatever 1950s-ish American social habit is in today's left-wing crosshairs] is actually a natural evolutionary adaptation, so take that libs.


That generalization might have been largely true 40 years ago, but less so now.  What I see is that many people, in and out of the community of study, pick up when humanity has already reached the alpha hunter stage of development.  However, there is considerable reason to surmise that there is a period when humankind were not apex hunters, and perhaps had not fully developed the tools and social functions to enable hunting behavior.  Many thinkers on this topic don't consider how the nature of these social groupings in this period shaped biological-psychological propensities.  Also, even the nature of hunting has changed to favor different social organizations.  Men at this time likely had a role in group defense against predators, but so did women as it was likely a whole-group activity (look bigger than you are), and women likely gathered food at least as much as men.  Plenty of evidence exists to show that hunting for many areas (primarily Eurasian) was a whole-group activity until relatively recently, with the tribe using numbers to corral animals into traps.  The male-based small group hunting pattern is relatively recent, and could be where you start seeing an increasing degree of patriarchy.  In essence, male aggression may have been selected for insofar as it favored group defense, but not if it was do much that it caused conflict.  Societies exist to channel the violent tendencies of its members in relatively safe directions.  What I observe about many arguments is that they conflate a weak propensity toward favor of strength or confidence with the antisocial extremes of excessive patriarchy or just being a dick, and societies kind of mask the extremes from getting booted from the tribe.
 
2017-12-30 08:21:28 AM  

hashtag.acronym: Beta Tested: pkjun: It's always great when a bunch of comfortable older men in high-status positions decide that their besieged social views are actually Good and Natural and Ordained By God/Nature/Evolution, and in fact the social structures embodying those increasingly-unfashionable views actually exist for the benefit of the once-marginalised group now demanding greater prominence, so really what are they even complaining about, everything is fine.

That's the sort of argument that has really held up well every time it's been made over the past four hundred years.

Holy Naturalistic Fallacy Batman.  Just because something is from nature doesn't mean it is good or desirable.  Similarly, just because something is "bad" doesn't mean it isn't true.  It can be both true that women (on average) naturally desire status and power while simultaneously being bad that they do so.

It is an uncomfortable truth that our instincts aren't meant to serve us (as in our psychological sense of self), but our genes.  Usually these goals are in alignment but very often they are not.  We can have compulsions to act in ways that we know are bad for us but we do them anyway.  How many a cheating partner has thrown away a life they knew was ideal to satisfy destructive primal urge?

Thankfully we have come to recognize and understand this in modern times and have been swiftly moving away from it.

But you're a Beta and this is about Alphas.   Go tell it on the mountain to Beta, Gamma, Delta, & Epsilons.


I'm an Omega.
 
2017-12-30 08:27:00 AM  
Many women would prefer it otherwise, but in the real world, the tough guy finds himself besieged with female admirers, while the self-effacing friend sadly clutches his glass of Chablis at the fern bar alone.

This is what happens when r/incel gets a sociology degree.
 
2017-12-30 08:29:30 AM  

rpkteg: Using sociology and psychology to interpret evolutionary biology is pretty funny.


Using Scientology is worse.

/just sayin
 
2017-12-30 08:38:35 AM  
Evolutionary biology works both ways:
Men having more sex with women they could control, and less sex with women the couldn't control has the exact same result.
 
2017-12-30 08:46:35 AM  

eyeq360: hashtag.acronym: Beta Tested: pkjun: It's always great when a bunch of comfortable older men in high-status positions decide that their besieged social views are actually Good and Natural and Ordained By God/Nature/Evolution, and in fact the social structures embodying those increasingly-unfashionable views actually exist for the benefit of the once-marginalised group now demanding greater prominence, so really what are they even complaining about, everything is fine.

That's the sort of argument that has really held up well every time it's been made over the past four hundred years.

Holy Naturalistic Fallacy Batman.  Just because something is from nature doesn't mean it is good or desirable.  Similarly, just because something is "bad" doesn't mean it isn't true.  It can be both true that women (on average) naturally desire status and power while simultaneously being bad that they do so.

It is an uncomfortable truth that our instincts aren't meant to serve us (as in our psychological sense of self), but our genes.  Usually these goals are in alignment but very often they are not.  We can have compulsions to act in ways that we know are bad for us but we do them anyway.  How many a cheating partner has thrown away a life they knew was ideal to satisfy destructive primal urge?

Thankfully we have come to recognize and understand this in modern times and have been swiftly moving away from it.

But you're a Beta and this is about Alphas.   Go tell it on the mountain to Beta, Gamma, Delta, & Epsilons.

I'm an Omega.


I'm not even on the farking alphabet.

/sob
 
2017-12-30 08:54:47 AM  

Smoking GNU: I'm not even on the farking alphabet.

/sob


It's not you, it's the crowd you run with.  You see, with GNU we get stuck with Linux.  Yes, that's not the best reason, but it's a reason none-the-less.
 
2017-12-30 09:04:16 AM  

hashtag.acronym: Smoking GNU: I'm not even on the farking alphabet.

/sob

It's not you, it's the crowd you run with.  You see, with GNU we get stuck with Linux.  Yes, that's not the best reason, but it's a reason none-the-less.


Never worked with linux in my entire life. My username is a Pratchett reference.
 
2017-12-30 09:09:45 AM  

Smoking GNU: eyeq360: hashtag.acronym: Beta Tested: pkjun: It's always great when a bunch of comfortable older men in high-status positions decide that their besieged social views are actually Good and Natural and Ordained By God/Nature/Evolution, and in fact the social structures embodying those increasingly-unfashionable views actually exist for the benefit of the once-marginalised group now demanding greater prominence, so really what are they even complaining about, everything is fine.

That's the sort of argument that has really held up well every time it's been made over the past four hundred years.

Holy Naturalistic Fallacy Batman.  Just because something is from nature doesn't mean it is good or desirable.  Similarly, just because something is "bad" doesn't mean it isn't true.  It can be both true that women (on average) naturally desire status and power while simultaneously being bad that they do so.

It is an uncomfortable truth that our instincts aren't meant to serve us (as in our psychological sense of self), but our genes.  Usually these goals are in alignment but very often they are not.  We can have compulsions to act in ways that we know are bad for us but we do them anyway.  How many a cheating partner has thrown away a life they knew was ideal to satisfy destructive primal urge?

Thankfully we have come to recognize and understand this in modern times and have been swiftly moving away from it.

But you're a Beta and this is about Alphas.   Go tell it on the mountain to Beta, Gamma, Delta, & Epsilons.

I'm an Omega.

I'm not even on the farking alphabet.

/sob


You're a Chinese ideogram. A rarely used one.
 
2017-12-30 09:11:00 AM  

Smoking GNU: hashtag.acronym: Smoking GNU: I'm not even on the farking alphabet.

/sob

It's not you, it's the crowd you run with.  You see, with GNU we get stuck with Linux.  Yes, that's not the best reason, but it's a reason none-the-less.

Never worked with linux in my entire life. My username is a Pratchett reference.


Linux Yes is a farker who at times shiatposts sometimes funny things and a lot of hardcore Linux people call it GNU/Linux since Linux uses the GNU OS components.  More often than not, when GNU tools are being used it's in conjunction with Linux....therefore you get excluded from the alphabet so we don't have to deal with a shiatposter.
 
2017-12-30 09:11:26 AM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-12-30 09:30:14 AM  
Women go after assholes for the same reason men go after virgins.  Women tend to value emotional intimacy while men value physical intimacy, but their tactics are the same.

When given the choice between the virgin and the slut, the slut will look appealing but the virgin will have the more primal draw.  But if your goal is to have sex, why would your draw be towards the one who is literally defined by not giving out what you're looking for?

Because it's not just sex you're looking for, it's exclusive sex.  In your fantasies, you will be the one to woo over this innocent virgin and be her first taste of flesh, and you will be the only one she opens herself up to and she will still shun all others.  You could get sex from the slut much more easily, but so could anyone else, so it's not as appealing.

The same holds true for the assholes: the "emotional virgins".  All you have to do is browse Tumblr or fanfiction sites to see that the draw of assholes isn't that they're assholes, but that a girl can "fix" them so that they become sweet and loving to her, and ONLY her, while still being an asshole to everyone else.  The "nice guys" who are nice to everyone are the "emotional sluts" and don't have that appeal of exclusivity.
 
2017-12-30 09:30:43 AM  

pkjun: It's always great when a bunch of comfortable older men in high-status positions decide that their besieged social views are actually Good and Natural and Ordained By God/Nature/Evolution


Science studies what is, not what should be.  No value judgement is applied.
 
2017-12-30 09:32:39 AM  

jso2897: I don't actually believe most women like, or are attracted to assholes.


Did you go to an all-male high school?
 
2017-12-30 09:40:22 AM  

BMFPitt: pkjun: It's always great when a bunch of comfortable older men in high-status positions decide that their besieged social views are actually Good and Natural and Ordained By God/Nature/Evolution

Science studies what is, not what should be.  No value judgement is applied.


"I have no emotional investment in justifying my social beliefs" is never, ever true for anyone. Claiming that is just an admission that you refuse to acknowledge yours or take any safeguards to avoid falling into the warm embrace of self-confirmation.
 
2017-12-30 09:40:55 AM  

BMFPitt: jso2897: I don't actually believe most women like, or are attracted to assholes.

Did you go to an all-male high school?


Have you successfully interacted with a woman who was older than 17?
 
2017-12-30 09:44:05 AM  

Fast Moon: Women go after assholes for the same reason men go after virgins.


That's not really a thing that happens in modern societies.  My wife was a virgin when we met and it was considered such a red flag that it almost made me pass up the opportunity.
 
2017-12-30 09:51:57 AM  

pkjun: "I have no emotional investment in justifying my social beliefs" is never, ever true for anyone. Claiming that is just an admission that you refuse to acknowledge yours or take any safeguards to avoid falling into the warm embrace of self-confirmation.


Yes, that certainly explains your belief that the thing you don't want to be true can't be true.

But you would be better served by making yourself understand that, like a shiatload of other human behaviors that made sense (as a mechanism to survive/pass on genes) in some past primitive culture, they are not a good thing for the humans that exhibit them today.
 
2017-12-30 09:54:40 AM  
I'm not self-effacing.
I'm in despair.
There's a difference.
It doesn't matter.
You can't see it.
But it's there.
 
2017-12-30 09:56:05 AM  

pkjun: Have you successfully interacted with a woman who was older than 17?


So you agree that it is incredibly unlikely to not see this behavior in a typical group of girls under 17?
 
2017-12-30 10:05:36 AM  

BMFPitt: pkjun: Have you successfully interacted with a woman who was older than 17?

So you agree that it is incredibly unlikely to not see this behavior in a typical group of girls under 17?


I think the behavior is better described by appealing to the underlying mechanic, status.  What actually denotes "status" varies across cultures, sub-cultures, and groups (American teenagers for example); but in all human societies Men seek status and Women are attracted to status (on average of course).  This is obviously a simplification of the details and dynamics (which get heavily into game theory), but it is broadly true.
 
2017-12-30 10:10:17 AM  

006andahalf: pkjun: jso2897: I love that old Kipling expression "Just-so story".
It perfectly describes all these pat, perfectly fitted "theories" people have been concocting to support their prejudices, lately.
Miller and Wrangham's "theories" sound like the "ladder" and "nice guy" memes from 4chan gussied up with fancy sceintifical bullshiat.
I don't actually believe most women like, or are attracted to assholes. I think asshole males get most of their power and support from submissive males - not from women.
There are exceptions, of course - but as a rule, women don't like jerks.

The biggest problem with "evo-psych" theorists is that none of them are anthropologists specialising in hunting/gathering societies. They're psychologists and/or evolutionary biologists with a paper-thin understanding of sociology, anthropology, and archaeology.

Evo-psych is taking the traits they notice in middle-class American college freshmen taking surveys for five bucks, assuming those traits are atomic and isolatable, genetically transmitted, and eternal across all of humanity, and then rationalizing how they could have been advantageous in a Fred Flintstone fantasy past.

It's mostly popular an excuse for right-wing cranks to dismiss the academic consensus on whatever sociological issue they're bent out of shape about on any given day, since it's pretty easy to find an evo-psych theorist arguing that [whatever 1950s-ish American social habit is in today's left-wing crosshairs] is actually a natural evolutionary adaptation, so take that libs.

That generalization might have been largely true 40 years ago, but less so now.  What I see is that many people, in and out of the community of study, pick up when humanity has already reached the alpha hunter stage of development.  However, there is considerable reason to surmise that there is a period when humankind were not apex hunters, and perhaps had not fully developed the tools and social functions to enable hunting behavior.  Many thinkers on this topic don't consider how the nature of these social groupings in this period shaped biological-psychological propensities.  Also, even the nature of hunting has changed to favor different social organizations.  Men at this time likely had a role in group defense against predators, but so did women as it was likely a whole-group activity (look bigger than you are), and women likely gathered food at least as much as men.  Plenty of evidence exists to show that hunting for many areas (primarily Eurasian) was a whole-group activity until relatively recently, with the tribe using numbers to corral animals into traps.  The male-based small group hunting pattern is relatively recent, and could be where you start seeing an increasing degree of patriarchy.  In essence, male aggression may have been selected for insofar as it favored group defense, but not if it was do much that it caused conflict.  Societies exist to channel the violent tendencies of its members in relatively safe directions.  What I observe about many arguments is that they conflate a weak propensity toward favor of strength or confidence with the antisocial extremes of excessive patriarchy or just being a dick, and societies kind of mask the extremes from getting booted from the tribe.


There may not have been a period when humans were not apex predators. Neanderthals appeared to be apex predators, too.
 
2017-12-30 10:10:23 AM  

Butternut Squanch: I am a perfect gentleman. I just wish my female friends would notice....


They notice. That's why they say "I wish I could find a guy like you" all the time.
 
2017-12-30 10:12:49 AM  

Fast Moon: Women go after assholes for the same reason men go after virgins.  Women tend to value emotional intimacy while men value physical intimacy, but their tactics are the same.

When given the choice between the virgin and the slut, the slut will look appealing but the virgin will have the more primal draw.  But if your goal is to have sex, why would your draw be towards the one who is literally defined by not giving out what you're looking for?

Because it's not just sex you're looking for, it's exclusive sex.  In your fantasies, you will be the one to woo over this innocent virgin and be her first taste of flesh, and you will be the only one she opens herself up to and she will still shun all others.  You could get sex from the slut much more easily, but so could anyone else, so it's not as appealing.

The same holds true for the assholes: the "emotional virgins".  All you have to do is browse Tumblr or fanfiction sites to see that the draw of assholes isn't that they're assholes, but that a girl can "fix" them so that they become sweet and loving to her, and ONLY her, while still being an asshole to everyone else.  The "nice guys" who are nice to everyone are the "emotional sluts" and don't have that appeal of exclusivity.


Sluts have increased disease risk. A non-negligible concern until the 1950s.
 
2017-12-30 10:33:12 AM  
I was nice to a woman once. Then 7 years later, she cleaned the house out, cleared the joint account, and is now trying to take a decent slice of my income away from me.

I'm not so nice to her any more.

I'm still nice to new women in my life. Maybe I'm a sucker.

/ maybe I'll get hotter women more submissive women if I'm more mean?
// not going to do that, but a lot of women are assholes
/// some people hijack relationships for their own greed
 
2017-12-30 10:33:13 AM  
Ugh, I know Discover Magazine just latches on to whatever sounds cool** but usually Scientific American is above publishing articles about pseudoscience like dowsing, astral projection, and evolutionary psychology.

** which... actually I'm not knocking, Discover is probably the magazine that hits the appropriate reading level for the non-scientist audience more consistently.  They do publish some stinkers pretty consistently, though.
 
Displayed 50 of 107 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report