It's almost like religion can't fix inherent female biology, brought by thousands of years of the most disloyal, duplicitous members of the class surviving to procreate.
And no, that's not a R16. Evolutionary biology acknowledges that the most likely women to reproduce and survive were those who could switch loyalties.
History is clear, for almost the entirety of history, the top males have access to multiple women and the rest don't get the chance to reproduce.
One of the innovations of Christianity and the precursor Judaism was that of enforced monogamy. The top achievers get the top women but the commitment is for life. No takebacks. The rest of men get a chance at reproduction if they participate in society and follow the rules.
This was a fantastic benefit for everyone in far reaching and complex ways.
For contrast look at the middle east where multiple wives are permitted, or the fatherlessness of some sections of the USA.
Women have always hated having to be faithful. They have been working together to tear down marriage and monogamy for more than a hundred years, only to find out that the alternative is worse.
Evolutionary biology acknowledges that the most likely women to reproduce and survive were those who could switch loyalties.
Enough of that pop culture "evolutionary biology" shit. You idea isn't biology, it's coming up with a vaguely scientific-sounding justification of contemporary female behavior. It's also unfeasible and unprovable, because to prove there is no such experiment we can carry out to prove how humans evolved.
The reality is that humans are extremely capable of adopting many vastly different types of behavior, mainly to adapt to their environment. In the current environment of Western societies, it is beneficial for women to adopt selfish duplicitous behavior, so they do so. But this doesn't mean that they can't be better people. They simply choose not to be better people.
Evolutionary biology is incorrect here. It's evolutionary psychology -- which is basically splitting hairs.
One of the hardest red pills I have ever had to swallow is that the vast majority of women (even my PhD wife) are logically deficient and rely on feelings. When you rely on feelings you can justify any of your actions because it "felt right/good."
Evolutionary biology is incorrect here. It's evolutionary psychology -- which is basically splitting hairs.
Yes, it's usually called "evolutionary psychology" but it's bullshit no matter what it's called. Actual evolutionary biology can be a useful science. Evolutionary psychology not so much.
One of the hardest red pills I have ever had to swallow is that the vast majority of women (even my PhD wife) are logically deficient and rely on feelings. When you rely on feelings you can justify any of your actions because it "felt right/good."
She isn't logically deficient then. She is morally deficient. You are married to a time bomb. Good luck!
it is beneficial for women to adopt selfish duplicitous behavior, so they do so. But this doesn't mean that they can't be better people. They simply choose not to be better people.
I wasn't disputing this. I simply said that it is their "default mode" to not be.
They have to try to be good people and they don't want to.
It's also unfeasible and unprovable, because to prove there is no such experiment we can carry out to prove how humans evolved.
Historical records show a huge amount of war between tribes in early humanity, and this would explain why women evolved to be disloyal. (Maybe why they're okay with killing kids - proving fealty to the new leadership by killing the old tribe's kids?)
You can also look at "war brides" of Nazi Germany or the fleeing women of Ukraine to see the same behaviors, so there was an "experiment" done in a way.
I wasn't disputing this. I simply said that it is their "default mode" to not be.
Not, you implied women 'evolved' to be duplicitous. This argument is always evoked by people pushing biological determinism.
Historical records show a huge amount of war...
Yes, I'm sure there are historical records in support of your idea. It doesn't prove anything because you are simply backfitting the data to fit what you have already decided.
In the end, it's a completely pointless and unnecessary argument. All that matters is observing their behavior now and pointing out how this is bad behavior. There is no need to try to tenuously link that behavior to "evolution"; that simply detracts from the main point.
All that matters is observing their behavior now and pointing out how this is bad behavior.
And if you do that, tradcucks will push that things were better in the past, and that we need to go back to when "men were men", I.E to indentured servitude while women sit at home doing fuck all.
The reason to make it biology is because that states in the most plain terms you cannot fix it with your political BS, as sure as you can't teach your dog to talk or a pig to fly.
It's almost like religion can't fix inherent female biology, brought by thousands of years of the most disloyal, duplicitous members of the class surviving to procreate.
And no, that's not a R16. Evolutionary biology acknowledges that the most likely women to reproduce and survive were those who could switch loyalties.
History is clear, for almost the entirety of history, the top males have access to multiple women and the rest don't get the chance to reproduce.
One of the innovations of Christianity and the precursor Judaism was that of enforced monogamy. The top achievers get the top women but the commitment is for life. No takebacks. The rest of men get a chance at reproduction if they participate in society and follow the rules.
This was a fantastic benefit for everyone in far reaching and complex ways.
For contrast look at the middle east where multiple wives are permitted, or the fatherlessness of some sections of the USA.
Women have always hated having to be faithful. They have been working together to tear down marriage and monogamy for more than a hundred years, only to find out that the alternative is worse.
To be fair, they literally had to punish cheating women by bludgeoning them to death with rocks in order to enforce monogamy.
That was a joke; no reddit /s here. Fuck R16.
Enough of that pop culture "evolutionary biology" shit. You idea isn't biology, it's coming up with a vaguely scientific-sounding justification of contemporary female behavior. It's also unfeasible and unprovable, because to prove there is no such experiment we can carry out to prove how humans evolved.
The reality is that humans are extremely capable of adopting many vastly different types of behavior, mainly to adapt to their environment. In the current environment of Western societies, it is beneficial for women to adopt selfish duplicitous behavior, so they do so. But this doesn't mean that they can't be better people. They simply choose not to be better people.
Evolutionary biology is incorrect here. It's evolutionary psychology -- which is basically splitting hairs.
One of the hardest red pills I have ever had to swallow is that the vast majority of women (even my PhD wife) are logically deficient and rely on feelings. When you rely on feelings you can justify any of your actions because it "felt right/good."
Yes, it's usually called "evolutionary psychology" but it's bullshit no matter what it's called. Actual evolutionary biology can be a useful science. Evolutionary psychology not so much.
She isn't logically deficient then. She is morally deficient. You are married to a time bomb. Good luck!
She's a time bomb because she uses feelings before logic?
That is quite literally nearly every woman, mate.
Because as we know, the brain isn't an organ and thereby the study of living organism's anatomy and behavior resulting from it is completely useless.
I wasn't disputing this. I simply said that it is their "default mode" to not be.
They have to try to be good people and they don't want to.
Historical records show a huge amount of war between tribes in early humanity, and this would explain why women evolved to be disloyal. (Maybe why they're okay with killing kids - proving fealty to the new leadership by killing the old tribe's kids?)
You can also look at "war brides" of Nazi Germany or the fleeing women of Ukraine to see the same behaviors, so there was an "experiment" done in a way.
Not, you implied women 'evolved' to be duplicitous. This argument is always evoked by people pushing biological determinism.
Yes, I'm sure there are historical records in support of your idea. It doesn't prove anything because you are simply backfitting the data to fit what you have already decided.
In the end, it's a completely pointless and unnecessary argument. All that matters is observing their behavior now and pointing out how this is bad behavior. There is no need to try to tenuously link that behavior to "evolution"; that simply detracts from the main point.
And if you do that, tradcucks will push that things were better in the past, and that we need to go back to when "men were men", I.E to indentured servitude while women sit at home doing fuck all.
The reason to make it biology is because that states in the most plain terms you cannot fix it with your political BS, as sure as you can't teach your dog to talk or a pig to fly.