The truth is somehow offensive.
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (44)
sorted by:
Humans have never lived in a patriarchy. In a sexually dimorphic species, it is the biological sex that bears the most cost who determines the conditions for a species. In humans, that is women. It is the basis of Briffault's Law.
The idea that humans are a pair bonding patriarchy until the big bad feminists turned up and women were given the right to vote does not tally with all the studies and recorded data I have seen.
I have heard humanity described by a modern day online philosopher as "powered by orgasm". It's wrong to assume that men built things and women are subservient, it's that men built things so women continue the species. After all, it's why MGTOW is a small minority of men going their own way whole feminism has political, social and cultural power. Men in unison on a sex strike only need a few outliers to undermine it (such as the top tier men) but women doing the same thing could bring down your society in a generation. Fact, men have built everything around us for women. Everything you take for granted today has been done for this manner. Those roles for men and women are hardcoded into our biology. We've always been a gynocracy.
Evolutionary psychology is the best scientific explanation so far for how humans have evolved and progressed.
Evolutionary psychology is the generally the domain of people who know nothing about evolution beyond a high school level (e.g. psychologists). It doesn't incorporate modern ideas about evolution from the biological sciences - what about genetic drift? Gene flow? Multi-level selection? Non-genetic inheritance? Basically, it involves individuals coming up with 'fun' sounding rationalizations for their pet theories based on an unfalsifiable appeal to 'natural selection' and 'fitness'. These theories are not even based on attempts to perform mathematical modelling of evolutionary trajectories, which is what evolutionary biologists would do (even if these simplistic models are no doubt flawed themselves).
Evolution, especially that of human behavior, is far more complicated that these evolutionary psychology 'theories' would have it, and in my opinion beyond the ability of any human to properly comprehend due to its extreme complexity involving so many variables, most of which could never even be measured properly. It is the domain of God.
There are other, far better, uses of our rational minds than arguments based on 'evolutionary psychology'.
ps. 'Briffault's Law' is also flawed when applied to humans. Even a casual observer of humans would observe that throughout history, unlike animals such as birds, it is the human females, not human males that seek to attract male attention by improving their appearance using makeup and clothes, seductive dancing etc. This clearly indicates females are competing amongst themselves to be chosen by their preferred males. These males are determining whether and with what females to associate with. To put it another way, how is the 80/20 rule and ideas surrounding 'Chad' consistent with Briffault's Law? Chad, a male, is obviously choosing which females to associate with. None of this means that males don't also have to compete amongst themselves to associate with their preferred females, but simply that your simplistic "Briffault's Law" does not apply to humans.
Evopsych doesn't disprove all of these theories and observations made by evolutionary biologists. But I haven't seen any other attempt to discuss human nature other than "God dunnit". It's certainly more logical than the blank slate concept, evolution stops at the neck and the human brain and the (il)logical aspects of it can't be studied.
Briffault's Law is just a coined term. It's a general observation, no different from saying that people are heterosexual. Homosexual people existing doesn't invalidate the general observation. You can still have intrasexual competition while still understanding that society panders to the biological sex that bears the most cost in reproduction (women). Same with a small percentage of men having the choice of the dating market. These things don't disprove the rule.
ETA: Alexander from DatePsychology did a video in the last few days regarding what seems like two contradictory concepts - hypergamy and assortative mating but they can co-exist and both be true at the same time.