Sexual selection has nothing to do w\ social darwinism Social Darwinism is the supposition that individuals or groups achieve advantage over others as the result of genetic or biological superiority In terms of male and female you can not apply social darwinism as there inherently is no division of power between the sexes by genetic or biological terms Any biological and genetic disparity is mutually beneficial, complementary and shared entirely with the other sex w\ great eagerness I might add
What is the basic point beneath this heap of convoluted nonsense? That man as provider and woman as caretaker is wrong? Take a look at any relatively untouched tribe left on the planet today, and research every single one that is not. What will you see? Man as hunter-provider and woman as caretaker / supporter. This is a logical conclusion -- a biological eventuality. The social dysfunction of the West is easily attributable to, first and foremost, the media. Lack of values, money & politics.
Nature doesn't like anyone to fuck with it; women trying to be men causes immense friction on the social level, and with that you get more abuse, more broken homes and damaged children. Meanwhile the state and elite don't care because they always live in a Utopia that is disconnected from this quagmire. Just keep empowering the state and the govt. by denigrating motherhood, strong family and strong family values, with your bullshit ideology. Nature gave us everything, you are trying to fight it.
And one last thing. The social structure you see in so many tribe / native people past and present isn't one of subordination, it is one of perfect nature flow (Where is the abuse?). But I wouldn't expect someone with such a distorted perception of reality to understand that.
Damn... I watched another one... Just curious to see what else you would be wrong about that. Well at least the dancing is getting entertaining. Oh, and Darwin is wrong on so many levels. Wow..
Amen. I notice alot of times men who are against feminism failt ot have the slightest graps of the differences and roles of each of us. For instance, these men will beat their metaphorical breast and shout, 'I'm a man" while being supported financially by a woman. These men I find have an entitlement mentality in that they think that women shouldn't be men yet they don't mind when women taken roles that benefit that that were once for men, such as provider (if the guy doesn't want to work.
Regardless of a marriage strike that has begun among men the downfall of man is with the birth of a child which ends for him in the same result as if divorce has already taken place. Once again relegated to isolation for wife and child while systemic transference of his resources to the woman takes place and is further supported by government husbandry provision systems to support this model. The human male is alone, despondent, angry, resentful and hurting very deeply.
Male courtship behaviors have waned and male commitment has been replaced by a brief hook up, reproduction and women go their separate way while systemic transference of male resource provision continues to a woman that is not his wife and a child he is not allowed to see. Men are necessary to the pair bond but synthetic and systemic systems have nullified his necessity to the pair bond. In divorce the MAN LOOSES. THUS THE ADVENT OF THE MARRIAGE STRIKE AMONG MEN...
Men have done such a good job at what we do that we have managed to free women from theirs, at least by option or choice but make no mistake there has been a tremendous cost to the both of us and the family unit. Look at marriage rates, single mother birth rates, divorce rates etc..The fall out is catastrophic. Women still look for these things in us and yet if they achieve it themselves they still look for them in us. We are seen as expendable and unessesary and this view is rampant in culture
Darwin did say that sexual selection does not lead to death. But yet you just dont understand darwin.
You fail to notice organisms protect thier life in order to reproduce, reproduction is each organisms only chance to maintain existance. Without that, death is certain and final.
Failure to reproduce is what gives death its significance.
men killing each other is not explained as sexual selection in action, instead it is motivated by sexaul selection. And that is an important distinction. Sexual selection is the reality that makes killing the competition a pragmatic strategy. It is an important part of the answer when somebody asks "why does that happen"? The only confusion/misunderstanding is the one that you are actually making.
When we discovered the Americas from North to South all through the entire continent males were the same.. All indian tribes had weapons and were fighting other males.....This is not a mistake or coincidence...It is male nature to compete for such things and women to look for resources in males..
So you tell me why all the lines between the countries on the face of the planet from the beginning of time are drawn in the blood of men and male male competition. Do you really think this is socialized??? Wow what a surprise when we discovered the Americas males engaged in war here for territory and resources as well.. Do you really think this is.....by mistake...coincidence....I don't think so..
male chimpanzees form raiding parties and kill other males in war...look it up...Ants attack and kill other ant nests and the list goes on....Darwin serves as the basis for modern theory
Look at crime and who commits it. Look at what most crime is about.... acquiring resources. To deny that male behavior is not a result of what women look for in us is just plain false. Women look for high status, tall, strong, intelligent, resourcefully successful males.
aboration entirely it must be made known that it is at least indeed related to male male competition and is an extension of such for territory, resources and female choice. Do deny that men fight for competitive advantage is not true. Destroy any male-male competitive structure and men will form gangs and groups to fight for such. This is also witnessed in lower socioeconomic areas in the U.S.
Just to add to that some percentage of the fighting is simply for social gain (pride, honour, status, etc) rather than specifically for the rights to a female.
First of all violence is abundant through out the animal kingdom. Secondly, a behavioural imperfection is not disproof of Darwinism nor is it disproof of the theory of women's position in social hierarchy. Genes for being too passive will make an individual male effectively sterile whereas genes for being too violent could lead to a species becoming extinct. There is an on going balance that has to be upheld. Some species do fight to the death over females, it's a fact.
Then again they would be nothing like a modern women in there species eyes.
I guess when you strip away the negative effects of feminism and your just left with a natural patriarchy then men really do care that much to fight to the death for there women.
Today though i cant be bothered to fight for their rights not to mention to the death for them. But other species dont live as long to form a bond between a male/female anway.
Sexual selection has nothing to do w\ social darwinism Social Darwinism is the supposition that individuals or groups achieve advantage over others as the result of genetic or biological superiority In terms of male and female you can not apply social darwinism as there inherently is no division of power between the sexes by genetic or biological terms Any biological and genetic disparity is mutually beneficial, complementary and shared entirely with the other sex w\ great eagerness I might add
Red0660 2 years ago 2
Well said. You have it right exactly. Publish!
tiffanylamoreaux 2 years ago
i hate to admit it, but men have proven themselves to be unworthy stewards of humanity's future.
Too much testosterone and competitiveness. Nuke bombs handy. Not a good combo.
Elvisdogg 2 years ago
What is the basic point beneath this heap of convoluted nonsense? That man as provider and woman as caretaker is wrong? Take a look at any relatively untouched tribe left on the planet today, and research every single one that is not. What will you see? Man as hunter-provider and woman as caretaker / supporter. This is a logical conclusion -- a biological eventuality. The social dysfunction of the West is easily attributable to, first and foremost, the media. Lack of values, money & politics.
regresseur 3 years ago 4
Nature doesn't like anyone to fuck with it; women trying to be men causes immense friction on the social level, and with that you get more abuse, more broken homes and damaged children. Meanwhile the state and elite don't care because they always live in a Utopia that is disconnected from this quagmire. Just keep empowering the state and the govt. by denigrating motherhood, strong family and strong family values, with your bullshit ideology. Nature gave us everything, you are trying to fight it.
regresseur 3 years ago 7
And one last thing. The social structure you see in so many tribe / native people past and present isn't one of subordination, it is one of perfect nature flow (Where is the abuse?). But I wouldn't expect someone with such a distorted perception of reality to understand that.
regresseur 3 years ago 2
Damn... I watched another one... Just curious to see what else you would be wrong about that. Well at least the dancing is getting entertaining. Oh, and Darwin is wrong on so many levels. Wow..
argonaut84 3 years ago
Amen. I notice alot of times men who are against feminism failt ot have the slightest graps of the differences and roles of each of us. For instance, these men will beat their metaphorical breast and shout, 'I'm a man" while being supported financially by a woman. These men I find have an entitlement mentality in that they think that women shouldn't be men yet they don't mind when women taken roles that benefit that that were once for men, such as provider (if the guy doesn't want to work.
ravenmasterson 3 years ago
please see my blog at google search rebukingfeminism.blogspot or rebuking feminism.
Red0660 3 years ago 3
Regardless of a marriage strike that has begun among men the downfall of man is with the birth of a child which ends for him in the same result as if divorce has already taken place. Once again relegated to isolation for wife and child while systemic transference of his resources to the woman takes place and is further supported by government husbandry provision systems to support this model. The human male is alone, despondent, angry, resentful and hurting very deeply.
Red0660 3 years ago 2
That was fucking profound.
Yourebuying 3 years ago
Male courtship behaviors have waned and male commitment has been replaced by a brief hook up, reproduction and women go their separate way while systemic transference of male resource provision continues to a woman that is not his wife and a child he is not allowed to see. Men are necessary to the pair bond but synthetic and systemic systems have nullified his necessity to the pair bond. In divorce the MAN LOOSES. THUS THE ADVENT OF THE MARRIAGE STRIKE AMONG MEN...
Red0660 3 years ago 2
Men have done such a good job at what we do that we have managed to free women from theirs, at least by option or choice but make no mistake there has been a tremendous cost to the both of us and the family unit. Look at marriage rates, single mother birth rates, divorce rates etc..The fall out is catastrophic. Women still look for these things in us and yet if they achieve it themselves they still look for them in us. We are seen as expendable and unessesary and this view is rampant in culture
Red0660 3 years ago 3
Darwin did say that sexual selection does not lead to death. But yet you just dont understand darwin.
You fail to notice organisms protect thier life in order to reproduce, reproduction is each organisms only chance to maintain existance. Without that, death is certain and final.
Failure to reproduce is what gives death its significance.
Now do you understand?
St37One 3 years ago
men killing each other is not explained as sexual selection in action, instead it is motivated by sexaul selection. And that is an important distinction. Sexual selection is the reality that makes killing the competition a pragmatic strategy. It is an important part of the answer when somebody asks "why does that happen"? The only confusion/misunderstanding is the one that you are actually making.
St37One 3 years ago 3
When we discovered the Americas from North to South all through the entire continent males were the same.. All indian tribes had weapons and were fighting other males.....This is not a mistake or coincidence...It is male nature to compete for such things and women to look for resources in males..
Red0660 3 years ago 2
So you tell me why all the lines between the countries on the face of the planet from the beginning of time are drawn in the blood of men and male male competition. Do you really think this is socialized??? Wow what a surprise when we discovered the Americas males engaged in war here for territory and resources as well.. Do you really think this is.....by mistake...coincidence....I don't think so..
Red0660 3 years ago 3
Also please visit my blog at rebukingfeminism.blogspot to gain a bigger picture of yourself as a man.
Red0660 3 years ago 2
male chimpanzees form raiding parties and kill other males in war...look it up...Ants attack and kill other ant nests and the list goes on....Darwin serves as the basis for modern theory
Red0660 3 years ago 3
Look at crime and who commits it. Look at what most crime is about.... acquiring resources. To deny that male behavior is not a result of what women look for in us is just plain false. Women look for high status, tall, strong, intelligent, resourcefully successful males.
Red0660 3 years ago
Regardless of your view that war is an
aboration entirely it must be made known that it is at least indeed related to male male competition and is an extension of such for territory, resources and female choice. Do deny that men fight for competitive advantage is not true. Destroy any male-male competitive structure and men will form gangs and groups to fight for such. This is also witnessed in lower socioeconomic areas in the U.S.
Red0660 3 years ago
Just to add to that some percentage of the fighting is simply for social gain (pride, honour, status, etc) rather than specifically for the rights to a female.
TruthBeyond 3 years ago
First of all violence is abundant through out the animal kingdom. Secondly, a behavioural imperfection is not disproof of Darwinism nor is it disproof of the theory of women's position in social hierarchy. Genes for being too passive will make an individual male effectively sterile whereas genes for being too violent could lead to a species becoming extinct. There is an on going balance that has to be upheld. Some species do fight to the death over females, it's a fact.
TruthBeyond 3 years ago
God why would they do that..
Then again they would be nothing like a modern women in there species eyes.
I guess when you strip away the negative effects of feminism and your just left with a natural patriarchy then men really do care that much to fight to the death for there women.
Today though i cant be bothered to fight for their rights not to mention to the death for them. But other species dont live as long to form a bond between a male/female anway.
thecreepyguy 2 years ago