Why Men and Women Do What They Do
Why do men and women seem to have such different goals, interests, and behaviors?
Both men and women often get mad or frustrated because they don’t get what they want from the other. They also get mad or frustrated with themselves for making choices that do not get them what they want.
The anger, frustration, and stupid choices that men and women make are the source of most of our comedy and drama because, after thousands of years of recorded history, we still don’t seem to understand why men and women behave the way they do.
The reason men and women behave the way they do is really simple. It is evolution.
Although evolution gave us many genetically programmed behaviors, and although some of them are very strong, never forget that we each have a brain, which can override any genetic programming—especially if we are aware of that programming. Also, remember there is certainly no reason to get mad about what evolution has done to us.
Now we will explore how and why evolution made us this way. We will become aware of that programming.
We are not the descendants of everyone before us. We are the product of only those before us whose genes caused the most copies of themselves to make it into our generation. We are thus the product of those whose genes caused them to employ the most effective behaviors, such as reproductive strategies, and the most successful reproductive strategy for men is different than for women because of at least three categories of evolutionary pressures that I first theorized in the 90’s: Physical Ability, Quantity vs. Quality, and Independence vs. Conformity.
Physical Ability — The most obvious category of evolutionary pressure that differentiates the genetically programmed behavior of men and women is that women are smaller, weaker, less athletic, and partially disabled by pregnancy during the physical peak of their lives.
Quantity vs. Quality — A less obvious category of evolutionary pressure that differentiates the genetically programmed behavior of men and women is that a woman can have about ten kids, and a man can have about one hundred kids. The genetically programmed male strategy thus focuses on quantity, and the genetically programmed female strategy thus focuses on quality. Quality in this context means “most successful at reproduction”.
Independence vs. Conformity — The third, and even less obvious category of evolutionary pressure that differentiates the genetically programmed behavior of men and women, is that if a man were kicked out of the cave, he might survive (and even thrive) on his own, but if a woman were kicked out, she would almost certainly have died on her own.
Kings and Priests — I also identified what is perhaps an equally less obvious evolutionary pressure that would have been an indirect influence on the three more direct pressures. It is the power wielded by kings and priests. We will start with this one after identifying two more pseudo-evolutionary pressures.
Environmental Toxins — More recently (around 2010), I identified a powerful pressure that, in just a few decades, may not have changed the human genome much yet, but which has been distorting the naturally (genetically) induced behavior in large masses of humanity by altering gene expression and by inducing other physiological changes, but this pressure—environmental toxins—is an even more forbidden subject that the others.
Apex Players — No discussion of evolutionarily induced behavior could adequately explain the behaviors we see today without considering the distorting effects of the Apex Players (those above presidents and billionaires).
Kings and Priests
Anyone who tended to be any kind of threat to the power of kings and priests would have been punished, and would thus have been placed at an evolutionary disadvantage; whereas, anyone who supported the power of kings and priests would have been rewarded, and would have thus been placed at an evolutionary advantage.
For example, suppose a priest 50,000 years ago told the people of his tribe what they must do to appease the volcano god, which could have been to sacrifice a goat each month, which the priests would use for themselves as the volcano god commanded. Suppose one guy kept saying it was all BS, and the priests warned that he might anger the volcano god with such talk, and then one day the volcano rumbled, and the priests would explain that to appease the volcano, the tribe must sacrifice the heretic. One can see how the genes of those who would call BS would be at a disadvantage.
A simpler example is that someone who embarrassed the king/chief might have his balls cut off.
After all, if they knew they could breed animals, then they knew they could breed people, and they would not want to propagate whatever characteristics had led one to embarrass the chief.
Therefore, any mutations that enabled our ancestors to more easily believe in the authority and legitimacy of kings, chiefs, priests, and gods …. would be mutations more likely to make it into future generations, and thus we carry those mutations today, which is why we are so easily fooled by the illusion of legitimacy, and why we so easily believe in deities.
Women are smaller, weaker, less athletic, and partially disabled by pregnancy during the physical peak of their lives, which means that throughout our evolution a woman needed a man to provide food and protection for her and her kids, and thus any mutations that made a woman want to get a man would have been about as strong as the mutations that made her want to have kids. In other words, it would have evolved to be one of her two top priorities if she is listening to her genetic programming.
It is also relevant that women have evolved to be more easily raped, so apparently rape helped women get their genes into future generations. Otherwise, evolution would have produced some defenses against rape, such as women being as strong or stronger than men, or having teeth in their vaginas, or some other physical ability to prevent rape. This does not mean that women necessarily like being raped, and certainly not by inferior men, as we will see in Quantity vs. Quality.
Quantity vs. Quality
The men who produced the most kids in future generations were those who were able to impregnate as many women as possible—regardless of how or why they were able to impregnate more women. The women who had the most kids in future generations were therefore those who tried to reproduce with those men who were best at impregnating as many women as possible—regardless of how or why those women tried. We are thus the offspring of those men and women, and have the same impulses that got more of their genes into future generations.
It is true that a man’s offspring were more likely to survive and reproduce if he stuck around and helped raise them, but some men also impregnated additional women and thereby tricked other men into raising their offspring, so they had far more offspring in future generations than the men they had tricked. We are thus not only the offspring of those men who tricked (cuckolded) other men, but we are also the offspring of women who favored those men—regardless of their reasons—and thereby got more of their offspring into future generations too.
It gets even more interesting than that. A woman needed a man to provide food and protection for her and her kids, but not every woman could have the biggest, strongest, smartest man. So the best reproductive strategy for a woman was to be as loyal, helpful, and sexually available as possible for her husband, and then once per month, she would try to put herself into a situation where an alpha male could impregnate her. Therefore, we are the offspring of those women who loved their husbands but still tried to get impregnated by an alpha male. Therefore, women today have the same genetically programmed impulses as those women.
Just as the female reproductive strategy was shaped by the male strategy, the male strategy adapted to the female strategy by optimizing for both the husband role and the alpha male role.
Both the husband role and the alpha male role had reproductive advantages. We are thus the offspring of those women who tried to have some children by men who excel at the husband role as well as some children by men who excel at the alpha male role.
This is a self reinforcing cycle that would only get stronger as we evolved.
Let’s look at some specific consequences.
A husband who let his woman be impregnated by an alpha male or a better husband would get fewer of his genes into future generations than a man who took measures to prevent his woman from being impregnated by other men. Also, any mutation compelling a man to subconsciously take preemptive action by preferring whichever woman was most impressed with him, and who was thus least likely to cheat on him, would have had an evolutionary advantage. Therefore, we are the offspring of those men who took measures to prevent their woman from being impregnated by other men. Therefore, men today have the same genetically programmed impulses as those men.
Being a husband might seem like a good strategy because a prehistoric husband had 24/7 access to his woman, but evolution can be pretty sneaky. For example, an anti-husband mutation caused women to be more likely to get pregnant if they have an orgasm, which obviously was an advantage for alpha males who got fewer opportunities to impregnate any given woman but whose one try was more likely to induce an orgasm than any of the husbands’ multiple tries.
Another anti-husband mutation has enabled men to produce sperm that would form a rear guard and thus block other men’s sperm from reaching the egg. Therefore, when a woman became fertile each month, if she let the alpha male try first, then his sperm might successfully block the husband’s sperm for the period in which the woman was fertile that month.
Although some men are alpha males and some are husbands, both have the same strategy. The difference is that alpha males are more successful at implementing the male strategy, which is why we are disproportionately the offspring of alpha males and of those women who were most successful at being impregnated by an alpha male instead of their husbands.
Clearly, a woman must be one heck of an actor to pull off the female strategy. Therefore, the descendants of those women are good actors, but the women before us were more than just great actors. The most successful women would have been those who really did love their husbands but who still tried to be impregnated by an alpha male. Therefore, the descendants of those women really do love their husbands—and—they are good actors.
The dual nature of the genetically programmed female strategy is one of the reasons men think that women send mixed signals and play games, and why women will often agree and not be able to explain their behavior, but it is not a game or mixed signals. It makes perfect sense once you understand its evolutionary underpinnings.
Another reason men think that women send mixed signals and play games is actually a real game.
Consider that in prehistoric times, if a man was able to chase a woman, catch her, and impregnate her without letting her injure him with her feeble blows, and without injuring her, then that man must have had good genes, and good genes was exactly what she wanted. It would have been a good reproductive strategy for women to put themselves into a situation where a man she was certain had good genes would attempt to prove himself in this manor. Obviously, when the game went as planned by both parties, it was quite mutual in spite of the woman running and fighting. Women today are thus the offspring of women who employed such a strategy and thus feel the impulse to engage in this strategy themselves.
Now the game would have been great fun for both the alpha male and the woman, but what if the woman was wrong and the man was weaker than she thought and he failed to block some of her feeble blows. The woman might then suddenly decide that the game was over because she could do better in this menstruation cycle, although she would have reserved the right to change her mind later that day—just in case there were no better males available. Therefore, given that a woman can only have a few kids, and so every attempt must count, a mutation would thus have succeeded in pre-historic women so that when they were already trying to get pregnant by a given man, they might suddenly think that being impregnated by that man was horrible based on any one of many possible ques.
Hence, a woman today might really change her mind at the last minute for any one of many reasons that may be mostly subconscious, but which are real from a previously evolutionarily optimum perspective. Of course, this would seem really insulting to a man as well as making him think the woman was shallow and irrational, but if both parties understood the evolutionary forces at work, then they would be more likely to enjoy themselves as well as being more likely to part amicably if evolution throws them a curve ball at the last minute—and more likely to try again later.
The political elite use our genetic programming to manipulate us all the time. Just one of those manipulations relies on the fact that evolution has caused women to feel like they need a husband more than just about anything else. For many women, a priest has subconsciously served as a surrogate husband, and now politicians like Obama are also subconsciously seen as a surrogate husband by many women. Now that women are in the workforce, their boss and/or company can serve as a surrogate husband. Of course, government itself can serve as a surrogate husband too.
Religious and political surrogates, in addition to trying to increase their own competitiveness with real husbands by playing a role or sometimes actually giving stuff to women, also try to reduce the competitiveness of real husbands. One way priests and politicians manipulate women is by raising women’s expectations for real husbands, so that women will be perpetually disappointed. Another way they manipulate women is by reducing the effectiveness of real husbands—consider how many black men are in jail.
Independence vs. Conformity
Although Quantity vs. Quality is what most strongly motivates the behavior of men and women, perhaps the second strongest evolutionary pressure that differentiates the genetically programmed behavior of men and women is that if a man were kicked out of the cave, he might survive (and even thrive) on his own, but if a woman were kicked out, she would almost certainly have died on her own.
Therefore, any mutations that caused a woman to be more conformist or more agreeable would have disproportionately benefited her ability to get her genes into future generations. Clearly, a man would have similar pressures, but not to the same degree, which could explain many differences in the behavior of men and women.
The essence of these differences is captured in the one-page article Two Loves.
An interesting evolutionary strategy that might not be obvious is that sometimes one of these independent thinking men who got kicked out would survive on his own, or would have been able to join with other such men who had been expelled from the same tribe. What this means is that these men had above average strength, intelligence, dexterity, initiative, motivation, resourcefulness, etc. It also means that these men would sometimes have to join with other men who had been kicked out from other tribes, so those men who were most likely to be kicked out and who then survived, would also tend to be the least tribal/racist.
It may seem like the genetic programming that got these independent men kicked out would thus be at an evolutionary disadvantage, but consider that a woman who was kicked out would have no choice but to join them. Also consider that these men were rather extraordinary—a different kind of alpha male, and thus, those women having any mutations that compelled them to wonder to the edge of their territory would have been impregnated by these men, and would have had higher quality offspring.
Yet another dynamic is that these outcasts would sometimes grow into a competing tribe and be seen as a threat, so those who survived when they were few would also have had to be good at diplomacy.
It was likely these men from which the Soul of Humanity evolved; whereas, the main tribes would have remained mired in the Soul of Animals.
Although we are the product of evolution, environmental toxins can change gene expression and cause other physiological changes. For example, they are a likely cause of most LGBT. They could also make men more likely to act like women, and make women more likely to act like men. Rather than summarize, I will simply provide an excerpt from Environmental Toxins:
A study from 2010 shows that .1 parts per billion of Atrazine (introduced in 1958) is enough to make 10% of male frogs become fully functional female frogs who are able to reproduce with male frogs and lay viable eggs. The other 90% were feminized to varying degrees. This study reproduces the results of an earlier study done before 2000, but which was not allowed to be published.
These frogs were only exposed to .1 parts per billion; whereas, agricultural workers who work with Atrazine have 2400 parts per billion in their urine. That is 24,000 times as much.
Such perversions of nature are not limited to Atrazine or frogs. Here is a TED Talk that mentions just a few of the additional chemicals and species.
Atrazine is just one of many such toxins we absorb from our environment, other examples are BPA and pthalates, not just from water, but from foods, plastics, clothes, carpet, furniture, mattresses, pillows, etc. Therefore, given how humans use the same hormones for reproduction that animals do, and given how humans also absorb toxins through our skin, as well as when we eat, drink, and breathe, such environmental toxins are obviously the most probable explanation for the increase in many related conditions such as LGBT, lower testosterone, lower sperm count, and micropenis.
These chemicals cross the placental barrier and are also in breast milk, which is of critical importance because the effects on those who were exposed in the womb, or shortly thereafter, are probably going to be more pronounced than the effects on those exposed only as an adulthood. For example, male-specific brain structures develop during three windows when an individual is exposed to testosterone. One is as a fetus, and one is shortly after birth. The other is at puberty.
Consider that American women today have 30,000 to 50,000 chemicals in their bodies that their grandparents did not have. This would explain why the effects on each generation seems more pronounced than the previous generation.
Each individual’s genes are likely to react in different ways, so not everyone will be affected in the same way, and given that we did not evolve with these toxins, we may also be affected in ways never before observed. Richard Dawkins says much the same thing: “When we talk about a gene for anything, whether it’s homosexuality or anything else, we don’t necessarily mean that the gene inevitably has that effect. A gene only has the effect that it does in the right environment. So it could be that a gene that has the effect of causing a male to be homosexual in the present environment—in our present technological environment—civilized environment—would not have had that effect in a different [past] environment.”
Anyone whose health and psychology has been affected (e.g. LGBT) should be treated with as much dignity and respect as anyone else, but the media actually celebrate and promote LGBT in spite of the clear evidence suggesting that many (perhaps most) could be the victims of environmental toxins. Like the media, the entire establishment ignores the facts, and celebrates and promotes LGBT instead.
One who has been radically transformed by environmental toxins has a right to be very angry at the source and at those who try to cover up the cause and who also perpetuate and promote such victimization.
How is it the party that cares the most about LGBT individuals is the party that tries the hardest to cover up their victimization by environmental toxins?
The perpetrators are not just one party though. The entire establishment is guilty, and must be held accountable.
In the end, it’s the things you didn’t do you’ll regret most.
Everyone is being played, poisoned, and purged.
We are literally being bred (i.e. Soviet purges, genocide of Native Americans, imprisonment of black men) in way that disadvantages the genes that compel one to question authority or stand up for one’s rights. Native Americans may not have been exterminated, but their gene pool was scrubbed. A similar pool cleaning was perpetrated in every communist country as well. This is known as eugenics. None of these communist revolutions were grassroots either. The breeding of humanity is by design.
As we can see from the unified global silence about the collapse of WTC 7, the unified global approach to Covid, the unified establishment narrative on Anthropogenic Global Warming, and the easily deduced incentives of such a globally unified alliance …. we can now see that the ubiquitous 24×7 propaganda trying to manipulate the behavior of men and women in an unhealthy and unnatural way is no accident. It is part of the larger issue of what is wrong with the people.
These Apex Players are trying to turn us into the worst version of ourselves: petty, tribal, entitled, conformist, corrupt, afraid, phony, angry, etc. They are trying to make us dislike, distrust, and distance each other, so that we are looking at each other instead of looking at them, and so that we cannot unite against them. They want us to see each other as irredeemable, and they do this by appealing to our evolutionary weaknesses, which can be summarized as the Soul of Animals. Their influence is toxic.
This is how we know when this Toxic Age of The Apex Players began. It was when one of their countless front men declared that half of those who would not vote for her were a basket of deplorables, and that some of those were irredeemable. I heard her own followers in real life amplify it to be, “Anyone who would vote for the other guy really is deplorable.”
Although the influence of these Apex Players has always been toxic for hundreds (perhaps thousands) of years, it was not the defining characteristic of our age until recently.
Of course, the Soul of Humanity knows that everyone is redeemable—even the Apex Players.
It is within everyone’s power to instantly become the best version of themselves, and although these Apex Parasites can physically harm us and can be very good at manipulating us, they cannot forcibly stop you from becoming the best version of yourself, and that really bums them out.
I live in a universe full of beauty and wonder. How can I feel anything but gratitude for having had the opportunity to leave it better than if I had never existed?
Whenever I encounter another person, I try to think to myself, “The light in me is allied with the light in you. The light in one is allied with the light in all.”
How about much simpler explanation:
if your sexual partner has sex with other people, you have much greater chance to die from STD.
All these alpha-male considerations pale in comparison.
Another thing you forgot to consider is that men are often angry with men and women are often angry with women, and it often has nothing to do with sex.
Let's remember that the male and female members of the species were each made to COMPLEMENT (not necessarily "compliment") one another. Males have unique talents and traits which differ from females and females have unique talents and traits different from males. Each member of the species needs the other in order to to become whole. In order to carry on. To survive. True melding of the male and the female only creates GOOD and BETTERMENT of our society. And humans have a lot to learn from many of our fellow animals. Wolves, geese, a multitude of others are totally loyal and dedicated to their mates and to their off-spring. No matter what our other 'beliefs' may be, we need to believe in ourselves and in each other. We need to bring back the responsibilities we are capable of acquiring and maintaining. The truthfulness and honesty and universal love that is unconditional and real. We are not aliens independent of each other. We are each one half of a whole. If we respect ourselves and believe in ourselves and trust ourselves, we can make the perfect, complementary half of another perfect, complementary half. It would be such a wonderful world if everyone worked together – each in their own way – to create good wherever they are. This is the concept of the true human being no matter where they live, no matter what their background. May we all adopt the appropriate, loving attitude and respect towards all life on this Earth … in this Universe.
Your article totally ignores the fact in more recent time (not now) marriages were arranged. As well offspring were raised to be the labor force of the family till they could be sold to a better family for better family connections. You and I are victims of this scenario more than your prehistoric version.
I would argue a different point: we are the product of two different reproductive strategies altogether:
In one case, women seek out virile, alpha males and reproduce with them (either married to them or through adultery) or are impregnated against their will by conquerors. This most likely leads to physically stronger offspring if the pattern continues.
The other method, however, is one which does not pursue the physically strong but rather the mentally strong. In this case, nerds seek out nerds and produce mentally strong offspring.
Method number one breeds you Vikings. Method number two breeds bankers. Method one prevails by strength, method two by cunning. It is the genetic equivalent of the pen versus the sword. To my mind, the jury is still out as to which will ultimately prevail. Right now the pen is winning, but time will tell.
For millions of years, since before we were human, a male could potentially have ten times as many offspring as a female. The resulting genetic programming would not be significantly altered by the cultural practices of a few societies over several hundred years. Most cultural practices have been compatible with our natural genetic programming, and thus would not change our programming anyway.
Don't women seek a man who both strong AND smart?
Well, women picking their men is a very new phenomenon. At one time, it was men, namely fathers, who chose their daughter's mate, and usually chose them from within the family's professional field. A warrior like/physically strong father would favor a warrior like man for his daughter. A blacksmith, for example, would NOT be recruiting a bard to marry his daughter.
A bookish or business man would seek out the same for his daughter. Merchants don't tend to favor brawn. It's a nice plus, but the real asset is brains, and a lack of brawn can be overlooked if sufficient shrewdness and intellect exists.
It all depends on the ideals of the society. Jewish society, for example, has long favored men who are intellectual and family oriented, and they have been very, very successful with this model. Anglo-Saxons, on the other hand, created a society that favored brawn (think knights in shining armor) and relegated their intellectuals to celebate monastic life. And ultimately they were conquered by the moneychangers and live under their thumb today.
America has long favored brawn over brains. We worship football players and soldiers, not accountants. "Smart kids" are scorned and picked on while those that can throw a ball well are school heroes. And as we idolize brawn, brains has utterly stolen the show. Joe Sixpack works for nerdy lawyer guy, and it's much more likely that nerdy lawyer is screwing Joe Sixpack's wife than the other way around.
I think that it is a myth that alpha traits involve physical strength. Physical strength is good for clearing forests and fighting foes. But the army is only as good as the general leading it and there is only so much need for tree cutting before a city emerges. Whether we like it or not, humans with superior intellect tend to gravitate upwards while superior strength is no such guarantee. And for that reason, I think that women are more likely to favor brains over brawn. And less likely to risk losing the brain over a piece of brawn on the side.
It is even more about height than brawn. When asked who a women would rather date, they choose the taller man – period. The shorter man could be a rich doctor and the taller man could be a mechanic, and they will choose the taller man. Of course, dating is not marriage, dating is more about who a woman finds appealing – in other words who she would want to impregnate her. Women only prefer the shorter man if told the taller man is a child molester or murderer.
Being on a stage is also appealing. It represents superiority over those in the audience – just like a chief on an elevated platform.
True. but what women date and what they mate with are very different things, as you say. And dating is a VERY new concept in the human scene, so new as to not really be relevant.
In reality I think it ends up being an inverse relationship: the brainiest men are able to attract/buy the most desirable women and then use their money/power to isolate those women from access to the physically strongest men they might prefer. Take harems, for example. A completely nerdy and puny man could have as many gorgeous women as he wanted in a harem if he could afford them. And then he would hire/buy big strong men, castrate them and use them as guards. Brains win.
And unfortunately for men, women are not as sexually driven as men. Their motivations in seeking and appeasing mates are not so much sexual as they are comfort oriented. Eighty year old billionaires attract more blondes than a hot construction worker.
The strongest, toughest men are usually relegated to social positions where it is unlikely they would have any contact with the most desirable women, much less enough contact to mate with them. Soldiers/sailors/builders/farmers were not exactly sitting down to tea at the high table. In fact, in many cultures, the only men with access to desirable alpha women (such as guardsmen) were castrated, eliminating the possibility altogether. The least desirable women (less attractive physically or mentally) were then left for the lower classes or less successful men. The only saving grace there is that powerful men favor physically attractive men but not necessarily intelligent women, leaving women with good heads on their shoulders up for grabs for less powerful men. In truth, a brawny soldier would be more successful in choosing a less attractive but brainy wife than a brainless knockout. The latter might keep him happy in bed, but the former will triple his pension (so that he can buy the knockout on the side if he is that kind of man) and still keep him warm enough at night.
sorry, it should read:" The only saving grace there is that powerful men favor physically attractive WOMEN but not necessarily intelligent women"
How many fatal STDs existed in ancient times?
The author was talking about a much longer lineage than just the past 500 years or so.
Besides, Vikings prized cunning and surprise much more than brute strength. A bit of reading on the subject would make that abundantly clear.
I do like your point about conquerors. That is valid but I do think it can be fit into the author's theory. Conquerors were the ultimate alpha males.
You're still talking about short time spans from an evolutionary perspective.
You're still talking about small percentages of the human population.
If Jewish women pick a man who is richer smarter rather than physically stronger, then they are still picking the alpha males (the ones they feel have more power) because they can only have about ten kids each; whereas men can have about 100 kids each.
Conquerors proved that were more likely to get their genes into future generations, and thus were kind of welcome by most women.
The whole reason men have the motivation to conquer is because those who did have the genetic motivation to conquer got more of those genes into future generations, which was possible because a man can have hundreds of kids.
Anonymous, you are the shit my brotha. Loved every reply. Eail me at email@example.com for more directions so we can connect.
I thought the main flaw in Anonymous' argument was self-evident, but apparently not.
Anonymous is not only engaged in wishful thinking, but is insulting women by claiming they they are not capable of making themselves available to alpha males for a few minutes here and there each year.
What strange strategy are westerm women using, birth rates have collapsed, in UK or Scotland for example between 30 and 40 % of graduate women above 40 yaears old have no children, seems like a good startegy to perpetuate and spread their genes, ;-))
Economic factors are more decisive than genes, if children become a burden well ……. it seems muslim countries with islamic family law are doing quite well, much better than societies with feminazi law systems, you know: no custody, child support – forced into slave labor for having children -, having one home and assets stolen if one gets married.
Alpha male, beta male, provider, …………. irrelevant, countries were fatherhood is criminalized, were having children not a burden but a disgrace are going the way of the dodo, by the way the best it can happen such repugnant societies must dissapear the ASAP.
As I already explained, women are genetically programmed to value getting a man about as much as they value having kids. Now consider that having kids interfere with keeping a man and a job and with getting another man. Having a job helps a woman get a better man, while creating pressure to postpone kids. A job is also appealing to women because it is a proxy for getting a man, just as a government, a priest, or even Obama is a proxy for getting a man. They are unsatisfying proxies though.
You are correct that government makes marriage and kids a bigger liability,
Not only fatal STD's but STD's that kill you before you are able to breed new children. As evolution does not 'care' what happens after the genes have spread(*).
And you know what, those STDs are very rare.
Of course, STDs that make you infertile are more common.
I seem to recall the most common STD's are not those that make you infertile nor dead.
*: This isn't totally true, but ageing mechanics are not really relevant for this STD remark.
STDs, and the germ theory in general, are myths perpetuated by the medical establishment that make us fearful of natural, healthy human contact. Unwanted pregnancies, and the risk of death/injury/illness to the child/mother during/after birth, are the only real risks inherent in the sex act — risks that have been greatly minimized as a result of modern medical advances.
There are thousands of toxic substances present in the environment, most of which are the result of human industrial activity, and it is the exposure to them that is the real cause of all disease.
If STDs affect men and women equally, then they would not be very relevant to the differences between male and female behavior.
I think most everything you’ve written above is of sound logic, but I believe there are key variables which you haven’t yet uncovered here. The primary one being the creation of a toxic masculinity within the carriers of the beta male chromosomes that has permeated the culture, due to evolutionary fear of being ‘cucked’.
These men had incentive to behave lovingly toward their wives, but they also carry within them intense paranoia that cannot be discounted, especially as it expresses its self more malignantly than ever. One must keep in mind that while the lineage of the alpha males contain a certain kind of immediate good logic, the intelligence of the beta male lineages favors a long term, big picture kind of strategic thinking that is also often engaged in by females–a more useful, perhaps, manner of engaging the world.
This makes for more thoughtful men who, in this generation, have two opportunities – to use their abilities, superior for this particular moment in time, to overthrow the shortsighted Alpha control of the planet, or, to half-realize how they feel slighted by women throughout history (without even being able to appropriately verbalize why) and take this rage out on women… let me tell you, the propaganda where women are smart and in charge and men are dumb and just set dressing is just that—propaganda. We aren’t (on the whole) treated as intelligent. We aren’t respected.
Women face daily harassment from men, to the extent most don’t even recognize it as such and view it as normal socializing. Our society is broken. Women, “Feminists” as you are afraid to call them, are rising up as well – under Rule of Man, we’ve been getting burned at the stake, raped, and kept as practical slaves for thousands of years, and it ends in this Age.
I can understand the anger underlying the man of beta male lineage – you are the best of the beta, and yet still feel innately inferior to that which is called Alpha (Alpha destroyer, perhaps) the very thing currently holding our world in a stranglegrip. The ultimate Alpha is psychopathic, and our world is being ruled as though by psychopaths.
I can only say that there is one infinite in this Universe, and it is Love. Remember to love these women you feel slighted by (albiet perhaps from a distance, and with respect and love for YOURSELF above all). Remember that while “acting” afraid and playing hard to get may have begun the game thousands of years ago, it quickly turned, and has been NO GAME for a very, very, too-long time.
I am not an alpha male, and I have never once had the slightest worry that anyone else might impregnate my wife. Maybe men aren’t as bitter as you think.
Consider that the whole alt-right movement is a psyop.
What is happening now is that the many real ways that men have been getting screwed by the establishment for 30 years is now being thrown in their faces as if it is new and as if it were the intended consequence of all women (and most men). It is the most recent and most sophisticated of the many ways the players (read: They Live) try to make everyone dislike and distrust each other. Making men dislike and distrust women is the hardest and final part of this agenda, which means they are in their end game.
Alpha males are not in charge. They are just front men for those at the top.
Alpha males are not psychopaths, but it is true that society has been organized to give an advantage to psychopaths. I explain this mechanism clearly in my article about James Damore and PC Fascism in corporations.
What are some examples you would like to share about how women face daily harassment from men?
You can’t expect women to get full respect from men (or women) when pop culture teaches everyone that women are not responsible for their actions, and when we see that women get jobs and promotions because they are women.
Alpha males are the “psychopaths” but it is the beta males who have “toxic masculinity”?
I don’t refer to anyone as feminists for exactly the same reason I don’t refer to anyone as Nazis. It feels mean and unfair to label someone with such a harsh epithet. No doubt there are some decent people who call themselves feminists–just as there were some decent people who called themselves Nazis, but these movements and their leaders are extremely unhealthy.
Test comment **is here**
The divide being created between men and women is the one that has gone on the longest . It runs very deep . I’ve been reading your writings for about 2 hours tonight . I found them insightful, honest and hopeful . While I see that your comments on this subject do have a basis in logic and fact it seems far less “evolved” than your other writings . What I mean by that is it offers less solutions and more importantly hope for a world that is what we all know it can be .
This is a foundational article, which means that it can thus be linked from other articles that present solutions without weighing them down with too much background explanation.
I did say: “Never forget that we each have a brain, which can override any genetic programming – especially if we are aware of that programming. Also, remember there is certainly no reason to get mad about our genetic programming.”
I’ll be thinking about how I could update it.
Do you think this article helps relations between men and women or hurts them?
How’s this: https://leagueofrealpeople.com/two-loves-masculine-feminine-nature-gods-divine/
Thanks for the reply. I liked the article you linked me. I think it’s true we all can be naturally inclined to both kinds of love . I think this article hurts the relations between men and women. I think that humans genetic programming is much more complex than we might be led to believe. Humans have been human for at least 200000 years . We are special. We pass down beliefs, culture and traditions and our behaviors are largely based on these things unlike other animals whose behaviors are largely based on instincts. It makes sense that that adds a great deal of complexity to our genetic programming. I also find it very unlikely that birth control is a new factor in our sexual behavior. Imagine all the plant knowledge that was lost in the slaughter of the witches and indigenous peoples over the years. There is also lots of archeological evidence that humans had technology skills that have been lost ( or hidden;)). I think that beliefs like those in this article do more to make excuse the behavior of selfish or psychopathic people than to lead to an understanding between good men and good women. It doesn’t take much resistance from genetic programming for almost all men to rape a woman walking through a park. Woman who use sex as a tool are not doing so because of programming they are consciously using it for personal gain. In my experience the idea that pregnancy is the goal for human sex has been being overrun by the conscious desire to avoid it for a very long time. That being said I’ve seen many men melt with awe and love at the sight of their babies. Its beautiful to see, it makes them more lovable, it makes them look stronger not weaker. No good man wants 1000 babies and no good woman wants 10 kids from 10 different men and I believe that’s been the truth for a very long time. The desire for sex is natural as is the desire for food . Different people like different kinds and amounts of food (both men and woman) I believe the relations between men and woman are influenced almost exclusively by cultural programmes . I think the ideas laid out in this article are misleading to men unrealistic and incomplete for woman and don’t contribute to a good understanding or collaboration with each other. I,like many other woman (no doubt) love sex for the exact same reasons as many men. It feels great.
When I used the word evolved in my first comment to you I meant in the sense that in your other articles you seemed to see through the illusions,saw the programming. I wondered why you seemed more accepting of the separation in the human part of men and women . I don’t see most men in the way the article describes. I know men have deep feelings and fears . I know they have been hurt badly by this sick world we live in . I know sometimes they want a cold beer and hot meal more or at least before sex.What bothers me personally about this article is that it portrays woman as sneaky and deceitful and this is just not the truth either. Like I said a woman who uses sex or (children) is just a bitch . In the waking up of men from their cage of “to be a man is to be a sex crazed asshole” so might you see that woman are being programmed too and the good ones feel invisible. I may not have physical strength but I do have honour . I would gladly die for that honour with or without a good man. Thank you again for your reply and keep up the good work.
“I also find it very unlikely that birth control is a new factor in our sexual behavior.”
Birth control is not a new practice, but it is only in the last 50 years or so that it has become not only widely accepted, but also mostly safe and effective. This has had a profound impact on our sexual behaviour, and, indeed, has reshaped the very fabric of society. Before it was commonplace, all kinds of behaviours were not only rare, but also taboo — sex before marriage, sex with multiple partners, divorce… hell, even just having sex for fun had severe consequences (e.g. unwanted pregnancies, death/injury/illness of the child/mother during/after birth). Advances in medical science (of which birth control is a subset) have greatly reduced the incidence of these undesirable consequences, and, despite varying cultural norms around the world, have largely “liberated” the sex act itself.
“It doesn’t take much resistance from genetic programming for almost all men to rape a woman walking through a park.”
Rapists, and abusers in general, are often victims of abuse themselves. Trauma is, in itself, a form of programming, and severe trauma, if left untreated, will often override any other form. People who had a healthy childhood and were raised properly by loving parents usually do not become abusers, and our genetic programming, while it may bestow upon us certain instincts, is therefore not strong enough to overpower our sense of morality. Speaking from my own point of view, as a man who has no desire to control others, there are no impulses against which I need to “resist”.
“What bothers me personally about this article is that it portrays woman as sneaky and deceitful and this is just not the truth either.”
That may not be true for you, personally, but it’s hard to deny that there are a great many people, not just women, who lie, cheat and/or steal in order to get what they want. After all, the primary metric of success in the modern world is the accumulation of wealth, and the very wealthy among us are also very likely to use such immoral tactics in order to accumulate their wealth. Deception is a fact of life in this world, and even those of us who are the most morally virtuous must employ it in some fashion in order to survive.