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 or 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 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 the offspring 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.
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:
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 authority. 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.