Comments by "Tim Bucks" (@TimBitts649) on "On Evolutionary Biology and Gender (Pt. 2) | Bret Weinstein | ACADEMIA | Rubin Report" video.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Feminism destroyed human pair bonding in America. Here's how that works: Women are all hyper-gamous, they evolved to choose men who are higher than them, on the Dominance Hierarchy. And today the DH is money. Feminists push integration of the genders working together, competing with each other for resources, money and status. No society has done this, except ours. Other human societies kept men and women apart, had men compete for status, then the women picked among the winners. But we changed that basic evolutionary formula, with feminism. Now we push for equal pay for women. In America, for the under 35s, women now earn more money than men. That means, mathematically there are not nearly enough men who are higher up on the DH, for women to be interested in these men, to marry. For instance a female doctor will not marry a male trucker.
So the closer we get to wage parity for the genders, the worse it is, for women. If we reach the point where men as a group earn the same amount of money as women as a group, then there will be a 50% chance, for any random man and any random woman, that the woman will earn more than the man. Then what happens is, she is not interested, no marriage occurs.
We see this play out in statistics. In the early 1960s the illegitimacy rate for children was under 10%. Now 40% of American children are born out of wedlock. Remember: women started going to work, going to university, in the early 1970s....so now they have their own money, their own status. Now they don't need men, unless the man earns more than she does. And since women can compete and often win against men, this creates a large segment of men who are unmarriageable, because women out-earn them, for money....the women won't marry men they can beat, economically.
We see the proof in stats about marriage. The rate of marriage is at an all time low in America, historically.
But the curious thing is, almost all the people getting married are in the upper classes. There, marriage is common and stable. Guess why? Again, female hyper-gamy. All women want high status male. If a woman marries an engineer, a professor, an accountant, she knows there is no going up, generally speaking. That's the Hyper-gamy Ceiling, for women. She's done as well as she can, so she sticks around, marriage is stable, and divorce is very uncommon for the upper classes.
However, the bottom 70% of men have no such protection. Women in the bottom 70% often earn more than the men do, women are always looking for a better deal, so divorce is very common among the bottom 70% economically, women initiate 70% of all these divorces.
So the curious thing is, feminism has been very good for the top 30% of society, very bad for the bottom 70% of society. In the top 30%, women get to have careers, make a lot of money, marry men who make a lot of money....this used to be called "yuppie couples"....it's win win for them....life is good, lots of money, stable marriage.
But the bottom 70% don't generally go to university, but the women now work, earn their own money, and the men often don't earn as much as the women. So then the women get angry, the women initiate 70% of all divorces. She figures, "I can do better". ....and so marriage is very, very unstable for the bottom 70%...when it does in fact happen, which is not often now. Marriage is becoming uncommon in the bottom 70% economically.
Women evolved to pair bond with men of higher status than them. It's natural, as women evolved to be dependent on males, when pregnant, women lived short lives, spent most of evolution pregnant. When we merge the two genders into one world, have them compete for power and status, the top men, top women, they benefit. But the bottom 70% do not. So by promoting wage parity for the genders, feminists actually screw up most women's lives. They create a situation where the top women, they win, win, win. But the majority of women....70%....lose, lose, lose. Thus feminism actually makes most women's lives miserable, destroys human happiness, destroys natural pair bonding in humans.
And the root reason feminism doesn't work, is we evolved in a certain way. We are Sexually Dimorphic. We evolved for gender separation. We evolved for women to bear children when they are young, rather than compete with men for group status, when they are young. In fact we would not have survived as a species, if women in the past competed for group status with men, because not enough babies would have been born, for the only way for women in the past to have competed for group status, would be to avoid pregnancy,. We evolved for women to be directly dependent on men for survival. We did not evolve for women to avoid pregnancy and compete for power, with men. That's feminism, that's an evolutionary dead end. We evolved for men to compete with each other, and women to pick from the winners, for mating.
Feminism has destroyed much of that natural biological logic of human pair bonding, thus destroying family life in America.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Patriarchy and Evolution:
Feminists have a point: The human past was Patriarchal. But why?
Why did Patriarchy arise?
Was it men conspiring to oppress women? Or is there another explanation? Underlying evolved differences between males and females, which are provable, seem a more likely explanation:
-humans are sexually dimorphic
-males are larger than females
-males have more muscle mass than females
-since humans pair bonded, it seems likely the males protected the female
-females are vulnerable to attack, when pregnant
-death rates were high among human infants during evolution, up to 50% of humans died before puberty
-adult human lifespan was quite short
-as recently as 1900, humans died by about age 50, when averaged out
-till a few generations ago humans had not developed science, life was short, brutish and nasty
-as early as 1 day, science has found that human females spend more time looking at faces, than things, which is useful since females tended to most of the early human care in evolution
-as early as 1 day, science has found that human males spend more time looking at things, rather than faces….which is why boys are good at video games, men at hunting and protecting and war
-until Donald Trump was 14 years old, humans didn’t have reliable birth control, and females could get pregnant at any time
-until a couple of generations ago, humans had not yet invented the technology, which would produce jobs that females could do in large numbers, giving them economic freedom, and women were completely dependent of men
-human males are slightly smarter than human females, and these differences show up in large numbers at the extreme high end, so most of the very smartest people in human history were male…see “The Smartest People in the World are all Men”….Breitbart Magazine, for numbers.
-human females get to decide who they will have sex with, so human males must socially compete with each other, for higher ranking females, and this meant men competed to protect and provide for females
So what sort of social organization system arises, when these sorts of factors are present in a species? What helped humans survive? Patriarchy.
Like all things in evolution, the things that survive are the things that prove useful in pushing forward life. In Patriarchal systems, men lead, and run the political and economic structure of society, men are disposable, women concentrate of raising offspring, and children are the center of life. This has proved to be a winning formula in our history. We are all descendants of Patriarchs.
And Patriarchy won, not because men imposed it on women, but because women chose it, because it offered the best deal, for women. And men chose it, because it ensured them offspring, and gave them social respect and power. Women liked that they were protected, got to chose which man to mate with, and they were far more likely to survive under Patriarchy, than any other system.
And the human mammal, to survive, organized into small groups…tribes…and competed for other resources with other groups. Groups needed protection from other competing groups of humans, and from predator animals.
Which sex was best to lead and protect the group in this situation? Was it the sex that was physically weaker in terms of upper body strength, had lower overall testosterone levels, indicating lower aggression, and spent most of their lives pregnant?…human women. Or was it the sex that was it the sex that was physically stronger in terms of upper body strength, had higher overall testosterone levels, indicating higher aggression, and didn’t have the burden of pregnancy?…human men?
Obviously biologically, the human groups that organized around male protection and leadership, had an enormous evolutionary advantage over groups that organized around female protection and leadership. And that’s why Patriarchal societies totally out-competed any Matriarchal groups, and that’s why they survived.
So Patriarchy was not some sort of evil conspiracy against women. Patriarchy is a natural evolutionary group strategy for survival and protection of women and children. And the other key variable, driving Patriarchy for the win as an evolutionary strategy, was the simple fact that human women get pregnant. Think about it.
If there is a theoretical tribe of 200 humans…..100 females, 100 males…and if the tribe loses 98 of the females, because they are off fighting to protect the males, then the tribe is finished in evolution, as there are only 2 breeding females left, of the original 100…. But if the tribe loses 98 of the males? The tribe can continue in evolution, because all the remaining males, even if they are old, can do their biological role, impregnating females, keeping the tribe alive.
So Patriarchy arose, not as a conspiracy against women, but out of basic biology: Females are more important than males, in evolution, because they get pregnant. If there were other patterns that worked, they would have arisen…..but they didn’t.
Sometimes what didn’t happen, is more important than what happened. And it tells you more, than what happened. More than likely, as the science of gender differences evolves, more and more evidence will be found, of slight biological differences between males and females, which contributed to the social pattern known as Patriarchy.
Another key piece of evidence for all this, is a simple fact that scientists uncovered, using some very clever techniques. What they found is YOU have twice as many female offspring, as male offspring. About 80% of modern human females have left offspring, in our evolution. But only about 40% of male modern humans have left offspring, in our evolution…why was this?
Basically, males died off quicker because they protected the group. And because females in humans, as in all mammal species, they do the choosing of mates. So this all indicates what common sense suggests: men were disposable in evolution and competed for access to females, just like males in other mammal species do.
All this is highly suggestive of the type of social environment arising naturally, know as Patriarchy: human males that invest in their offspring, successfully compete against other males, and protect females, tend to survive in evolution. This means Patriarchy is a natural process, deeply embedded in nature. Feminists seem hell bent on throwing out an established pattern that worked for a very long time in evolution. Most new things in evolution don’t work. Will this one? Will the new feminist principles work, in keeping human societies stable and surviving into the future? It seems unlikely, but time will tell….
1
-
1
-
1