Proof that Patriarchy Theory is in fact wrong, and Mainstream feminists are idiots

[LJ_Reloaded]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci...exist-Scientists-finally-find-the-answer.html

But new research suggests that sexual competition for mates keeps populations healthy, free of disease and genetically diverse.

"Almost all multicellular species on earth reproduce using sex, but its existence isn't easy to explain because sex carries big burdens, the most obvious of which is that only half of your offspring - daughters - will actually produce offspring,” said lead researcher Prof Matt Gage, from the University of East Anglia School of Biological Sciences.

“Why should any species waste all that effort on sons? An all-female asexual population would be a far more effective route to reproduce greater numbers of offspring.

"Our research shows that competition among males for reproduction provides a really important benefit, because it improves the genetic health of populations.” Charles Darwin first suggested the idea of ‘sexual selection’ in which males compete for reproduction and females choose. It is why in the animal kingdom males are often far more brightly coloured than females, and partake in elaborate courtship rituals.

Hegemonic masculinity and Patriarchy aren't the cause of male aggression or all the hell that stems from that.

The real root cause is competition among males, which Mother Nature saw fit to impose on men, NOT Patriarchy. Patriarchy is only a very recent consequence of humanity's flawed attempt to compensate for this.

Feminism and its refusal to recognize or accept this is based on the fact that women do not understand how mate competition affects men, much less the fact that Patriarchy did not cause this. Male violence, war and sex crimes all stem from something Nature imposed on men, and thus the real root to ending male violence, war and sex crimes is to put an end to the NATURE-IMPOSED demand that men compete for women.

Maybe mainstream feminism should spend more time talking about how to make mating a less competitive sport where losing costs men (and not women) EVERYTHING. Maybe if we can do that without letting the Patriarchy and its subjugation of women back to the cultural table we can solve the whole male violence problem.

Then maybe we can concentrate on power dynamics, which again is the bedrock beneath Patriarchy and corrupts women as well as men.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Thanks for the laugh.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Thanks for the laugh.

You didn't read the article? Or you feel that men should have to compete for mates, with all the sexism and misogyny that this DIRECTLY causes?

Well, we knew all along that you never really cared for women. You're only in it for the brownie points.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I'm a monster, I don't care about points, care that you can't prove it. I dont need to read it. You are scum. Its kinda that simple.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

I'm a monster

So admits the insincere bitch who grovels for pussy points. Your feminist movement lies in ruins because you were the lowest shit of humanity. Your only hope of revival is that the Trumpanzees are shittier than you. But when we're done flushing the MAGA people out... you're next. Count on that.

At least now we know you can't actually refute the remarks I made in the OP. But then you've never won a straight up debate with me over principles. That's why I ran you out of those threads after you said you'd outlast me. LOL.

I always get the last word. And my points always stand uncontested.

 

[richard_daily]

You didn't read the article? Or you feel that men should have to compete for mates, with all the sexism and misogyny that this DIRECTLY causes?

Well, we knew all along that you never really cared for women. You're only in it for the brownie points.

So what you're saying, is that you're terrible at competing for mates.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

So what you're saying, is that you're terrible at competing for mates.

Competing for mates is for chumps. You lose just by playing. Ultimately it's going to end in nuclear annihilation when overly competitive men finally take this competitive bullshit to its logical conclusion.

Male competition is why we have men like Trump.

Good job being women's worst enemy, mangina boy.

 

[Hypoxia]

Sounds like someone has been cucked.

 

[KimGordon67]

So human gender norms exist ... because beetles?

Good grief. *eyeroll*

 

[Adder4321]

This reminds me of something I said as a joke a while back. Our world is built on two things; rules and exceptions.

As a general rule, most men, hell, most humans, are competitive by nature. We had to be, and to some extent still do. We needed to be competitive in order to find food, water and shelter and to protect those things once we had found it. And it makes sense that those competitive survival instincts are still part of us. And contrary to popular belief, humans aren't able to transcend those instinct and they will always be a part of us.

I know that this is going to piss some people off, but when a woman is pregnant, she is far less capable of competing for her basic needs. So, males compensated by being even more competitive to support their mates. As a result, males would be naturally more competitive than females and females would naturally be attracted to those competitive males, since they would be more able to better provide for them.

I'm not trying to say that all humans are just senseless beasts, but we are animals. Humans can control their instincts, and some better than others. And not all people are competitive, there are exceptions. I'm just saying that everyone, at their core, has those basic competitive instincts.

 

[Queefer]

So admits the insincere bitch who grovels for pussy points. Your feminist movement lies in ruins because you were the lowest shit of humanity. Your only hope of revival is that the Trumpanzees are shittier than you. But when we're done flushing the MAGA people out... you're next. Count on that.

At least now we know you can't actually refute the remarks I made in the OP. But then you've never won a straight up debate with me over principles. That's why I ran you out of those threads after you said you'd outlast me. LOL.

I always get the last word. And my points always stand uncontested.

Ah, the botony boi defense. " you didn't argue my bullshit so I must be right".
Have a cookie.

 

[quietlylooking]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci...exist-Scientists-finally-find-the-answer.html

Hegemonic masculinity and Patriarchy aren't the cause of male aggression or all the hell that stems from that.

The real root cause is competition among males, which Mother Nature saw fit to impose on men, NOT Patriarchy. Patriarchy is only a very recent consequence of humanity's flawed attempt to compensate for this.

Feminism and its refusal to recognize or accept this is based on the fact that women do not understand how mate competition affects men, much less the fact that Patriarchy did not cause this. Male violence, war and sex crimes all stem from something Nature imposed on men, and thus the real root to ending male violence, war and sex crimes is to put an end to the NATURE-IMPOSED demand that men compete for women.

Maybe mainstream feminism should spend more time talking about how to make mating a less competitive sport where losing costs men (and not women) EVERYTHING. Maybe if we can do that without letting the Patriarchy and its subjugation of women back to the cultural table we can solve the whole male violence problem.

Then maybe we can concentrate on power dynamics, which again is the bedrock beneath Patriarchy and corrupts women as well as men.

I may be a bit slow this morning, but I am having a hard time understanding why being in competition for women makes men misogynistic and violent towards others. Most women don't really appreciate those traits. Or is it just that the traits in a man that that make him competitive are linked to the traits driving violence and sex crimes?

I do agree that power dynamics are the root of the problem. It corrupts all, men and women.

I would also agree with the previous poster that men in the real world only compete for a small percentage of the women out there. The women who are not being competed for... what is their place in this view of society, LJ?

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

So human gender norms exist ... because beetles?

Good grief. *eyeroll*

Take that up with the scientists, they have degrees in this shit.

Ah, the botony boi defense. " you didn't argue my bullshit so I must be right".
Have a cookie.

Okay well then my point stands uncontested.

I wish we lived in this wonderful world of yours in which every single of us plain, ugly, fat or older Jane Doe's had half a dozen men vying for their attention.

Susan Boyle found a boyfriend in short order as soon as she came out of the shadows. A rich boyfriend who paid for their first date.

You know who Susan Boyle is, right?

If she can do it, any woman can do it.

I may be a bit slow this morning, but I am having a hard time understanding why being in competition for women makes men misogynistic and violent towards others. Most women don't really appreciate those traits. Or is it just that the traits in a man that that make him competitive are linked to the traits driving violence and sex crimes?

I do agree that power dynamics are the root of the problem. It corrupts all, men and women.

I would also agree with the previous poster that men in the real world only compete for a small percentage of the women out there.

Have you ever been to a soccer match? Or played Monopoly? Ever notice how things sometimes get red fucking hot during those things? Now raise the stakes to where you are not getting laid and dying a virgin.

Nah, you're probably a woman, women go decades without sex and don't even sweat it, I am quite reasonably sure that know at least four women (single moms) since high school who did just that for almost twenty damned years, no fucking sweat.

The fact is, if you hold a competition of any sort a few hundred times you are eventually going to see to a whole lot of pressure to win, and as a result, people cheating, sabotaging the competition, and then worse cases of acting badly. Raise the stakes and throw in failure to perform a fundamental function (reproduction being one of the most important for the species' survival and that of your bloodline) and then throw in sentience, and you get a recipe for absolute disaster.

There is no doubt that if the roles were switched and women had to compete for reproductive privilege, women would not be so devil-may-care about sex as they are now.

The women who are not being competed for... what is their place in this view of society, LJ?

Damned good question. Their role is the same as anyone else's. Though I must say that if a woman is not being competed over, it's not her looks at all. See Susan Boyle. A woman who's not being competed over is doing life all incredibly wrong.

Again, though, if the roles were switched.....

 

[LiamAnthony]

Hey guys, want to live longer? Marry a younger woman.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...n-marrying-younger-men-dying-earlier-research

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Hey guys, want to live longer? Marry a younger woman.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...n-marrying-younger-men-dying-earlier-research

And if you want to die earlier while competing for a woman, look for a younger woman.

 

[Leigh81]

Getting into the GB mode

All feminists are whiny cunts nowadays & complain about no real issues
A strong woman doesn't need that cunty term, only the whining weak do

L

 

[KimGordon67]

Take that up with the scientists, they have degrees in this shit.


Okay well then my point stands uncontested.


Susan Boyle found a boyfriend in short order as soon as she came out of the shadows. A rich boyfriend who paid for their first date.

You know who Susan Boyle is, right?

If she can do it, any woman can do it.


Have you ever been to a soccer match? Or played Monopoly? Ever notice how things sometimes get red fucking hot during those things? Now raise the stakes to where you are not getting laid and dying a virgin.

Nah, you're probably a woman, women go decades without sex and don't even sweat it, I am quite reasonably sure that know at least four women (single moms) since high school who did just that for almost twenty damned years, no fucking sweat.

The fact is, if you hold a competition of any sort a few hundred times you are eventually going to see to a whole lot of pressure to win, and as a result, people cheating, sabotaging the competition, and then worse cases of acting badly. Raise the stakes and throw in failure to perform a fundamental function (reproduction being one of the most important for the species' survival and that of your bloodline) and then throw in sentience, and you get a recipe for absolute disaster.

There is no doubt that if the roles were switched and women had to compete for reproductive privilege, women would not be so devil-may-care about sex as they are now.


Damned good question. Their role is the same as anyone else's. Though I must say that if a woman is not being competed over, it's not her looks at all. See Susan Boyle. A woman who's not being competed over is doing life all incredibly wrong.

Again, though, if the roles were switched.....

You do know that once upon a time scientists said that the problem with women was that their uteruses became unanchored and wandered around their bodies?

And QL is quite right - the fact that the majority of women don't actually like aggressive competitive men kind of belies your argument. The whole reason feminism happened in the first instance is because, in part, women were fed up with that shit and all the other garbage that came along with it. However, it gets perpetuated in popular discourse because ... beetles! etc. It's so freaking stupid ... why does it matter 'why' men and women behave in certain ways. The important thing is whether that's actually working for everyone, and if not, let's do something to fix it.
But oh no ... if we can 'prove' that it's 'nature' (like we even know what that is) then we can justify just carrying on as usual. Because somehow whatever is 'natural' is just better.
So dumb.

Might I just point out that the beetle experiment relied on entirely unnatural conditions. Beetles put in an artificially constructed environment are not humans going about their lives. All that proves is that if you do X to beetles for long enough, Y will happen. (And even then, you'd have to replicate the experiment to be really sure. Because that's how actual science works.)

 

[richard_daily]

Sounds like someone has been cucked.

There's nothing wrong with being an Omega male like LT.

 

[Sean Renaud]

So admits the insincere bitch who grovels for pussy points. Your feminist movement lies in ruins because you were the lowest shit of humanity. Your only hope of revival is that the Trumpanzees are shittier than you. But when we're done flushing the MAGA people out... you're next. Count on that.

At least now we know you can't actually refute the remarks I made in the OP. But then you've never won a straight up debate with me over principles. That's why I ran you out of those threads after you said you'd outlast me. LOL.

I always get the last word. And my points always stand uncontested.

My feminist movement lies in ruins for the same reason black lives don't matter. You'd rather vote trump or sit on your ass than get up and matter. You like Trumpanzees, you want them to thrive because you are essentially Russian. Always have been always will be.

 

[richard_daily]

Have you ever been to a soccer match? Or played Monopoly? Ever notice how things sometimes get red fucking hot during those things? Now raise the stakes to where you are not getting laid and dying a virgin.

Do you need someone to pay for you to get laid?

Maybe I'll pay for it LT. You are a charity case, afterall.

 

[richard_daily]

And if you want to die earlier while competing for a woman, look for a younger woman.

And this, right here, is why LT is so angry.

He thinks that because HE can't get laid, that other people can't get laid.

He's at the bottom of the rung of natural selection, just like most school shooters and the idiot that ran a car into people in Charlottetown.

 

[KimGordon67]

Two other points

1. The actual article (the one in Nature, not the one you've linked to) is significantly more complex and comes up with a much less straightforward conclusion than the Telegraph's summary (surprise!).
2. The points in human history in which men have outnumbered women 10 to 1 - the context in which this competitiveness supposedly became apparent among beetles - are pretty few and far between. In the real world we have close to a 1:1 ratio. According to your logic, men don't need to compete for women - there's one for each of you (well, except you LJ. We've all agreed to stay away from you).

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

You do know that once upon a time scientists said that the problem with women was that their uteruses became unanchored and wandered around their bodies?

And QL is quite right - the fact that the majority of women don't actually like aggressive competitive men kind of belies your argument.

A successful man of high status NEVER wants for a woman - and that nullifies your counterargument. The vast majority of men get to high social status by competing. Competing is in itself an act of aggression, which is not always violent. But then also how many top MMA fighters ever want for women? Tell me, how many?

The whole reason feminism happened in the first instance is because, in part, women were fed up with that shit and all the other garbage that came along with it.

And yet Donald Trump got not one wife, but THREE wives. And countless brutes just like him are quite successful with women.

http://www.worldlifestyle.com/relat...minist-can-understand-selena-reuniting-justin

If women are so fucking fed up with that shit then why is it that Charles Manson had an entire FOLLOWING of women and gang members in prison can impregnate four prison guards?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/four-female-prison-guards-impregnated-by-same-inmate/

Ever even heard of a drug dealer having problems finding women? I mean really, look at those drug dealers and biker gangs, what do they have swarming around them? You guessed it, WOMEN. How does that happen if women are so fed up with it?

For all that talk you do about how fed up women are with bad actors, those bad actors sure as fuck are at the TOP of the success-with-females pile. How do you reconcile your assertion with cold, hard reality?

However, it gets perpetuated in popular discourse because ... beetles! etc. It's so freaking stupid ... why does it matter 'why' men and women behave in certain ways. The important thing is whether that's actually working for everyone, and if not, let's do something to fix it.
But oh no ... if we can 'prove' that it's 'nature' (like we even know what that is) then we can justify just carrying on as usual. Because somehow whatever is 'natural' is just better.

Actually I hate nature specifically because it pulls this shit.

Might I just point out that the beetle experiment relied on entirely unnatural conditions. Beetles put in an artificially constructed environment are not humans going about their lives. All that proves is that if you do X to beetles for long enough, Y will happen. (And even then, you'd have to replicate the experiment to be really sure. Because that's how actual science works.)

Like I said, take it up with them. They're the ones who deduced from that experiment that humanity was better off with two genders rather than asexual reproduction, they're the ones who deduced that male competition was somehow healthier for the species.

I'm the one who is saying that male competition needs to end, welfare of humanity be damned, it's high time that men stop being the disposable half of the species.

Male disposability CAUSES toxic masculinity and Patriarchy. What you missed from this article is that what happens with beetles is not just happening to beetles, it happens to almost EVERY ANIMAL SPECIES ON EARTH.

Almost EVERY animal species, with few exceptions, follows one of two rules:
1) Males compete over females, not vice-versa; or
2) THEY GET EATEN

Rule #1 is true for humans. THIS causes Patriarchy. THIS causes toxic masculinity. Feminism is ill prepared to talk about this because they are not at all willing to talk about the SECOND most important problem: women who glorify successfully competitive men, thus driving all the other males to try and be winners, too.

WINNERS TAKE ALL when it comes to women, because women only want the winners of the world. And guess what? Hell breaks loose because all men want to be winners. That's how competition works. That's for feminism to address, and they're too busy DENYING it instead of addressing it.

And before you start shouting about muh soggy knees, no, this doesn't mean women are inferior. It means that while men need to adopt a major attitude change... so do women. And feminism is ignoring that second half.

My feminist movement lies in ruins for the same reason black lives don't matter. You'd rather vote trump or sit on your ass than get up and matter. You like Trumpanzees, you want them to thrive because you are essentially Russian. Always have been always will be.

LOL dude I voted for and got out the vote for Clinton, unlike you. I've marched for Black Lives Matter, unlike you. I've punched Nazis up close and personal... unlike you. I'm actively at war with Trumpanzees, unlike you.

Ask yourself why Warren Farrell, the father of the men's rights movement, went all-in for Clinton and not Trump. Can you do that? No, because you don't give a shit about women, and you're a weak insincere little mitch who sits at his keyboard talking shit in hopes of getting e-pussy. You're another Hugo Schwyzer in the making, if only you could survive a minute of sunlight.

There's nothing wrong with being an Omega male like LT.

But there is something terribly wrong with being an exposed, unsuccessful phony like you.

If only you had some money and power... you'd be Harvey Weinstein.

 

[Sean Renaud]

If you'd done any of that you'd be a feminist. Just stop lying.

 

[richard_daily]

But there is something terribly wrong with being an exposed, unsuccessful phony like you.

If only you had some money and power... you'd be Harvey Weinstein.

Every post you make whining about sex robots and how men like you have to compete for a mate, just shows your true colors.

You're a sad, pathetic, lonely loser.

You're full of rage, and if you could afford a gun, you'd probably go postal at some point out of frustration at your lack of ability to get laid.