Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
I'm pretty sure you're misrepresenting Dwyer there, in that he doesn't seem particularly irate about it, although I grant you that Roosh does.
Roosh V, Pro-Rape Pick Up Artist, Announces Worldwide 'Tribal Meetings'
- Thread starter Buddy Bradley
- Start date
I'm pretty sure you're misrepresenting Dwyer there, in that he doesn't seem particularly irate about it, although I grant you that Roosh does.
bimble
floofy
Polygyny is the only explanation for the genetic findings. Whether official (by marriage) or just practical. You think it's irrelevant that most non-christian societies are polygynous?
bimble
floofy
Dwyer is the one who kept banging on about 'open hypergamy', as a brand new phenomenon, like women have just unleashed this horrible thing on the world of unsuspecting men who got used to expecting their fair share etc.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
why do you think it the only explanation?
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
He was talking about it sure, and winding people up as usual, but you're deliberately conflating him with Roosh in the post I refer to.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
out of curiosity what do you know of partnership patterns in eg what is now egypt 10000 years ago?
bimble
floofy
not much at all, apart from it was really unusual in lots of ways, such as having lots of legal rights for women, and allowing divorce & remarriage etc.
Did find this though:
"Among common people, polygamy may very well have existed as it obviously did in the royal class, but if so it was rare. We known from excavations such as Deir El Medina that the housing of common people conformed more to monogamy rather than polygamy..
Yet from the 13th Dynasty (1795-1650 BC) on polygamy was common among kings and some of the ruling elite. While one principal wife (hemet nesw weret) was chosen, others were probably taken by the king in order to assure a royal heir, or cement relationships with foreign countries or even powerful regional leaders. Kings might have as many as several hundred wives, and in some periods other high officials took more than one wife."
Egypt: Marriage in Ancient Egypt
crossthebreeze
Well-Known Member
The arxiv.org paper above is by Favre and Sornette!
So, it might be the case that a greater proportion of women reproduce than men - at least that's the hypothesis of some of the papers that have been linked to, I've no idea if there is consensus on this among geneticists.
The problem is in the interpretation of this:
-the New Scientist article using polygyny (which refers to mating) and polygamy (referring to marriage) interchangably - despite the fact that they are talking about 200,000 years of human history - rather than the historical era in which we can demonstrate that marriage was widespread.
-the Favre & Sornette article links their genetics research to "findings in the perspective of recent psychological and sociological studies concerning gender differences with respect to preference for competition, overconfidence and risk decisions" - but these areas of psychology and sociology are themselves contentious - there is a huge amount of debate about whether experiments like the ones they refer to demonstrate "hard-wired" gender difference or just show influence of environmental factors (and don't account for brain plasticity). "Delusions of Gender" by Cordelia Fine is a good reference point here.
-Baumeister then gets completely confused in his narrative - he argues that gender roles/mating pattern come about because men and women have innate differences but also that these roles were some kind of "choice" and that gender differences have become hardwired because they have been in place for so long, yet he also demonstrates how culture has changed over time (and that various cultures have existed - as he sees it in competition - at the same time). He doesn't seem to have much idea about how power operates within societies, or about class.
And then we get to the MRA/PUA interpretation of it and it makes even less sense - do they have nostalgia for earlier times where a large proportion of men are sent off to die in wars or enslaved or whatever and so don't get to have kids, while a smaller number of rich men procreate freely (and treat women like property in the process) or are they complaining that some men are still seen as expendable and/or aren't getting enough sex?? I guess whatever their argument is, its all women's fault!
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
you do know ten thousand is bigger than four thousand?
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
bimble
floofy
bimble is away, gone to try to think of other possible explanations.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
she'll be back next year then
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
wouldn't have had to spend five minutes on it if she had an ounce of witBlimey, are you two going to do this all day?
bluescreen
tofu eating wokerati
I wonder how much of that alleged 80% female 'success' in reproduction was a result of raids, invasion and war. As dwyer has repeatedly pointed out, it is only recently that women have been able to choose partners - but how many conceptions were outside a cohabiting partnership anyway?
bimble
floofy
Yes. Eg) Ghengis Khan didn't father 1,000 children or whatever because women found him really charming. None of the above genetic stuff, if it's true, has anything to say about what women want.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
tbh infant mortality may play a part as might the greater risk of male death in e.g. hunting accidents, work accidents. also men having more than one wife/partner in series rather than parallel, due to incidence of death in childbirth. saying it can only be polygyny just plain stupid.
Tbf, that's true here too.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
actually if you're measuring this by surviving genes you're going to miss a host of people who procreated successfully but e.g. woman and child died in childbirth or child/ren never survived to adulthood, e.g. queen anne had 14 children none of whom made it to adulthood.
bluescreen
tofu eating wokerati
Even if one defines successful procreation in terms of survival to pass on genes to successive generations, the line may die out eventually. Unless we know where all the bodies are buried, the survivor genes aren't telling much of the story.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
just leading some of us to postulate highly stratified societiesall over the world in prehistory.
I'm not irate about it, wtf are you talking about?
I had a decent amount of respect for you up until now, but this is despicable. What sort of person are you?
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
what kind of person do you think she is?
And that's under patriarchal conditions. It seems reasonable to suppose that this hypergamous tendency among women is far more pronounced today, when women are free to select their own sexual partners on the basis of their own sexual desire.
So I'm confirmed in my opinion that, these days (approximately) 80% of women are chasing (approximately) 20% of men. Hence the Rise of the Beta.
A liar.
Actually the category "gay" doesn't really exist in the Muslim world.
That doesn't mean that men don't have sex with each other, for they most certainly do--far more than in the West. But there is no concept of homosexuality as identity, there are no "gay men." This was also the situation in the West until the twentieth century.
In fact, homosexuality as identity only emerged during the Oscar Wilde trial. That's also the point at which male homosexuality becomes identified with effeminacy in the popular imagination. Oscar has much to answer for.
Open hypergamy is certainly a new phenomenon, at least on any wide scale. Covert hypergamy has always been practiced by women who could get away with it, which is to say: not many.
If you disagree, perhaps you could give us an example of widespread open hypergamy in other contexts than the twenty-first century West. I doubt you'll be able to because, as I have noted repeatedly, female sexuality has always been constrained by men in every previous human society of which we know.
Yep. I've made it crystal clear that I think open hypergamy is a Good Thing. I've said it over and over again. I've attacked Roosh and his like, over and over again, for their criticisms of it.
Seriously Bimble, don't you think an apology is in order?
I bet she is.
Similar threads
