Our culture assumes that freedom is generally good, and that people should be free to pursue their own desires, unless that pursuit conflicts with the freedom of others.
Lol, I've never deleted a thread on substack. I might eventually delete people for spam if they just keep babbling, but so far I haven't done that.
Look, you have not engaged with the ideas at all. All of your criticisms are generic or superficial. And you adopted an arrogant attitude, so I reflected it back at you. You wanted to pretend to be superior without doing any actual work -- without thinking. I am respectful toward people who are worthy of respect. Have you done anything to earn respect? No, you've done the opposite.
Calling something "simplistic" is not an argument. Explanations are supposed to simplify -- that's the point of an explanation. We can use biological and psychological theories to understand human behavior, and that's what I am doing.
This essay is not making an empirical argument, but the data show (e.g. from dating sites) that men and women are different, and that is explained by evolutionary psychology. There is also a huge amount of evidence from all of human history. Men and women have always played different roles in relationships and society.
If you want a respectful conversation, start by reading the essay for content, and then make a substantive comment. Also, apologize for your obnoxious attitude.
I will eventually ban you for spamming if you make comments on random threads.
Again, as I told you, I have deleted no threads at all. Probably the commenter deleted the thread. Make comments on your own thread, or better yet, write up a blog post, if you think you have such profound wisdom to share.
Your "arguments" are ignorant horseshit. For fuck's sake, you're so stupid that you don't even understand the difference between legality and morality, or descriptive vs normative claims.
That's an appeal to complexity fallacy. Generalizations are necessary for forming knowledge. If you find reality to be disturbing, then you need to get over it.
Yeah, I'd say that Wiktionary is better than most dictionaries, in my opinion. Unfortunately, it's not as well-known as other online dictionaries. Since Wiktionary is non-profit, it can't bribe itself to the top of search engine results pages (SERPs).
Wouldnt these problems solve themselves? There certainly are women who are assertive and make the first move for example. People are still making children and these couples are obviously the ones whos offspring will also be fertile in the future, despite living in modern environments. We probably just have to wait. The same as with birth control. The people who resist it will outbreed those who cant. We will adapt, slowly.
Sure, all problems "solve themselves" in some sense. But that's like saying "cancer solves itself" because it kills you. When you say "we will adapt", who is "we"? Biological adaptation occurs by replacement of genes or populations. You might not be included in that "we" if you don't make a conscious effort to adapt.
One way to adapt is to understand a problem and devise a solution. We evolved a large brain, because it gives us a greater capacity to understand and solve problems.
Nature's "solution" would probably be simply the collapse of modern civilization, and a return to premodern conditions. Or we could try to fix the problems with modern civilization, making it stable and sustainable. I prefer the latter.
If society doesn't collapse and send us back into traditional gender roles, then over the next several hundred years we will likely see biological adaptation to the new condition. Some women intrinsically want to have kids, and will choose to do so even if they have the freedom not to. To the extent that such traits are hereditary, it will result in extremely strong selection pressure: Imagine, say, that an ambivalent woman has 0 or 1 child, and a child-loving one has 3 or 4. With this level of differential fertility we will see some quick changes in median behaviors. (Here "quick" means 5-10 generations.)
This has already started to happen with gen z and alpha, you have offspring of two types. Those deliberate in having kids and those who make a mistake and the ones deliberate among Europeans are having more kids, the only issue is other groups are outbreeding them accidentally. This is why migration control is critical to control of this. It will fix itself without migration
There usually is not a "conscious effort." The wholly mammoth did not will his fur into being. We adapt by bad traits dying out and good ones becoming more reproductively successful. Human do have culture change from war and conquest, but outside of Western society getting conquered, it is likely that traditional cultures will out-reproduce those that have barren women, even if they barren by choice.
Over time, all things being equal, those women who do not value children will cease to exist, and those that value motherhood, or who are in cultures that value marriage and family, they will be the ones still here. There is a considerable evidence that patriarchy is the only long-term successful human survival strategy. I can easily imagine a future where only Islam and Christianity are left, and modernity gone, save for remnants of the old world, like mythical Greek and Roman swords are armor worshipped in the Dark Ages. We certainly cannot maintain our current reproductive choices in the West without immigrants. When / if that ends, only sustainable cultures will continue.
Male sexual desire is stronger, because the minimal male cost to have offspring is smaller (one ejaculation). In almost all sexual species (including plants), the male "pursues" the female in some way. This dimorphism arises from the difference between the gametes: the egg is large and sessile, the sperm is small and motile.
It's explained in the essay. Women don't have a strong desire to be in relationships. If they did, you would see women making much greater efforts to create relationships. They don't, and they don't take an active role in trying to find a mate. In the past, women needed men to survive, so a woman wanted a relationship because she didn't want to die. It was also culturally low-status to be unmarried. Take away those pressures, and women will passively wait for "Mr. Right", while never making a serious effort to find a man, and rejecting most men. That is what we see.
So are they waiting for Mr Right or they don't have strong desire to be in relationships? Passiveness doesn't have to mean lack of desire. Women go to bars waiting for some guy to start chatting with them. They use dating apps etc.
Both. If you're waiting for "Mr. Right", then you clearly don't want to be in a relationship that badly -- or you would settle for "Mr. Okay", and you wouldn't just wait -- you'd go looking. The point of "Mr. Right" is that he doesn't exist -- he is an unrealistic ideal. Yes, passiveness does mean a lack of desire. Yeah, women go to bars, wait for guys to approach them, and then reject those guys, and laugh about it later with their friends. Guys take the risk of rejection, and guys are willing to take that risk because their sexual desire is stronger. After having sex, the roles reverse. Men are less interested in commitment.
There has been a decline in relationship formation, because our emotions do not fit the environment that we have created. Over half of people 18 to 34 in the US are not in a relationship.
Rise of singleness is quite recent phenomena. And women get desperate when they get older to find partner. I think that them having more inflated position I sexual/matrymonial market is reason rather than lack of arranged marriages. Women don't need men for survival for quite some time and you see this trend rise from 2010s
I think you’re missing on the significance of the difference between men and women. “Well if they want it, they would just go and get it”, that’s a male way of thinking. Women absolutely have a strong desire to be in a relationship, and their strategies for seeking relationships are to try to highlight their availability to the individuals who they want to pursue them. That is the female way of thinking. Women absolutely do pursue men and pursue relationships, but they are not doing it by going up to men and asking out on a date.
If you want to understand women, don’t try to read essays on female psychology or whatnot- go and consume media that women enjoy, and look at the female behaviors that are 1) taken for granted, 2) shown as praiseworthy, aspirational, fantasy fulfillment, and 3) the behaviors that are portrayed negatively, especially in a “giving into temptation” light.
You must be a very attractive man. It is rare for most men to receive female interest. The overwhelming majority of women wait for men to come to them. It is quite rare for women to do otherwise.
That's why I wrote about seeing how women behave when they develop crushes. Even if they have crush(ie clear interest in relationship) most of them will try to dress attractively/pass near that person. Explanation that passiveness is their biological/cultural mode rather than lack of interest fits much better as explanations of this behavior
Can you explain why this distinction is relevant? I apologize if I am asking a stupid question, but I do not see how this matters. Either way the result is the same, or am I completely misunderstanding?
If you want to understand how to fix something first you need to know what's broken. If women just don't want to be in relationships at all and our goal is existence of families than we have to force them into marriages in some way. If women are passive and relationships don't happen because men being proactive was demonized by #metoo than solution is to normalize back men approaching women. If problem is women having artificially inflated "price" on sex market than you have to address that. You can't solve problem if you don't know what is problem. And the more you understand problem the less crass(? don't know if it's correct word because I'm not native speaker) your solution is, for example just forcing marriages by state
No. This is irrelevant. Remember, in traditional societies women did not choose their partners, their parents did. Women do not need to prefer male dominance. That said, if you go to dangerous places, women tend to like stronger men more. I mean this in terms of social / political power, not physical strength.
Humans have been evolving for 100,000 years. We've only had traditional societies where parents controlled that for a few thousand of that. And even then, there are plenty of stories about people disobeying their parents.
yeah I think so too, women evolved to attract the attention of men, to crave it, their attention often meant better life situations. Now that sexual freedom has caused all these issues, I don't see their desire for male attention or affection to have decreased. If anything, it has increased to a vulgar degree, however their ability to pair bond has dropped due to so many partners, or a fear of pair bonding, or what have you
I mentioned that elsewhere in the comments. I think he just fundamentally doesn’t understand the difference between male/female thinking on a more personal level. He seemed to be saying that if women really wanted a relationship they would pursue men in the manner that men pursue women, but he hasn’t acknowledged the ways that women do pursue men (by trying to get the men to pursue them/setting him up in situations where he is pursuing her and thinks it’s all his idea)
He explicitly mentioned exactly this, saying women desire to be chased and taken but society has made the act of chasing and taking women a taboo and social suicide for men to even attempt this.
We have been conditioned and browbeaten from birth to ignore every single signal a girl sends because if we get it wrong we go to jail for the rest of our lives. That is why men 'need' women to give crazy outlandish things like 'affirmative consent' to relationships, something women get the 'ick' by having to do themselves.
If she doesn't TELL us she likes us, we are paralyzed by decades of Title IX culture.
But nowadays with the internet male attention (what they truly desire) is practically free. Men throw themselves at women constantly. Women just have to make a hinge profile with one semi-attractive picture and can match with 1/3 of every man they swipe on. Men, instead, match with 1/200. Isn't that crazy?
First, I agree that the present culture about being against men pursuing women has definitely had the kind of effect you are describing on men, but I think it is largely a perceived effect- that is, if you disregard it, and pursue women boldly anyways, you as a man can do very well for yourself in terms of relationships. Women want men to pursue them, and if you show a woman that you have genuine interest in her, in getting to know her, and committing to her, it is successful far more often than you may expect. People like it when people like them, and when someone likes them, they like the person who likes them. This is true of platonic friendships and sexual relationships, it is a basic rule of human behavior.
But your idea that what women REALLY want is social media attention is completely wrong. Yes, women do get those wonderful little dopamine hits from social media approval, as do men, but this absolutely does not replace real social interaction. You sometimes see people who have replaced real social interaction with online approval, and when you watch them it is more the behavior of a drug addict- because it is an addiction to social approval dopamine. Women are more susceptible to social approval, but the mechanism is the same with a woman who tries to get thousands of likes from a bikini picture as with a man who tries to get thousands of like with a meme that he creates. For both of them it is online content creation, and they are getting gratification from people liking what they are making- but it is NOT a replacement for social connection.
This seems to be the same misunderstanding that is held by many incels (and I am not trying to be derogatory with the usage of the word incel, I am using it to refer to self-proclaimed incels and the ideas that they often have). This is that “women can sleep with whoever they want, men cannot, therefore women don’t understand male loneliness”. It is two true premises with a false conclusion, because it assumes that the free sex that many men desire is the same thing desired by most women. Most women are looking for social connection, and their engagement in hookup culture is often an act of sheer desperation to get it. They are sleeping with men on a first date in hopes of getting a text or call back, then when they get nothing they are bombarded with feminist propaganda calling them empowered.
He observes several times that women need men. He does not link this to sexual desire, but even in his telling women are on the clock to find a man to protect and take care of them before their father can't/won't.
He does not intuit the next logical step - that this "need" manifests itself in women as longing or desire. And obviously so; one can accept most women have a lower raw sex drive than men, or crave romantic love more than carnal love, while still understanding that women experience this need as something, as some emotion and drive that steers them to want men and be happy to be with them.
The author's alternative is amazing - he posits women's evolutionary need for men, which in his telling manifests itself as ... nothing! As waiting around to be seized/raped - with any man who can't do the seizing rejected.
The rest of his story at least logically follows from his evolutionary principles. This one - women's lack of desire for men, i.e., his entire thesis - does not. There's no basis for it at all.
His thesis is women need a man to protect them. However, that they need a man to seize them - and are not attracted to men who do not - does not follow from that need. He does not say they need the strongest guy in the village, nor does he specify anything else about the nature of what women need from their man/men.
Women could simply value food, comfort, security, not a man per se. There is no reason why the need for a man should manifest as a desire for a man, since the need is not actually for a man. It is for food, comfort, and security. So, if women can get those needs fulfilled in other ways, they might choose to do that -- as you can observe in the modern world. When women can fulfill those needs through the state and the market, a sexual imbalance is created.
See, a man needs a woman to reproduce, because a man needs a uterus. A woman only needs a sperm. So, in species with a pair-bond, the male provides other services to compensate for the services provided by the female body to his offspring. In species without a pair-bond, males simply compete for females, because females are a valuable resource. In those species, females are mostly indifferent to males. Sperm are cheap, so there is no need to compete for them.
Humans have a pair bond, and both sexes evolved to get the best deal. For a man, that means getting the most fertile young woman. For a woman, that means getting the most resources.
Also, if women were forced by circumstances to be relationships, there would be no biological function to such a desire. Do you desire gravity? You need it, but you have no desire for it.
Female sexual preferences reflect the need of women for men, in that women prefer strong, powerful men. And of course women do have a desire for men, but it is not nearly as strong as the male desire for women.
This post lacks any critical reflection. Asserting all of these things is one thing, but the only evidence supplied is an underdeveloped appeal to one evolutionarily-intuitive story. A lot of the claims in this essay don’t survive more than a moments of worth of scrutiny.
Dude, nothing would convince you. You didn't come here to be convinced or to learn something, or to think. You came here to play your little game of being the "critic", but you don't have any substantive criticism. Go play your little game somewhere else.
Ehh he/she kinda right I mean I don’t entirely disagree with your assessment though. Yeah the article sounds like someone’s intellectual ruminations (welcome to Substack) on why it’s hard to get a trad wife, but men really are struggling with dating and finding girlfriends. So I’ll balance with this: if women don’t need men do men really need women either?
Physically, mentally we don’t. I feel that’s part of why we’ve evolved those strong feelings because otherwise we’d be running in the woods and not advancing the species. Men are just having to reconcile their strong lustful feelings with a world that has back-swung into wariness of baseless persistent advances and well, ownership of people. The game that used to be played got updated, and it helped women. In the long term it does complicate things, but I say to evolve; to actually be independently minded and transcend the evolutionary game. The directing mind can dismantle the need for a woman/partner. I mean partnership can be good and fruitful conceptually but rationally it’s not really needed and most of the time and in reality it ends up a total mistake made out of dysfunctional fading romantic assumptions.
Ideally I can still have my feelings, but I don’t dwell on them, and only let them inform me of my identity as a human being. I do sense a reluctance for modern society to accept and address men’s struggles with this though, and it makes me feel like modern women (or really how modern people in general) don’t yet realize how ingrained and pervasive both men and women’s different drives can be and some (not all) aren’t trying to understand but trying to “shoo away” /disregard these realities.
At the same time I think a lot of the guys complaining about this haven’t really tried to just be independently minded and work on themselves 100%, to not chase base drives and exaggerated ideas about women and tradition. In a way it’s kind of flipped for men, men now should do things without chasing ever, but be so awesome in action and demeanor as to make women regret NOT trying to at least be your friend. I’d want a woman to actually want me for who I am, not to need me out of archaic necessity. But then this too again it’s conceptually ideal, pragmatically hard as f*ck as it requires a lot of self-reflection, introspection, self-discipline, and a rethinking of identity for a long time. It’s hard to REALLY do that well and to let go of that evolutionary need that is further exasperated by a society that expertly, systematically capitalizes on these drives at a young age to get us to conform / buy stuff. Idk just my 2 cents.
If you can only convince people that are open to being convinced, then you arent presenting any kind of good argument. So are you trying to sway those who dont agree, or merely elucidate for those that do?
But hey, failure is how we learn, right?
I liked your article. I think its important to explore ideas from every angle, not only the "acceptable" ones. But youre really showing your ass in the comments:/(at least the few ive read, im bout done here) If you cant or wont discuss those various differing ideas, and have to resort to "youre not smart enough", then just dont reply. Bc youre only making yourself look silly, and decidedly not smart
Obviously, you can only persuade people who are open to being persuaded. If you don't understand that, you are a moron. I have no time for morons, and no interest in persuading them. Sorry. Go somewhere else, and find someone who cares.
I respond to good faith criticism. I don't waste my time talking to people doing moral or intellectual posturing.
I agree where the burden of proof lies. At the least, an argument like this deserves a precise definition of “owned.” You could use the same arguments to claim that women evolved to manipulate men into protecting them. It all seems the same arguments could be used to explain why women demand proofs of commitment.
The essay explains the meaning of "owned". Yes, women did evolve to manipulate men into protecting them. I said "Men are slaves to female beauty". The image is of Helen, who (in myth) caused the Trojan war. Yes, women do want commitment and try to get it, but in the past it was also the father insisting on the commitment. Only men can enforce commitment. If commitment was enforced in the past (by traditional marriage), but is now no longer enforced, then it becomes harder to get, right? That's one of the problems with sexual liberation. Commitment is the opposite of freedom.
Since women do not evolve as a group, a more palatable statement of your argument might be that human nature evolved in such a way that individual human societies are much more likely than chance to treat women’s sexuality as property controlled by men. And when this is not the case, women may end up feeling more insecure about their mating and reproductive position. I think that’s rational and the first part seems in line with anthropological evidence, but the framing “evolving to be owned” can throw the reader off.
Normatively, the trade-off between sexual insecurity and freedom is well worth it in my opinion. The morality police in Tehran seem to have few female admirers.
I didn't say that women feel more insecure about their mating or reproductive position.
The point is that women are behaving in maladaptive ways, because modern civilization gives them a new type of agency/freedom. Sexual liberation breaks human nature. This is not specifically a problem for women. This essay focuses on one aspect of a more general problem: modern civilization breaks human nature.
I don't think you can make that palatable to your sensibilities. It's profoundly anti-humanist, and humanism is our modern religion. It's like telling a Christian that there is no God.
It is easy and fun to criticize others. Writing one's own positions is hard. Thus, many comments, few articles. Keep writing, and do not feed the trolls. It is beneath you.
Oh boy, you are going to get some hysterical venom for this. Personally, I think evolution will sort this out. Those women who do not care for motherhood will die out, and only those who want to be mothers will reproduce, unless another culture comes around and restores the ancestral conditions (Islam anyone???). The global population is going to decline rapidly in the next 100 years.
Alternatively, the religious will become the majority as they maintain their traditions.. I can easily see a future US that is mostly Mormon, Catholic and Evangelical as progressive women die out, their non-binary sons starving in the basement playing COD after mother passes and the food runs out.
I enjoyed this but I can assure you I am not “waiting to be forced into a sexual relationship” lol that sounds a bit… deranged. And I have a deep desire for men. Or one man, personally. An insatiable desire. And women don’t “wait” for men. They are almost always actively seeking relationships.
This is complete garbage. Yes women and men are different and those differences are complimentary but to then take it to a place of sexual ownership, servitude, and slavery is taking that concept out of context and into a very dark place. You forget that females do the mate selection in all species. Females determine if males get sexual access, and for how long. Males can and do try to force sex in all species but it doesn't reliably lead to viable pregnanies and healthy offspring. That is not the most successful reproductive strategy, and the only reason any female tolerates it an any species is all the males of the species use the same tactic (lions & ducks are examples) leaving females in a prison mentality of allowing one predator to violate you in return for stopping multiple others from doing it too.
No, females do not do the mate selection in all species. That's pure delusion -- the moralistic fallacy at work. Do a little research into animal behavior, especially mammals. Sexual coercion is very common. Even when there is no overt coercion, the female does not choose the male. The female submits to the male who dominates in a territory or herd. That is the typical situation.
In your comment, you even contradict yourself. First, you claim that females do mate selection. But then you say that males "can and do try to force sex in all species" (which is a slight exaggeration). For many species, sexual coercion is a viable reproductive strategy, and in some species it is the only reproductive strategy.
Yes, male lions take over a pride, kill the infants, and coerce the females into sex. Yes, ducks use sexual coercion. Those behaviors evolved because they are successful reproductive strategies. Horses, sea otters, weasels, elephant seals, bears....pretty much every mammal species has some coercive aspect to mating.
However, that type of sexual coercion is not what I am mainly talking about. Unlike most mammals, humans have pair-bonded relationships, and that is our primary reproductive strategy.
Next time, try reading an essay before commenting on it.
Do a little research into animal behavior he says, I have a fucking degree in animal behavior and 20 plus years working with wildlife! I'm done arguing with you, you clearly think all males are right and all females are wrong, so why bother? We are right back to women are slave property to be used for sexual satisfaction by males and that is females only worth. Pregnant and in the kitchen or worthless right? Fuck off.
lol, I don't care about your degree. Clearly, they didn't teach you how to make a rational argument. If you know anything about animal behavior, you wouldn't make inane quasi-religious claims such as "but it doesn't reliably lead to viable pregnanies and healthy offspring". That's pure delusion.
"you clearly think all males are right and all females are wrong"
See, this is not a rational argument. Crying "sexism" when a man disagrees with you might work in academia, but not on the internet.
Yeah, you are done "arguing" because you have no rational argument and you didn't even read the essay that you are responding to. It's pathetic.
Again, try reading before responding. Also, try thinking.
Lol, he never said that men should rape women, he never said that rape is an effective reproductive strategy for modern humans (although it was effective in the past and often is for other animals too), and he also wrote that the wife also owns the husband in a sense. All he did was describe the traditional nature of marriage and mating for humans. Stop projecting.
Females literally do the mate selection. It's true in a primordial and psychological sense as well as archetypally. You should study the anima and the more ancient conceptions of the feminine, you will find women are more related to the nature of life itself, specifically the wild.
A man who is utterly posessed by his drives is not a man at all. And he won't produce successful offspring.
Do you have any concept of relevance? Of addressing what was actually said? Of making an argument? It doesn't seem like it.
Your generic, pretentious "criticism" could be a copypasta. It has nothing to do with the essay.
If there is some relevant complexity or diversity that I have overlooked, what is it?
Lol, I've never deleted a thread on substack. I might eventually delete people for spam if they just keep babbling, but so far I haven't done that.
Look, you have not engaged with the ideas at all. All of your criticisms are generic or superficial. And you adopted an arrogant attitude, so I reflected it back at you. You wanted to pretend to be superior without doing any actual work -- without thinking. I am respectful toward people who are worthy of respect. Have you done anything to earn respect? No, you've done the opposite.
Calling something "simplistic" is not an argument. Explanations are supposed to simplify -- that's the point of an explanation. We can use biological and psychological theories to understand human behavior, and that's what I am doing.
This essay is not making an empirical argument, but the data show (e.g. from dating sites) that men and women are different, and that is explained by evolutionary psychology. There is also a huge amount of evidence from all of human history. Men and women have always played different roles in relationships and society.
If you want a respectful conversation, start by reading the essay for content, and then make a substantive comment. Also, apologize for your obnoxious attitude.
I made plenty of substantive arguments, and you deleted the thread they were on, not sure why you did that but you have no leg to stand on here.
I will eventually ban you for spamming if you make comments on random threads.
Again, as I told you, I have deleted no threads at all. Probably the commenter deleted the thread. Make comments on your own thread, or better yet, write up a blog post, if you think you have such profound wisdom to share.
lol, this is like some AI-generated babble
Your "arguments" are ignorant horseshit. For fuck's sake, you're so stupid that you don't even understand the difference between legality and morality, or descriptive vs normative claims.
Morality creates legality. So to call morality "fake" when it has a massive impact on your life and society, is foolish.
That's an appeal to complexity fallacy. Generalizations are necessary for forming knowledge. If you find reality to be disturbing, then you need to get over it.
lol
How can an American be so based?
What does "based" mean? Like freebase cocaine? Are you calling him a crackhead?
A word used to describe what someone is saying as absolutely true, even if politically incorrect.
See the wiktionary entry: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/based#Adjective_2
I had no idea that the "wiktionary" existed. Thanks.
Yeah, I'd say that Wiktionary is better than most dictionaries, in my opinion. Unfortunately, it's not as well-known as other online dictionaries. Since Wiktionary is non-profit, it can't bribe itself to the top of search engine results pages (SERPs).
Actually, he's Canadian.
Great stuff. Thank you for posting this
Wouldnt these problems solve themselves? There certainly are women who are assertive and make the first move for example. People are still making children and these couples are obviously the ones whos offspring will also be fertile in the future, despite living in modern environments. We probably just have to wait. The same as with birth control. The people who resist it will outbreed those who cant. We will adapt, slowly.
Sure, all problems "solve themselves" in some sense. But that's like saying "cancer solves itself" because it kills you. When you say "we will adapt", who is "we"? Biological adaptation occurs by replacement of genes or populations. You might not be included in that "we" if you don't make a conscious effort to adapt.
One way to adapt is to understand a problem and devise a solution. We evolved a large brain, because it gives us a greater capacity to understand and solve problems.
Nature's "solution" would probably be simply the collapse of modern civilization, and a return to premodern conditions. Or we could try to fix the problems with modern civilization, making it stable and sustainable. I prefer the latter.
If society doesn't collapse and send us back into traditional gender roles, then over the next several hundred years we will likely see biological adaptation to the new condition. Some women intrinsically want to have kids, and will choose to do so even if they have the freedom not to. To the extent that such traits are hereditary, it will result in extremely strong selection pressure: Imagine, say, that an ambivalent woman has 0 or 1 child, and a child-loving one has 3 or 4. With this level of differential fertility we will see some quick changes in median behaviors. (Here "quick" means 5-10 generations.)
This has already started to happen with gen z and alpha, you have offspring of two types. Those deliberate in having kids and those who make a mistake and the ones deliberate among Europeans are having more kids, the only issue is other groups are outbreeding them accidentally. This is why migration control is critical to control of this. It will fix itself without migration
There usually is not a "conscious effort." The wholly mammoth did not will his fur into being. We adapt by bad traits dying out and good ones becoming more reproductively successful. Human do have culture change from war and conquest, but outside of Western society getting conquered, it is likely that traditional cultures will out-reproduce those that have barren women, even if they barren by choice.
Over time, all things being equal, those women who do not value children will cease to exist, and those that value motherhood, or who are in cultures that value marriage and family, they will be the ones still here. There is a considerable evidence that patriarchy is the only long-term successful human survival strategy. I can easily imagine a future where only Islam and Christianity are left, and modernity gone, save for remnants of the old world, like mythical Greek and Roman swords are armor worshipped in the Dark Ages. We certainly cannot maintain our current reproductive choices in the West without immigrants. When / if that ends, only sustainable cultures will continue.
Modernity persisting long enough just means men lose conscious exercise over their reproductive goals they way women have.
You already see this with the retarded sexual emergency stuff
I am not aware of this "sexual emergency." What exactly is emerging?
R u black?
Does anyone genuinely think the fertility crisis is resolved by women becoming the new macho man?
If we’re gonna go back to that, the men are better suited
Why you assume that women haven't evolved desire to be with men?
Male sexual desire is stronger, because the minimal male cost to have offspring is smaller (one ejaculation). In almost all sexual species (including plants), the male "pursues" the female in some way. This dimorphism arises from the difference between the gametes: the egg is large and sessile, the sperm is small and motile.
I get that. But you assume that women don't have strong desire to find man which doesn't seem to be true. Most women want to be in relationships
It's explained in the essay. Women don't have a strong desire to be in relationships. If they did, you would see women making much greater efforts to create relationships. They don't, and they don't take an active role in trying to find a mate. In the past, women needed men to survive, so a woman wanted a relationship because she didn't want to die. It was also culturally low-status to be unmarried. Take away those pressures, and women will passively wait for "Mr. Right", while never making a serious effort to find a man, and rejecting most men. That is what we see.
So are they waiting for Mr Right or they don't have strong desire to be in relationships? Passiveness doesn't have to mean lack of desire. Women go to bars waiting for some guy to start chatting with them. They use dating apps etc.
Both. If you're waiting for "Mr. Right", then you clearly don't want to be in a relationship that badly -- or you would settle for "Mr. Okay", and you wouldn't just wait -- you'd go looking. The point of "Mr. Right" is that he doesn't exist -- he is an unrealistic ideal. Yes, passiveness does mean a lack of desire. Yeah, women go to bars, wait for guys to approach them, and then reject those guys, and laugh about it later with their friends. Guys take the risk of rejection, and guys are willing to take that risk because their sexual desire is stronger. After having sex, the roles reverse. Men are less interested in commitment.
There has been a decline in relationship formation, because our emotions do not fit the environment that we have created. Over half of people 18 to 34 in the US are not in a relationship.
Rise of singleness is quite recent phenomena. And women get desperate when they get older to find partner. I think that them having more inflated position I sexual/matrymonial market is reason rather than lack of arranged marriages. Women don't need men for survival for quite some time and you see this trend rise from 2010s
I think you’re missing on the significance of the difference between men and women. “Well if they want it, they would just go and get it”, that’s a male way of thinking. Women absolutely have a strong desire to be in a relationship, and their strategies for seeking relationships are to try to highlight their availability to the individuals who they want to pursue them. That is the female way of thinking. Women absolutely do pursue men and pursue relationships, but they are not doing it by going up to men and asking out on a date.
If you want to understand women, don’t try to read essays on female psychology or whatnot- go and consume media that women enjoy, and look at the female behaviors that are 1) taken for granted, 2) shown as praiseworthy, aspirational, fantasy fulfillment, and 3) the behaviors that are portrayed negatively, especially in a “giving into temptation” light.
If you want further elaboration I can give it.
You must be a very attractive man. It is rare for most men to receive female interest. The overwhelming majority of women wait for men to come to them. It is quite rare for women to do otherwise.
That's why I wrote about seeing how women behave when they develop crushes. Even if they have crush(ie clear interest in relationship) most of them will try to dress attractively/pass near that person. Explanation that passiveness is their biological/cultural mode rather than lack of interest fits much better as explanations of this behavior
Can you explain why this distinction is relevant? I apologize if I am asking a stupid question, but I do not see how this matters. Either way the result is the same, or am I completely misunderstanding?
If you want to understand how to fix something first you need to know what's broken. If women just don't want to be in relationships at all and our goal is existence of families than we have to force them into marriages in some way. If women are passive and relationships don't happen because men being proactive was demonized by #metoo than solution is to normalize back men approaching women. If problem is women having artificially inflated "price" on sex market than you have to address that. You can't solve problem if you don't know what is problem. And the more you understand problem the less crass(? don't know if it's correct word because I'm not native speaker) your solution is, for example just forcing marriages by state
This makes a lot of sense, but if so, you'd think women would respond much more strongly to male dominance and aggression directed towards them.
No. This is irrelevant. Remember, in traditional societies women did not choose their partners, their parents did. Women do not need to prefer male dominance. That said, if you go to dangerous places, women tend to like stronger men more. I mean this in terms of social / political power, not physical strength.
Humans have been evolving for 100,000 years. We've only had traditional societies where parents controlled that for a few thousand of that. And even then, there are plenty of stories about people disobeying their parents.
The content of clit-lit supports this thesis..
I think that you underestimate women's desire for men. It drives much of their behaviour even though they themselves might not recognize it.
yeah I think so too, women evolved to attract the attention of men, to crave it, their attention often meant better life situations. Now that sexual freedom has caused all these issues, I don't see their desire for male attention or affection to have decreased. If anything, it has increased to a vulgar degree, however their ability to pair bond has dropped due to so many partners, or a fear of pair bonding, or what have you
Women’s desire for attention from men.
FIFY
I mentioned that elsewhere in the comments. I think he just fundamentally doesn’t understand the difference between male/female thinking on a more personal level. He seemed to be saying that if women really wanted a relationship they would pursue men in the manner that men pursue women, but he hasn’t acknowledged the ways that women do pursue men (by trying to get the men to pursue them/setting him up in situations where he is pursuing her and thinks it’s all his idea)
Yes. I agree. Telling women to act more like men is not a solution to anything. Even though the feminists would like one to believe it is so.
He explicitly mentioned exactly this, saying women desire to be chased and taken but society has made the act of chasing and taking women a taboo and social suicide for men to even attempt this.
We have been conditioned and browbeaten from birth to ignore every single signal a girl sends because if we get it wrong we go to jail for the rest of our lives. That is why men 'need' women to give crazy outlandish things like 'affirmative consent' to relationships, something women get the 'ick' by having to do themselves.
If she doesn't TELL us she likes us, we are paralyzed by decades of Title IX culture.
Yes, dating these days is terrible.
But nowadays with the internet male attention (what they truly desire) is practically free. Men throw themselves at women constantly. Women just have to make a hinge profile with one semi-attractive picture and can match with 1/3 of every man they swipe on. Men, instead, match with 1/200. Isn't that crazy?
Two things:
First, I agree that the present culture about being against men pursuing women has definitely had the kind of effect you are describing on men, but I think it is largely a perceived effect- that is, if you disregard it, and pursue women boldly anyways, you as a man can do very well for yourself in terms of relationships. Women want men to pursue them, and if you show a woman that you have genuine interest in her, in getting to know her, and committing to her, it is successful far more often than you may expect. People like it when people like them, and when someone likes them, they like the person who likes them. This is true of platonic friendships and sexual relationships, it is a basic rule of human behavior.
But your idea that what women REALLY want is social media attention is completely wrong. Yes, women do get those wonderful little dopamine hits from social media approval, as do men, but this absolutely does not replace real social interaction. You sometimes see people who have replaced real social interaction with online approval, and when you watch them it is more the behavior of a drug addict- because it is an addiction to social approval dopamine. Women are more susceptible to social approval, but the mechanism is the same with a woman who tries to get thousands of likes from a bikini picture as with a man who tries to get thousands of like with a meme that he creates. For both of them it is online content creation, and they are getting gratification from people liking what they are making- but it is NOT a replacement for social connection.
This seems to be the same misunderstanding that is held by many incels (and I am not trying to be derogatory with the usage of the word incel, I am using it to refer to self-proclaimed incels and the ideas that they often have). This is that “women can sleep with whoever they want, men cannot, therefore women don’t understand male loneliness”. It is two true premises with a false conclusion, because it assumes that the free sex that many men desire is the same thing desired by most women. Most women are looking for social connection, and their engagement in hookup culture is often an act of sheer desperation to get it. They are sleeping with men on a first date in hopes of getting a text or call back, then when they get nothing they are bombarded with feminist propaganda calling them empowered.
And obviously so, even if his own account.
He observes several times that women need men. He does not link this to sexual desire, but even in his telling women are on the clock to find a man to protect and take care of them before their father can't/won't.
He does not intuit the next logical step - that this "need" manifests itself in women as longing or desire. And obviously so; one can accept most women have a lower raw sex drive than men, or crave romantic love more than carnal love, while still understanding that women experience this need as something, as some emotion and drive that steers them to want men and be happy to be with them.
The author's alternative is amazing - he posits women's evolutionary need for men, which in his telling manifests itself as ... nothing! As waiting around to be seized/raped - with any man who can't do the seizing rejected.
The rest of his story at least logically follows from his evolutionary principles. This one - women's lack of desire for men, i.e., his entire thesis - does not. There's no basis for it at all.
His thesis is women need a man to protect them. However, that they need a man to seize them - and are not attracted to men who do not - does not follow from that need. He does not say they need the strongest guy in the village, nor does he specify anything else about the nature of what women need from their man/men.
That's not the next logical step.
Women could simply value food, comfort, security, not a man per se. There is no reason why the need for a man should manifest as a desire for a man, since the need is not actually for a man. It is for food, comfort, and security. So, if women can get those needs fulfilled in other ways, they might choose to do that -- as you can observe in the modern world. When women can fulfill those needs through the state and the market, a sexual imbalance is created.
See, a man needs a woman to reproduce, because a man needs a uterus. A woman only needs a sperm. So, in species with a pair-bond, the male provides other services to compensate for the services provided by the female body to his offspring. In species without a pair-bond, males simply compete for females, because females are a valuable resource. In those species, females are mostly indifferent to males. Sperm are cheap, so there is no need to compete for them.
Humans have a pair bond, and both sexes evolved to get the best deal. For a man, that means getting the most fertile young woman. For a woman, that means getting the most resources.
Also, if women were forced by circumstances to be relationships, there would be no biological function to such a desire. Do you desire gravity? You need it, but you have no desire for it.
Female sexual preferences reflect the need of women for men, in that women prefer strong, powerful men. And of course women do have a desire for men, but it is not nearly as strong as the male desire for women.
This post lacks any critical reflection. Asserting all of these things is one thing, but the only evidence supplied is an underdeveloped appeal to one evolutionarily-intuitive story. A lot of the claims in this essay don’t survive more than a moments of worth of scrutiny.
So your counter-argument is....
Oh yeah, you don't have one.
It's easy to make vague, generic criticisms. It's much harder to make a substantive argument.
The burden of proof is on you. I am just saying that I was wholly unconvinced. This all felt like it came to you in a dream
Dude, nothing would convince you. You didn't come here to be convinced or to learn something, or to think. You came here to play your little game of being the "critic", but you don't have any substantive criticism. Go play your little game somewhere else.
Ehh he/she kinda right I mean I don’t entirely disagree with your assessment though. Yeah the article sounds like someone’s intellectual ruminations (welcome to Substack) on why it’s hard to get a trad wife, but men really are struggling with dating and finding girlfriends. So I’ll balance with this: if women don’t need men do men really need women either?
Physically, mentally we don’t. I feel that’s part of why we’ve evolved those strong feelings because otherwise we’d be running in the woods and not advancing the species. Men are just having to reconcile their strong lustful feelings with a world that has back-swung into wariness of baseless persistent advances and well, ownership of people. The game that used to be played got updated, and it helped women. In the long term it does complicate things, but I say to evolve; to actually be independently minded and transcend the evolutionary game. The directing mind can dismantle the need for a woman/partner. I mean partnership can be good and fruitful conceptually but rationally it’s not really needed and most of the time and in reality it ends up a total mistake made out of dysfunctional fading romantic assumptions.
Ideally I can still have my feelings, but I don’t dwell on them, and only let them inform me of my identity as a human being. I do sense a reluctance for modern society to accept and address men’s struggles with this though, and it makes me feel like modern women (or really how modern people in general) don’t yet realize how ingrained and pervasive both men and women’s different drives can be and some (not all) aren’t trying to understand but trying to “shoo away” /disregard these realities.
At the same time I think a lot of the guys complaining about this haven’t really tried to just be independently minded and work on themselves 100%, to not chase base drives and exaggerated ideas about women and tradition. In a way it’s kind of flipped for men, men now should do things without chasing ever, but be so awesome in action and demeanor as to make women regret NOT trying to at least be your friend. I’d want a woman to actually want me for who I am, not to need me out of archaic necessity. But then this too again it’s conceptually ideal, pragmatically hard as f*ck as it requires a lot of self-reflection, introspection, self-discipline, and a rethinking of identity for a long time. It’s hard to REALLY do that well and to let go of that evolutionary need that is further exasperated by a society that expertly, systematically capitalizes on these drives at a young age to get us to conform / buy stuff. Idk just my 2 cents.
If you can only convince people that are open to being convinced, then you arent presenting any kind of good argument. So are you trying to sway those who dont agree, or merely elucidate for those that do?
But hey, failure is how we learn, right?
I liked your article. I think its important to explore ideas from every angle, not only the "acceptable" ones. But youre really showing your ass in the comments:/(at least the few ive read, im bout done here) If you cant or wont discuss those various differing ideas, and have to resort to "youre not smart enough", then just dont reply. Bc youre only making yourself look silly, and decidedly not smart
Obviously, you can only persuade people who are open to being persuaded. If you don't understand that, you are a moron. I have no time for morons, and no interest in persuading them. Sorry. Go somewhere else, and find someone who cares.
I respond to good faith criticism. I don't waste my time talking to people doing moral or intellectual posturing.
Aww arent you a fiesty little chipmunk? Hows that working out for you?(irl that is, not this fantasy person you play online)
if it came to him in a dream, then it's the most based thing ever written on substack
True
I agree where the burden of proof lies. At the least, an argument like this deserves a precise definition of “owned.” You could use the same arguments to claim that women evolved to manipulate men into protecting them. It all seems the same arguments could be used to explain why women demand proofs of commitment.
The essay explains the meaning of "owned". Yes, women did evolve to manipulate men into protecting them. I said "Men are slaves to female beauty". The image is of Helen, who (in myth) caused the Trojan war. Yes, women do want commitment and try to get it, but in the past it was also the father insisting on the commitment. Only men can enforce commitment. If commitment was enforced in the past (by traditional marriage), but is now no longer enforced, then it becomes harder to get, right? That's one of the problems with sexual liberation. Commitment is the opposite of freedom.
Since women do not evolve as a group, a more palatable statement of your argument might be that human nature evolved in such a way that individual human societies are much more likely than chance to treat women’s sexuality as property controlled by men. And when this is not the case, women may end up feeling more insecure about their mating and reproductive position. I think that’s rational and the first part seems in line with anthropological evidence, but the framing “evolving to be owned” can throw the reader off.
Normatively, the trade-off between sexual insecurity and freedom is well worth it in my opinion. The morality police in Tehran seem to have few female admirers.
I didn't say that women feel more insecure about their mating or reproductive position.
The point is that women are behaving in maladaptive ways, because modern civilization gives them a new type of agency/freedom. Sexual liberation breaks human nature. This is not specifically a problem for women. This essay focuses on one aspect of a more general problem: modern civilization breaks human nature.
I don't think you can make that palatable to your sensibilities. It's profoundly anti-humanist, and humanism is our modern religion. It's like telling a Christian that there is no God.
It is easy and fun to criticize others. Writing one's own positions is hard. Thus, many comments, few articles. Keep writing, and do not feed the trolls. It is beneath you.
This is not an academic article. I would love to see one, but substack is not a peer-reviewed site. We are all spitballing here.
It’s a condensed telling of history. It’s how the world is. Like it or not.
Riggghhttt.
Gud article
Oh boy, you are going to get some hysterical venom for this. Personally, I think evolution will sort this out. Those women who do not care for motherhood will die out, and only those who want to be mothers will reproduce, unless another culture comes around and restores the ancestral conditions (Islam anyone???). The global population is going to decline rapidly in the next 100 years.
Alternatively, the religious will become the majority as they maintain their traditions.. I can easily see a future US that is mostly Mormon, Catholic and Evangelical as progressive women die out, their non-binary sons starving in the basement playing COD after mother passes and the food runs out.
>woman problem
>"We need to be more rational to solve this"
Good luck buddy
https://substack.com/@singh47/p-152081340
Female rights predict fertility.
Haven't read post yet just comments.
Will edit this after reading
Edit -
Ok so
Personhood is defined by the capacity to make war
Women are owned by the state - the strongest meta male. See Dunbar analysis of religion + Jim synthetic tribe stuff
We're not sexually liberated because rape and female ownership is core to male sexuality - ie the ability to wage war
ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕਾਖਾਲਸਾਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕੀਫਤਹਿ
I enjoyed this but I can assure you I am not “waiting to be forced into a sexual relationship” lol that sounds a bit… deranged. And I have a deep desire for men. Or one man, personally. An insatiable desire. And women don’t “wait” for men. They are almost always actively seeking relationships.
They do, but in a more circumspect way? Norm (@Norm12) explains this above.
Or did I misunderstand? Do you mean to say that women pursue relationships like men do? It's not my experience, but said experience is limited.
Women don’t chase or pursue the way men do but they seek and attract in their own ways.
This is complete garbage. Yes women and men are different and those differences are complimentary but to then take it to a place of sexual ownership, servitude, and slavery is taking that concept out of context and into a very dark place. You forget that females do the mate selection in all species. Females determine if males get sexual access, and for how long. Males can and do try to force sex in all species but it doesn't reliably lead to viable pregnanies and healthy offspring. That is not the most successful reproductive strategy, and the only reason any female tolerates it an any species is all the males of the species use the same tactic (lions & ducks are examples) leaving females in a prison mentality of allowing one predator to violate you in return for stopping multiple others from doing it too.
No, females do not do the mate selection in all species. That's pure delusion -- the moralistic fallacy at work. Do a little research into animal behavior, especially mammals. Sexual coercion is very common. Even when there is no overt coercion, the female does not choose the male. The female submits to the male who dominates in a territory or herd. That is the typical situation.
In your comment, you even contradict yourself. First, you claim that females do mate selection. But then you say that males "can and do try to force sex in all species" (which is a slight exaggeration). For many species, sexual coercion is a viable reproductive strategy, and in some species it is the only reproductive strategy.
Yes, male lions take over a pride, kill the infants, and coerce the females into sex. Yes, ducks use sexual coercion. Those behaviors evolved because they are successful reproductive strategies. Horses, sea otters, weasels, elephant seals, bears....pretty much every mammal species has some coercive aspect to mating.
However, that type of sexual coercion is not what I am mainly talking about. Unlike most mammals, humans have pair-bonded relationships, and that is our primary reproductive strategy.
Next time, try reading an essay before commenting on it.
Do a little research into animal behavior he says, I have a fucking degree in animal behavior and 20 plus years working with wildlife! I'm done arguing with you, you clearly think all males are right and all females are wrong, so why bother? We are right back to women are slave property to be used for sexual satisfaction by males and that is females only worth. Pregnant and in the kitchen or worthless right? Fuck off.
lol, I don't care about your degree. Clearly, they didn't teach you how to make a rational argument. If you know anything about animal behavior, you wouldn't make inane quasi-religious claims such as "but it doesn't reliably lead to viable pregnanies and healthy offspring". That's pure delusion.
"you clearly think all males are right and all females are wrong"
See, this is not a rational argument. Crying "sexism" when a man disagrees with you might work in academia, but not on the internet.
Yeah, you are done "arguing" because you have no rational argument and you didn't even read the essay that you are responding to. It's pathetic.
Again, try reading before responding. Also, try thinking.
And you are justifying rape and ownership of women as a viable reproductive strategy which is unacceptable. Logical enough for you?
"I do not accept the old cliches that to explain is to excuse, to under-
stand is to forgive. Explaining is not excusing; understanding is not forgiving." Christopher Browning (2001, p.
xviii) (https://www.academia.edu/79809127/Excuse_and_justification_Whats_explanation_and_understanding_got_to_do_with_it) Explanation is not justification.
Lol, he never said that men should rape women, he never said that rape is an effective reproductive strategy for modern humans (although it was effective in the past and often is for other animals too), and he also wrote that the wife also owns the husband in a sense. All he did was describe the traditional nature of marriage and mating for humans. Stop projecting.
Why did you leave another reply? I thought you said that you're done arguing. Make up your mind.
No. He didn’t condone rape anywhere in that article. I don’t think you even read past the headline before commenting.
It was heavily Implied
Don't take her seriously, she is a women so she can't be intellectually honest here.
You're still making the moralistic fallacy. You haven't learned anything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moralistic_fallacy
You still have a lot to learn and many delusions to overcome. https://thewaywardaxolotl.blogspot.com/2020/07/what-is-morality.html
Females literally do the mate selection. It's true in a primordial and psychological sense as well as archetypally. You should study the anima and the more ancient conceptions of the feminine, you will find women are more related to the nature of life itself, specifically the wild.
A man who is utterly posessed by his drives is not a man at all. And he won't produce successful offspring.
What if white men evolved to be beta and cucked by dark skinned foreigners with bigger penises?
Well, that would be impossible. Individuals (such as you) can have mental disorders, but those are not evolved adaptations.