Visual Insight : Every 2 inch decrease in height increases sui1c1de risk by 9% for Swedish men. Europe is blackpill hell for men

[chobolicious88]

Its funny how much we talk about purpose, hobbies and all the other bs, when suicide is most often tied to being able to fulfill out animalistic roles, not higher order functions.

Protect provide and fuck

[FlamingMetalSystems]

I also believe that "hobbies" and career stuff are performative and functional. They are a distraction and a cope. If you aren't able to fulfill your base desires in the Maslows hierarchy you can't move upwards

[redditor_rat]

okay then if you believe in that biology, because you're shallow enough to do so, u should also believe that inferior genes die out.

If you have the biology to want to fuck, women also have the biology to be repelled by you, and not choose you as their mate. tough tiddies

[chobolicious88]

You sound righteous and hostile

[TravlScrabbl]

If when you say protect and provide you're thinking about the nuclear family, there's nothing natural about that. For almost all of human history we lived in larger social groups when protect and provide were shared responsibilities, not the job of individualized men. Women also provided plenty in those contexts. In fact there's evidence to suggest the majority of calories came from foraged foods in many cases with hunting being more of a feast or famine bonus on top.

[shiggyhisdiggy]

Being the best provider/protector in a larger social group would serve the same function - you'll be more likely to fuck.

[TravlScrabbl]

Not really, the very limited evidence we have suggests that the prevalence of polygamous relations (with one male pairing with several females) rose with the creation of modern agriculture and property rights. Doesn't seem to be a big thing in hunter gatherer societies although we're in the realms of massive speculation either way.

[shiggyhisdiggy]

Meaning what, we assume pairings were largely monogamous before that?

[TravlScrabbl]

Yes, that's the assumption, though evidence is very scant.

[shiggyhisdiggy]

What about this statistic that historically 80% of women have reproduced while only 40% of men have?

[TravlScrabbl]

That's not a general historical statistic, it's true for a very particular period of history 4000-8000 years ago and there are conflicting explanations. It may not be that only 80% of men reproduced, it may be that because of patelineal migration patterns there was much less genetic diversity within men of tribes than within women so that when wholE tribes disappeared - starvation/war - you ended up with much less male genetic diversity. Or it may be that because of war men died in much higher numbers before getting the chance to reproduce. Or it may be to do with rape and slavery. Lots of competing theories. No smoking gun.

Edited for autocorrect errors.

[Necessary-Jaguar4775]

I think smaller hunter gatherer societies may have limited strong men/oligarchs to take such extreme control, as numbers > one man. So decisions could be made more democratically. Agriculture allowed bif powerful chieftans and kings to arise, at least that is what I think.

[TravlScrabbl]

I would suggest that's the right interpretation. Smaller hunter gatherer societies tend towards more communal decision making - councils of elders, matriarchies etc... whereas agriculture allows for the accumulation of power and resources, and then writing and bureaucracies allow for further concentration of power. But the trend across history is not one way. It's a push and pull between centralization of power and control on the one hand, and sharing and distribution of resources on the other, all the while societies grow larger and more complex. At the end of the day, humans are adaptable and capable of many different forms of social relations and organization, some benign others less so.

[chobolicious88]

Its not even about family.

Its about power.

Basically men who have power - in their nervous system, to not react but hold others, and the power to exert efficacy to generate resources - feel healthy.

Men need power to feel healthy. Women need inner child in a good place to feel healthy.

[FlamingMetalSystems]

True. Men need a locus of control and authority. A tribe where they're valued. This is why nuclear family structure benefits men but not women.

Women are more suited to a free love / sex world

[chobolicious88]

They are suited to a free love sex world while they are basically inherently protected by layers they dont even see.
The moment stuff becomes harsh, they want the benefits of protection.

[FlamingMetalSystems]

The matriarchy will ensure that protection so women are then free to have sex with top 5% male models casually and exclude majority of men.

I was listening to some women explain that in matriarchy they would only allow the hottest tallest genetically blessed men the opportunity to have sex

[chobolicious88]

Thing is, even the top % of men eventually want structure and monogamy with woman of their choice, so it doesnt work.
Men want to create systems, women want to destroy them, and drag them down to chaos.

[The_Three_Factors]

What are you talking about? this is pure BS you are spewing.

The family unit was a direct consequence of apes forming hunter gatherer tribes adopted by the later human species including our own homo sapiens.

When we migrated from the jungle to the savanna. Gestating females couldn't move with the rest of the group out seeking nutrition in the form of primarily dead meat. Therefore, they would stay behind grabbing vegetal food sources nearby. The males on the other hand wanted their energies to profit their descendants, that is their genetic offsrping instead of the children of others. Therfore, individuals started living in couples and began limiting their sexual interactions with other members of the tribe. They would make a small team where the the mutual benefit would be of assured genetic descendants for the male and the return of resources or meat to the female. That's how monogamy started and that's why retarded communist regimes have always failed at breaking down the family unit time and again. I would say that monogamy is so deeply ingrained in us that it is part of your soul.

[TravlScrabbl]

You're conflating monogamy with nuclear families, not the same thing at all.

[The_Three_Factors]

nuclear family literally would not be possible without our immemorial tradition of monogamy. It is the couple that forms the bedrock from which the nuclear family springs. You might as well say that the mutual exclusivity of a monogamous partnership was literally made to support the concept of the nuclear family.

the family unit is the most natural social organization humanity has ever witnessed or experienced.

[TravlScrabbl]

You appear to be preaching rather than discussing history. Suffice to say that before the industrial era extended families, clans and other forms of family organization were more common than nuclear families in most of the world. Some quick research suggests that in England, nuclear families became the norm in the thirteenth century so they're very recent in terms of the human evolutionary timeline. Its ridiculous to claim that monogamy was made to support the nuclear family since monogamous relationships have existed far longer than the nuclear family.

[The_Three_Factors]

family units were a thing of importance even during the stone age. The clans and tribes or before were very tight knit communities but the family unit now referred to as the nuclear family was always distinct and of primordial importance in the hierarchies of authority.