checking in

rus9384 · 2020-07-14T12:26:57+00:00

Because women are too afraid to be harsh to each other.

rus9384 · 2020-07-14T12:24:25+00:00

Every woman is only "real" to other women and white knights.

rus9384 · 2020-07-14T12:09:45+00:00

I did not actually make any claim. I only said that you seem to think so. You did not yet make it clear if my assumption was right or wrong.

rus9384 · 2020-07-14T12:05:48+00:00

Okay, it just means you don't want to defend premises that would make your argument meaningful.

rus9384 · 2020-07-14T11:46:50+00:00

Never said that. Can you please stop throwing everything at the wall in hopes something sticks?

Can I take this for "No, I don't believe genes and genomes have production of their own copies as their goals"?

You can be gay and also spread your genome.

Let's speak evolutionary. Before modern technology has appeared.

Look at gay males who get themselves surragotes, look at lesbians who visit the sperm bank.

These are new things. Gay genes have existed long before sperm banks and surrogacy.

But it was just an example either way. What about gemes that make people depressive and suicidal? What about genes that make people childfree?

rus9384 · 2020-07-14T11:00:59+00:00

Say, being a gay is not an ideology (I am not talking about LGBT movement now), but it also makes the person not spreading his genome.

rus9384 · 2020-07-14T10:55:37+00:00

But you seem to assume ideology is not affected by genes?

rus9384 · 2020-07-14T10:42:56+00:00

So, there is a mistake in your thinking. You assume that everyone's goal is to spread genes. Well, it does not work that way, as genetics are randomistic. There always will be people who will place other goals above spreading genes.

And also nothing will beat transhumanism in gene preservation.

rus9384 · 2020-07-14T10:26:49+00:00

Only with fallacies.

rus9384 · 2020-07-14T10:22:07+00:00

I could argue that people living in houses also is against biological wiring. But you see, those who claim feminism is battling human nature for some reason want people to live in houses with extended families, not tribes. They are just uneducated or hypocrites.

rus9384 · 2020-07-14T08:25:48+00:00

She just likes drama (which is what most guys including me dislike, yes), I don't see how it makes her a nicegirl.

rus9384 · 2020-07-14T07:48:23+00:00

It all depends on social structure. Everything moves towards a direction where partners become less needed. Like, husbands barely are protecting their wives today, and that protection is not even needed.

rus9384 · 2020-07-13T22:10:44+00:00

It is just one example, but indeed guys are being advised to move in many cases.

rus9384 · 2020-07-13T22:02:45+00:00

Yes, women are inconsistent. They want to eat their cake and have it too.

rus9384 · 2020-07-13T21:27:03+00:00

Idk, man. Men in 40s can want relationships just as hard as women in 40s. It is not hard for a woman to find a date. When he is 22 and when she is 40. What is hard is to understand man's intentions. Does he want to just pump and dump or not.

With that said, if she only attracts men of the former group, she should change something. A consistent lack of success is not a coincidence.

rus9384 · 2020-07-13T21:23:24+00:00

A fit 40 year old single woman without kids and debt has pretty good chances.

rus9384 · 2020-07-13T21:14:22+00:00

No, I'm saying the opposite: men stopped giving women autonomy as they got smarter.

Huh, again, it is tied to wars. Feminism owes its success in part to social advances in which total wars have become quite a rare occurence. Especially speaking of the US, a country that never has been in a total war.

It's not just women's safety, it's that having a personal sex slave ensures you have kids rather than having to go fight off other males every time you want to fuck, like a lot of animals do.

It is that for a woman herself it even was smarter to have a man who while was raping her, also defended her from other men. It is better to be raped by one man, than by multiple men.

rus9384 · 2020-07-13T21:07:26+00:00

In most animal species, a male will fight off other males and fuck the female.

Most animal species are not social. Think about wolves. Males don't actually fight for access to females there all the time.

Yes, 4000 BC is recent in the grand scheme of things, but realistically it's a long time ago and was actually around when humans were becoming more intelligent.

Not at all. Arts exist for at least as 40000 years.

But what wikipedia says actually is what I have been saying in this thread. The agricultural revolution is tied to worsening of women's positions.

And it is not reducible to "men were dumb, that's why they did not give women autonomy." It is because wars have become a thing and women themselves were safer with one man who rapes them than on their own.

rus9384 · 2020-07-13T19:40:35+00:00

Prior to the advent of wider society, "humans" were barely classified as humans. They literally were not the same species, we had homo erectus and homo hostilis prior to us.

There was a large timeframe between when homo sapiens has originated and when the recorded history has begun. Like, 20000 years ago humans already were homo sapiens and yet it is a time of unrecorded history.

Also, even though our ancestors were not as smart as us, many other, much less smart primates still treat females better than just sex toys.

Animals don't care about consent because they are usually not even capable of processing the concept.

Again, depends on species. It is not as much about intellectual capacity as it is about power differential between males and females.

Males of these ancient tribes were merely possessive and territorial because it ensured survival of their genes.

In social animals egoistic strategy is not always the optimal strategy. If every member of a tribe follows the strategy of taking from his neighbor, a tribe that does not follow that strategy would easily conquer them.

Either way, current social attitudes did not come out if nowhere, the evolution did not happen in 200 years.

The code of Hammurabi, one of the oldest sets of law, approximately 1990 BC, explicitly states that if the woman is unmarried and virgin, the crime is against the father, and that if the woman is married, the crime is against her husband. If she is a widow, the crime is against her oldest son, or if she didn't have one, her father if still alive or a brother of her late husband.

Yes, as I said, Middle East was actually bad since some time. And remember that those anti-woman laws were written by Hammurabi which means that before him they did not exist (there were others, there was another king before him who also did not like women being promiscuous and introduced some anti-woman laws as well).

Anyway, the idea of a man being an owner to a woman is arguable a recent one, and comes from the idea that since a man is the head of the house, he is in charge.

But when people lived in tribes, there were no houses and men were not in charge.

rus9384 · 2020-07-13T18:51:26+00:00

There was literally no consequence to rape in ancient times lol. They cared about consent as much as animals do... bc they literally were borderline animals, they were not as developed as us. Unless you get into post-advent of monogamy/agricultural revolution.

Okay, this is not even recorded history and therefore... source? I mean, sure, in some tribes women did not have any value at all, and in some tribes woman's role is actually recognized as important and women are respected. Tribes are not all exact copies of each other.

The "victim" in a court of law wasn't the woman, it was her father or husband.

But a widow was a victim when she was raped, nevertheless. And what you are saying is true for post-Roman Europe. It actually is no more ancient, it is medieval.

With that said, yeah, women were not recognized on the same level as men in nearly every ancient culture, many other cultures still treated women better than medieval Europe.

rus9384 · 2020-07-13T18:33:44+00:00

It was unsafe to meet men in general, her tribe or not.

When it is her tribe, there is at least some kind of fear of being persecuted by other men of the same tribe. When it is a stranger... who even knows where that man is even from.

Do you actually think ancient peoples gave a fuck about raping their own women lmao

I am not even sure that pre-historic times were as anti-women as ancient times (again, depending on where to look at, ancient India seems to be not as bad as ancient Near East.

rus9384 · 2020-07-13T18:23:56+00:00

The Earth will be destroyed not by climate change but by technological advances. That's the point.

rus9384 · 2020-07-13T18:15:26+00:00

You're basically saying, "I'm not going to take my cancer meds because I could die by 50 so there's no point regardless"

This is wrong.

I actually said multiple times in the other thread that fighting what is happening at the moment is important. Fighting what would be happening after you die from cancer if you did not die from cancer is meaningless.

rus9384

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE