Women are better hunter, science suggests

[Xonas Pitfall]

1 minute ago, Alexop said:

Their entitlement annoys me. They expect the whole world to be as they wish to be. It could end up very badly, they had luck. 

This applies to literally every human being.

We're all born as weak, vulnerable babies and children, completely at the mercy of those more powerful than us, whether that's our parents, authority figures, elites, or whoever happens to hold power over us.

If someone stronger and more powerful wanted to enslave you as a child, you'd have virtually no choice or ability to resist, regardless of whether you were male or female.

This isn't inherently a gender thing. It's a fundamental human vulnerability that comes from unequal power dynamics. I don't understand why we keep framing it as though it's something unique to one gender.

[Inliytened1]

5 minutes ago, aurum said:

No, because all those things have tradeoffs.

You do not get anything for free.

They are not tradeoffs.  They can be adapted by both men and women. This thinking that there are tradeoffs is all wrong.  Where did you get that? Because we were so called born into a certain sex? This is absurd.  Gender equality is a real thing. You claim to understand spiral dynamics yet you want to separate men and women?  Come on bro. 

Edited 3 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Alexop]

2 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I think it's that you don't like women acting differently from the imaginary women in your mind... and you like to see women punished when they operate differently than you want them to.

And when a woman experiences misfortune when she deviates from how you think women ought to be, you feel a sense of vindication and a strengthening of the idea in your mind about women.

Like, "If you would have only listened to me and been Feminine... maybe you wouldn't have gotten hurt." 

And that's the immature part. 

Gaslighting

[Xonas Pitfall]

3 minutes ago, aurum said:

No, because all those things have tradeoffs.

You do not get anything for free.

In what way do you mean? And how would you explain it from an evolutionary perspective? I suppose we'd first need to develop an argument for how and why these things evolved the way they did- trade-offs, etc so we can then examine and evaluate further.

[Alexop]

@Xonas Pitfall You are not serious enough to understand this subject. Either get serious about it, spend some weeks in the material I sent to you, or let it go. 

Edited 3 hours ago by Alexop

[Emerald]

3 minutes ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

It's also very tricky because, as I pointed out earlier, and I think you did as well, a lot of the traits we currently define as hyper-feminine are actually quite "anti-survival, " anti-self-preservation, etc.

So a lot of those men end up being attracted to women who are "spoiled," overly emotional, dependent, or supposedly "less intelligent," because that's essentially what their own definition of hyper-femininity encourages and idealizes. But then they get annoyed at these same women for exhibiting the very traits they were attracted to in the first place, and end up shaming women for them. And then any girl who doesn't fit that ideal is labeled "masculine" or "not a real woman." So women are essentially trapped in a lose-lose situation where they're shamed for embodying the very traits these men idealize, but also shamed for not embodying them.

It's a perfect circular trap. They idealize a certain version of femininity, actively seek it out, and then resent women for embodying it.

100%

And my experience of it is too feel both of these two things simultaneously...

• In their eyes, I'm not Feminine enough to be a woman because I'm too competent.
• In their eyes, I'm not competent enough because I'm a woman.

So their perspective, invalidates my womanhood and Femininity... and it also devalues my level of competence.

And the overall effect is that it's impossible to actually be seen accurately for who I am.

So, I'm sure that's why a lot of these guys have trouble with finding deep committed relationships with women. They can't even see women... they only see a projection of black and white ideas.

[Emerald]

4 minutes ago, Alexop said:

Gaslighting

How is that gaslighting?

[Xonas Pitfall]

Just now, Alexop said:

@Xonas Pitfall You are not serious enough to understand this subject. Either get serious about it, spend some weeks in the material I sent to you, or let it go. 

In what way am I not being serious? I'm asking questions, sharing my POV, and explaining the logic/thinking behind my arguments.

Obviously, I'm not going to respond to every single comment with "Hey, I can counter your argument; here are 3+ books and hours-long videos", because that would defeat the whole point of discussing the first place.

The whole point is to debate, provide counterarguments, bring up relevant data, question each other's assumptions, and actually engage with the topic at hand. We bring our knowledge and resources together to hopefully arrive at a better understanding of these things.

[Emerald]

5 minutes ago, Alexop said:

@Xonas Pitfall You are not serious enough to understand this subject. Either get serious about it, spend some weeks in the material I sent to you, or let it go. 

Really? You expect her to watch a bunch of videos in the middle of a discussion?

And then, you invalidate her responses within the discussion because she hasn't watched the videos yet and call her unserious?

[Ulax]

15 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

They are not tradeoffs.  They can be adapted by both men and women. This thinking that there are tradeoffs is all wrong.  Where did you get that? Because we were so called born into a certain sex? This is absurd.  Gender equality is a real thing. You claim to understand spiral dynamics yet you want to separate men and women?  Come on bro. 

Equality is a normative discussion, and behaviour/ strengths/ weaknesses a descriptive discussion

[Xonas Pitfall]

6 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Really? You expect her to watch a bunch of videos in the middle of a discussion?

And then, you invalidate her responses within the discussion because she hasn't watched the videos yet and call her unserious?

"Why is Christianity correct?"

"Go read 1,200 to 1,500 pages of the Bible. Get serious." 

[Alexop]

31 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Really? You expect her to watch a bunch of videos in the middle of a discussion?

And then, you invalidate her responses within the discussion because she hasn't watched the videos yet and call her unserious?

I already presented my ideas here many times. Leo did the same. Then you people come to us and attack us from any possible angle, like you can't wait for something to crack somewhere and dunk us. Emerald, you spent years here attacking us on this subject. You are not serious enough to change your perspective on it. All due respect. If my grandmother who could barely read could get it, and you highly educated people don't, then you might consider some self-reflection. Or just let it be. Agree to disagree.

Edited 3 hours ago by Alexop

[Emerald]

15 minutes ago, aurum said:

No, because all those things have tradeoffs.

You do not get anything for free.

That doesn't make sense when you're surviving in the wilderness.

Women didn't evolve weakness. Men evolved extra strength.

The women in those settings needed to be strong and resilient just to survive. And men and women developed in whichever ways helped them survive the most.

So, it makes no sense that women would evolve to be frail or weak or incompetent. That would have been a liability and a survival risk.

Women had to be strong and competent and resilient in order to survive in the wilderness.

We were nomads for 97% of the human species. So, men and women evolved to survive in small groups in the wilderness.

The capacity to be dainty and frail was only available to us once civilization was established. Then, there were status symbols around wealthier people (or the wives of wealthy men) not needing to go work in the sun. And women being dainty and pale and chubby was seen as attractive as it signified wealth for a long time. 

Now, being dainty, tan, and fit  for women is attractive because that is a signifier of wealth.

But when things are hand-to-mouth (like it was for 97% of human history) everyone needs to be strong and tough and capable. And that's what humans of both sexes evolved to do... even if men evolved a bit more strength or a bit more speed.

[Emerald]

1 minute ago, Alexop said:

I already presented my ideas here many times. Leo did the same. Then you people come to us and attack us from any possible angle, like you can't wait for something to crack somewhere and dunk us. Emerald, you spent years here attacking us on this subject. You are not serious enough to change your perspective on it. All due respect. If my grandmother who could barely read could get, and you highly educated people don't, then you might consider some self-reflection. Or just let it be. Agree to disagree.

Stop grandstanding and trying to control the frame.

The framing here is that I'm the problem because I'm not conceding to your perspective. 

Why would I change my perspective to yours, when my perspective is nuanced and accurate and evidence-based.. and your perspective is based on debunked caricatures of gender that you don't even embody yourself?

[Emerald]

6 minutes ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

"Why is Christianity correct?"

"Go read 1,200 to 1,500 pages of the Bible. Get serious." 

Exactly

[Inliytened1]

11 minutes ago, Ulax said:

Equality is a normative discussion, and behaviour/ strengths/ weaknesses a descriptive discussion

Yeah ok..I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that this just a descriptive discussion. In that case if I were to describe the difference I could only conclude that a man has a penis and testosterone and a woman had a vagina and estrogen.  So this is clearly not descriptive.  The discussion was on roles. Based on how you were born. 

Edited 3 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Alexop]

2 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Stop grandstanding and trying to control the frame.

The framing here is that I'm the problem because I'm not conceding to your perspective. 

Why would I change my perspective to yours, when my perspective is nuanced and accurate and evidence-based.. and your perspective is based on debunked caricatures of gender that you don't even embody yourself?

everyone says their perspective is "evidence based". The chemtrail conspiracy theorists come and tell us everything they say is evidence based.

I did not tell you that you should agree with us. You are here confronting us.

[Nercohype]

When I was working at my local shipyard, the best crane operators were almost always women. When I did my mandatory military service, there were also many great women serving alongside me. They were excellent shots, and they complained less than the men did. To be fair, though, the women had chosen to join the military, while the men hadn't. They had no choice: it was either the army or jail.

[Emerald]

6 minutes ago, Alexop said:

I did not tell you that you should agree with us. You are here confronting us.

Yes you did. You said: " You are not serious enough to change your perspective on it. All due respect. If my grandmother who could barely read could get, and you highly educated people don't, then you might consider some self-reflection."

This frames my disagreement with you as something foolish because even your illiterate grandma could get it.

And you outright said, "You're not serious enough to change your perspective on it." That implies that you think my disagreement with you is invalid. And that's the grandstanding I was talking about.

And your framing is that when you guys are arguing your claims, it's just interacting on the forum.

But when I'm arguing, I'm "confronting" you... and I should just either change my perspective, get off the forum, or agree to disagree.

So, your framing is that your arguments are valid and belong on the forum... and my arguments are attacks and confrontations and that I ought to either change my perspective or agree to disagree. 

Edited 3 hours ago by Emerald

[Alexop]

Just now, Nercohype said:

When I was working at my local shipyard, the best crane operators were almost always women. When I did my mandatory military service, there were also many great women serving alongside me. They were excellent shots, and they complained less than the men did. To be fair, though, the women had chosen to join the military, while the men hadn't. They had no choice: it was either the army or jail.

And most political leaders in Sweden are women. 

Oh and this CS 2 women's team almost beat the men's world champions NAVY: