Women are better hunter, science suggests

[Alexop]

1 minute ago, Emerald said:

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 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 get off the forum and 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. 

Stop putting words into my mouth. I did not tell you to go anywhere. You are here attacking me. I told you that you are not serious enough. Yea, that is a personal opinion. And?

[Emerald]

1 minute ago, Alexop said:

Stop putting words into my mouth. I did not tell you to go anywhere. You are here attacking me. I told you that you are not serious enough. Yea, that is a personal opinion. And?

I quoted your exact words.

[Alexop]

[Nercohype]

14 minutes ago, Alexop said:

And most political leaders in Sweden are women. 

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

 

Same here in Finland, dude

[Alexop]

4 minutes ago, Nercohype said:

Same here in Finland, dude

Do you have a left majority there? Or you still need to compromise with some neo-libs?

[aurum]

1 hour ago, Inliytened1 said:

That is sexist  You guys wanna make me out to be this huge sexist yet it seems to be ingrained in not only the US culture but elsewhere.  I'm just pointing it out. I destroyed him so it was easy for all of you to pounce on dead meat.

I am describing why things were the way they were.

The modern developed world is more complex. We have a bit more autonomy, survival is a bit less brutal, and the scale is much larger.

More people want to be psychologically balanced and whole, rather than unbalanced. This also has tradeoffs.

[aurum]

56 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.

They can be adapted to some degree.

But even still, not without tradeoffs.

If you want to become more balanced in your masc / fem, go ahead. I think that’s part of mature development. But it won’t be without tradeoffs.

[enchanted]

The guys in this debate have a huge disadvantage because because it's progressive and acceptable in society to celebrate women. While at the same time criticizing men is also seen as progressive and is popular thing to do.

While criticizing women is very distasteful and feels like a something a chauvinist pig would do. 

 

[Alexop]

3 minutes ago, aurum said:

They can be adapted to some degree.

But even still, not without tradeoffs.

If you want to become more balanced in your masc / fem, go ahead. I think that’s part of mature development. But it won’t be without tradeoffs.

Exactly. And you need both in order to properly mature. Especially men needing healthy masculinity right now. 

[aurum]

57 minutes ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

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.

I mean that if you want to be strong, resilient, independent and a protector, all those things come with tradeoffs.

Being strong requires a tradeoff. Being resilient requires a tradeoff. So on and so forth.

You do so at the expense of other traits and attributes.

This is the case even if you want to become “balanced”. “Balanced” is a tradeoff.

[Alexop]

1 minute ago, enchanted said:

The guys in this debate have a huge disadvantage because because it's progressive and acceptable in society to celebrate women. While at the same time criticizing men is also seen as progressive and is popular thing to do.

While criticizing women is very distasteful and feels like a something a chauvinist pig would do. 

 

someone has to swim against the stream.

[Emerald]

1 minute ago, enchanted said:

The guys in this debate have a huge disadvantage because because it's progressive and acceptable in society to celebrate women. While at the same time criticizing men is also seen as progressive and is popular thing to do.

While criticizing women is very distasteful and feels like a something a chauvinist pig would do. 

You keep saying things like this. But can you quote some examples here?

[Alexop]

 If we closely analyze nature, we notice specializations over specializations. That is a feature of nature, or God if you want. Endless division and specialization.

Edited 2 hours ago by Alexop

[aurum]

55 minutes ago, Emerald said:

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.

Yes, it IS a liability and survival risk!

Women’s relative weakness is exactly why men needed more strength.

That’s what tradeoffs means.

[Emerald]

1 minute ago, aurum said:

I mean that if you want to be strong, resilient, independent and a protector, all those things come with tradeoffs.

Being strong requires a tradeoff. Being resilient requires a tradeoff. So on and so forth.

You do so at the expense of other traits and attributes.

This is the case even if you want to become “balanced”. “Balanced” is a tradeoff.

But those tradeoffs aren't a choice. And they aren't trade-offs that are made in relation to the opposite gender... they're made evolutionarily in response to the environment.

And all nomadic humans (men and women) had to be strong and resilient to exist in the wilderness... as the environment was difficult to survive for everyone.

A weak man or a weak woman (or even a weak child) would not survive. There was no space for weakness.

So, our wiring isn't based on this idea of trade-offs between genders. It's based on whatever made our male and female ancestors most fit to survive.

It's just that those traits that men and women evolved to survive in the wilderness, are currently coded as Masculine in our modern-day framework. 

But our nomadic wiring is often clashing with our more recent agrarian and industrial ideas of beauty that are associated with status and wealth... where having a weak, dainty wife that need not work is/was a status symbol.

So, women share the same evolutionary wiring as men in the sense that we evolved to survive as a group in the wilderness. That was 97% of human history. So, that's baked right into both male and female physiology and psychology.

And the women who were the most fit to survive in thew wilderness were strong, resilient, hefty, and tough.

Even in non-wealthy agrarian communities, women who were the most fit also were very tough... and had to do a bunch of farm labor everyday.

It's only in the industrial and post-industrial era that women (and men) can afford to be a bit softer because the societal infrastructure allows for softness. And not everyone has to be super physically fit and strong to survive.

[Emerald]

3 minutes ago, aurum said:

Yes, it IS a liability and survival risk!

Women’s relative weakness is exactly why men needed more strength.

That’s what tradeoffs means.

See... framing it as "strong versus weak" adds more extremes and polarity to the mix than is actually there. People can often hyper-polarize these things because polarity is sexy. But the reality is actually close together if you look at things in context.

So people often compare men versus women as the polar extremes like men and women exist in a vacuum... when contextually, male and female strength exists pretty close together relative to the environment nomadic people were in... which was the wilderness.

The reality is that women had to be very strong to fulfill the survival roles in the group... but men had to be a bit stronger to fulfill their survival roles in the group. That's why we evolved that way.

The issue is when people see men and women as polar extremes as though there isn't far more similarity than difference in our capacities.

The biggest divergence is with strength. I think the average man is about 60% stronger than the average woman. And men are also a bit faster and have quicker recovery.

But it doesn't mean that women lack strength and can't be fast in their own right. And it also doesn't mean that nomadic women were prevented from fulfilling the hunting role in tribes... which often doesn't really require speed or strength.

So, men and women exist on a variety of over-lapping bell curves with one another.

But that's not as sexy to some people. A lot of guys like to feel like there's more polarity than there actually is... because supernormal stimuli is more sexually exciting. 

But it doesn't make for a very accurate worldview... or view of women in general.

[aurum]

13 minutes ago, Alexop said:

 If we closely analyze nature, we notice specializations over specializations. That is a feature of nature, or God if you want. Endless division and specialization.

Winner, winner.

God / Survival generates perpetual diversity and specialization. That’s what men and women are: co-evolving, symbiotic survival specializations.

[Alexop]

2 minutes ago, aurum said:

Winner, winner.

God / Survival generates perpetual diversity and specialization. That’s what men and women are: co-evolving, symbiotic survival specializations.

inshallah

[Natasha Tori Maru]

My arm is better than my leg, you fucks 

Change my mind 😈

[Ulax]

33 minutes ago, enchanted said:

The guys in this debate have a huge disadvantage because because it's progressive and acceptable in society to celebrate women. While at the same time criticizing men is also seen as progressive and is popular thing to do.

While criticizing women is very distasteful and feels like a something a chauvinist pig would do. 

 

True