Women are better hunter, science suggests

[Xonas Pitfall]

1 minute ago, aurum said:

This is still flattening the differences.

My bad. 

I'm not trying to flatten these distinctions completely. I'm trying to point out how strongly and absolutistically they were presented in the arguments, which I suppose is why my criticism might come across as "flattening" them.

I'm trying to introduce more nuance and relativity into how we understand these things, especially how we even define concepts like masculinity and femininity in the first place. I think we need to question the assumptions behind these definitions before we can even begin to properly deconstruct them, rather than treating them as some inherent, unquestionable truths about human nature.

Edited 1 hour ago by Xonas Pitfall

[Alexop]

16 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Don't take credit for the work of men who crawl through sewers just because you're the same gender as they are.

You work an even cushier job than my job is.

he doesn't take any credit. He is just appreciating it.

[Alexop]

7 minutes ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

My bad. 

I'm not trying to flatten these distinctions completely. I'm trying to point out how strongly and absolutistically they were presented in the arguments, which I suppose is why my criticism might come across as "flattening" them.

I'm trying to introduce more nuance and relativity into how we understand these things, especially how we even define concepts like masculinity and femininity in the first place. I think we need to question the assumptions behind these definitions before we can even begin to properly deconstruct them, rather than treating them as some inherent, unquestionable truths about human nature.

You did not teach us anything new. Do you really think me and Leo don't understand what you presented there?

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Alexop

[aurum]

2 minutes ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

My bad. 

I'm not trying to flatten these distinctions completely. I'm trying to point out how strongly and absolutistically they were presented in the arguments, which I suppose is why my criticism might come across as "flattening" them.

I'm trying to introduce more nuance and relativity into how we understand these things, especially how we even define concepts like masculinity and femininity in the first place. I think we need to question the assumptions behind these definitions before we can even begin to properly deconstruct them, rather than treating them as some inherent, unquestionable truths about human nature.

You are fine.

I have spent an unholy amount of time contemplating these questions myself.

It’s very challenging. You are getting all your information for people who themselves are confused. Sorting it all out takes a lot of time.

[Alexop]

10 minutes ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

It's really sad that interesting conversations like these so often turn into gender wars. There's so much fascinating nuance to explore here, especially when it comes to our biases, the trickiness of insight, and how our minds take these loose definitions and construct entire mental frameworks around our preferred ego and gender identities. There's so much to question about how we interpret these things and how easily we mistake our own mental constructs for some objective truth. But unfortunately, all of that gets overshadowed by absolutist gender blaming and immature arguments about which gender is better or worse, who needs one more than the "other" 

It turns into gender wars because people do not want to let go of their petty post-modern ego and seriously research and contemplate our human nature.

Edited 1 hour ago by Alexop

[Emerald]

1 minute ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

It's really sad that interesting conversations like these so often turn into gender wars. There's so much fascinating nuance to explore here, especially when it comes to our biases, the trickiness of insight, and how our minds take these loose definitions and construct entire mental frameworks around our preferred ego and gender identities. There's so much to question about how we interpret these things and how easily we mistake our own mental constructs for some objective truth. But unfortunately, all of that gets overshadowed by absolutist gender blaming and immature arguments about which gender is better or worse, who needs one more than the "other" 

It is really sad that they can't really open up to learning new information about women and gender dynamics.

So many men build their entire self-esteem on being men and their relationship to women (and their concept of what we are)... that hearing new information about gender and women that doesn't match their ego-inflated identity around collective belonging in the male group... or comforting worldview that frames men as superior in all ways that matter to them, will be met with cognitive dissonance.

That's why they keep moving the goalposts and resetting things to their comforting ideologies and narratives around gender.

And they keep pretending that our more nuanced and accurate way of looking at these dynamics is extreme... and they straw man us as not recognizing any differences between men and women.

Their concept of gender is so baked into the foundation of their identity and what makes them feel good (and bad) about themselves, that they have to find ways to avoid the actual nuanced reality of how humans have existed and interacted with one another.

It also might make them have to question a fantasy of some bygone era where women aren't the way we are in the modern era.

They can imagine a fantasy of a time when women were existing as purely Feminine in a state of contentment (existing in only the way they want women to be). 

And that can be hard fantasy to shake.... and to realize that there is no time when women's nature matched to the idea of the imaginary women of yesteryear in their minds.

It's always been us bitches! And they don't like that.

[Alexop]

16 minutes ago, Emerald said:

This is lame.

Almost as lame as traveling alone as an attractive woman to a third world country in the middle of nowhere and become amazed that you put yourself in danger. 

[Xonas Pitfall]

1 minute ago, aurum said:

You are fine.

I have spent an unholy amount of time contemplating these questions myself.

It’s very challenging. You are getting all your information for people who themselves are confused. Sorting it all out takes a lot of time.

All good, same here haha.

For example, yes, on average, men are objectively stronger, have greater muscle mass, higher bone density, etc., which makes them generally better suited for physical fighting and war. But that doesn't explain why women would then be defined as the polar opposite.

Being strong, resilient, capable of fending for yourself, protecting your children, and surviving would surely also be evolutionarily attractive qualities in women, no? Or... women with more body fat, greater bone density, intelligence, strong self-preservation instincts, and the ability to be both nurturing and aggressive when necessary would also be quite attractive from an evolutionary perspective. These are all qualities that could contribute to their own survival and the survival of their offspring, so why wouldn't they be considered desirable traits in a potential partner?

Yet when you look at how femininity is often defined today, so many of the traits associated with it seem almost anti-survival. Being fragile, passive, dependent, subservient, innocent, delicate, "selfless", and so on. Why is that? How did these traits become associated with femininity in the first place? And does it even make sense from an evolutionary perspective?

You'll find so many forums, incel / red pill communities, and other internet ideologies that almost demonize these exact traits in women, treating them as repulsive, unattractive, or somehow making someone less of a "real woman." And that's precisely why I pointed out that we're increasingly living in a kind of simulacrum of hyper-masculine and hyper-feminine caricatures.

[Emerald]

1 minute ago, Alexop said:

Almost as lame as traveling alone as an attractive woman to a third world country in the middle of nowhere and become amazed that you put yourself in danger. 

Your schadenfreude is so much lamer than that.

[Alexop]

Just now, Emerald said:

Your schadenfreude is so much lamer than that.

It can be, sorry for that. 

[Xonas Pitfall]

10 minutes ago, Alexop said:

You did not teach us anything new. Do you really think me and Leo don't understand what you presented there?

I'm sorry, but I don't really understand what your point is. Do you know how we evolved and how these traits developed from an evolutionary perspective? If so, I'd genuinely love to hear your arguments.

[Emerald]

2 minutes ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

we're increasingly living in a kind of simulacrum of hyper-masculine and hyper-feminine caricatures.

That's a perfect description.

I notice that many of the men on this forum can get lost in these caricatures.

And they can try to match the Masculine one and ultimately fail because it's a caricature.

Then, they finger wag women for not matching the hyper-Feminine caricature and blaming modernity and Feminism for the fact that women "aren't the way they used to be" believing that nomadic and agrarian women matched that caricature and that modernity stole those things from modern women.

[Xonas Pitfall]

7 minutes ago, Emerald said:

It is really sad that they can't really open up to learning new information about women and gender dynamics.

So many men build their entire self-esteem on being men and their relationship to women (and their concept of what we are)... that hearing new information about gender and women that doesn't match their ego-inflated identity around collective belonging in the male group... or comforting worldview that frames men as superior in all ways that matter to them, will be met with cognitive dissonance.

That's why they keep moving the goalposts and resetting things to their comforting ideologies and narratives around gender.

And they keep pretending that our more nuanced and accurate way of looking at these dynamics is extreme... and they straw man us as not recognizing any differences between men and women.

Their concept of gender is so baked into the foundation of their identity and what makes them feel good (and bad) about themselves, that they have to find ways to avoid the actual nuanced reality of how humans have existed and interacted with one another.

It also might make them have to question a fantasy of some bygone era where women aren't the way we are in the modern era.

They can imagine a fantasy of a time when women were existing as purely Feminine in a state of contentment (existing in only the way they want women to be). 

And that can be hard fantasy to shake.... and to realize that there is no time when women's nature matched to the idea of the imaginary women of yesteryear in their minds.

It's always been us bitches! And they don't like that.

Yes, it's really unfortunate. Yet another ideology Bias Bias Bias Bias all over again 😅

[Emerald]

2 minutes ago, Alexop said:

It can be, sorry for that. 

I just find it to be a sign of insecurity that you're laughing at a woman's misfortune that way.

What is it in you that wants to humble women and put women "back in their place" so much that you have such glee about a woman being attacked by a man?

[Inliytened1]

57 minutes ago, aurum said:

But not to the same degree.

Men have always been responsible for the vast majority of killing and brutal survival activities. Why else have men always done the war?

Women needed to be shielded from that, precisely because their role was to raise children. And war is too dangerous.

Degree is what matters here.

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.

Edited 45 minutes ago by Inliytened1

[Alexop]

Just now, Xonas Pitfall said:

I'm sorry, but I don't really understand what your point is. Do you know how we evolved and how these traits developed from an evolutionary perspective? If so, I'd genuinely love to hear your arguments.

Watch this:

And then this:

THEN

read the whole thread

read The Way of The Superior Man by David Deida

read Beyond Mars and Venus by John Grey

 

 

[Alexop]

6 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I just find it to be a sign of insecurity that you're laughing at a woman's misfortune that way.

What is it in you that wants to humble women and put women "back in their place" so much that you have such glee about a woman being attacked by a man?

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

Edited 43 minutes ago by Alexop

[Xonas Pitfall]

Just now, Emerald said:

Then, they finger wag women for not matching the hyper-Feminine caricature and blaming modernity and Feminism for the fact that women "aren't the way they used to be" believing that nomadic and agrarian women matched that caricature and that modernity stole those things from modern women.

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.

[aurum]

12 minutes ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

Being strong, resilient, capable of fending for yourself, protecting your children, and surviving would surely also be evolutionarily attractive qualities in women, no?

No, because all those things have tradeoffs.

You do not get anything for free.

[Emerald]

Just now, 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. 

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.