Women are biologically driven to self preservation and have a bias to agree with other women. Men are biologically driven to protect women and most of the time agree with the opposite sex over their own.

sorebum405 · 2022-08-20T11:48:45+00:00

I made a post about this.I think our lack of empathy for men and boys has actually become maladaptive in our current environment.In the past it was necessary for the survival of the species, but now it isn't really needed anymore but still exist because it's just been hardwired into us.Another part of the reason why it has gotten so bad is because of feminism.Feminist's have weaponized the natural pro-female bias we as a species have in order to benefit and prop up women, and disadvantage and demonize men.If feminism didn't exist maybe the lack of empathy for men and boys wouldn't be so excessive.

Rikkrikkrikk · 2022-08-20T12:06:46+00:00

I made a firm commitment to myself in 2017 to never protect or assist women again. Im sure many men have done the same. Every time the situation has arisen to do this I have failed. An old women asked me to help her reach a high item in the supermarket, a women clearly in distress was arguing with a male in the street and I stopped and watched in case it got violent and she needed me. and other situations Etc

The natural response of men to help women has to stop. I wish I could find the strength to turn off the button that makes me always save them. I despise the modern day white knights and tradcucks but whenever the situation arises for me to walk away and leave a woman to be held accountable I fold.

neighborhoodpainter · 2022-08-20T14:22:01+00:00

Yep. Yet I've often heard, "society hates women", "society doesn't know how to protect women", "girls/women, as soon as they're born and until their death, are criticised for everything", etc.

odysseytree · 2022-08-20T12:34:07+00:00

This in-group bias is what is that is really dangerous. Once this enters politics, more and more unfair policies start piling up.

pearl_harbour1941 · 2022-08-20T14:46:46+00:00

Well written. Once society is viewed from this accurate perspective - that women side with women, and most men side with women, it becomes obvious why previous societies were run by men with rules that benefited men. Because that's the only way men get any charity. We're seeing a complete meltdown of society at the moment, and although it is not directly due to the indulgences men give women, it plays a large part. For example by giving women the vote, and bearing in mind that women as a voting bloc always vote left - i.e. for the person or party that gives them the most free stuff - politics shifts ever further to the left and taxes and debt rise infinitely, devaluing currency, indebting all future generations to servitude, and causing society to collapse. There is no way to correct this. We will find that those who advocated most strongly for "women's rights" (i.e. more free stuff for women) will be the first to jump ship. Case in point: Sinead O'Connor, Irish feminist who converted to Islam. Islam? That utopia of women's rights? Yes, that one.

Longjumping_Joke_751 · 2022-08-20T14:11:27+00:00

The one thing that we have, and it seems will always have, is the fact that women need/want men to do everything for them.

Women, through natural selection, have cultivated men over the generations to support and take care of them. This is a very positive thing for women and the species overall, but it also gives men the power if we could ever come together and stand against injustices.

They depend on us men for almost everything. That means we have the control to end their injustices if we can just stand up to it.

For instance, we are already starting to walk away from marriage (divorce is unjust) and relationships (women think they are the prize)

Bound-Submissive · 2022-08-20T22:11:43+00:00

I understand this evolutionary statement.

My spouse is very protective and possessive but I also want to make sure this relationship isn't one sided. I like to serve him, appreciate him, do him favors, do for him what he asks me to do and in short, fulfill his needs. Even if I don't have as much T-hormone in myself as him, I would attempt hard to protect him if I have to.

You say those women who like to do good things for men out of gratitude and empathy are shamed. Well this paradox had been in the Roman philosophy too. Noone is as hated as the one telling the truth. And I once saw post on Instagram saying, In the past if they hate you, you do something wrong, in modernity if they hate you, you are doing something right.

I'd like to express my gratitude and empathy to this sub as well. Heavens bless you all.

pappo4ever · 2022-08-20T22:07:25+00:00

This is true and its an argument to forbid women's vote, or to implement a kind of a one-family-one-vote policy. The logic is that you cannot give the same vote to a population that always support themselves (women), and another population that always vote against themselves (men). You will end with a disproportionate amount of laws that favor the first population (women) that is exactly what is happening today.

RecoveringCoomer · 2022-08-21T01:15:14+00:00

I understand the evolutionary argument that for %99.9 of our 1 million year+ evolution, we lived in small isolated tribes of 150 or less people. And in such a tribe if all the fertile women die, the tribe dies. If all the men except one dies, tribe still can reproduce.

The thing is we are long past this point. There are almost 8 billion people on earth. Humans are nowhere near extinct. Anyone can easily travel globally. In many places, developed world, even poor people can get fat and make many kids on government welfare programs. Even less developed countries still have an increasing life expectancy. Even during wars, there are no massive armies clashing. 4th and 5th generation warfare is much more about winning the hearts and minds of population rather than actual fighting and killing...

I think it is about time we stopped this "disposable male" bs, and treat each and every human as equally valuable, male or female.

NutsLikeMelons · 2022-08-21T02:14:12+00:00

The only sane response to the current state of society is not to take part. Get a small, low maintenance place to live, work the job you want, have the hobbies you enjoy and just chill. If I was 20 now instead of 40 I wouldn’t even consider a relationship. Not worth it any more. Men still have to give everything but they get nothing in return.

_here_ok · 2022-08-21T01:37:54+00:00

I don't think that's a biological instinct but just how ingrained it is into society. people always sympathize with what is perceived as the underdog and in our current society woman are viewed as the underdog. We have an instinct to protect what is human like + fragile it's why some pet owners are willing to give their lives for their pets since most pets have child like features them being big heads and eyes. To me the main difference between men and women is just their thinking on risk. Men generally think on risk and reward while woman typically think on risk and consequence.

Glad-Discount-4761 · 2022-08-21T03:44:27+00:00

This is why I say women are useless creatures.Amount of times I see men defending some women is insane.Never do that,you will just lose your iq

Halfcocked_Jack · 2022-08-20T14:11:51+00:00

“Biologically driven” arguments are generally bullshit in explaining human behavior because cultural overlays take those general drives and push them any which way — presuming said biological drives even exist.

I think an argument can be made that women are perhaps better at the politics of sociability and reconciliation than men, but that’s a biiiiiiiig generalization. I think it’s probably better to say that humans tend to be bullies towards humans that are perceived as weaker and weakness, in a social species, can be both physical or social. So if you have relatively less muscle mass, it becomes a matter of self-preservation to become more social. I don’t think this is specific to women.

Also? Evolution does not work to favor self-preservation, but to favor the propagation of one’s genes… which may or may not involve self-preservation. All female mammals are notoriously ready to break out the cans of whoop-ass when kids are involved and humans are no exception there.

Finally, I don’t know where you’re getting your bullshit about “limited contact tribes”, but those groups, by definition, have not been studied enough for anyone to understand what their internal gender dynamics are. If you want to sail out to the Andaman Islands and find out yourself, be my guest. The highest anthropological honors await you, presuming your head doesn’t end up on a pike.

As an anthropologist and historian, I can say, with some degree of certainty, that your view of the “facts” shown by history and current studies regarding human behavior is laughably naive and about 120 years out of date. What we have learned is that humans have a bewildering array of social and physical adaptations and making even the most basic generalizations about them is pretty hard. There are a couple that can be made, but the idea that women have a bias to agree with other women is not one of them. No, that is not sustained by any peer-reviewed study.

In fact, many cultures consider women to be notoriously fractious, to the point where women squabbling is a constant meme in those cultures. Brazilian culture being one of those.

MRA isn’t taken seriously because far too many of its proponents use it as a blanket excuse to express their gynophobia, instead of concentrating on its relative handful of serious issues. Newsflash: feminists who maintain similarly extremist positions are rarely taken seriously, either.

As for that 2004 study, it has a low n and is not at all cross cultural. The best that can be said for it is that it shows that, under certain circumstances and in certain cultural groups, women are socially more accepted. That is a very weak reed upon which to hang claims over all of humanity, everywhere.

The head author of that study put it best, right there in that interview, when she said “Gender relations are very complex. So every little piece of the puzzle brings us closer to understanding one another."

The problem with many feminists and certainly with many MRAs like yourself is that you believe that gender relations are simple, deterministic, universal, and eternal. They are none of those things.

UnconventionalXY · 2022-08-21T08:07:53+00:00

For a biology that purports to protect women, women sure shriek about sexual abuse and yet, the ability of a man to have the sex he wants seems like a small price to pay for the general protection and resources he offers to a woman who would otherwise have to go it alone in a difficult world, especially as that activity is supposed to be mutually rewarding. Historically, being protected has always come at a cost for women and has balanced the equation. Not any more.

However, men are not simply their biology: we are human beings with awareness and reason and reach for higher order outcomes; that's what civilisation is about, although it is still based principally on that biology of sexual reproduction and roles tailored to suit it. We can think of humans as biology+extensions, both interconnected yet different. We can appreciate that women want to choose when to have sex and honour that, but at the same time, mens needs also should be honoured, however we haven't yet proposed a win-win solution and I don't understand why it isn't a matter of discussion for an intelligent species attempting to be more civilised. Being civilised doesn't mean men simply keeping it in their pants when women aren't interested, but finding alternate avenues of male sexual fulfillment. We are responsible for our own orgasms, just as women are responsible for theirs.

I don't agree with biological programming of women for self-preservation: I think the role women biologically play requires an emotional connection to the needs of multiple children simultaneously, which must border on the edge of instability, like childbirth borders on the edge of bodily destruction. I believe this makes women neurotic, emotional and bordering on selfishness as the opposite of giving their all.

I don't think men listen to women either: we interpret the situation in a male way, just look at "it isn't about the nail", just like we have been biologically programmed to solve problems whilst women process problems at an emotional level and handball the ones that can only be solved physically (outside of children) to men to solve.

What is happening now is women no longer wanting to pay any price for what they want, which upsets the equation that has existed since time immemorial. I think the deletion of conjugal rights was the start. Instead of agreeing with the move to a higher order outcome of sexual choice for women and finding an equivalent balancing change for men, women want it all at the expense of men. For men its no longer a rational choice of the trade of protection and resources for sex, but an enforced provision with no sex or only the sex the woman wants: it's now a poor exchange.

The situation isn't being helped by men who think they can get laid by pandering to what women want without question and yet the actions of government in reversing Roe Vs Wade could be seen as imposing a price on women again, not for sex but for control of their biology.

Comments