Ok so this one is gold because the female author basically completely embrace all the concepts of "evolutionary" TRP such as hypergamy, selection of genes, alpha / beta dichotomy, the 80/20 ratio and the idea that the patriarchy and large part of the the social structure such as religion, but also even land owning, is made to restrain female nature.

Then she proposes a set of rules which would lead to a female-centered sexual utopia, including selecting young betas to explain to them that their whill HAVE to spend their lives sexless, coping with either porningraphy, homosexuality, prostitution or sex bots.

​

i wont impose my view but instead will let you read the review and then discuss:

https://forbetterscience.com/2021/03/18/female-choice-by-meike-stoverock-book-review/

​

Two points that I've seen little discussed here, and also make a quick personal rebuttals of the some parts of the book:

​

- I personally believe female nature is not here to reward "alpha genes" but instead "alpha traits", which includes, largely, in its pure form, materal possesions and "alpha behavior" (such as simply acting adequatly in situations... what we call shit test). Why do I believe that ? First I don't really believe your genes determine so much your actions, but instead the struggles you have been through in the past, eiher because of your social environmenet or simply because your father was hard on you and pushing you. If you had it easy, then life will send shit to you at some point, point you will then have to fight from to improve. I think female nature inherently exists to push society and evolution faster than by "random mutation" (from an evolution standpoint, sexual duality exists precisely because its more efficient than hermaphrodism). It would make sense that if "masculine energy" is about creating and fighting for survival "feminine energy" would take care of rewarding anything that promotes a stronger society / civilization. And that more determined found in actions of humans during their whole life than simply their genes. One "proof" of that is the hundreds of men on the manospere who took their lives in their hand and started to improve, then seeing good results with women. I don't really care if you agree with me tbh but personally, I think this is a mistake of the author that actually many women do.

​

- Second point, related though, is that people who are going to discuss that 'a society such as proposed by the author would not be stable' will be 100% missing the point. It's ACTUALLY the point to make it unstable. Why ? Because... it promotes improvement of everyone: if you keep 80% of men in a sexless state, then they are (if not brainwashed by porn, booze, and the lack of financial opportnity) supposed to get angry at that state, improve, and possibly overthrow the 20%. Wether they suceed or not in overthrowing doesn't matter: the fight makes everyone better, and makes the women's work of finding the alphas (or their illusion of the existence of that dichotomy that they have to establish) easier to impose.

​

Have fun reading and discussing.