Regarding the phrase ‘genetically inferior’…

CraftyCooler · 2024-05-29T04:45:51+00:00

Tallest people live in Netherlands and Lithuania, but these two nations have small populations comparing to ie. Phillipinnes so it's hard to call height a sign of 'genetic superiority'. I think our beauty ideals are shaped by culture, heightism is not that popular trend in Europe as it is in US. Neither Dutch or Lithuanian men are considered very attractive, highest notes go to Spain. I've noticed that even women online started making fun of height-obsessed men, irl i see plenty of couples of equal height.

Used-Armadillo-9027 · 2024-05-29T04:15:10+00:00

strong bone structure women with square jawlines and large cheekbones are considered modelesque and more beautiful. just bc women "get away" with recessed features more than men doesn't mean recessed features are desirable on women either

ilikecats18851 · 2024-05-29T04:17:39+00:00

sexual dimorphism. but you can also say that genetically inferior women still get to reproduce, while men don't. yeah, being a man is harder but what are you going to do about it, kill yourself? may as well stick around and see how things turn out

BigZaddyZ3 · 2024-05-29T03:33:01+00:00

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism

Just click that link for your answer OP…

Just because traits are desirable (or merely tolerated) in one gender doesn’t mean they are desirable/tolerated within the other. A man that’s built like a woman is especially unattractive because it might indicate some sort of developmental issue such as “Klinefelter syndrome”.

HighGroundDweller · 2024-05-29T03:28:08+00:00

Gigacope

Are you seriously implying that at the bar or anywhere else a tall, thin, woman with a sharp face wouldn’t be hit on 99/100 times before her short, thick, butter faced friend next to her?

Wattehfok · 2024-05-29T03:45:21+00:00

You MFs really think we’re all walking around with Terminator Vision for “superior genetics”, dontcha.

We need to round up evolutionary psychologists and have some sort of Nuremberg trial for what they’ve done to the discourse.

HydrazineHawk · 2024-05-29T17:16:29+00:00

Historically, a woman who wanted a child is almost guaranteed to have one—meanwhile 80% of all men historically failed to reproduce at all.

The underlying reality is therefore that masculine traits are a better evolutionary strategy, because the handicap to “masculine women” is much less than “feminine men”.

Finally, a some of the supposedly disadvantageous traits like being tall as a women are less about men being repulsed and more about the women having commensurately higher standards for men as a result. For example, a study on height preferences showed that on average, women prefer men who are 8 inches taller than them. For the average US women at 5’4” this would be a man that’s 6’ which is a top 15 percentile height…for a women that’s 5’10” we’re talking 6’6”, which might as well not even exist statistically

DoubleFistBishh · 2024-05-29T03:33:26+00:00

Noones "genetically inferior" just because they arent someones type. People like what they like.

one_time_animal · 2024-05-29T08:12:07+00:00

I actually disagree that being short is desirable in a woman. I think it's just much less desirable in a woman than a man I'd also say having a defined jawline is desirable in a woman. I also imagine that a lot of masculinity is linked to the Y chromosome so it's hard to say that just because a woman lacks some feature that her male offspring would.

FiestaDeLosMuerto · 2024-05-29T08:42:45+00:00

breeding for genes usually ends up with. Species that has wasted features that don’t do much other than create a certain appearance, a lot of birds are like that and while peacocks are pretty I don’t think they’re genetically superior to most other species.

just_a_place · 2024-05-29T07:05:20+00:00

It's called Sexual Dimorphism: In our species big males have an advantage over smaller ones. Smaller females have an advantage over larger ones. That's just reality.

Due to the physical duress men have to go through in order to survive it is to our advantage to be more physically robust and larger. Women are attracted to this because a robust male has those kinds of genes that he can pass on to her children. Survivable genes.

Men, on the other hand, are attracted to youth and fertility in women. Smaller, younger, and more neotenous women are more physically desirable because they are the healthiest in appearance. Their smaller size is attractive because, apart from their lack of a beard, it is the single most notorious feature of femaleness. A dainty smaller and more delicate frame is what is most attractive to the greatest number of men because they are the most obvious signs of womanhood that can be identified even in a silhouette, from a distance, and in a crowd.

throwaway039474839 · 2024-05-29T05:54:12+00:00

Handsome men are actually more likely to have sons.

PinchRunners · 2024-05-29T03:46:34+00:00

"if being short as a male is so bad then why is it ok for a women to be short??????? checkmate!!!!!!"

Cethlinnstooth · 2024-05-29T04:04:13+00:00

I knew that it would be better for my daughters to be taller than me.

Electric_Death_1349 · 2024-05-29T06:28:04+00:00

The great irony is that the women pushing this message (i.e., demanding the 6-6-6) are invariably short, fat, and ass-faced

AutoModerator · 2024-05-29T03:24:58+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

AutoModerator · 2024-05-29T03:24:58+00:00

Hi OP,

You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. PPD has guidelines for what that involves.

OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.

An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following:

Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency;

Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit;

Focusing only on the weaker arguments;

Only having discussions with users who agree with your position.

Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Ok-Dust-4156 · 2024-05-29T13:49:12+00:00

For those people "genes" always work in way they beliefes tell them to work by some reason they can't prove.

flipsidetroll · 2024-05-29T15:03:43+00:00

Tell us you know nothing about genetics without telling us you know nothing about genetics. If simply breeding with people with wanted traits would give your offspring the desired traits, then there would be no short men with weakly defined facial features and no unattractive or masculine women. They would have been bred out generations ago.

FreitasAlan · 2024-05-29T19:41:03+00:00

These same features are not desirable in women. Female models are usually tall and have well-defined facial features. Also, men and women look best at an athletic body fat percentage with a reasonable amount of muscle.

At most, because of supply and demand, some women can pull it off and not become virgins like their male equivalents would.

Werevulvi · 2024-05-29T20:45:06+00:00

While I think you have some point, like there's no guarantee which of our genetics we pass down to our children, it's a little bit silly to suggest traits like height, soft/harsh facial features, etc, have nothing gendered about them. Statistically men are taller than women on average, even though the shortest men will still be shorter than the tallest women. And generally, soft, round and curvy body traits are a direct result of high estrogen and/or low testosterone, and since men on average have much higher testosterone than women and women on average have much higher estrogen... women are much more likely to end up with soft, round or curved bodies/faces in general, depending on their genetics.

For ex, my parents are 5'8 and 6'3, but I ended up being only 5'6. Why? Well, at least partially because I'm female. I'm much less likely to reach my father's height than my mother's, simply because I have two x-chromosomes which actively work to suppress testosterone production which is needed for my body to activate the male traits in my genetics. I know this because when I transitioned ftm (I'm a detransitioner now) and took testosterone, I got my father's facial hair pattern and my uncle's hairline. Kinda fascinating, isn't it? Then why some people do get some opposite sex traits naturally, is because there is some individual variation to how our sexes develop.

This is also likely a reason why people generally have these kinda preferences that they do. For ex if you're a straight man, you're likely going to be attracted to physical features that are commonly seen in women, whether they are a direct result of her sex being female or not. That's just kinda how our pattern recognizing brains work.

But there's also social reasons: if a woman wants a man who is strong enough to be able to protect her and her children, she'd benefit from dating tall, muscular men. And if a man wants a woman who is nurturing and fertile to carry and take care of his children, then he'd benefit from dating small, curvy women as they are less likely to have abnormal hormone levels that could interfere with his goal to have many children. And these preferences were evolutionary beneficial for the human race as a species for a really long ass time. Long enough that it probably affected our subconscious.

As much as I hate sexism, I can't ignore that this is clearly how our dumb species decided to develop, and it's not really anyone's fault. I could cry about it, but that's not really gonna make a difference. Men are hardwired to want "feminine" traits in women because they are signs of female fertility and healthy female development, and women are hardwired to want "masculine" traits in men because they are signs of greater male fertility, greather protection for women and children, and a sign of healthy male development in the man. And we as a species (regardless of gender) are hardwired to want a healthy, fertile partner, as that will ensure a healthy (and eventually fertile) offspring.

Fyi, I say "healthy" mostly in regards to sex hormones. Being short as a man for ex may not be a health concern in and of itself, but it can be a sign of low testosterone or lack of proper nutrients during his puberty, ie stunted growth, which can be a health concern. Likewise there is a connection between high testosterone in women leading to both extra height and muscle mass, increased body hair, angular feature, narrow hips, etc as well as fertility issues. Our ancestors figured this out by simply reproducing and seeing how different families survived or died young, way before modern medicine could actually prove any such correlations, or even that sex hormones exist.

Women are just generally more picky in regards to male partners because we're the ones doing 99% of all the hard work creating the babies (ie pregnancy and childbirth), the ones with a shorter window of fertility (ie menopause), we only have a few hundred gametes to start off with, and can only have a few children in a lifetime for all of those reasons, so of course we don't wanna waste that precious resource on a half-assed man. Sorry if that hits a nerve. Whereas men have a much simpler, faster, risk-free and pleasurable experience in the babymaking process, don't have an age limit to their fertility, produce millions of gametes, and could produce hundreds if not thousands of offspring in a lifetime. So it's not a precious resource for them. The have no reason to limit themselves to only the best women. They could literally just "hump and dump" and end up with 500 kids. Birth control and abortions, as well as women's more picky nature, do put a stop to that in actual practice though, and thank goodness for that.

This is biological unfairness, it has nothing to do with societal sexism or people being unreasonable buttholes for no reason. And it does determine, generally, which physical traits are considered valuable in dating. Even though we now know through advanced medicine that masculine women and feminine men are not necessarily less fertile, less healthy, or worse parents. Knowledge doesn't (immediately) change our deeply hardwired instincts. That might take a few more thousand years to change, because evolution is really, really, painfully, frustratingly slow. I mean, just look at wisdom teeth for ex, or the now pointless nails on our toes, or our tailbone. And those have been around pointlessly for a lot longer than our instinctive dating preference have been kinda oudated.

Melodic_Structure928 · 2024-05-29T22:29:41+00:00

It depends on the culture mainly but in many western cultures media has heavily shaped the way a man has to be. There are now many standards in place that a lot of average dudes will never be able to meet. many women are given advice that Basically boils down to never settle, you can get better then him that man is below ur worth and so on. It’s lead to a situation were many women are looking for better and better and also makes depressing data like the belo become a reality

https://ibb.co/mTM87Sh

caption291 · 2024-05-29T05:18:42+00:00

I think that generally speaking people heavily miss the mark on how to measure genetic success for 2 reasons.

The way humans do well within evolution isn't individual strength and charisma ..It's cooperation, intelligence and endurance. Things like height aren't being selected in men because they are genetically superior in humans.
The goal of genes isn't to "be great" it's to be as widespread as possible.

Traits that are stuck to a relatively small percentage of the population should not generally be considered to be as successful as their more common counterpart.

So, can we truly consider these traits to be ‘genetically inferior’?

My answer is no because of what I just said, but If I accept the premise then I'd have to say yes.

A girl with a flaw might go from a very high chance of success to a marginally smaller but still very high chance of success.

There is more variance in outcome for boys, so that flaw is much more likely to be the difference between a reasonable chance of success and a very low chance of success.

GoldenHornyChicken · 2024-05-29T06:35:10+00:00

I'm sorry people but you sound more and more like a faschist dystopia combined with the agressive neo liberalism of our time. Please open a book and build some culture.

Sensitive_Pen_8896 · 2024-05-30T03:43:52+00:00

Genetically inferior is any man who isn't 5'10+ and doesn't have light skin, and has a nice jawline and broccoli hair.

Edit: Also any poopskin Indians

PM_Happy_Puppy_Pics · 2024-05-29T07:13:39+00:00

Genetically inferior just means whatever that woman doesn't want at that time. She will change her mind if that guy is super rich, a famous actor, politician, etc. It really just goes to show that women are never happy.

Title	Regarding the phrase ‘genetically inferior’…
Author	GasAdmirable4148
Upvotes	16
Comments	191
Date	May 29, 2024 3:24 AM UTC (2 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1d32lx9/regarding_the_phrase_genetically_inferior/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/regarding-the-phrase-genetically-inferior.1519892 https://theredarchive.com/post/1519892

Comments