I copied the following text from quora. Nothing in it is new for the true redpillers. But it seems like this sub have become more of a "I want to feel good", rather than "I don't give a shit about your feelings, I am just gonna present you the cold hard facts that the blue pill society don't want you know. I don't care if it makes you sad or angry, I don't care how you manage to cope with these cold facts. If you are here seeking something other than truth, then you shouldn't be here at the first place"

////////////////

The answer to that in large measure can be summed up in two simple words when it comes to males -

Being expendable.

Males are more larger and stronger in the vast majority of species among reptiles, birds and mammals for the simple but ironical reason that they are far more dispensable than females.

A strong male in terms of natural evolution will mate with several females while a weak one will have no offspring at all.

A brutal but clinically efficient form of “survival of the fittest”. Especially among species that are predators which includes humans.

This means that nature can afford to and will experiment much more frequently with males than with females.

The price of being physically weak, unattractive or poor over history, has been much more costly for males than for females.

Which means that weakness in them has been weeded out far more ruthlessly than it has in the case of females.

Do you even realize that in anthropological terms, all of us collectively have roughly twice as many foremothers as we have forefathers?

Some super-warriors like Genghiz Khan have alone been estimated to transmit their genes to millions of humans alive today. Conversely is there even one woman in all of history who had even so many as fifty children?

Because for 99% of human history, a staggering number of men had no offspring compared to women.

Strong males could mate with several females while the weak ones died without passing on their genes.

Nature is far more unequal even today in terms of mating results for males compared to females.

Don't believe me?

Go take a look in even the monogamous West today between the success curve of dating for men versus women.

The top men get an absolutely and staggeringly disproportionate number of sexual partners compared to the distribution of dating success among females. It is incredibly lopsided among men because a vast majority of the women all want the few guys at or near the top of the food chain.

Women even today are far more selective among the men they choose and the top 5% of men get something like 50% or more of women.

And it is that ruthless streak of nature and evolution that ends up being far more selective with males than it does with females.

Then it is only a matter of common sense that if you choose disproportionately among only the top males, that you will end up having only the absolute cream of the crop among men not only mating but even managing to simply survive.