Something Richard Dawkins said about women

MaunaLoona · 2016-10-10T12:06:37+00:00

Male humans still have to do the attracting to a huge extent.

Peacocks have a tail, male humans have their wallet.

Difference is the peacock gets to keep his tail while the man gets his wallet ripped out of him through the eye of his his dick.

solaceFromSolitude · 2016-10-10T12:13:15+00:00

The human females compete with eachother. Males do not really care much for make up or style. Anyone who has ever kissed a woman wearing a lot of make up will know: Women are nicer without make up.

Women do not wear make up to impress males. They do it to impress one another. It is still the male who needs to show material posession, good genetic material (tall, muscular) and he needs a good brain to impress the woman.

Men are rather a lot like a peacock, because all of this stuff is not required for the survival of the male, in fact, it often is detrimental to his physical well-being (working very hard), just like a peacocks tail is hampering the male peacock in his survival.

MaunaLoona · 2016-10-10T13:07:20+00:00

For example, male peacocks have large tail feathers to attract females. Male birds sing songs that attract mates. Male birds build the nest and show it off to potential mates. Male lions have the mane. The females tend to be drab.

He didn't have a satisfactory explanation for it. Can red pill knowledge shed some light on this?

I see this type of post from time to time. Human beings aren't birds; we're two entirely different species with two entirely different evolutionary histories. Stop comparing human beings to birds.

There is no evidence that female lions are attracted to manes, per se. Manes are an overall indicator of fitness, sexual maturity and testosterone. That is, in order for a male lion to develop a mane, he must be sexually mature, healthy (no mange) and brimming with testosterone. Human female are attracted to the same qualities in human males. Human females like males that are sexually mature, as identified by facial hair, broad shoulders, deep voice, square jaw, height, musculature, etc. Female prefer males that are healthy (indicated by good posture, healthy skin, good scent, and correct body proportions and ratios). They also like males that are brimming with testosterone. Unfortunately, in human males, testosterone causes hair loss, which is why many women are attracted to bald men-- they have more testosterone than other males.

Human beings have something that birds and lions don't have-- culture. We have complex culturally dependent mating systems. In our culture, a male can demonstrate his fitness by having lots of money, by driving an expensive car, living in an expensive house, etc. Males can also demonstrate his fitness by having a prestigious job, or being in a position of power and authority. This is why human mating in industrialized, western style countries is so fucked up. We have biologically weak men, who wield powerful indicators of fitness. For example, consider all the millionaire coders who work for Google in Silicon Valley. western women are torn between their biological urge to mate with powerful men and their cultural conditioning to rely on alternative, culturally-relevant indicators of fitness.

nigelh · 2016-10-10T12:38:48+00:00

The problem is that human males are programmed to look for a girl who has just entered her child bearing phase not one in her child rearing phase. This means that to even be considered as a possibility they have to fake up post-adolescence with support garments and paint. Also since one of the measures hunter gatherer males used to judge health was good skin that needs to feature prominently in their CV.

It's more complex than that but that's the basic idea. She needs a good hunter so looking at your wallet probably is close. The big snag is that society has taught us to work differently so the choices we are taught to make don't resonate with the internal wiring so it all goes down the pan from there.

Darth_Bicycle · 2016-10-10T14:22:28+00:00

Men peacock like crazy (cars, wealth, status, clothing, jewelry...etc etc). That's a lot harder to do, than painting ones face with makeup. But because Dawkins himself is a male, a lot male behavior is invisible to him. He himself does a lot of peacocking and tries to inflate his own status by appearing in TV programs.

sadbasturd99 · 2016-10-10T12:16:33+00:00

Either, you misinterpreted his quote. Or he was incorrect. In most mammals a female advertises she is ready with scent and behavior. Males then come to have sex with her and she fights off ones she really really doesn't want, but for the most part gets a nice cum cocktail in her, and a great chance of pregnancy.

This whole idea of women choosing only the most adorned man is bullshit in the animal kindgdom. They like a cum cocktail for the most part.

Society is the key to human interaction. That is the huge difference and why strict Darwinian reasoning can never account for human behavior. In most societies throughout time, I am talking 10,000 BC and up. Men worked hard to be impressive to parents. To be good workers, responsible, competent fighters, reasonably courageous, etc. To have something to impress the Parents of the woman they want. If the parents, especially the father sanctioned the marriage then payments were made to her parents and ceremonies followed. This is not something Christians made up, as people will tell you, it has been going on since 6000 BC or more, and can still be seen in indigenous, isolated, tribes today.

With society and Civilizations virtually any scenario is possible.

Recioman · 2016-10-10T14:28:47+00:00

women don't attract men. their effort is not for a particular man. women do all that shit to appear younger. young women don't have body hairs, young women have colorful skin without blotches, young women have a smaller head so their eyes seems bigger. look up neoteny, humans have selected female partners that look younger, more childish. and because the body makes the mind women have become childish in behavior as well. it's the same in nature. the male peacock will try and fuck the female that looks the youngest while still being fertile. basically we're fucked by having fertile periods every month. life would be MUCH easier if women bled just twice a year.

men are the ones courting. they don't just look good, they actively seek their partner and show off their assets: money, health.

inspiron3000 · 2016-10-10T13:00:50+00:00

It depends on the mating strategy of the species.
Some species have dull males, other dull females.

For some species, the male has to do all the work to impress the female with song, dance and appearance. In other species, the males fight each other, and the female have no say in mating.

Check out the Wodaabe.

blue_magoo_62 · 2016-10-10T13:20:55+00:00

its a bit of both i guess. but i see women paint themselves up to determine how much of a song-and-dance they can get out of a man.

its still the man who has to be evaluated and have enough good genes or resources to impress.

but what if magic paint could take stacey, naturally a 6 in the looks department, and elevate her a whole two grades higher. Hundreds of angled, filtered and edited pictures could be shared online with potential mates and used to create a mini-brand that she can cultivate and maintain. that might produce a whole other point in desirability.

now stacey thinks shes a 9. its time for her to get the 10 she deserves. all the 10s can now line up for evaluation.

sir_wankalot_here · 2016-10-10T13:23:07+00:00

If female animals could make themselves look younger they would.

2016-10-10T14:57:46+00:00

Richard Dawkins is a smart dude but he's wrong here. It's still males that do the attracting. Males are honestly the beautiful gender when it comes to humans. Women are bland/drab. The difference is female humans are smarter and not only manipulate men with their makeup, but also make them think they're the ones doing the choosing. The truth is, if every man woke the fuck up right now and stopped worshipping the pussy, girls would be flocking to our nests. Human females are no different than their animal counterparts, cunningness and awareness notwithstanding. I'm tired as fuck right now so I don't even know if I'm making sense but you probably get what I'm tryna say.

User-31f64a4e · 2016-10-10T15:40:36+00:00

He's a biologist, not a PUA or red-pill expert. He may not be an expert on the nature and role of approach, courtship and selection - or he may have said this in some context where it made more sense.

As with all animals, males will be interested in many, many females. As with other species, it is the woman who is the decider. She picks among the suitors. Whomever she is attracted to gets the golden vagina.

Women doing things to be attractive is both to signal status to other females, to signal what sort of man is appropriate, and to say "game on boys, now compete."

So "attracts" men only to the extent that she advertises her presence, then the men must then compete to attract her.

Zombocom1911 · 2016-10-10T15:53:35+00:00

Explains why women are totally passive/submissive during seducing and charming and courtship.

New_Banana_Republic · 2016-10-10T15:56:01+00:00

Women have less genetic variability than men. Men have to be more skilled. Sure, women paint themselves, but they already have inherent value despite that.

angryomlette · 2016-10-10T17:02:33+00:00

Men do have the equivalent of tail feathers, which is musculature, confidence and other qualities associated with manliness. That is why TRP instructs to hit the gym, work on self confidence and other stuffs.

Playstation_5 · 2016-10-10T21:54:36+00:00

Financial: women will buy any old crap and pay way over the odds too. Every few years some company tries to bring out 'mens makeup' and it flops. No guy is going to pay money for eyeliner etc when it is not needed. No guy thinks 'I know, I'll look a lot better if I fake tan before I go out". Well, most don't!

BruceJennerTesticles · 2016-10-11T13:29:46+00:00

The thing you need to comprehend about Dawkins is that... For all his (overly hyped, much vaunted) "reputation" as being knowledgeable and intellectual, etc.

The man is fundamentally IGNORANT of a huge amount of human knowledge; most importantly he knows almost nothing about virtually ALL of human history. Worse, what little he does (ostensibly) "know" is extremely superficial, was heavily "skewed/biased" both in terms of his instructors as well as subsequently "distorted" by his own heavily biased "ideological blinders."

Generally speaking he is the epitome of an "educated [sic] idiot" -- the kind that expounds on things he has not only no expertise in, but not even a rudimentary knowledge about.

In this particular instance, the prime failure is -- or OUGHT to be obvious -- the failure to differentiate between BIRDS and MAMMALS; but alas the perspective that Dawkins views things from actually BLIND him to that.

Rather humorously, on this (and probably many other things as well) one could learn more from a (so called) "nonsense" work, than one will from Dawkins, to wit:

Distinguishing those that have feathers, and bite;
From those that have whiskers, and scratch.

LOL

Roelor · 2016-10-11T13:47:59+00:00

Conditioning. We are made to believe that the female is the one that needs to do the attracting, but we all know, that's not true. We all know that men need to show perceived added value in order to be accepted as a potential.(Be strong, be big, have a good job, be dominant) it's the same birds do. So nothing is different, the ladies just pretend to be the desirable ones, eventhough I don't know many men that want to reproduce necessarily, its the women who start desiring kids and get desperate.

squeezeonein · 2016-10-12T00:06:05+00:00

It wasn't always like this in the west, only lately when feminism took hold. Back in the 1800's among the wealthy a woman was seen as a burden on a man so the womans family had to pay a dowry to the man in exchange for marriage.

Unmarried women didn't have money for fine clothes or makeup, it was only when they married that they would dress high class. The men wore gaudy outfits like waistcoats and leather boots which is all just advertising their high smv.

Clothing doesn't indicate a sexual preference any more than wearing a kilt makes you like wearing dresses. It depends on the sexual marketplace and what you do to stand out. Here's a photo of buffalo bill, as manly as they come in his day wearing long leather boots that you would only see at a gay pride rally nowadays.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:William_Notman_studios_-_Sitting_Bull_and_Buffalo_Bill_(1895)_edit.jpg

Title	Something Richard Dawkins said about women
Author	MaunaLoona
Upvotes	20
Comments	34
Date	October 10, 2016 12:00 PM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MGTOW
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MGTOW/comments/56rluo/something_richard_dawkins_said_about_women/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MGTOW/something-richard-dawkins-said-about-women.618306 https://theredarchive.com/post/618306

Comments