全 4 件のコメント

[–]yonderposerbreaks 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

This article was actually really interesting. From what we can hypothesize, men and women had sexual equality within hunter-gatherer groups. From what the study in the article suggests, it may have been the rise of agriculture that attributed to the "inequality" and therefore competition of society.

Just playing Devil's advocate here...society seemed to function well when both men and women had free choice sexually, meaning equality, at least from what we can guess.

[–]Sawagurumi 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

This article

You link just goes to the Science section in general, rather than a specific article. Could you make an archive perhaps? Also bear in mind this is the Guardian, hardly unbiased when it comes to sexual politics (as we ourselves saw recently).

However, there is much in what you say anyway. My understanding, and I think this was also in The Empress is Naked by Adam Leonas (reviewed some while back in this sub, and I would recommend it), is that we are not naturally monogamous. Back in prehistory, people probably didn't even know the connection between sex and children, and if they did there was the classic problem of paternity uncertainty. But it didn't matter, because children were brought up by the village, not a nuclear family. Without the need for specific male resource investment (hunters in a village generally share their kills with the village) there was no need to lock down a beta bux. Instead, women were free to follow a AF strategy (men skilled in hunting and other crafts got more access).

This works well in small, close-knit hunter-gatherer societies relying on uncertain but not scarce resources -remember, hunter-gatherer societies today have generally been driven into marginal habitats but originally occupied rich ones.

However, once agriculture came about, and the ability to make a surplus (in the form of grain stores originally) that could be defended, the 'seeds' of civilization were planted.

The problem then is that even though the alphas rose to the top and could command lots of resources, and in turn get lots of females, society could not progress without the willing efforts of all the beta males, and so females were essentially shared out via monogamy and religious strictures. This isn't perfect for anyone (although betas gain the most, perhaps) but it does mean that societies could develop further, which lead to richer societies, which does benefit everyone.

(Hopefully, someone who knows more about archaeology can chime in and correct any misunderstandings above, it isn't my area).

I have speculated elsewhere that with the advent of machines, and the great wealth that the industrial revolution brought us, whether this allows us to adopt more of the ancestral mating strategy, with the task of raising children once more spread across the 'village' (ie State) and thus once more favouring a looser form or sexual relations (which favours alphas). However, the increasing number of men dropping out of society, the Herbivores in Japan, etc, suggests not. If too many men drop out, society still flounders.

[–]Il128 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

What if you just said, "If it wasn't for pussy, we'd hunt women for sport."

[–]Endorsed ContributorNeoreactionSafe -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

 

False

The model of the globalist "One World Government" is to have a very small number of elites who own Trillions in wealth (the elites number only in the thousands) and have power over all the rest of us.

The Blue Pill is the emotional indoctrination that creates a world of beta slaves who serve this globalist vision.

Beta men, slutty women... this is essentially equality as slaves.

So equality is possible if everyone is a slave.

(except for those few globalist elites as rulers of course)