The evolution of female over-valuation

The post is going to take you way back, to when we were wandering hunter/gathers.  I believe a lot of the sexual problems we face in this day and age is because realities from our history are not allowed to exist.

Let us start with the most basic: men are stronger than women.  It is unbelievable how many women deny this, or try to make some sort of illogical fallacy of ‘well suzy is stronger than frank, therefore men are not stronger than women’.  This is a biological reality that men are stronger, we have larger frames, more muscle tone, larger lung capacity, we have typically 30% or more blood volume etc, we are designed to fight and take a beating and keep living.

Men are therefore more physical, when a dangerous job like hunting is needed, you will use your better assets to prevail, thus men will be called for this task.

Women were valuable in that they had the kids, you do not sack this resource casually, so for this reason women had value to tribes.  However, and this is a big point, do you think back then women had choice as to who they liked or wanted to be with?  I am not saying this was fair or anything, simply the way it was, the male leader would impregnate the hottest/most desirable girls.  (Which led to female hypergamy, but thats a different topic).

Therefore, there was a balance of sorts, women were valuable for this child capacity, but the  ‘choice’ lay with the males.  Also consider wandering lone wolfs, a male alone stands a much better chance than an alone female.  Thus to be exiled as a female is much more deleterious to one’s genes than a male would be.  Going along with this, men had a cusion of sorts, because they could demand things of a women, and she had to capitulate otherwise she would be left and likely die.  So there was a balance that women did not have choice, but were protected members of the tribe.

Now, because all roles the male once filled (provider, food, shelter, protection, fighter etc) are now filled by society women now do not fear using their ‘choice’ which they historically rarely had.  Women have always retained reproduction value, but it was the survival value the male had that kept it even, perhaps skewed towards the male.  Now, there is nothing on the male side, and females value naturally outweighs the men now.

Think about rejection.  We are told to just ‘suck it up’ but from a evolutionary perspective, rejection was potentially death, as it is potentially equivalent to be exiled and forced to live on your own.  My own hypothesis is that typically girls did not ever have choice and were either consenting, or just raped.  So for modern day girls to have ‘choice’ is an evolutionary abnormality.  I have talked about this before, but even the practice of giving daughters away in marriage is similar.  Do not automatically discount this as is it a sign of ethnocentrism, (and like we are really the most enlightened fucking time period of human history…)

It is no wonder guys are fucked up and girls are running the show, guys have very little marginal utility to girls, (quick aside, I once had a feminist try to deride me for using the term ‘girls’ instead of women…wtf?) whereas girls for the most part have retained their utility.

So…this leads to the prediction that holds in reality that things that would decrease female utility would be looked down upon (as sex is their primary value) : porn, prostitution, sexbots etc.

Remember, a lot of our modern day problems are because we are so fucked up and far away from our evolutionary heritage, and by looking at that you can predict where we are at today.  No male role needed = chump guys.  Females value unrivaled = females ruling guys lives.

I have said it before, I will say it again, in the event of a major crisis/collapse (which is only a matter of time with this house of cards) so called ‘feminist’ ideals will evaporate, and females will once again desire and placate to ‘strong’ men.

Badass tribal girl, yeah I'd hit that for sure

Badass tribal girl, yeah I’d hit that for sure

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “The evolution of female over-valuation

  1. Of course men in general are stronger than women in general. Not many would argue that point, unless someone was saying that all men are stronger than all women…*that’s* definitely a falsehood.

    Your information is a little out of date though. Women weren’t just valuable for their childbearing capabilities (though obviously there is that). Modern anthropologists have found that while yes, the vast majority of big game hunting was done by able/of age menfolk, the women back at home also did their fair share of work. Small game hunting, gathering of tubers/grains/fruits/fungi, tending to the fires, weapon crafting, creating the clothing, caring for the young/sick/elderly, and raising of children were performed mostly by women.

    The gathering of the plant foods was of particular importance, as the big game hunters didn’t always have something to bring home. Judging by how ancient bones/teeth were worn down, many anthropologists believe that our paleolithic diets relied more heavily on roughage than meats…guess they will have to find a new name for the “paleo” diet, lol.

  2. Oh, and if you consistently refer to adult females as “girls” it can be misconstrued as thinking of them as inferior or childlike. Typically, girls are females under the age of 18, same as how boys are males under the age of 18. You yourself would probably be at least a little upset if people constantly called you a “boy” instead of a man…thus, many women get upset at being called “girls”. This goes double if it’s a stranger, or if there is absolutely no way you could be confused for a teenager.

    For example, I didn’t used to mind being called a girl when I was young, but now that I’m nearly 30, it shows a lack of respect. After all, you wouldn’t call a 30 yr old male “boy”, right? 😛

  3. Hmm, interesting. I think you may be right, in that women have been more dependent on men for survival historically, but I disagree about the lack of reproductive choice for women. Even if you rape and impregnate a woman, you cannot force her to bring up your child to be functional human being itself. The point of reproduction in a tribe is to produce more useful members of that tribe, but an unwilling mother is capable of infanticide, abuse, abandonment, and deliberate mis-rearing (for example teaching an unwanted child that poisonous foods are edible). Where the limited choice lies for a woman is in the productive capabilities of a man – she cannot afford to bear the children of someone who cannot provide for both her and the offspring. As far as I can see that is where hypergamy arises, not from a hierarchical power structure where the leader rapes everybody.

  4. Infanticide was common in various tribes of the ancient world.

    Also, a lot of primitive human sexual behaviors were probably shaped before human-ancestors were even hominids.

    The human emotional system greatly resembles that of a rat. When the dinosaurs were dying out, the only mammals were little rat-like things, not hominids.

    Humans probably have evolutionary baggage that is older than humanity!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s