I’d like to say I’m surprised…
I’d like to say I’m surprised…
I rarely give financial advice. You know this.
There’s a thing going round the desperate about Amazon penny stocks, don’t do it.
I don’t want to see any of my readers scammed.
Normally, I’d turn a blind eye but they trust Amazon for some reason and it’s intended to snag people who think they’re too smart to buy Apple. Problem is, you have no friends in this industry. I do.
I would rather buy seeds.
This was literally in Wolf of Wall Street as a massive con.
They’re lying to you.
I say this because I care.
With any stock tips, it’s 99% BS or 1% illegal.
Mostly correct but I must point out the hypergamy thing is bullshit. Hypergamy is based on a higher social status of (in the manosphere) men that women try to borrow or steal. This tries to argue it’s still hypergamy when women have the high social value. WTF? That makes the opposite of sense.
Hypergamy is a social science concept based in social status. It isn’t sexual. It isn’t genetic. Please stop.
It’s like the manosphere is doing a version of that feminist thing where they keep adding to the definition of rape when it suits them. Please stop and use another word for that thing.
I won’t leave you without explanation for replacement.
Babies are parasites to the mother’s body. Baby boys are worse. They are an immunological risk. The mother already suffers microchimerism of the brain and other safeguards are in place to prevent further damage or the reverse, miscarrying/naturally aborting all males to protect the mother fully, which would effectively kill off the species.
It’s a balancing act.
Stop trying to find a winner.
Quick lesson on evolution:
The Y chromosome is younger. Look it up (see n.b.). The Bible is wrong. Women came first. We were self-fertilizing (parthenogenesis) as a simpler asexual species. Much later, we became sexually reproductive as a species, diverging into a sexually dimorphic male and female, because it allowed for a greater genetic diversity and vigour (see: all sex differences) as a whole developed species allowing for faster evolution although it produces differing traits in each sex (specialization) for optimum results.
From wikipedia as a starting point;
By definition, it is not necessary that the Y-MRCA and the mt-MRCA should have lived at the same time, even though current (as of 2014) estimates suggest the possibility that the two individuals may well have been roughly contemporaneous (albeit with uncertainties ranging in the tens of thousands of years).
The idea of man coming first doesn’t make any sense, you can tell the Bible was written by bloody men trying to justify why their wives should never defy them and how God was totally a man (even the angels were sexless). The first sex would need to bear children without the divine plan for another, good luck with that guys!
Male is the sex surplus to reproductive requirement.
The desert island situation requires women or invites death.
You can still harvest sperm from a dead man.
I love the hamstering here from a man;
Quote: “It’s interesting that many human cultures place such high value on the male.”
“Yes, I think this is a product of patriarchy. In a sense that is ironic because patriarchy evolves to gain complete control of female reproduction (monopolizing a scarce resource).”
First off, female reproduction is not “scarce.” It is everywhere!
Once every 9 months versus once every five minutes. Fuck you.
“Patriarchy” is an attempt to equalize the reproductive process between males and females. It is an attempt to take those useless males and make them productive by attaching them to the reproductive process, of which they are normally rejected from. In fact, in all of nature, the only species which tries to equalize the reproduction of the male and female is the human species.
The weak men offer the comforts of civilization in return for female dependence.
You can’t square a circle. It’s a social construct, it doesn’t change the biological reality.
This pair bonding brought the males into directly provisioning benefits for both the female and the offspring she (and he) produced. Pair bonding between the male and female stopped the tendency of males to “duff each other up” and rather, enticed them to co-operate with each other by bringing them directly into the reproductive process. You can see that this process endorses the views of Robert Briffault, quoted above, who declares that males must bring a benefit to the female in order for her to associate and reproduce with him.
The rest is r/K being squished into a bullshit male/female frame.
As for Amazonian women, they existed pre-civilization.
Men provide civilization and build the home, women keep it and fill it.
Fair exchange, I think.
In the beginning, the duality of sexuality (male and female gender roles) is used to overcome environmental adversity and as the adversity disappears, so does sexual restraint and the need for gender roles… which causes the fall of the civilization and thus again creates the adversity which demands gender roles be enforced.
You need to read some Biohistory, man.
Woman holds the future card, a genetic future, men build it, the cradle.