Working hypothesis

[Anonymous 24]

I have this hypothesis and it goes something like this-

1) The Female of a species dictates the behavior of said species. They select which genes get passed on via selection of their mates.

2) Males compete and try to be whatever it is that will get them a chance to mate and pass on their genetic material.

3) The power to changing a species therefore is in the hands of the Females.

4) Males are just tools along for the ride in the journey of mankind that is shaped by the Females.

Summation- If women rewarded kind, humanitarian types with the chance to pass on their genetics and shunned the dominant asshole alpha male types the world would change on a dime. This would especially work if it were the hottest women doing this, the world would literally change in an instant. No longer would having money or being the High School football star get you laid, but being a good person would.

Conclusion- This will never happen as we are animals. Women cannot change their nature anymore than a leopard can change his/her spots. We are in a paradigm that is eternally broken, and only through the curse of our intellect can we see what is possible, yet eternally unattainable.

Insight- These very facts are the reasons why Feminism/Girl Power is on the rise. Corporations understand this paradigm and cater to the ones in control, the ones who drive the market, the ones that the Manginas and White Knights serve.

[Anonymous 18]

I’d say women don’t ‘choose’ mates. They choose to get bad boy c~~~. They resort to settling with their husbands.

Gene propagation is fancy theory. But humans are too intelligent for that. Self preservation >>>> adding DNA to gene pool.

Evolution is overrated.

And if it were not then how does one explain that a simple philosophy like MGTOW seem to have butt f~~~ed few millions of years of evolution?

It will stop ovulating.

And no we didn’t ask for consent.

[RoyDalParticipant]

I agree with JoeBauers’ in general. I think hypergamy is too widespread to be anything else than a genetic trait.

Anonymous wrote:

And if it were not then how does one explain that a simple philosophy like MGTOW seem to have butt f~~~ed few millions of years of evolution?

Every culture throughout history (those that I’ve paid attention to) has had confirmed bachelors. That’s me in this culture.

Edit: the book Date-onomics http://jonbirger.com/date-onomics/ analyzes this behavior from a purely economic standpoint, and without invoking genetic traits. The outcome is the same. Women behave like they do because there is a “shortage” of men they are willing to marry.

Society asks MGTOWs: Why are you not making more tax-slaves?

[ILiveAgainParticipant]

All this changes with what society is going through.

We are all very comfortable at the moment …. so women get to play house.

History shows when this happens and a society is female dominated …. then the fall is not far off. Normally via a male dominated society.

During times of war ….. women do what women do … they know to shut the fk up and do what they’re told. Another form of preservation.

So it swaps and changes with good and bad times.

However, all their soft living and constant bitching has caught up …. because they didn’t know when to stop this time.

Now when war comes …. they’re going to be on the front lines, being shot down, drowned, burned and torn apart.

Maybe then … if we survive … will women once again think about what society should be about ….

One way or another there is a real fk of a rebalance on the way …. and it’s gonna hurt everyone. Some more than others.

[RoyDalParticipant]

ILiveAgain wrote:

We are all very comfortable at the moment …. so women get to play house.

Comfort is like an air mattress on a camping trip: There is really nothing in it.

Society asks MGTOWs: Why are you not making more tax-slaves?

[Blue SkiesParticipant 15665]

Anonymous wrote:

Summation- If women rewarded kind, humanitarian types with the chance to pass on their genetics and shunned the dominant asshole alpha male types the world would change on a dime.

males do the same thing by selecting the most beautiful women to have sex with. men would rather beauty than kindness in most cases.

it works both ways doesn’t it? women select who they think is the best men, and vice versa.

MGTOW is not a movement, it is a way of life.

[Jan SobieskiParticipant 28791]

I agree with Joe.

Love is just alimony waiting to happen. Visit mgtow.com.

[hmskl’dParticipant 6406]

During the coal fired industrial revolution, random genetic mutation followed by natural selection was enough to change the color of the moths in parts of Europe.. Those who were darker hid against the soot covered tree bark and thus, were more camouflaged against predators. These surviving moths then reproduced. The original light colored moths were easier prey and were picked off by the birds. This was the exact opposite of the way it went earlier in history when the trees had lighter colored bark.
I have always held out the hope that through the scientifically proven process of random genetic mutation followed by natural selection; a more nawalt line of women could similarly emerge. I’m not holding my breath, but following hard core biological principals and given enough time, it is theoretically possible that this phenomenon could occur in future generations .. just as the moths changed their color over a century ago.

[Anonymous 24]

Blue Skies wrote:

JoeBauers wrote:

Summation- If women rewarded kind, humanitarian types with the chance to pass on their genetics and shunned the dominant asshole alpha male types the world would change on a dime.

males do the same thing by selecting the most beautiful women to have sex with. men would rather beauty than kindness in most cases.

it works both ways doesn’t it? women select who they think is the best men, and vice versa.

The difference being that males typically do not reward females that dominate and are in positions of power gained through war, cronyism, or greed. Males seek young, healthy females that will produce healthy offspring. Also, I would even go so far as to say that in general men seek nurturing qualities where as women seek destructive qualities.

[Elric GreenstoneParticipant 1637]

ILiveAgain wrote:

History shows when this happens and a society is female dominated …. then the fall is not far off. Normally via a male dominated society.

Every time. No society or civilization survives this. Sometimes the fall is external; sometimes it’s internal. But it ends, quickly.

First wave feminism ended with WWI: a pointless war with quite predictable results. I often wonder how much feminism actually led to the war occurring.

Second wave feminism ended with WWII: an avoidable war that no one bothered to avoid. A stylistic sense of the “refugee” “crisis” we’re dealing with now. Totally avoidable, no one could be bothered to deal with it.

Historically, female equality leads to the total collapse of a society and/or civilization within two generations. There have never, ever, to the best of my knowledge, been any exceptions. Flame-outs like WWI and WWII can occur to delay the inevitable and allow a chance for reset, but collapse is inevitable if the trend continues.

We’re headed for so many catastrophes converging at once that I don’t have a clear sense of how this one is going to play out. I continue to believe that many things are simply in flux right now, and that there are a number of possible endings to this society. At the end, women are going to be put back in their cage. . . but what a terrible cost will be paid.

"You can either love women, or understand women. You can't do both. Because once you understand women, you realize that there is really nothing to love."

[Anonymous 18]

hmskl’d wrote:

I have always held out the hope that through the scientifically proven process of random genetic mutation followed by natural selection; a more nawalt line of women could similarly emerge

Natural selection dictates resource extraction and discarding the male after kids. And it’s what we see.

Any advantage along the lines of mutations would be a woman that can extract resources from multiple men, bear children from each and enjoy amassing wealth from redistribution through family courts. Not a nawalt. But a superc~~~.

Besides nothing in society as far as women are concerned is set up to reward a woman who wants to be with and love one man. She quickly learns of the pecking order from other females.

[Anonymous 24]

I just had a thought. It can explain why women like bad boys and providers/wealthy men at the same time. I think it may have to do with the hunter gatherer days that then changed due to agriculture and the ability to stock wealth (food) and then of course monetary wealth. This would apply and be part of the female “programing” in that they would want the alpha male physical type (High School football star) and the established, wealthy and or powerful guy all at once. (ideally all of the above) It is years of evolution that they can’t get away from. Long ago they selected males much like we select females, in that it was more about the physical. I think that with the end of the hunter gatherer era this changed. The primal instincts did not change, but the men who had power and wealth became the other alpha male…

I will re-work this hypothesis and re-post it in the next few days.

Thanks for the feedback, keep it coming.

[Random GuyParticipant 8]

I just had a thought. It can explain why women like bad boys and providers/wealthy men at the same time. I think it may have to do with the hunter gatherer days that then changed due to agriculture and the ability to stock wealth (food) and then of course monetary wealth. This would apply and be part of the female “programing” in that they would want the alpha male physical type (High School football star) and the established, wealthy and or powerful guy all at once. (ideally all of the above) It is years of evolution that they can’t get away from. Long ago they selected males much like we select females, in that it was more about the physical. I think that with the end of the hunter gatherer era this changed. The primal instincts did not change, but the men who had power and wealth became the other alpha male…

Imo, that is mostly likely exactly what happened. It’s extremely difficult to overcome genetic programming. The difference I see with MGTOW is men are at least trying to do so. With varying degrees of success. But women are not, and I find it extremely hard to think under what set of circumstances women ever would even try to overcome their genetic programming. I suppose something like a return to women having no say in laws combined with an increase in technology to the point that artificial wombs become viable would accomplish it. A marginalization within society and a direct threat to their very reason for existence as females might accomplish such a transformation.

Men have always gotten the short end of the male/female relationship stick. For most of history the males at least got something out of the equation. But since we no longer do, men are finding it to their advantage to overcome their genetic programming. Unless something truly drastic happens, women never will. It’s in their interest to keep their genetic programming intact. Because it directly benefits them.

[RusskyParticipant 13503]

Joe, you must have been listening this latest TFM video in the background, because he’s talking about the same thing

proud carrier of the 'why?' chromosome

[Author]

Posts