What feminists don't understand about men

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sadly (although much to my own amusement) I have read a lot of stuff from the sad Red Pillers. And everything OP said is straight from it. Absolutely nothing original, just regurgitated MRA BS. No wonder those communities are the laughingstocks of the internet

Men are feeling alienated for various reasons. MRA/Red Pillers give them the community they are craving while filling their heads with a bunch of toxic bullshit. Similar to gangs, the Klan, cults, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many women have been great composers? Theoretical physicists? Philosophers? Moon astronauts? Possibly some, but not very many.

Similarly, how many women smoke PCP? Drink mouthwash? Piss themselves while nodding off on junk on a park bench? Not none, but not near as much as men.

This is OP's point.

Nature can gamble on men because sperm is expendable. Eggs are more valuable.

NP. I think you're being sarcastic. but the real explanation probably lies in the greater genetic diversity that exists within the male side of the species. With greater diversity, you would expect a wider set of outcomes, especially at the tails of the distribution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many women have been great composers? Theoretical physicists? Philosophers? Moon astronauts? Possibly some, but not very many.

Similarly, how many women smoke PCP? Drink mouthwash? Piss themselves while nodding off on junk on a park bench? Not none, but not near as much as men.

This is OP's point.

Nature can gamble on men because sperm is expendable. Eggs are more valuable.

NP. I think you're being sarcastic. but the real explanation probably lies in the greater genetic diversity that exists within the male side of the species. With greater diversity, you would expect a wider set of outcomes, especially at the tails of the distribution.

Nope, I'm not being sarcastic. Nature obviously doesn't "care" in any real sense. But, to anthropomorphize for a second, the only thing that matters to nature is maximizing replication. With humans, nature has kind of a two-track system. Women are designed more conservatively - with less deviation from the mean in terms of behaviors. Men have a wider deviation, leading to more spectacular successes and more spectacular failures. The successes pave the way to new traits that are beneficial to the species. The failures don't reproduce. It's fine for men to die because, from nature's perspective, the successful men have more than enough sperm to keep the species viable. A woman's eggs are more of an investment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many women have been great composers? Theoretical physicists? Philosophers? Moon astronauts? Possibly some, but not very many.

Similarly, how many women smoke PCP? Drink mouthwash? Piss themselves while nodding off on junk on a park bench? Not none, but not near as much as men.

This is OP's point.

Nature can gamble on men because sperm is expendable. Eggs are more valuable.

NP. I think you're being sarcastic. but the real explanation probably lies in the greater genetic diversity that exists within the male side of the species. With greater diversity, you would expect a wider set of outcomes, especially at the tails of the distribution.

Nope, I'm not being sarcastic. Nature obviously doesn't "care" in any real sense. But, to anthropomorphize for a second, the only thing that matters to nature is maximizing replication. With humans, nature has kind of a two-track system. Women are designed more conservatively - with less deviation from the mean in terms of behaviors. Men have a wider deviation, leading to more spectacular successes and more spectacular failures. The successes pave the way to new traits that are beneficial to the species. The failures don't reproduce. It's fine for men to die because, from nature's perspective, the successful men have more than enough sperm to keep the species viable. A woman's eggs are more of an investment.

I once saw where Camille Paglia said this, or close to it. I do like her as feminists go. More fair and balanced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many women have been great composers? Theoretical physicists? Philosophers? Moon astronauts? Possibly some, but not very many.

Similarly, how many women smoke PCP? Drink mouthwash? Piss themselves while nodding off on junk on a park bench? Not none, but not near as much as men.

This is OP's point.

Nature can gamble on men because sperm is expendable. Eggs are more valuable.

NP. I think you're being sarcastic. but the real explanation probably lies in the greater genetic diversity that exists within the male side of the species. With greater diversity, you would expect a wider set of outcomes, especially at the tails of the distribution.

Nope, I'm not being sarcastic. Nature obviously doesn't "care" in any real sense. But, to anthropomorphize for a second, the only thing that matters to nature is maximizing replication. With humans, nature has kind of a two-track system. Women are designed more conservatively - with less deviation from the mean in terms of behaviors. Men have a wider deviation, leading to more spectacular successes and more spectacular failures. The successes pave the way to new traits that are beneficial to the species. The failures don't reproduce. It's fine for men to die because, from nature's perspective, the successful men have more than enough sperm to keep the species viable. A woman's eggs are more of an investment.

I think the point you're missing is that while eggs are relatively scare (raising their relative value), the sheer oversupply of eggs means they are fundamentally expendable also (i.e., no woman could ever carry every single one of her eggs to term). I think you're conflating two different concepts: relative value (relative scarcity) vs absolute value (expendable). What is not expendable to nature-at least with humans--is the fertilized egg.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many women have been great composers? Theoretical physicists? Philosophers? Moon astronauts? Possibly some, but not very many.

Similarly, how many women smoke PCP? Drink mouthwash? Piss themselves while nodding off on junk on a park bench? Not none, but not near as much as men.

This is OP's point.

Nature can gamble on men because sperm is expendable. Eggs are more valuable.

NP. I think you're being sarcastic. but the real explanation probably lies in the greater genetic diversity that exists within the male side of the species. With greater diversity, you would expect a wider set of outcomes, especially at the tails of the distribution.

Nope, I'm not being sarcastic. Nature obviously doesn't "care" in any real sense. But, to anthropomorphize for a second, the only thing that matters to nature is maximizing replication. With humans, nature has kind of a two-track system. Women are designed more conservatively - with less deviation from the mean in terms of behaviors. Men have a wider deviation, leading to more spectacular successes and more spectacular failures. The successes pave the way to new traits that are beneficial to the species. The failures don't reproduce. It's fine for men to die because, from nature's perspective, the successful men have more than enough sperm to keep the species viable. A woman's eggs are more of an investment.

I think the point you're missing is that while eggs are relatively scare (raising their relative value), the sheer oversupply of eggs means they are fundamentally expendable also (i.e., no woman could ever carry every single one of her eggs to term). I think you're conflating two different concepts: relative value (relative scarcity) vs absolute value (expendable). What is not expendable to nature-at least with humans--is the fertilized egg.

All right. Swap out "eggs" for "womb space," I guess. (Which just sounds creepy.)

[Anonymous]

Obviously you could repopulate the earth with just the bare minimum of males to ensure genetic diversity. You need wombs to make enough humans. Humans take a long time to gestate and even then, may or may not be born successfully or live very long for a variety of reasons. Wombs are more valuable, reproductively speaking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Obviously you could repopulate the earth with just the bare minimum of males to ensure genetic diversity. You need wombs to make enough humans. Humans take a long time to gestate and even then, may or may not be born successfully or live very long for a variety of reasons. Wombs are more valuable, reproductively speaking.

Since each man will be required to do prodigious...service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.

We must not allow a mine-shaft gap!