Reply to What feminists don't understand about men

Forum Index » Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)

Reply to "What feminists don't understand about men"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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.[/quote]

Nature can gamble on men because sperm is expendable. Eggs are more valuable. [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics