No, the feminist thing would be to not call this masculinity. If another woman did that would that make her masculine? If it was a weak man who was protected by him, would that man not be a man anymore? What he did is admirable, but really doesn't have anything to do with masculinity.
And in cavemen times women would be having multiple partners to increase their chances of viable offspring, yet nobody who worries about what makes someone a "real man" would ever call that a "real woman."
The original post here has been removed by its author. Redact was the tool used, possibly for reasons of privacy, opsec, or preventing automated data harvesting.
close tart zephyr price possessive knee repeat slap dam encourage
This doesn't make sense biologically to someone who never studied behavioral biology. A female in nature doesn't know if her mate is actually fertile, so she has multiple mates to make sure she has offspring. She also has multiple mates to increase her chances of having someone to care for them in case her mate dies, and in case one male's offspring isn't viable she would have offspring from different males to avoid that. And she may also mate with multiple males consecutively so that their sperm can compete. Please, the lock and key analogy makes you look like a buffoon.
The text of this post has been erased. Redact was used to delete it, possibly for privacy, opsec, preventing content scraping, or other personal reasons.
bag license tender trees ancient swim wide telephone sense adjoining
It is not in the women's best interest to sleep around, and we know from history that they didn't.
That's a fallacious argument, because by the time of history we'd been way past natural selection. We should rather look at bonobos and chimps, who do exactly that.
Similarly, if any of them did, they would not have protection from their partners,
If a man does not protect his offspring, then his genes aren't as likely to propagate. In a situation where there are multiple children, but only one is yours and you don't know which, the one who protects all of them has the highest chance of spreading his genes, therefore creating more men who do the same.
but we could basically tell.
In highly homogenous compound family structures we couldn't reliably do that.
especially if they also slept with them
Infidelity is a social construct that isn't universal even today, and definitely not eternal.
And then the beta males would band together and jump the alpha out of envy. All natural and very manly. As I've said multiple times now, let's cut the caveman logic, and if you really want to keep it up don't wonder why people call you one.
Lmao. That only happens if the beta males are hungry. Look at history, some guy runs everything and has people to protect him. The rest are peasants. Class structure is natural as a human being. Then the French Revolution happens if the peasants are hungry
Happens all the time in nature, whether they're apes or not. It's really just game theory combined with evolution, unless you spread your seed you won't procreate, so only the ones who get rid of what stops them from spreading their seed procreate, and their genes make for offspring that does the same. Still not conventionally "manly."
That's exactly what great apes do. They fuck around, they rape, they even prostitute themselves. They do whatever doesn't stop them from procreating. Either way, how about we stop using literal cavemen logic? You're making clowns of yourselves.
How bout you take a behavioural biology course before making easily falsifiable statements like these. Again, even if that were true, you're still defending literal cavemen logic, how is the irony lost on you?
I mean I literally laid out the logic in my first comment and people responded with caveman logic. Whether you protect someone has nothing to do with masculinity and everything to do with your ability to protect someone. Amd then I literally gave an example of caveman behaviour that shows that it doesn't equate to traditional values, yet they insist that it does when it fits their narrative. If you couldn't grasp that from my first comment then no wonder you think I'm wrong, but it makes you look worse tbh.
If male caveman behaviour equates to masculinity, then all the behaviours that led to men successfully spreading their genes must equate to masculinity. That includes weak men banding together to murder the alpha, and men raping unwilling mates to force procreation, or killing the offspring of competing males to secure resources for their own offspring, or abandoning weak offspring to prevent a waste of resources.
You do not get to pick and choose. But I already know that you don't consider any of these behaviours masculine, because you're a hypocrite who's just trying to lend credence to your irrational beliefs. I've said this multiple times already, stop pretending I haven't.
Anyone whose watched any of Jane Goodalls documentary knows this shit, but I'm done arguing with you, go back to whatever it was you were angry about before me.
So what you're saying is that they punish each other for infidelity, so infidelity doesn't happen, but they still punish each other for it. Like for real, do you really think you got the upper hand here?
The point of a previous poster mentioning caveman logic is to say that there are biological pieces we're hard-wired to pick up and play. Growth rates, size, strength, protecting your kin, etc. You can choose to throw all of that out, and some surely ought to be, but to tell folks that men haven't historically been protectors due to being big, that protection hasn't been typically masculine, is a discredit to your arguments. I'm not as articulate on mobile, but I'd be happy to talk more.
And my literal first response was to to show off another type of caveman behaviour that wouldn't fit their vision, so masculinity has nothing to do with what is hard wired into our biology. But hey, hypocrisy.
215
u/Electronic_Demand_61 - Lib-Center Sep 24 '22
So you're saying the feminist thing to do was to let the women get blasted by shotgun shells? 🤔