Would the world be more peaceful if there were more women leaders?

[Syne]

Luckily I don't sleep with misandrists c*nts.

Aww, poor guy.  Small sample size.  

Yeah, exactly the type of miserable misandrists who get off on trying to emasculate men. Keep trying though. It only demonstrates why more women aren't in power. Thinking you have to use ad hominems in lieu of competency is a problem.

Emasculating?  Sheer numbers are related to masculine traits, eh?  Maybe that’s why males are falling behind in higher education…peer pressure.  

Oh, so you weren't trying to imply that fewer sexual opportunities was a detriment? What did you mean by "aww, poor guy" then? Are you implying that guys are missing out by avoiding misandrist c*nts, or that they are such a large percentage of women that avoiding them necessarily means men have fewer sexual opportunities? While the latter is not true in my experience, I'll have to take your word about your neck of the woods or women you associate with.

---

Well, I’m sure that everyone would agree that behavior is a complex process.  Both nature and nurture, brain structure and function, multiple genes, chemical signaling, both neurotransmitters and hormones, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggression#Gender

And everyone seems to agree that men are more vulnerable to aggressive behavior, and that men have lower fear aversion, and greater risk taking behavior.

 

"It IS “Too Complicated”

This phrase is constantly used in sociological debates, in which both sides justify their claims by admitting that the problem at hand is “too complicated” to be explained or resolved by any theory. Actually, in a typical situation there is a claimer and a refuter. The refuter reminds the claimer that sociological problems are “too complicated” to be explained. Therefore, “your claim is too simple-minded and does not take into account all the complications.”" - http://skepticaleducator.org/why-sociolo...science/3/

[Yazata]

IMHO, the world would be more peaceful if there were more women leaders.

I'm not convinced that's true.

I think that when females get angry, they are at least as prone to behaving emotionally as males are. Except that females are less likely to do it with their fists, instead they use their mouths and the words they speak. I don't think that females are any better than males at cool analytical self-control in those situations. Perhaps worse. (There's more at stake for guys, who are more apt to get physically hurt.)

World leaders never settle things with fist fights. They speak words at decision making meetings and into phones.

So while I think that the idea of more women leaders might be desirable in fairness and equal opportunity terms, I don't think that it's likely to make the world an appreciably better and more peaceful place.

[Secular Sanity]

Let’s do a little recap, shall we?

Oh, goody!  For a minute there I thought that you might be in agreement with Goldberg that patriarchy was inevitable?

Because in reality, you never want to fall asleep next to someone that hates your fucking guts.

It may be inevitable. Luckily I don't sleep with misandrists c*nts.

Steven Goldberg is an American author and sociologist.

He concludes with the hypothesis that testosterone is a necessary condition for the development of the institutions he examined. In other words, without testosterone, the institutions would not develop.

Goldberg proposes that if patriarchy is indeed biologically based, it will prove to be inevitable; unless a society is willing to intervene biologically on the male physiology.

"The members of every society observe this and they can no more have expectations of an equal female "aggression" or competitiveness than could they have expectations of an equal female height. Societies' institutions conform to this observation. These institutions see males as "more aggressive" because males are more aggressive. Society determines what happens within the limits set by physiology, but it has no choice about whether the limits will be there (i.e., one society may treat women as they are treated in America and another as they are treated in Saudi Arabia, but no society can fail to manifest the institutions mentioned above.)"

And yes, Syne, in reality no one wants to sleep next to someone who hates their fucking guts. If you have too much power, you run the risk of being hated.  If you think that nature has shaped us, then understand that it has shaped all of us, men and women, by the will to power. Even things that appear contrary or unrelated to power, e.g. love, charity, self-sacrifice are in fact forms of power.  

Goldberg said male dominance behavior and female nurturant behavior are manifestations of physiological differences that set limits of possibility by engendering different male and female hierarchies of "motivation". Males tend to dominate precisely because their physiology makes it more important to them to do so. They are more strongly "motivated" to learn what is necessary and to do what is necessary (e.g., give up love, family, relaxation, etc.) to attain dominance than are females.

Do you agree with him?  Do you think that testosterone causes a man to give up love and family in order to attain dominance?

If so, why then do you risk your lives, if not for love and family?  Protection and competition or purely out of competition, aka power?

Oh, so you weren't trying to imply that fewer sexual opportunities was a detriment? What did you mean by "aww, poor guy" then?

Well, fewer sexual opportunities isn't detrimental for me, nor is it offensive, but I knew it would be to you.  Why is that?

Do you think that women are more prone to cave in to social control and culture norms concerning their sex lives simply because their sex drive isn’t as strong?

"It IS “Too Complicated”

This phrase is constantly used in sociological debates, in which both sides justify their claims by admitting that the problem at hand is “too complicated” to be explained or resolved by any theory. Actually, in a typical situation there is a claimer and a refuter. The refuter reminds the claimer that sociological problems are “too complicated” to be explained. Therefore, “your claim is too simple-minded and does not take into account all the complications.”" - http://skepticaleducator.org/why-sociolo...science/3/

Why do you keep mocking me with sociology when you’re the one that agreed with one and are continuing to use evolutionary psychology to back up your claim that male leadership may be natural? Evolutionary psychology is not really high up there on the totem pole, dearie.

Of Vice and Men - The fairy tales of evolutionary psychology

"…In science's pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics.

The latest deadweight dragging us closer to phrenology is "evolutionary psychology," or the science formerly known as sociobiology, which studies the evolutionary roots of human behavior. There is nothing inherently wrong with this enterprise, and it has proposed some intriguing theories, particularly about the evolution of language. The problem is that evolutionary psychology suffers from the scientific equivalent of megalomania. Most of its adherents are convinced that virtually every human action or feeling, including depression, homosexuality, religion, and consciousness, was put directly into our brains by natural selection. In this view, evolution becomes the key-- the only key--that can unlock our humanity.
Unfortunately, evolutionary psychologists routinely confuse theory and speculation. Unlike bones, behavior does not fossilize, and understanding its evolution often involves concocting stories that sound plausible but are hard to test. Depression, for example, is seen as a trait favored by natural selection to enable us to solve our problems by withdrawing, reflecting, and hence enhancing our future reproduction. Plausible? Maybe. Scientifically testable? Absolutely not. If evolutionary biology is a soft science, then evolutionary psychology is its flabby underbelly."

---

I think that when females get angry, they are at least as prone to behaving emotionally as males are. Except that females are less likely to do it with their fists, instead they use their mouths and the words they speak. I don't think that females are any better than males at cool analytical self-control in those situations. Perhaps worse. (There's more at stake for guys, who are more apt to get physically hurt.)

World leaders never settle things with fist fights. They speak words at decision making meetings and into phones.

So while I think that the idea of more women leaders might be desirable in fairness and equal opportunity terms, I don't think that it's likely to make the world an appreciably better and more peaceful place.

You don't think that females are able to control their tongue?  You don't think that throughout history that there was more at stake for females than males or that they were more apt to get physically hurt?

[Yazata]

You don't think that females are able to control their tongue?

I don't think that females are any better at self-control, at restraining themselves from lashing out at those who anger and frustrate them, than males are.

[Secular Sanity]

You don't think that females are able to control their tongue?

I don't think that females are any better at self-control, at restraining themselves from lashing out at those who anger and frustrate them, than males are.

I beg to differ.

Statistics have been consistent in reporting that men commit more criminal acts than women. Self-reported delinquent acts are also higher for men than women across many different actions. Burton, et al. (1998) found that low levels of self-control are associated with criminal activity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_crime

[Syne]

Let’s do a little recap, shall we?

Oh, goody!  For a minute there I thought that you might be in agreement with Goldberg that patriarchy was inevitable?

Because in reality, you never want to fall asleep next to someone that hates your fucking guts.

It may be inevitable. Luckily I don't sleep with misandrists c*nts.

Steven Goldberg is an American author and sociologist.

And? Like I said earlier, sociology tries to earn respectability by subsuming the work of more rigorous disciplines.

"Goldberg next provides expert witnesses from several disciplines regarding correlations between behaviour and the hormone testosterone, which are known to be causative in several cases, including dominance preference." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Inevit...y#Abstract

He concludes with the hypothesis that testosterone is a necessary condition for the development of the institutions he examined. In other words, without testosterone, the institutions would not develop.

Goldberg proposes that if patriarchy is indeed biologically based, it will prove to be inevitable; unless a society is willing to intervene biologically on the male physiology.

And? Even some of his critics largely agree:

"For example, women's dislike of female bosses is consistent with Goldberg's theory". Goldberg's "is the only theory that can explain some of the more inconvenient facts about women as well as men". "No other theory has been offered which can explain women's rejection of females in authority"." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Inevit...#Criticism

Why does that sound so familiar? Oh yeah, because it's exactly the evidence I offered earlier.

And yes, Syne, in reality no one wants to sleep next to someone who hates their fucking guts. If you have too much power, you run the risk of being hated.  If you think that nature has shaped us, then understand that it has shaped all of us, men and women, by the will to power. Even things that appear contrary or unrelated to power, e.g. love, charity, self-sacrifice are in fact forms of power.  

Yeah, some people are jealous little c*nts.

"Will to power"? Nietzsche would likely agree with you...just not how you think.


"Love is also a form of enrollment, according to Nietzsche, in that it is also a way in which one gains control over the other person, while at the same time appearing to be submissive. The way in which Nietzsche talks about love is also one of the many examples of his poor attitude toward women. We are already aware that Nietzsche sees sympathy and pity as weaknesses, but he also lumps love in with this assessment as well. He looks upon women as the epitome of these "weaknesses," and often refers to love and sympathy as "effeminate" virtues. Nietzsche attributes to women exclusively, it seems, this use of love as a cunning way to gain control of others. In §777, he expresses this idea that women have used love as a means to get control of their men:

   Love.--Look into it; women's love and sympathy--is there anything more egoistic?--And if they sacrifice themselves, their honor, their reputation, to whom do they sacrifice themselves? To the man? Or is it not rather to an unbridled urge?-- These desires are just as selfish even if they please others and implant gratitude--To what extent this sort of hyperfetation of one valuation can sanctify everything else!!

Nietzsche seems to display the attitude that women can find no other way to exert their will to power but by throwing themselves at men." - https://infidels.org/library/modern/trav...power.html

Goldberg said male dominance behavior and female nurturant behavior are manifestations of physiological differences that set limits of possibility by engendering different male and female hierarchies of "motivation". Males tend to dominate precisely because their physiology makes it more important to them to do so. They are more strongly "motivated" to learn what is necessary and to do what is necessary (e.g., give up love, family, relaxation, etc.) to attain dominance than are females.

Do you agree with him?  Do you think that testosterone causes a man to give up love and family in order to attain dominance?

If so, why then do you risk your lives, if not for love and family?  Protection and competition or purely out of competition, aka power?

The evolutionary psychology of men does predispose them to being more competitive, as evidence of hours worked and dedication to career relative to women in general demonstrates. Sacrifices are made, by men as well as career-minded women, but no, I don't think it causes them to give up these things wholesale. Men just tend to prioritize the means of providing, while women tend to prioritize nurturing. IMO, men just tend to prioritize the love languages of acts of service and giving gifts, while women tend to affirmation and quality time.

Oh, so you weren't trying to imply that fewer sexual opportunities was a detriment? What did you mean by "aww, poor guy" then?

Well, fewer sexual opportunities isn't detrimental for me, nor is it offensive, but I knew it would be to you.  Why is that?

This is basic evolution, deary. Evolutionary psychology prioritizes awareness of sexual opportunity in males due to female sexual selection. This is why males of many species have flamboyant colors, rituals, and dominance displays. But I assume you know that. Your seemingly presumption that women are largely misandrist c*nts, just tells us how you see yourself.  

Do you think that women are more prone to cave in to social control and culture norms concerning their sex lives simply because their sex drive isn’t as strong?

No, they rely on social cues, much like herd animals rely on danger cues. Like everything in evolutionary psychology, it's generally centered around survival.

"It IS “Too Complicated”

This phrase is constantly used in sociological debates, in which both sides justify their claims by admitting that the problem at hand is “too complicated” to be explained or resolved by any theory. Actually, in a typical situation there is a claimer and a refuter. The refuter reminds the claimer that sociological problems are “too complicated” to be explained. Therefore, “your claim is too simple-minded and does not take into account all the complications.”" - http://skepticaleducator.org/why-sociolo...science/3/

Why do you keep mocking me with sociology when you’re the one that agreed with one and are continuing to use evolutionary psychology to back up your claim that male leadership may be natural? Evolutionary psychology is not really high up there on the totem pole, dearie.

Of Vice and Men - The fairy tales of evolutionary psychology

"…In science's pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics.

The latest deadweight dragging us closer to phrenology is "evolutionary psychology," or the science formerly known as sociobiology, which studies the evolutionary roots of human behavior. There is nothing inherently wrong with this enterprise, and it has proposed some intriguing theories, particularly about the evolution of language. The problem is that evolutionary psychology suffers from the scientific equivalent of megalomania. Most of its adherents are convinced that virtually every human action or feeling, including depression, homosexuality, religion, and consciousness, was put directly into our brains by natural selection. In this view, evolution becomes the key-- the only key--that can unlock our humanity.
Unfortunately, evolutionary psychologists routinely confuse theory and speculation. Unlike bones, behavior does not fossilize, and understanding its evolution often involves concocting stories that sound plausible but are hard to test. Depression, for example, is seen as a trait favored by natural selection to enable us to solve our problems by withdrawing, reflecting, and hence enhancing our future reproduction. Plausible? Maybe. Scientifically testable? Absolutely not. If evolutionary biology is a soft science, then evolutionary psychology is its flabby underbelly."

LOL! As shown above, I don't agree wholesale with that sociologist. But neither am I deterred from agreeing with good points from anyone, in any field of study. I don't feel any social pressure or cognitive dissonance to distance myself just because I think a field is disreputable.

Neither do I think, as this exaggerated detractor seems to say, that ALL behavior is due to natural selection. I've argued many times that things like depression and homosexuality have largely contemporary causes. I'm quite aware that any field of behavior is a soft-science, but that doesn't make them 100% wrongheaded either.

Coyne's assumption that people equate evolutionary biology to evolutionary psychology is a straw man. I don't know of anyone who fails to appreciate the different degree of rigor in the two.

"But the public can be forgiven for thinking that evolutionary biology is equivalent to evolutionary psychology. Books by Daniel Dennett, E.O. Wilson, and Steven Pinker have sold briskly, and evolutionary psychology dominates the media coverage of the science of evolution." - https://business.highbeam.com/4776/artic...psychology

But if you deride evolutionary psychology so much, are you going to disavow everything from Dennett and Pinker? I seem to recall you quoting Pinker not too long ago. Or can you agree with people in a less rigorous field while not necessarily agreeing with their every assertion?

---

You don't think that females are able to control their tongue?

I don't think that females are any better at self-control, at restraining themselves from lashing out at those who anger and frustrate them, than males are.

I beg to differ.

Statistics have been consistent in reporting that men commit more criminal acts than women. Self-reported delinquent acts are also higher for men than women across many different actions. Burton, et al. (1998) found that low levels of self-control are associated with criminal activity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_crime

Yaz already told you that men and women express their aggression differently.

[Secular Sanity]

And? Even some of his critics largely agree:

"For example, women's dislike of female bosses is consistent with Goldberg's theory". Goldberg's "is the only theory that can explain some of the more inconvenient facts about women as well as men". "No other theory has been offered which can explain women's rejection of females in authority"." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Inevit...#Criticism

Why does that sound so familiar? Oh yeah, because it's exactly the evidence I offered earlier.

So, in other words, sociology is fine as long as it supports your position, or should I say, gender?

Yeah, some people are jealous little c*nts.

Wow!  I must have touched a little beta nerve.  

"Will to power"? Nietzsche would likely agree with you...just not how you think.

"Love is also a form of enrollment, according to Nietzsche, in that it is also a way in which one gains control over the other person, while at the same time appearing to be submissive. The way in which Nietzsche talks about love is also one of the many examples of his poor attitude toward women. We are already aware that Nietzsche sees sympathy and pity as weaknesses, but he also lumps love in with this assessment as well. He looks upon women as the epitome of these "weaknesses," and often refers to love and sympathy as "effeminate" virtues. Nietzsche attributes to women exclusively, it seems, this use of love as a cunning way to gain control of others. In §777, he expresses this idea that women have used love as a means to get control of their men:

   Love.--Look into it; women's love and sympathy--is there anything more egoistic?--And if they sacrifice themselves, their honor, their reputation, to whom do they sacrifice themselves? To the man? Or is it not rather to an unbridled urge?-- These desires are just as selfish even if they please others and implant gratitude--To what extent this sort of hyperfetation of one valuation can sanctify everything else!!

Nietzsche seems to display the attitude that women can find no other way to exert their will to power but by throwing themselves at men." - https://infidels.org/library/modern/trav...power.html

In Nietzsche’s time the only way that women could obtain status was through a man.  In order to be successful in love, he also counsels women to "simulate a lack of love" and to enact the roles that men find attractive. Nietzsche finds love comedic because it does not consist in some attempt to know the other deeply, but rather in the confirmation of male fantasies in which women perform their constructed gender roles.

"Now she loves him and looks ahead with quiet confidence - like a cow.  Alas, what bewitched him was precisely that she seemed utterly changeable and unfathomable.  Of steady weather he found too much in himself.  Wouldn't she do well to simulate her old character?  To simulate a lack of love?  Is this not the counsel of - love?  Vivat comoedia (Long live comedy!)."

"One must ignore human physiology and empirical observation in order to remain faithful to them: the notions of both God and woman allow the creative drive to impose itself with such force that men dismiss any competing information that might dislodge their idealism. The irony in this predicament is that a great number of men are completely unaware of the power that their passionate attachments have both on the formation of their values and on their interactions with the world. Thus men in love are, according to Nietzsche, delusional. Women, on the other hand, are actors: their greatest skills in love rely on appearance, artistry and the playing of the correct gender roles."

"It is not a lack of love, but a lack of friendship that makes unhappy marriages."—Nietzsche 

How could we be friends, if not your equal?

The evolutionary psychology of men does predispose them to being more competitive, as evidence of hours worked and dedication to career relative to women in general demonstrates. Sacrifices are made, by men as well as career-minded women, but no, I don't think it causes them to give up these things wholesale. Men just tend to prioritize the means of providing, while women tend to prioritize nurturing. IMO, men just tend to prioritize the love languages of acts of service and giving gifts, while women tend to affirmation and quality time.

How do you think that love evolved, Syne?  Did our enlarged brains extend the period of infant dependency?  Could love have evolved through the mother/infant relationship?  Do you think those chemicals could have been hijacked to create romantic love?

Your seemingly presumption that women are largely misandrist c*nts, just tells us how you see yourself.  

Well, I’m not the one saying that women are jealous, misandrist cunts, um...that would be you. 

Like everything in evolutionary psychology, it's generally centered around survival.

Uhh, no. It’s centered on reproduction. The survival of the genetic code is more important than the survival of an individual.

"Man is for woman a means: the purpose is always the child."—Nietzsche

In fact, from an evolutionary standpoint, making babies is the meaning of life.  

As shown above, I don't agree wholesale with that sociologist. But neither am I deterred from agreeing with good points from anyone, in any field of study. I don't feel any social pressure or cognitive dissonance to distance myself just because I think a field is disreputable.

Really?  Well, you could have fooled me.

Yaz already told you that men and women express their aggression differently.

Yeah, well, I don't think Yaz has seen all the compilations of law makers and politicians duking it out.  They're hilarious and from all parts of the world.  Men...

[Syne]

And? Even some of his critics largely agree:

"For example, women's dislike of female bosses is consistent with Goldberg's theory". Goldberg's "is the only theory that can explain some of the more inconvenient facts about women as well as men". "No other theory has been offered which can explain women's rejection of females in authority"." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Inevit...#Criticism

Why does that sound so familiar? Oh yeah, because it's exactly the evidence I offered earlier.

So, in other words, sociology is fine as long as it supports your position, or should I say, gender?

No, deary. It's fine so long as it fits the evidence and is supported by other disciplines. For instance, my original reference to women preferring male bosses only cited polls (which is sociology's only real methodology, all else being borrowed from other disciplines).

Yeah, some people are jealous little c*nts.

Wow!  I must have touched a little beta nerve.  

LOL! So you think betas have a problem with jealous people? Says a lot about you.

"Will to power"? Nietzsche would likely agree with you...just not how you think.

"Love is also a form of enrollment, according to Nietzsche, in that it is also a way in which one gains control over the other person, while at the same time appearing to be submissive. The way in which Nietzsche talks about love is also one of the many examples of his poor attitude toward women. We are already aware that Nietzsche sees sympathy and pity as weaknesses, but he also lumps love in with this assessment as well. He looks upon women as the epitome of these "weaknesses," and often refers to love and sympathy as "effeminate" virtues. Nietzsche attributes to women exclusively, it seems, this use of love as a cunning way to gain control of others. In §777, he expresses this idea that women have used love as a means to get control of their men:

   Love.--Look into it; women's love and sympathy--is there anything more egoistic?--And if they sacrifice themselves, their honor, their reputation, to whom do they sacrifice themselves? To the man? Or is it not rather to an unbridled urge?-- These desires are just as selfish even if they please others and implant gratitude--To what extent this sort of hyperfetation of one valuation can sanctify everything else!!

Nietzsche seems to display the attitude that women can find no other way to exert their will to power but by throwing themselves at men." - https://infidels.org/library/modern/trav...power.html

In Nietzsche’s time the only way that women could obtain status was through a man.  In order to be successful in love, he also counsels women to "simulate a lack of love" and to enact the roles that men find attractive. Nietzsche finds love comedic because it does not consist in some attempt to know the other deeply, but rather in the confirmation of male fantasies in which women perform their constructed gender roles.

Only if women wanted the same sorts of status as men. Nietzsche's attitude about women is largely due to his assumption that there was only one kind of power worth attaining to.

How could we be friends, if not your equal?

Who said you weren't an equal? God, I hope it wasn't your daddy.

The evolutionary psychology of men does predispose them to being more competitive, as evidence of hours worked and dedication to career relative to women in general demonstrates. Sacrifices are made, by men as well as career-minded women, but no, I don't think it causes them to give up these things wholesale. Men just tend to prioritize the means of providing, while women tend to prioritize nurturing. IMO, men just tend to prioritize the love languages of acts of service and giving gifts, while women tend to affirmation and quality time.

How do you think that love evolved, Syne?  Did our enlarged brains extend the period of infant dependency?  Could love have evolved through the mother/infant relationship?  Do you think those chemicals could have been hijacked to create romantic love?

It's likely only some primitive precursors to love can be accounted for by evolutionary psychology. Plenty of animal species mate for life.

"One of the most studied animals in this regard is the mouselike prairie vole. A male vole will prefer to mate exclusively with the first female he loses his virginity to. And his faithfulness approaches a kind of fanaticism: Far from trying to woo other females, a mated male vole will actually attack them.

In recent years, scientists have traced these unusual behaviors to levels of certain neurotransmitters in the rodents' brains. Interestingly, one of these, dopamine, is also implicated in drug addiction in humans.

Another species that likewise frowns upon infidelity is the black vulture: when extra-pair copulation takes place nearby, vultures will attack the philanderer. Staying together makes for happier vulture babies, since both parents incubate eggs, each taking a 24-hour shift, and for eight months the fledging gets fed by both parents." - http://www.nbcnews.com/id/15815748/ns/te...gzaYfmzta4

Your seemingly presumption that women are largely misandrist c*nts, just tells us how you see yourself.  

Well, I’m not the one saying that women are jealous, misandrist cunts, um...that would be you. 

But you're the one who once again presumed that to be a generality of most women.
Even after having it pointed out to you, you still can't seem to avoid making that presumption. Again, telling us oh so much about you.
Any rational person knows that some women are indeed jealous, misandrist c*nts. They're c*nts for being jealous and man-hating. But I assume you think those are virtues.
I'm talking about those who you described as dangerous "to fall asleep next to", implied are so plentiful that avoiding would restrict a guy's sex life, and hatefully jealous.

Like everything in evolutionary psychology, it's generally centered around survival.

Uhh, no. It’s centered on reproduction. The survival of the genetic code is more important than the survival of an individual.

"Man is for woman a means: the purpose is always the child."—Nietzsche

In fact, from an evolutionary standpoint, making babies is the meaning of life.

"Natural selection has no intentions or senses; it cannot sense what a species or an individual "needs." Natural selection acts on the genetic variation in a population, and this genetic variation is generated by random mutation — a process that is unaffected by what organisms in the population need. If a population happens to have genetic variation that allows some individuals to survive a challenge better than others or reproduce more than others, then those individuals will have more offspring in the next generation, and the population will evolve." - https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar...ns_faq.php 

Both survival and reproduction are necessary to evolution, but without survival to sexual maturity there is no reproduction. So it depends on how quickly a species can reach sexual maturity as to which is more important to that species. To mayflies, reproduction is crucial, but to humans, survival is much more crucial.
Evolution doesn't care about anything, much less the genetic code. And individual organisms are generally primarily concerned with individual survival, not species survival.

As shown above, I don't agree wholesale with that sociologist. But neither am I deterred from agreeing with good points from anyone, in any field of study. I don't feel any social pressure or cognitive dissonance to distance myself just because I think a field is disreputable.

Really?  Well, you could have fooled me.

Well, fools are easily fooled.

Yaz already told you that men and women express their aggression differently.

Yeah, well, I don't think Yaz has seen all the compilations of law makers and politicians duking it out.  They're hilarious and from all parts of the world.  Men...

LOL! Wow, you still completely missed the point. Come on, you're not really that dense, are you? O_o

[RainbowUnicorn]

You don't think that females are able to control their tongue?

I don't think that females are any better at self-control, at restraining themselves from lashing out at those who anger and frustrate them, than males are.

i have found wimmin to be a little more careful with what they say to others.
i think there is a darwinian imperative that has occured where wimmin folk have had to not speak their minds against the male leadership.
descent would be treated most harshly and those whom were able to keep quiet would survive longer and thus breed more so aside from the maternal instinct concepts of breeding imperatives that associate with higher learning of off spring, i thinkgenerally wimmin folk tend to take note of what is said more so than men while seeming to seek to also attach more importance to supporting others around them with language.

this potentially could be represented statistically in wimmin folk coders being seen as generaly better than men.

the violence figures show this quite clearly with males being wildly over represented in violence statistics.
there is probably a phobia that runs in male psychology that is afraid of women speaking out.

#.. women folk ... somehow a term referring to a second class of person ? how many other semi subconscious bias linguistics are normalised ?
has she you got the balls to speak her mind ? (makes me cringe every time i hear someone using such like terms.)

[Secular Sanity]

Wow!  I must have touched a little beta nerve.  

LOL! So you think betas have a problem with jealous people? Says a lot about you.

Beta nerve fibers carry information related to touch.

How could we be friends, if not your equal?

Who said you weren't an equal? God, I hope it wasn't your daddy.

That was in response to Nietzsche pointing out that we were not considered your equal.  He mentioned the delusions of men, and how half of the human population was made weak, and devoid of any power, nor had any role in decision making.

Any rational person knows that some women are indeed jealous, misandrist c*nts. They're c*nts for being jealous and man-hating. But I assume you think those are virtues.

I'm talking about those who you described as dangerous "to fall asleep next to", implied are so plentiful that avoiding would restrict a guy's sex life, and hatefully jealous.  

Damn!  You’re like a male version of Bells.  

FYI, I wasn’t expressing hatred for men.  I was trying to give them more credit than the current theories actually allow for.  

I was thinking about the discussion that we had earlier regarding mate selection.  The conversation between the anthropologists, Holly Dunsworth and Jerry Coyne.  

She said that knowledgeable people aren't objecting to facts. They're objecting to biased story-telling and its annoying and harmful consequences. It's as if women don't exist at all in these tales except as objects for males to fight over or to fuck but it's nice to have choice!

She asked, why don’t other tales fit alongside the big-aggressive-males-take-all explanation for sexual dimorphism?

Not All Critiques of Evolutionary Psychology Are Created Equal

The Ideological Opposition to Biological Truth

If given the opportunity, we would obviously choose more cooperative mates.  If we continued to choose more aggressive mates, it would seemly reduce the opportunity for mate selection itself.  In other words, this idea that females are to blame for male aggression seems like horseshit.

I was thinking that mate choice and male-male competition would be in complete opposition to one another.  Why would we even have a choice in the matter if you’ve always had the power to manipulate and control our reproductive physiology and behavior?  

I was wondering if females could have evolved some type of resistance to the heavy cost of child birth or if manipulating and controlling our reproduction could have had a negative impact on fertility with an increase in successive undesirable traits.

One way that men can control our reproduction and conduct is to create stronger male bonds and one way do this is by keeping it in the family. This not only keeps the property within the family, which reinforces patriarchy, but it also prevents hypergamy, and ensures a greater group solidarity.

Cousin Marriage in the Middle East (wikipedia.org)