You think it's hard to be a man TODAY?

Page 1 of 5 [ 68 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

BeaArthur
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Aug 2015
Posts: 5,798

13 Jun 2018, 8:24 am

Just be glad you weren't around 12000 years ago!

https://www.history.com/news/ancient-clan-wars-male-chromosome-collapse


_________________
A finger in every pie.


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

13 Jun 2018, 8:27 am

Indeed.....real “survival of the fittest.”

Not in metaphor, like it frequently is today.



neilson_wheels
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2013
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,404
Location: London, Capital of the Un-United Kingdom

13 Jun 2018, 8:36 am

Spending too much time in L&D could make you feel 12000 years old!



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,115
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

13 Jun 2018, 10:13 am

In other terms:

- We are descended from a very polygamous species.

- The Alpha male in humans is not a myth, it is very real, and it’s written there on our very genome (yet is it a myth in wolves who are by FAR a more egalitarian species than humans).

- The sex *birth* ratio which seems to lean toward male in most populations may be a recently evolved compensation mechanism to compensate (to an extent) the male mortality during the long clan wars time.

- Some of the PUA stereotyping theories such as “women prefer the elite males” have better scientific grounds now. After all, we came from the “elitest of elite men”. By elite it doesn’t necessary mean nice at all. Also the “women prefer dominant men” stereotype have also now a better scientific ground because well.... nice and soft guys in these clan wars were more likely to have been killed by more dominant/jerk/stronger guys.

- The ancient human cultures were all likely rape cultures, doing it for the sports or to humilate thr enemy tribe. We still see it in the tribal wars in Africa today so I don’t think ancient humans were much different or morally better.

- Like most of the jerk and mean primate species, Humans is a very bery very patriarchal species, socially and biologically too. We are nothing like the bonobos socially.

Conclusion: That’s why we have leaders like Trump, Putin, Kim, Khaminei, Al Sisi, Erdogan and Assad.

Conclusion2: We still have a long way to become an egalitarian species, if it will ever take that course.

Hooo Hoo!


But I am sure many are gonna deny this.



Last edited by The_Face_of_Boo on 13 Jun 2018, 10:19 am, edited 3 times in total.

kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

13 Jun 2018, 10:14 am

All as*holes....



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,115
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

13 Jun 2018, 10:22 am

kraftiekortie wrote:
All as*holes....



Your grand grand grand grand grand x 1000 father was probably an as*hole bloodthirsty warlord who had a harem of 100 women.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

13 Jun 2018, 10:31 am

Could be....but, still, they are as*holes.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,115
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

13 Jun 2018, 10:56 am

But wait... there’s something that doesn’t make much sense:

If 90% of men were being killed and wiped out, why then women couldn’t rebel and rule the world
ever since; since the numbers were way in their favor?



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

13 Jun 2018, 11:23 am

Because there was never a 90%-10% ratio in favor of women.



BeaArthur
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Aug 2015
Posts: 5,798

13 Jun 2018, 12:07 pm

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
But wait... there’s something that doesn’t make much sense:

If 90% of men were being killed and wiped out, why then women couldn’t rebel and rule the world
ever since; since the numbers were way in their favor?

The point is not that 90% of men were being killed. The point is that they were not breeding. The male and female genomes are identical except the sex chromosome, X or Y. If you eliminate 90% of the genetic variance on the Y chromosome, you have a "collapse" of the male gene pool.

If conquerors killed off 90% of the able-bodied men, who would cultivate the fields, man the salt mines, and butcher the animals? Not that any of those jobs couldn't be done by women, but maybe not pregnant women. I think far more likely is that the conquered men were enslaved, at least in the sense of serfs if not slaves. Serfdom seems very prevalent in early agrarian societies.


_________________
A finger in every pie.


The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,115
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

13 Jun 2018, 5:25 pm

BeaArthur wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
But wait... there’s something that doesn’t make much sense:

If 90% of men were being killed and wiped out, why then women couldn’t rebel and rule the world
ever since; since the numbers were way in their favor?

The point is not that 90% of men were being killed. The point is that they were not breeding. The male and female genomes are identical except the sex chromosome, X or Y. If you eliminate 90% of the genetic variance on the Y chromosome, you have a "collapse" of the male gene pool.

If conquerors killed off 90% of the able-bodied men, who would cultivate the fields, man the salt mines, and butcher the animals? Not that any of those jobs couldn't be done by women, but maybe not pregnant women. I think far more likely is that the conquered men were enslaved, at least in the sense of serfs if not slaves. Serfdom seems very prevalent in early agrarian societies.



Yeah, but usually in the tribal wars they kill all the adult males of the defeated tribe - that was the case in many tribal wars.
Castrating was common too.

But still the serfdom or enslavement theory doesn't make much sense either, how is it possible that a 5% could have that much control over the 95% of men's sexual urges - even if the 5% had the best arms and swords the 95% could still defeat them with just sticks and stones due to cheer numbers, let alone the women if they joined the rebellion, I mean none of those 95% of men ever got horny? And none of the women preferred men other than the 5% elite men?

It seems to me more logically that there was kinda of consensus among men and women on which men had the privilege to breed, maybe the 95% of men (or at least those who didn't get killed) willingly didn't breed (that in case they weren't killed) or women rejected all the 95% in mass, a kind of conscious selectivity - maybe this was a part of a faith or ancient religion.

Something very odd happened, we need a time machine now! What happened to the majority of ancient male population??!

Do you realize that this may be the cause of many genetic diseases we have today? So few men breeding with that many women means there was a lot of first-cousin interbreeding.



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

13 Jun 2018, 6:22 pm

Better dead then living pointless existence exiled by the females of your species. I’m sure men will look back in the future and say better today then in 2018 so what’s your point?
Past being worse doesn’t make up for the present being crap



BeaArthur
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Aug 2015
Posts: 5,798

13 Jun 2018, 6:23 pm

I gather - and somebody correct me if I'm wrong - that the shift from hunter-gatherer societies to agrarian societies involved people largely staying in one place. The linked article states that women typically became members of whatever clan they married into, while men remained members of their originating clan. So nubile women were portable whereas men were not.

We have now reached the outer limits of my ability to talk about this stuff. Genetic anthropology and archaeology are way beyond my ken. I tried to read one of the articles linked to the history.com article, and found too many concepts and words that were new to me.


_________________
A finger in every pie.


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

13 Jun 2018, 6:29 pm

I don't believe, for a second, that "95% of the men willingly didn't breed."



Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 46,152
Location: Houston, Texas

13 Jun 2018, 7:16 pm

neilson_wheels wrote:
Spending too much time in L&D could make you feel 12000 years old!


:lol: :lol: :lol:


_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!


Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,603
Location: USA

13 Jun 2018, 7:18 pm

BeaArthur wrote:
I gather - and somebody correct me if I'm wrong - that the shift from hunter-gatherer societies to agrarian societies involved people largely staying in one place. The linked article states that women typically became members of whatever clan they married into, while men remained members of their originating clan. So nubile women were portable whereas men were not.

We have now reached the outer limits of my ability to talk about this stuff. Genetic anthropology and archaeology are way beyond my ken. I tried to read one of the articles linked to the history.com article, and found too many concepts and words that were new to me.


It's the poorest understood aspect of human history to be honest. No other species has moved from nomadic to stationary, so there's not fossil evidence of other species that could help either. You are correct on the leading theory though. It goes like this: nomadic humans are just like nomadic animals, they followed game trails as the seasons change. The men would hunt for animals and the women would collect fruits and vegetables as the group progressed through it's game trail. Eventually someone noticed that the seeds they spit out from the plants grew the exact same plant in that location a year later on their next migration. A light bulb turns on, and the tribe realizes they no longer have to make the arduous journey year in and year out, they can plant the seeds and live in a single location all year round. If this theory is indeed correct, it means several things: the person that figured it out was an Einstein level intellect for that developmental phase of human (highly probable it was a female too since they were in charge of plant gathering), second that would be the point humans started looking in 3 + 1 dimensions (the standard three x,y,z dimensions we're all familiar with, the + 1 represents time, the unique attribute said discoverer noticed).

After agriculture comes civilization, now that humans are stationary they need to protect the agriculture from other animals as well as other nomadic humans, so they erect structures such as huts, walls, and develop weapons. The article you linked doesn't mention it, but 7,000 years ago coincides with the earliest archeological evidence we have of civilization. Due to that I propose this theory: when human tribes that were still nomadic ran across a civilized group of humans, the civilized group stole the women (not necessarily killing the men, or enslaving them, just stealing) and hid behind their walls and weapons, forcing the nomadic group on their path without the females. I propose this because integration into a community is hard work: the new members need to learn the customs of the tribe, a new language, and at that point they needed to be taught about agriculture and tool making since they were the key to early civilization. Warring with the remaining nomadic males would decline the population of the civilized ones and there wasn't much room for margin of error as far as human labor was concerned (early agriculture was harder work than it was even during Egyptian times some 1000-2000 years later, and the yield on crops was extremely low compared to today's standards). Likewise, gaining slaves means you need to feed slaves on top of overseeing them, and the efficiency just wasn't there at that point to have a group of non-producers (overseerers).

One interesting tidbit that's closely related to the advent of transitioning from hunter-gatherer to civilization: hunter-gatherers are commonly thought to have spent 2-4 hours a day hunting/gathering on average, whereas early civilized humans were thought to have worked 7-10 hour days farming, building, etc. That's a tough sell, and no doubt there was violence over division of labor since people were working 3x as much as they were used to.