Re: Feminist kooks dominate anthropology of "male violence"

From: Bob (boby23456_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 07/28/04 

Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 12:23:07 -0600

MIB529 wrote:
> Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<4106D5AC.50906@hotmail.com>...
>>>>Otherwise, they would have to answer the
>>>>question, what evolutionary forces selected for aggressive males? Why,
>>>>females' choices, of course.
>>>
>>Females tend to breed with men who win, always have, always will. How
>>much biology influences behavior is still debated with the PC crowd.
>
> Have you ever noticed how "politically correct" is a phrase used by
> NON-scientists when things go against their ideology? Free-lunch
> Republicans use it to describe anyone who notices the tremendous
> debt we racked up under Reagan, for example.

Non sequitur. How the term "PC" is used has nothing to do with the
penchant of women to select and breed with aggressive men. Nice
obfuscation, but it didn't work.

Have you ever notice how the PC crowd claims to support individual
liberty, and really hates it when their PC censorship is complained about.

>>Aggression and sexual aggression in particular is common to human
>>females too, since human females have to compete for men.
>
> The fact remains, this would make us nearly unique among apes, and
> it's far more likely that orangutans developed those instincts
> rather than the other apes getting rid of them. Also, humans are
> less sexually dimorphic than most catarrhines.

Uh, no. Many female apes are sexually aggressive, and some are
prostitutes. Much of what is "known" about the behavior of animal
species are projections of the observers. I really don't know where
you're getting your information, but I suggest you've been swallowing
what you want to read.

>>The competition for mates is strong among every known human society.
>>There is no evidence to suggest that it's been any different at any time
>>during the last several million years. The Neandertals did go away.
>>Our ancestors were aggresive and successful.
>
>
> You're really going from the evidence to very strange conclusions.
> All we know for sure is that neanderthals died out durng the Wurm.
> You have yet to prove that humans are naturally aggressive; I mean,
> can your hypothesis explain Eskimos? What about the !Kung? Or
> aborigines?

I read an analysis recently which calculated the percentage of men who
died in warfare among reputedly "peaceful" tribes, and discovered that
man for man it was often orders of magnitude hither than the percentage
of European ancestry men who died in wars during the 20th century as a
comparison. A more interesting question is why anthropologists have
distorted their reports such that they would be better called
anthro-apologists.

> Ardrey, Lorenz, and others couldn't find anything in primates,
> hominids, or modern cultures to support the "innate aggression"
> hypothesis. For every counterexample, they gave very emotional
> pleas; with Eskimos, they argued that since they were in such a
> harsh environment, they HAD to be the losers.

Tell that to the dominant male, old grey back, in the guerilla group.
I'm sure the young males who are excluded from the females will be glad
to learn that they no longer have to compete.

Oh, and the lower status females will also be glad to learn that the
dominant female no longer gets the best stuff.

Where do these idiots drag up crap like that? Or better question, why do
idiots read and believe it?

>>There is NO "epidemic of male violence." That is total anti-men hate
>>speech. Shame on her.
>
> Well, let's look at crime stats.

Yes, the anti-men feminist hate war on men is raging. QED.

>>Women breed with strong men, even women married to less strong men.
>>Evolution only requires a small percent of increased success for a trait
>>to take over the population.
>
> Wrong again. Females don't always select the most aggressive
> male, any more than one could say they always select any other
> trait.

Strawman arguments fail. Your introduction of "always" is the opposite
of what was argued by Bob. Bob pointed out that only a "small
percentage of increased success" is sufficient for evolution. You tried
to switch "small percentage" to "always," and then to argue with
"always." Shame on you.

It doesn't have to be "always." Only a 1% increase in breeding survival
rate is enough to dominate a whole species in about 100 generations. For
example, a selection of only 1% of women for aggressive men could come
to dominate the human species in less than 40,000 years. It is true
that all women don't select strong aggressive men to breed, but the
percentage is significantly greater than 1 percent.

> A "progressive" view of evolution might seem appropriate
> to the ideologically motivated, but not to legitimate
> biologists.

Yes, "progressive" (aka: leftist) ideologues ought not be considered
legitimate biologists, sociologists, or anthropologists.

>>[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
>>posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]
>
> Interesting sigfile. Are you legally required to use it after
> sending death threats?

Nope, but since the FBI and CIA now monitor all Usenet it may serve to
clarify discussions on how evil FBI agents and judges ought to be shot
for the good of humanity.

Bob 

-- 
When did we divide into sides?
"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back 
on the side of women."  John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for 
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/
[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts.  All 
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]