Evolution 1

Challenging the “Evolutionary Psychology” of PUA and MGTOW: the absurd Alpha-Beta paradigm

I’ve spent the last few years trying to be nice to people spreading what I consider pernicious anti-male attitudes about sex and reproduction throughout the “manosphere.” As feminism is increasingly culturally on the defensive, and even conservatives are starting to notice men need to have reasons other than “duty” to want to be with women, and as the concept of “Men’s Rights” becomes increasingly mainstream despite the screams of our cultural elites, it’s probably a good time to start looking at the issue of Manospherian Misinformation more closely; giving men, young men in particular, bad information about human psychology and sexuality can’t be good for anyone.

Most of the misinformation I speak of is around a notion derived from what certain people call “evolutionary psychology.” Those who produce bad “evopsych” nonsense work from a small handful of studies that in isolation suggest that humans are somehow tournament maters, with “Alpha” and “Beta” males competing for access to females. This is wrong on so many levels it’s hard to know where to begin–and the ramifications of getting this issue wrong are huge long-term, so we really should talk about it.

I spent a lot of time over the last few years gathering references for various points on bogus “evopsych,” but every time I would offer them in the spirit of intellectual discussion or scholarly debate and discussion, I was attacked instead, mostly by “manospherians,” and accused of having an ideological agenda. So what I’m going to do is brain dump a few dozen paragraphs on human mating, reproduction, and parenting behavior. And then if people want references for specific points, I will upon polite request provide references. If you’re going to snark and sneer I will respond with same; if you want to talk about this like a civilized adult, I will also respond with same.

As you read the below model of how human mating and reproduction and parenting works, notice how much it flies in the face of the ideological “women just use men/men just want pussy” model that seems to be so pervasive among some (not all) MRA, PUA, and MGTOW thinkers. The misinformation looks something like this:

Eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap. Males are therefore disposable. The female brain has evolved to where it pretends to love males, but really does not; females will happily throw their men overboard once the male is no longer perceived as useful, because hypergamy drives her to always find males who can give her more resources and more status, and if another male will give her these things she will leave. She will never be grateful for anything any man really did for her, in any tangible way, except by mouthing platitudes. Ultimately, meanwhile, men are consumed by an illusion that women are capable of love the way men love women. In reality, men’s biological nature drives them to simply sleep with as many women as they can until they die.

Yes, the above is really the way some guys think. And with one or two exceptions, most of it is garbage. And even the parts that may be true are being used to draw irresponsible conclusions that the scientific record (and common sense) do not support.

One of the dumber things running around, which I’ve heard from multiple supposedly “rational” sources, is that women don’t really love men because, after all, if a man is not perceived as useful to women they do not find him attractive for long.

What’s wrong with this assertion is that anyone, male or female, needs reasons to love someone. Furthermore, what makes a woman love a man and what makes a man love a woman is not fundamentally different, because both men and women look for pretty much the same exact things. Men and women almost always have the same list of priorities they seek in a mate, they just rank them differently in importance: Money, power, status, stability, good looks, a good sex life, physical security, emotional security, affection, nurturing, raising children: men and women both look for all these things, consciously and unconsciously. Men tend to prioritize the physical a bit higher than women, women things like the financial, but in the end, everybody looks at all these things, especially when looking for more than a casual fling.

Women may be a bit more pragmatic and utilitarian about love; there’s evidence that most romantics are men not women. But saying women value men only for utility is exactly like saying men truly only value tits and ass. It’s a bullshit statement in both cases. Do women recover from widowhood or breakups quicker? Maybe. Do they prioritize the practical in relationships somewhat more than men? Probably. But if you look at what men and women really find attractive in the opposite sex, you almost invariably find that their lists are identical, just prioritized differently.

Males exhibit hypergamy just as females do by the way, which is why the man who dumps his spouse for a younger hotter chick is a real thing—although that’s less common in this society, which has jiggered divorce laws to ridiculously lopsided female-favoring circumstances. But the reality is some men’s pathological hypergamy does lead them to being wildly unfaithful boyfriends or spouses. Just as it does in women.

Pathological hypergamy–that’s a good term. Because hypergamy is a normal, natural, healthy trait that both (yes both) sexes possess. It’s pathological when it starts to cause major problems.

The world is full of women who were so wounded after their men left or died that they could never even think of being with anyone else again, and never do. So don’t tell me about women not loving because a part of them values utilitarianism in a mate a little more than men. I have seen women sacrifice for men my entire life, although I admit that those women tend to be older and the behavior seems rarer these days than when I was a child.

Furthermore, males value utility in a mate. They always have. Just look at centuries of literature advising men on how to pick a good wife. Look at what women actually had to do that was hard work back centuries ago, work so hard few reading this would be willing to do it daily. Unless you’re an exercise freak or one of those idiots playing with hormonal supplements, what women of history had to do was often backbreakingly difficult even if it didn’t require massive muscle strength, just endurance–being able to lift more weight doesn’t really make you a better cotton picker except certain specific contexts, now does it?

On to our mating strategies and what some PUA and MGTOW get dead wrong: We evolved away from being tournament maters and became pairbonders upwards of a million years ago, or at least a few hundred thousand. Paternal investment in children started around that time, and it was paternal investment in their own children not the pack’s children. This changed everything; indeed, this appears to be the primary thing that set us apart from all other primates. And by the way, it’s much harder to fool a man into thinking he’s the father when he isn’t than most people think–if you’re in a small community with people who see each other daily and know each other very well. The modern world has changed that, with women now able to use tricks that wouldn’t have been so easy centuries ago; this is not to say paternity fraud hasn’t been a problem forever–it’s a challenge faced by males of all pairbonding species–but the modern world has made it easier to get away with. Only genetic testing helps men avoid the fraud (and even now the laws are frequently horrifically unfair to men in this area).

We furthermore now know the biochemical tale that we did not know just a decade or two ago: men change physically when they learn they’ve impregnated a female. The ramifications of that are enormous: it means that before we were even really human, we had already evolved away from the tournament mating model. We retain traits of it. But we are pairbonders through and through, and the key is to see what fathers actually are: a biochoemical, physical reality, not an idea or an ideology.

Fatherhood isn’t an idea. It’s a biological state. One that alters your brain forever. The history of war suggests pair bonding is the best survival strategy for both men and women – women have a man willing to protect them at all costs, and men have something to live for and yes, someone to take care of them and meet their emotional and physical needs. Take away their women and kids and except for a few who go berzerk most will lose all will to fight and pretty much all will to live. He is bonded to that woman and those children, and they to him. And if he dies, their odds of dying goes up dramatically. If you doubt it, look to the laws through countless civilizations for thousands of years: that woman and her kids were fucked if no family would take them in, most of the time. Beggars or dead on the street was–and still is, in much of the world–the most frequent result.

Who do you think was in those orphanages portrayed by Charles Dickens in tales like Oliver Twist? Mostly, it as fatherless children whose mothers could or would not care for them. Now ask yourself: what were the average odds of survival of the kids in those orphanages?

Love of fathers is at the heart of some of the very most popular (and reviled) religions in the world. I don’t care if you like those religions or what they did or not; just don’t buy the feminist bullshit that Christianity imposed the idea of fatherhood. Christianity TOOK the idea of fatherhood and OFFERED it to people who YEARNED for it. Call it a false promise if you want, but it was always one of its biggest selling points. The religions weren’t teaching fatherhood. They were offering us a love most people instinctively crave our entire lives: the love of a father.

Even if you’re an atheist you should recognize that the father figure is wildly important in the biggest religions in the world, and it should give you pause: why would that be so if the father does not loom large in the subconscious of most people in most cultures?

You can call that love of the father an illusion, but if so it’s an illusion deeply craved as a near universal human experience and yearning–and no, you don’t get to scream “but I hate my father!” as a rebuttal. No one said everybody has the same exact feelings, just as nobody said that every guy loves titties in the same way (some like them a little, some a lot, some hardly at all). What few tournament mating traits homo sapiens have are leftovers from literally about a million years ago, although sure, just like all pairbonding species (ALL OF THEM) we cheat, and yes there’s funny things in our anatomy that reflect that, like penis size and whatnot.

Indeed, Homo Sapiens almost certainly “cheat” far more more than tournament maters do. This should be self-evident in fact. By comparison to the tournament mating primates, Homo Sapiens only rarely kill male competitors, and not because civilization tells them not to. Human males have a strong instinctive built-in aversion to killing other males except in very specific circumstances. That’s part of our biological heritage. That aversion to killing each other has to be trained out of us; killing other males is not natural to us except in very specific circumstances. Indeed, most human males are so averse to seriously harming another male that military studies in the 20th Century showed most soldiers would not shoot enemy soldiers unless strongly driven to do so by various psychological training methodologies.

Furthermore, it is universal in human experience, with only the occasional odd duck sociopath, for human males to be psychologically tormented and sometimes even destroyed just from the experience of killing another man, even if it was 100% justified in his mind–and never mind what it will do to him if he has even a sliver of doubt that it was the right thing to do. That’s not because religion or society taught him that. That’s because it’s his built-in biology. Indeed, he will probably keep that sliver of doubt as a point of pain for the rest of his life, unless he is driven to near (or total) psychopathy by a brutal environment.

Indeed, human males are so deeply averse to killing or even grievously wounding another male, every society has sports and rules for honorable combat. And what the idiots think is, “Aha, see, men are violent!” Bah. That’s getting it completely backwards, exactly (and I do mean exactly) like a feminist. Societies universally set up rules which lessen the odds of serious injury or death among men who are fighting because at least in this one area they want their men safe. When you see that in practically every culture, either shunning or outright forbidding males to kill or seriously wound, you have to think: wait, if every civilization feels that way, that must be a natural instinct in most humans, with a need to punish those oddball rarities who don’t understand the rules and just waste other men. This is also why every society punishes murderers, by the way. Fuck, it’s the reason every society even has a concept of murder; if men were naturally prone to crippling or killing each other, why the fuck would men ever support laws to limit their ability to destroy their fellow men and then rape those men’s women and kill those other men’s children, just like tournament maters typically do?

And indeed, pre-civilizationally, if you look at hunter/gatherers what’s most remarkable is how seldom the men kill each other compared to how tournament maters operate. Human males appear to have a natural in-built sportsmanship in even the most primitive cultures, a certain “off” button that says “OK you’ve made your point, stop hitting now.” Human males also have that magnificent, “OK, argument over” instinct, which only a few women seem to possess, wherein they can frequently have screaming matches, even occasionally exchanging blows, then when it’s over, go work on a project together or get drunk together. It’s traits like that which built civilization, not hypercompetitive bullshit “Alpha Male” posing. (Which is all that Alpha/Beta crap is anyway: posing.)

Universally it may well be that human males preferentially kill each other rather than women or children if they must kill, but it’s also universally true that most men never kill other men even during the most brutal mating competitions—the old phrase “All’s fair in love and war” almost never counted murdering as “fair,” it was always a sardonic joke. Even in societies where men who kill over women are more accepted, men who kill during mating competitions are universally marked as different and someone everyone–men women and children–is a little afraid of. At best. More likely he’ll be killed or driven away for being a dangerous lunatic, in most human tribes.

And by the way, human females kill each other in the mating game too. I have no idea how often females kill each other over a man by comparison to men, but it’s not relevant: as usual, when males have a trait, so do females, and vice versa, usually just varying in extremes. Females killing for their mates is a thing, and guess what? It’s another trait of the pairbonder, not a trait of the tournament mater, where females compete far less; females in tournament mating systems mostly only compete over who gets to have sex with the victorious male first.

War is brutal on children because children are biochemically harmed by the absence of the father. Male disposability to the extent that it exists is an emergency escape hatch for the worst possible circumstances, not the default of how we work as a species. Accelerated male disposability is pretty new, something that only started happening the last few thousand years in most of the world and steadily accelerated in the 19th and 20th centuries due to social and technological factors primarily.

The wrenching changes of civilization were most costly to our men. And these guys, these MGTOW and PUA and even a few MRAs who should know better, who keep looking at mating, mating, mating, mating, mating, mating, and trying to apply their primitive mating lessons to life in general: they are getting it so wrong because they’re seeing how we choose mates when we’re young and are defining our entire existence that way when, biologically we’re all pretty much supposed to be parents in a more or less stable pairbond by our early 20s. Not because religion taught us this but because it is the near-universal pattern in most of humanity, and the anthropological record strongly suggests it has been the basis of the human family for at least one hundred thousand years and more likely at least 250 thousand years and very possibly as much as a million years.

Let me get this clear: “Game,” when it works, is an effective form of flirting and, occasionally, seduction, although you can rarely seduce someone who doesn’t want to be. But what they’re doing is playing with some of our most primitive wetware, and ignoring a lot of other wetware in the process, which is probably why “Game” only works sometimes, and why it’s really silly to try to spin these tricks for getting a girl’s attention and getting her to think you may be sexy after all are no more than a small slice of who we are as Homo Sapiens.

Those who insist that the family unit is a creation of civilization using what they call “evolutionary psychology” are oblivious to the reality of the human family for the MUCH longer span of human history than this tiny little blink of an eye we call civilization; “civilization” as we understand it is only 10,000 years old, and in some parts of the world it’s a lot less old than that.

So let’s get something straight: Fatherhood and the family precede civilization by tens if not hundreds of thousands of years.

Let me say it one more time: Fatherhood. And the family. Precede. Civilization. By tens if not hundreds of thousands of years.

This is why broken homes are so fucked up pretty much everywhere you go in the world and look pretty much the same with only minor variations on things like their level of violence or drug addiction or crime or just how entrenched the financial problems are. Yes some come out of broken homes to do fantastic and some come from the best of families and wind up dead after trying to rob a liquor store, but unless you are really unschooled you know exactly where the odds lie and it is not with the kids from broken families.

Because fatherhood. Precedes. Civilization. By tens if not hundreds of thousands of years.

And fathers are as biochemically tied to their children as mothers are, which is why when a man is certain he has impregnated a female he biochemically changes, and when he is uncertain he generally does not.

This documented scientific reality that men change biochemically when their mate becomes pregnant appears to have been something Western scientists discarded decades ago, ignoring it when primitive peoples would talk to them about it. The primitives knew it but our scientists thought until recently that it was just primitive superstition. Only recently did researchers get interested in it again as they found that yes, all that stuff about “sympathetic pregnancy” that many males experience? Yeah: it’s biochemical, not just them being cute or silly. Indeed, mocking men for having “sympathetic pregnancy” is pretty juvenile, since it’s a natural biological state for men. It’s like mocking them for going into puberty. Fathers-to-be change hormonally and in brain structure, in ways that can’t be undone (not that we know of anyway), and those changes are even greater after the child is born.

Many primitive societies have always known about this. Men really do become pregnant, and if paternity was in question it was usually because a man was not showing the signs: in his heart, he didn’t believe, and he didn’t change either physically or in attitude.

The actual mating pattern for pre-civilizational humans is for youngsters to find mates somewhere in their mid-teens, and have a child together with the help of extended family. Then when that child is weaned, usually around the age of 4 to 7 or so (yes, pre-civilizational humans breastfed WAY longer than is now the norm), then maybe the couple goes off to find other mates or maybe they decide to stick together because they still get along and liked each other and seem to make great kids together.

You might want to circle that last paragraph because what I just described is both the most common pattern among primitive hunter/gatherers still putting bones through their noses and probably most other intact couples you know who have kids. Because that’s our evolved pattern, you numbskulls who keep talking about this nebulous thing in your head you call “evopsych” without ever seeing that your obsession on courtship behavior is blinding you to countless evolutionary realities.

Some men are obsessed with the 5% of us that’s still got that ancient tournament mating drive in us. They are sadly ignoring upwards of a million years of evolution taking us away from that model. Further, what leads up to courtship and mating is one thing, what happens afterwards is quite another, and most of these “women just want men’s resources/men just want pussy pussy pussy!” people seem to have forgotten that pregnancy was non-optional for most sexually active people only half a century ago. And pregnancy is the biological purpose of mating, and most males do not discard their children after fucking the mother; if they learn the female is pregnant the vast majority automatically, instinctively stay around. You can hardly stop them from doing so, they’ll do it even if the female throws things at them and tries driving them away.

As always, there are exceptions. You don’t get to scream that you’re different so there’s no truth in what I’m saying here. We’re all different in some way or another.

Let me stop here and point something else out: what I describe as the natural, biologically evolved human family for at least a hundred thousand years before civilization and possibly more than a million years before civilization? Let’s say you think I made that all up. I didn’t, but just pretend I did, because of my religion or my ideology or my secret agenda or whatever. Did it sound at least scientifically plausible? If so, you just identified the main problem with what manospherians sometimes call “Evolutionary Psychology”: working in a vacuum, or with only limited data, you can make huge generalizations about any species, including Homo Sapiens, that sound both utterly plausible and also turn out to be complete bullshit. If I describe humans as routinely walking on their hands, I can make up a million “EvoPsych” reasons for that as an evolved trait that conveys significant reproductive advantage, regardless of the fact that humans don’t actually do that most of the time.

So please, for the love of God, please stop declaring something is “Evopsych” as if that makes your argument automatically correct. For that matter, please stop pretending that if an evolutionary psychologist says something, that is to be taken as true Ex Cathedra. Hell, there are even feminist Evolutionary Psychologists applying “EvoPsych” principles to the completely fictional Patriarchy for fuck’s sake. Calling something Evolutionary Psychology at this point is like calling something British: it may be right or may be wrong but calling it British, Buddhist, or EvoPsych will not automatically make it right.

Now, going back to the mating game: Of course human females slightly value utility more than males do, but males value utility in their mates as workers and partners in crime and have for all of human history and, indeed, from what I’ve seen of the evolutionary record, for about a million plus years now, since before we were even strictly human. Indeed, I put it to you that most men find ballsy brassy women who can take care of themselves an absolute treasure. They admire them–at least most men do. If our natural instinct was to view females mostly just as cuddle-and-fuck toys and baby breeders, why have men admired female warriors and badass female characters in fiction for so long? Why does virtually every polytheist religion include female warrior goddesses for that matter?

Men have always admired tough, ballsy broads, always. I put it to you that this is because whatever they think of physical beauty–it probably is more important to males than it is to most females–a useless wife is fucking useless, and one who won’t at least try to have your back when you’re in a fight is probably an outright hazard not just to you but also to your children. Which means guess what? Men are utilitarian in their choice of mates too. Seriously, what man would want to stay with a woman who gave him nothing but sex and babies? Yes yes, there’s the occasional man who talks that way, but even that’s mostly bravado in my experience, and a pretty fucking miserable life most likely, unless you’re the rare independently wealthy sociopath.

Sometimes, like most pairbonding species, humans mate for life. Sometimes, like most pairbonding species, they do not mate for life. Much of the “controversy” over humans’ incontestable status as pairbonders is the stupid notion that pairbonding means “lifelong monogamy.” It does not mean that in any species anywhere on the planet that I can detect, with humans no exception. Pairbonders frequently just stay around long enough for the infants to be able to walk talk and eat on their own. Once again, that is not the pattern just for humans, it’s the pairbonder pattern in general.

At least that was the standard pattern for humans before we started making laws to stop fathers from being with their children. But even then, most people recognize that it is innately wrong–in most cases–to keep fathers from their children. It’s taken a vast industry worth billions to hide the reality of the Family Court system from most people until they’re trapped in it.

In any case, as regards to fathers and for that matter stepfathers: Speaking anthropologically, stepfathers and fathers sometimes hate each other but just as commonly find friendship together instead, since they live in close proximity and there was no massive fight in the breakup—oh by the way did I just describe hunter/gatherers or something pretty close to what an awful lot of families look like now, at least the ones who have kept their sanity and stayed near each other to form something semi-functional? Yeah, I just described the human family of people living in jungles who’ve never worn shoes and quite a few people I know in the United States too.

And that extended family structure includes things like grandparents, aunts, uncles. The Arabs still adhere most closely to this model (more than others I know of anyway) but if you look around the world this is actually the pattern for most of humanity outside of comfortable American suburbia or certain upper class areas around the world. Or where government pays for women to throw their men out.

The whole Alpha Male/Beta Male thing? It’s bullshit on so many levels. It was invented decades ago to describe wolf behavior. It was later found to be totally insufficient for wolves, only really describing wolves in captivity, i.e. wolves in prison forced together and more or less driven crazy.

Comparisons between wolves and humans are not out of line, however, because primates have evolved wildly different mating patterns from each other, including tournament mater, promiscuous mating, and of course that unusual trait of Homo Sapiens: the pair-bond, which is actually how canines work too. It appears that one of the reasons humans and dogs have an affinity for each other is because the canine pack structure in reality in most cases is this: Mama wolf, Papa wolf, brother sister wolves, aunt and uncle wolves, and so on.

And by the way, there’s a common myth that the “alpha” male and “alpha” female in canines do not allow the other males and females to mate. It is based again on early misunderstandings of wolf behavior, particularly in captivity. What appears to be more typical is that Mama and Papa wolf try to dictate when and with whom the youngsters may mate, and try to stop them fooling with sex before they seem ready to be parents. Yes I just described both wolves and the old fashioned human family. Like I said: canine pack structure and human pack structure are startlingly similar. We’re more like wolves in our mating habits than we are like other primates, and dogs and wolves are more like homo sapiens than they are other canidae.

And by the way, again, please don’t be a juvenile and say “I don’t like dogs!” In point of fact, for the most part, I don’t like them either. That’s not the point. Dogs have been universally the one of the most popular work animals, as well as companion animals, in human history and indeed far longer than history, pretty much globally, with rare exception. Even societies that don’t view dogs as suitable pets still use them for work, because they’re easier for humans to train and understand than most other animals.

Whether partly co-evolution or partly happy circumstance, human and wolf pack structure are remarkably similar, and neither has an “Alpha Male” mating model. We are both pairbonders, which sets us aside from other primates and also most other canines. What that pairbonding nature means is that our males and our females do compete, differently but just as fiercely, then when we’ve done all that and we’ve mated we settle down and try to work together with the other males and females form a safe stable community where we live together for mutual protection and companionship–what is otherwise known as forming a pack. Pack formation is what homo sapiens do, along with certain other primates but unlike other primates.

That’s not communism, although I suppose you could call it some sort of communitarianism. No matter, it’s not an “ism.” It’s the human pack structure, i.e. our tribal structure, at its most fundamental and most prevalent form around the world and throughout what appears to be everything we know going back to before we were even Homo Sapiens.

By the way, one of a dozen reasons why people are psychologically biochemically fucked up these days is not just the environment we live in, it’s the fact that literally we, male and female alike, change biochemically when we become parents, in permanent, inalterable ways, and biologically we are all supposed to be doing that somewhere around the age of 16 or 17, plus or minus a few years, and if we do not, we inevitably are different, not just in how we live but at a deep psychological level.

Furthermore, until recently in our evolutionary heritage, females rarely got pregnant while lactating. That appears to have been something that happened to us when we became “civilized.” Agriculturalists appear to have overrun Hunter/Gatherers not because they were more successful or more warlike, but because they reproduced like jackrabbits compared to the Hunter/Gatherers, who were otherwise demonstrably stronger, taller, faster, healthier, and longer-lived than the agriculturalists. They just didn’t make babies as fast. When we became civilized, our women became a lot more fertile, did so earlier in life, and began to commonly get pregnant only a year or two after their last one, even if still lactating. Lactation used to be terrific birth control for most women, and now no longer is very reliable for most. When we started farming, it stopped working so well. The strongest theory on why that is in my view is the dietary change, but even if that theory is wrong, everything else I just said in this paragraph is demonstrable fact, and very important so I again suggest circling it.

Add the aforementioned biochemical changes humans underwent about 10,000 years ago with the advent of agriculture to the fact that in the last 100-200 years we’ve changed even more. Then we invented birth control a half-century or so ago and that didn’t just change the game, it upended the fucking table and threw all the pieces in the air; we’re still trying to come to grips with how much that’s changed us.

The fact that we aren’t reproducing the way we were evolved to reproduce, and are waiting so late in life to reproduce, or choosing not to reproduce in greater numbers than ever before, may even make us less mature in many ways than our ancestors. Even if that Alpha/Beta Male bullshit were true–and it isn’t–it’s all supposed to be mostly done with by the time we’re entering our second decade and surely by the time we’re approaching our third. With only occasional fights breaking out–usually because someone got caught cheating.

Yes of course there’s cheating: pairbonders cheat. In fact, it should not take a whole lot of brainpower to realize that pairbonders will cheat more than tournament maters. This would be a natural thing: in tournament mating species, cheaters often get murdered, male or female. Whereas among pairbonders, who generally don’t fight to the death just to mate (i.e. that happens only occasionally), more opportunities to cheat will present, and cheating will be safer and there will be more opportunities to do it than in a pack with a giant male ready to cripple or murder any males caught sniffing around their harem.

I cannot find a single example anywhere of a pairbonding species that does not cheat. If you can find one, I’d like to read more about it, because I suspect that the only non-cheating pairbonders in the world are unicorns and elves. Concentrating on cheating misses the forest for the trees: every society in every era from the most modern to the most primitive recognizes what cuckolding is. And if cuckolding is universally recognized as a thing, and is subject to scorn and ridicule if not outright shunning and ostracizing, in almost every society with only rare exception? That means my dear fellows that BIOLOGICALLY we have a bad reaction to it when we spot it. Because men know who their own children are, instinctively, most of the time, and when they aren’t sure they feel massively insecure. Grandparents tend to feel the same way.

Also by the way, most of the evidence suggests women cheat as much as men, they just lie more about it. Sorry you guys who so wrongly that men naturally cheat and women don’t. Jeez, don’t you science?

Also by the way, human males mate-guard for each other, as do human females, which is yet again another feature of the pack-oriented pairbonder, not the tournament mater. Also, if we were tournament maters, the “wing man” would not even be a thing. As opposed to the reality of the “wing man”: he’s in practically every civilization, with only rare exception.

Indeed, human males, far from constantly competing, tend to crave each other’s company and enjoy working on shared projects and goals together. And the pedagogical role of older more mature males? Not just in every fucking civilization that respects males, but appears also to be the pattern that marked fatherhood starting about a million or so years ago.

Pedagogy: an actual patriarchal thing. And a beautiful thing. Feminists helped destroy that too by the way, and look how fucked up the education system is as a result.

I love my son. Not because he is my “genetic progeny” but because he is my blood, my kin, I was bonded to him before he was born, while he was still inside his mother, who I am divorced from but who is my friend still, as is her new husband. Which by the way isn’t a “cool arrangement,” it’s a natural one, or was until civilization came along and told us that was a bad idea.

Oh, and for the last fucking time, those of you who keep repeating the myth that mitochondrial DNA indicates an 80:40 reproductive advantage to females over males over the last couple of hundred thousand years? Debunked. Myth. Not true. Wrong. False to fact. Scientifically demolished. Invalid. If you are repeating the claim that female humans have a 2:1 reproductive advantage over male humans, you are repeating something as blatantly untrue as phrenology. It is false, no matter how provocative or interesting you find the concept.

The actual reproductive difference between females and males is real but small, and appears to be easily explained by the simple fact that a universal human pattern is that males tend to reproduce later in life than females on average.

There may also be something to the fact that exclusive same-sex attraction leaves males less likely to reproduce than females who are exclusively same-sex attracted. In any case the reproductive advantage females possess among humans is quite minor and not the outlandish 2:1 female advantage that has been scientifically debunked but which still has common currency in the manosphere. Those “thinkers” who continue to spout and repeat this myth of the 2:1 female reproductive advantage are often even people who’ve been given the documentation debunking it, and in my personal experience a few of them actually grow angry and start name-calling and other childish, feministlike responses. Why? Because they can’t refute it. There is no 2:1 reproductive advantage for females, and anyone who tells you otherwise today, in 2015, is full of shit. We can make excuses for the original researchers’ findings, as they were cautious and did not extrapolate too much from the data–and thus those researchers were in no way embarrassed when subsequent findings showed that they had wildly overestimated.

But look out, those of you following “MGTOW” (and also many PUAs): many “thinkers” in those arenas are selling you a toxic message about how men just want to fuck beautiful women and women just want to suck men’s resources dry. That’s misandrist garbage, and it’s pseudoscience no better than astrology.

Given the long history of antagonism between MGTOW and PUA, how ironic is it that they both share a “red pill” that’s laced with ideological poison. Alpha Male/Beta male is pseudoscientific bunk, period. The notion that we’re tournament maters is also ideological bunk. The notion that pairbonding means lifelong monagamy or just a psychological trick of civilization or religion? Laughable bunk.

Yes, the PUAs have some neat tricks that work in the mating game, a “game” that is supposed to encompass a very brief period biologically in anyone’s life (possibly something you do only once and then you’re mated for life, sometimes something you have to do a few times due to death or tragedy or a wandering lust, but that’s about it). Our natural mating and living pattern has been artificially changed by many factors in the last few centuries, of which feminism is but one.

Yes, MGTOW are right, society is so gynocentric it’s pretty much ruined marriage or almost any form of mating as extremely dangerous for males, and males are well-advised to avoid it. But that doesn’t excuse the pseudoscience some of them peddle while drawing that conclusion.

And yes, some of the more dim views of females are right, women can be a little more cold and a little more pragmatic and utilitarian, and can be cold and calculating by instinct in certain areas that can make men very uncomfortable. But men can be cold calculating and utilitarian in ways women find uncomfortable too. So, blowing up those sometimes uncomfortable realities to a psychotic extreme, using this weird thing you call “evopsych” which doesn’t actually match the evolutionary record? Stop it. You don’t need such phony pseudoscience to notice that society still treats its males like disposable commodities whose needs and feelings must always take a back seat to women’s.

Fair disclosure: If I believed what some of these “manospherian” thinkers believe, I would kill myself. I just would. And I’d hate myself for having brought male children into this world. Fortunately, they’re not correct. They’re spouting distorted science that the actual scientific record frequently does not support, and they turn into screaming babies or snarky children when challenged on their claims rather than addressing those challenges like mature men.

I seriously put it to you: the very idea that human society could fool men into wanting a mate and children, when hundreds of things in biology and evolution point to the fact that this is what most men want about as much as most women do, is self-evidently stupid. It’s what pairbonders do, and it is our evolutionary heritage. It’s not just about who gets to squirt what into whom – it really is about who gets to be a father and a mother to build a family and a tribe together because we don’t want “genetic legacy,” we want children and we want family and we want tribe. That’s our actual evolutionary heritage. We are not solitary animals who only get together occasionally to mate like bears or badgers. We’re pairbonders, with all that goes with pairbonding, whether we’re avian or mammalian, primate or canine. And we’re pack animals, which is what allowed men working in cooperation with each other to build the civilization we have today.

We love our children, and are programmed to want them and love them just like women. Ask a father who’s lost his kids what he’s so upset about. His genes were passed on, right? Why does he care if his kids are now being taken care of by someone else, isn’t that a big relief for him? No, it isn’t, not most of the time. It’s a wrenching pain in most fathers’ souls, so damaging to him that it could well kill him, and it damages his children. That’s why sane people increasingly recognize that Parental Alienation is an insidious and disgusting form of child abuse.

Richard Dawkins’ “Selfish Gene” hypothesis is Kindergarten simple on human biology. Lynn Margulis was right: evolution is as much about synergy and cooperation as it is about competition, and both of those are found in wonderful abundance in humans. BOTH competition and cooperation. Both between men and women, and between men and men, and between women and women. In. Various. Contexts.

All that, my friends, is not a neat idea. It’s the norm in human packs, tribes, and civilizations, most places, throughout most of history, and pretty much for the last million years or so I think.

I will entertain requests for specific references where you can go do some reading on various points but I’m not compiling a bibliography. This is grownup stuff and Google isn’t going to give you your answers. This is about the model of how human families, packs, tribes, and most civilizations works. It IS our evolutionary heritage, mostly, in broad terms. You guys off on the Alpha/Beta bullshit and the phony-baloney “Briffault’s Law” and garbage about how women don’t really love men and fatherhood is just a trick of the mind: Christ, your view isn’t just nihilistic. It’s childish pseudoscience no better than phrenology.

The manosphere, and the status of males in our culture in general, cannot be strengthened with pseudoscientific lies and bunk. Human beings are pairbonding pack animals, and have been since long before we had this thing called “civilization.” The human family, far from being a neat idea, is in reality our most important evolutionary legacy. Men are not well-served by teaching them dodgy pseudoscience and outright misinformation.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestmailby feather

Published by

Dean Esmay

A strange sort of pseudo-celebrity. Also a tasty floor wax!

  • Brian

    You don’t know what MGTOW is, do you? MGTOW’s have, by and large, foregone mating. It’s just not important. Maybe a one night stand here and there, but overall, not worth it. Especially not on a regular basis.

    • http://www.avoiceformen.com/ Dean Esmay

      I know a damn sight more than you do, obviously. In any case, why not address the topic? This isn’t about your special version of MGTOW, whatever it is, just as is clearly specified, certain well-known MGTOW thinkers, who are more like PUA thinkers than most would suspect, and missing the same multiple points. If you are not one of those MGTOW, then either sit and read something or move along as an uninterested party.

      • Brian

        I’ve been MGTOW for the past decade. Then again, I’m not the one who thinks you can be married and MGTOW. That alone tells me all I need to know about your knowledge on the topic.

        • http://counterfem2.blogspot.com fidelbogen

          So, apparently you still think of MGTOW as a social clique or tribe, rather than an impersonal force of history?

          • http://www.avoiceformen.com/ Dean Esmay

            He’s lying about being MGTOW for 10 years. There are also people MGTOW longer than that who will call bullshit on his shenanigans.

            PigTOW like this can’t help themselves, they have to come in and crap all over any conversation that mentions their weird religion if the mention in any way deviates from their personal definitions and litmus tests so all heretics will be silenced or every conversation ruined with their purity tests.

            You can tell this particular PigTOW liar wants nothing more than to proselytize since even when asked to go back to subject he goes back to talking about his Holy Dogma. That’s always the PigTOW giveaway.

        • http://www.avoiceformen.com/ Dean Esmay

          Your opinion’s merits aside, thank you so much for deraiilng the conversation to make it about your religion instead of the subject the article is actually about, PigTOW.

          • Brian

            Insults now? Sinking to Manhood Academy levels are we?

          • http://www.avoiceformen.com/ Dean Esmay

            You already did that, sport. Now why don’t you stop seagulling and talk about the topic at hand?

          • Brian

            Sorry sport, I haven’t sunk to insults.

          • http://www.avoiceformen.com/ Dean Esmay

            Do you get paid to run around pretending to be MGTOW, or do you just lie about people for free?

          • Brian

            That’s a laugh coming from you. But with you we know the answer, you lie to people for free.

            I’ve lived my life as MGTOW for the past decade, believe what you will, doesn’t change the facts. And now I’m done with you. I’ll even let you get the last word that you desire so much.

    • NewMHRA

      You get to define why each individual MGTOW has chosen to be MGTOW?

      It’s not mating that prompted the evolution of men to go MGTOW, but the implications of marriage. I come across a lot of men saying things like, “I’d love to have children, but marriage is too much of a threat.”

      The problem with all these social trends is that people tend to champion their own reasons for doing something so it appears they’re “the smart one” or “the sophisticated one” and that distorts the initial impetus to make any life choice from something simple to something very convoluted that varies from person to person.

      That’s where all the level 3 MGTOW bullshit comes in, as well as Patriarchy Theory from feminists, and PUA’s bitching and scoffing at MRA’s.

      You see the same thing with religious MRA’s whose focus is the nebulous concept of “traditionalism.”

      I see all this as a way for weak people who aren’t comfortable with themselves and their decisions to make themselves more satisfied, and also to place themselves above others that would naturally be in their social group.

      Does it really matter who approaches their life in your way? Does it even matter what your way is to others? Should others reach the exact same understanding as you and make the choices you have?

      It’s amusing how often MGTOW criticize other men for not being like them, and those MGTOW that place themselves on their little high-horse above other men because they’ve found “The True Way” which makes them righteous and supremely intelligent.

      Who the fuck asked you to define anything for anyone but yourself, and why is it so necessary for some MGTOW to place other MGTOW into their box?

      I’m married myself, but when the divorce rolls around I’ll be MGTOW for the rest of my life because marriage has been the most exhausting and erratic experience of my life and I’d rather live calmly without perpetual chaos, judgments, and threats.

      I do love my child though, and I’d love to have more children. This is the saddest part of MGTOW because kids are wonderful to have. The evolution of MGTOW makes sense within this culture and I consider them brothers, but it’d be great if they’d stop trying to define everything for other men who’ve had experiences that caused their blinders to be lifted.

      Before we’re men or women, we’re individuals, and we shouldn’t have to endure cultural shaming from group after group after group simply because it’s become so important for many of us to feel more important or wiser than the next guy/girl.

      • Brian

        I didn’t say that it was mating that prompted men to go MGTOW, just that MGTOW’s have chosen not to mate.

        I don’t criticize men who choose not to be MGTOW, their life, their choice. My closest male friend is married (I’m good friends with his wife as well), he even invited me to the wedding, which I was unable to attend due to being out of state. Their life, their choice. But the thing is, he doesn’t identify as MGTOW.

        While you say you will be MGTOW when the divorce rolls around, Dean says he’s MGTOW WHILE being (presumably happily) married. Other than Dean’s little definition of MGTOW, the whole of it does not marry once going/while being MGTOW.

        As for children, that’s an individual choice, and by no means one everyone is going to share. I for one am child-free by choice, having no desire to have children. If it was in the budget, I would take every available method to ensure that it doesn’t occur. But I won’t criticize people who choose to have them.

        • NewMHRA

          You are saying men can only be MGTOW if they think like you.

          Two things are mentioned in the MGTOW camp most often:

          1. No (or very limited and non-entangling) relationships with women
          2. Non-participation in society

          The choice of one MGTOW may be prompted more by one aspect than the other, but they’re both MGTOW drivers and they both make sense in this cultural climate. You also seem to feel that arriving at certain conclusions means one must suddenly distance themselves from those they love. Not everyone was MGTOW before they were in a relationship, and if that relationship adds something positive to ones life there’s no reason one cannot maintain it.

          It’s like some MGTOW are trying to cultivate MGTOW Scriptures so all the True MGTOW can nod together knowingly and be pleased with themselves.

          How is it MGTOW to exclude other men who are living their life in their own way?

          I see the MGTOW movement as being prompted by a light bulb that goes off above a man’s head, and the insights he’s gained from that illumination affects his choices from that point on. His path is now the path of a MGTOW because he has chosen to do things that benefit him and keep him free, and it’s up to him to make those choices, not up to other MGTOW.

          I see having that realization and taking steps to progress through life according to your own individual needs and desires without regard to how you’re pressured and prodded as what makes a man MGTOW.

          He has realigned his approach to his own life because he’s seen how he’s being used and abused. This is why most MGTOW have a sort of strength of conviction. They’ve actively chosen a new life outside of certain entanglements and judgements, and it’s up to him to weigh the pros and cons of whichever choices he makes.

          There’s no reason to say one MGTOW is more MGTOW than another, or to criticize someone for not being MGTOW enough to be in the club.

          It’s not a club, but a new level of awareness and an active engagement in how one lives (and who they spend their time with.)

          I would guess that the drive to separate others from a specific brand of MGTOW is due to those who align themselves with that brand feeling that their brand is being cheapened in some way, so they lay claim to it and exclude all other variations of the brand. I prefer to think of it as a variety of MGTOW flavors and we all have our preference.

          These types of assignations of “true” thought and “approved” goals happen so often in the modern world and they’re nothing more than ways to dictate what others do and think. To me, throwing that at men who’ve arrived at a similar understanding is the opposite of MGTOW and I believe men are treated with enough disrespect these days to warrant giving them a little leeway.

          We don’t need any more groups that shame us into conforming or exclude us because we’re not perfectly aligned with the exact rules they live by.

          Aside from all that, one doesn’t have to live as a MGTOW to understand it.

          • Brian

            Between the two main ideas behind MGTOW, one is very specific, and the other includes the first as a part of it.

            In no way do I feel that. Loved ones, be they family or friends is not a part of widespread MGTOW. For instance, I’m still quite close to my mothers side of the family, always have been, always will be. I wasn’t MGTOW before I was in a relationship, in fact, I had a number before doing so. What’s more, my last relationship was my longest, after which I decided to “just do me”, as this was before “MGTOW” was really a wider known thing.

            I do not distinguish between different “types” of MGTOW, just that marriage and long term/committed relationships are not a part of it. A man going his own way with no one to tell him he’s wrong, like say a wife or significant other.

          • NewMHRA

            “A man going his own way with no one to tell him he’s wrong, like say a wife or significant other.”

            What if that significant other doesn’t impose upon him?

            You cannot know the ins and outs of everyone’s relationships and you’re assuming that he’s incapable of weighing his options and determining valuations himself.

            It does come across as you dictating how he should live and who/what he is or what he aligns himself with based upon your assumptions.

            Many of the True MGTOW seem to take this approach, and I find very strong similarities to how feminists use their ideological stance.

            What it comes down to is that it’s nobody’s business how a man goes his own way except that man and anyone he chooses to include in his life.

            To do otherwise flies in the face of MGTOW because it becomes a matter of True MGTOW telling “lesser” MGTOW (non-believers) how to behave.

            It’s fine to have a viewpoint and use that to guide you, but creating more rules to follow and expecting others to follow them the way you do is rather insulting.

            I mean… really now… (sigh…)

          • NewMHRA

            Just like to add that it may be the case that MGTOW who cling to the no dating/marriage limitation do so because it provides them with the strength to stay “off the plantation.”

            I have no problem with that as we all do what’s necessary to maintain our lives, and women and companionship are powerful forces that attract men.

            I’m sure there are TFL guys in the MGTOW camp that feel bad about it and see MGTOW as a way to feel better about their lives. Again, I have no problem with that because it helps them grow and remain strong.

            There are probably closeted gay men that call themselves MGTOW as well. I see that as dishonest because there is a reasonable assumption that MGTOW are straight males, but what’s a closeted gay dude to do if he craves male companionship?

            The problem I have is the assertion that all MGTOW must live in the same way, and that a movement which claims to be about individual pursuits is trying to become an exclusive group with tenets and excommunications.

          • Bewildered

            What it comes down to is that it’s nobody’s business how a man goes his
            own way except that man and anyone he chooses to include in his life.

            This is a CLINCHER !
            Haven’t we had enough of the true muslim,true Christian,true feminist, true…..(fill in the blank).nonsense ?
            The bottom line is that at the end of the day any deviance from the status quo ante is an ill omen for the official rule book/playbook.Even rebellion needs to be creative and individualistic. When it’s not monolithic and there’s no set pattern in the madness it can be a pretty terrifying force and almost impossible to handle.
            Heck ! the name says it all Men going their own way.
            Assuming that men are not zombies it’s not unreasonable to expect there would be many ways.

      • Graham Strouse

        I’m reminded of something Gloria Steinem once said–“The personal is political.” It isn’t really, but people tend to universalize from their own experiences, particularly powerful experiences, be they positive or negative. It can be difficult to disentangle the two.

        • Mr. E

          That’s an extremely good point.

        • Bewildered

          “The personal is political.”
          Only a woman could have got away with this BS.By this reasoning kids have shitloads of legitimate political issues. Who would have thought !
          It can be difficult to disentangle the two.
          If and only if your feelz have gone so wild that your reasoning has become dysfunctional.

          • Graham Strouse

            It’s a rhetorical fallacy, I know, but it works on an awful lot of people. A lot of folks have trouble grasping the nature of faulty causation and the fact that correlation is not causation.

  • Chad_Nine

    I really liked this one, Dean. I do think that certain aspects of human behavior have been exaggerated in order to make points. One quibble though-

    “Fair disclosure: If I believed what some of these “manospherian” thinkers believe, I would kill myself. I just would. And I’d hate myself for having brought male children into this world”

    Over the top, emotional argument. Something may make you feel a certain way, but that’s not relevant to how true or not it is.

    • http://www.avoiceformen.com/ Dean Esmay

      Possibly so, but this article is here in part to challenge thinkers who peddle ersatz pseudoscience they call “evopsych” and they often justify it by claiming that young men who find them tell them “I was thinking about killing myself before I found you.” That is a non-argument along multiple axes, but as a necessary counter, it did indeed make me deeply despondent and really did make me regret fathering sons when I first heard this bad evopscyh stuff, because I thought they might be right and I felt like I’d committed a moral crime to even allow my sons to come into this horrible world.

      This is the flip side of that: how many guys kill themselves AFTER learning the false, phony pseudoscience?

      • Eric Hamell

        I can’t see why anyone would. Or, if they did, it would be because of what it says about women, not what it says about men.

  • TheSharpeful

    Dean, you magnificent bastard!!! I’ve been waiting for an article like this for months! :)

    I’ll have to finish reading it tomorrow, or I wont be able to get up for work. The half that I read already makes it an instant classic though.

    Thanks man, great work.

  • Jeff

    The family did precede civilization. At the same time, civilization could not exist without the family.

  • NewMHRA

    Throughout my life I’ve had a lot of female friends and I’ve always been cool with that, but when I’d date one of the women I knew I’d always lose a female friend or two.

    It’s like the ones that no longer wanted to be my friend had wanted more than just a friendship, but their “leaving” was the first indication of that. Choosing another woman seemed to insult them on some level, but if the friendship was good I saw no reason to end it just because I was dating someone else. The women I dated limited my contact with other women as well.

    I’ve always found that offensive because it’s as though they felt justified dictating who I can relate to, and I was expected to go along with it.

    They laid claim to me and made it known.

    It’s one thing to experience that with a girlfriend or wife because by being in such a relationship you’re accepting an exclusive commitment, but to have female friends disappointed in me because I chose someone else is selfish on their part.

    There’s also the fact that having someone I’m dating limit my friendships is an imposition that shows a lack of trust which makes them unappealing to me.

  • Bev

    Very interesting Dean. I once read a paper about the effectiveness of riflemen. There was one very interesting point. After the battle of Gettysburg It was found that many union soldiers did not shoot, they pretended to and then reloaded. Up to nine reloads all jammed on top of one another without a shot fired. Military training now is designed to physiologically break down that abhorrence to killing other humans.

    You mention 100,000 thousand years often and the patterns of wolves and humans. Science has now proved the association of man and dog(wolf) goes back for not 10,000 thousand years but 100,000 thousand years. When the results came out it was retested a number of times as the scientist had difficulty accepting their own data. Some say it is almost a symbiotic relationship. The most common reason given is the hunting skills of wolf and human complimented each other. Perhaps it was more as they recognized similar traits in each other.

    • http://www.avoiceformen.com/ Dean Esmay

      Yeah we’ve been with dogs at least a hundred thousand years. Possibly longer. The interesting thing about this is that the number can only increase; a few years ago I was amused when they discovered what was clearly a stone oven that was several hundred thousand years old. It blew away a lot of assumptions about how long humans have been cooking. 😉

    • Graham Strouse

      Humans and dogs do make for remarkably effective hunting companions. We’re both social creatures, we tend to establish hierarchies & we’re both highly carnivorous and quite intelligent. Humans are ambush hunters and tool users and we can kill from a distance. We’re slow movers but we can navigate a number of different kind of terrain. Dogs are superb pursuit predators with superior senses and they’re strategy is general to wear down and herd prey. It’s a pretty natural partnership, really.

      • Phil McCracken

        Humans are also great pursuit hunters. A wildebeest can run faster initially, but not a marathon. Humans and canines are long distance runners.

        • Graham Strouse

          Actually, we really aren’t. Human anaerobic endurance is really quite poor. We’re effective stalkers and we’re good at navigating difficult terrain. And because we’re generally brighter than our prey and can recognize pattern recognition we can stalk herds of prey animals for a great length of time until we can set up an attack. But throughout our species history, we’ve never relied on long distance pursuit running. The cost-benefit ratio doesn’t work for us. If you try to run after a wildebeest for 10 or 15 miles you’ll burn so many calories and be so winded that if you don’t prosecute the kill you’ll be in far worse shape than when you started. That’s why dogs/wolves make such good hunting campions. They can maintain a high speed chase for days.

          • Phil McCracken

            Humans tend to hunt in groups like wolves. Wolves tend to take turns chasing down prey until the animal tires and they then pile on. It seems very likely humans in the distant past would also try to tire out much larger prey before going in for the kill or driving them into a trap or ambush point. It’s like a team sport with the teammates able to intuit each others minds. Mix men and dogs together and they do the same and I’m talking from experience.

  • Jonathan Watson

    First: good to see you are still finding time to wright Dean. Second: both you and this piece are bloody f-ing brilliant!!!

    • http://www.avoiceformen.com/ Dean Esmay

      Thanks mate.

      • B_Rex

        I dont suppose you will be re-starting your show with Erin Pizzey any time soon?

  • Man Alive

    I think Dean is minimizing the prioritizing the amount of emphasis midern day women place on using men as atm. Also he’s totally glosed over how women in modern feminist cultures can so easily at the same time treat individual male ‘mates’ as disposable because they can instead easily ‘pairbond’ with society at large. It’s interesting that he describes pairbonding in evolutiony terms, yet totally decries what some MGTOW are saying about men’s disposability as not having any evolutionary basis. That seems very odd, even reactionary to me. I would rather think that ALL human behaviour has some basis in evolution.

  • Man Alive

    I think Dean is minimizing the prioritizing the amount of emphasis modern day women place on using men as atms. Also he’s totally glosed over how women in modern feminist cultures can so easily at the same time treat individual male ‘mates’ as disposable because they can instead easily ‘pairbond’ with society at large. It’s interesting that he describes pairbonding in evolutiony terms, yet totally decries what some MGTOW are saying about men’s disposability as not having any evolutionary basis. That seems very odd, even reactionary to me. I would rather think that ALL human behaviour has some basis in evolution.

    • http://www.avoiceformen.com/ Dean Esmay

      Well that’s a clusterfuck of assumptions I barely know what to do with. I’m talking about a million years of evolution, you’re talking about today. I can talk about today in other articles, but in the meantime, it is not possible to pairbond with society as a whole, although we do bond with various individuals and not just mates, and this is a straight up lie:

      “It’s interesting that he describes pairbonding in evolutiony terms, yet
      totally decries what some MGTOW are saying about men’s disposability as
      not having any evolutionary basis.”

      I would appreciate a retraction of that before I say anything further. Otherwise I’ll assume you’re just another PigTOW cultist who outright lies about anyone who questions his religious garbage.

      • Man Alive

        After umpteen paragraphs of Deansay it’s good to see in his reply to previous comment some clarification on the issue of current day male disposability having it’s roots in evolution over whatever period of time (pick a number, I care not).
        The charge of making a false allegation is hilarious though. If the piece had been clearer from the start, the ‘assumption’ wouldn’t have arisen.
        Ho hum….another acerbic offended MRA bandying about PIGtow ad hominems in place of arguments and expecting respect.
        Another day, another reason to be an MGHOW.
        At least we’re on the same page that male disposability has it’s roots in human evolution.
        That’s a start I guess.

        • http://www.avoiceformen.com/ Dean Esmay

          OK, so basically you’re a sock puppet or troll. You’re outright lying about what I’ve said, as anyone reading this can see.

          • Man Alive

            So typical of MRA at avfm. Use a bit of logic and they’re reduced to throwing around ad hominems – PIGtow, troll, sock puppet.
            Oh well. ….

  • sputnik

    7 years of breastfeeding? My goodness! My info was about 4.

    And also that, yes, this steady drain on a female’s fat stores worked surprisingly well to counter conception during breastfeeding. The interesting new hypothesis here for me is that agribiz humanoids overran the hunter/gatherers by populating right over ’em. “Paved paradise, and put up a parking lot…” Or something like that. Something drily amusing there, even as birth rates around the world are falling off, everywhere except sub-saharan regions. And everybody thinks the world is turning Chinese, in the long run? Hah!

    Incidentally, I very much enjoyed the informal presentation here.

    I prefer to call it “evolpsych,” with that little, suggestive “give ’em L, Harry” in there.

    Thing is, things can evolve as a matter of purely social expedients, on a perfectly rational basis, with some awareness of what then amounts to conscious evolution. That’s the only way that I can grant evolpsych any credence. I am something more than a mess o’chemicals, frankly. Bet you are, too. (Personally, I did not get pseudo-pregnant when she did. “That would have been simply irrational, Mr. McCoy,” he said, characteristically cocking one eyebrow. :-)

    And with the ascendance of atheism among the pseudo-intellectuals of skeptic scientism — even as this becomes an insufferable, hidebound dogma unto itself — and with the invariably accompanying “scientific” materialism, much important evidence for spiritual modalities of human development — evidence both remarkably abundant and ubiquitous — remains conveniently ignored by most.

    With you, Dean, of all people, I would most like to have that discussion. You and Señor King.

    • http://www.avoiceformen.com/ Dean Esmay

      I’m skeptical that the loss of body fat can sustain 4-6 years of non-ovolation (and yes, it’s more like 4-6 years, maybe I should fix that). The fact that hunter/gatherer women are naturally lean also would make that idea problematic. A better explanation seems to be diet; H/G diets are much higher in protein, much lower in carbs, moderate in fat. It appears that a high-carb diet signals the body that times of plenty are here, so it’s not just time to get fat, it’s time to make babies.

      I have an entire book around here by anthropologists examining the dietary patterns of everything from sub-Saharan black Africans to the Inuit and many in between, and all eat a diet wildly different from ours which is both high in protein (very high, 30-50% seems normal) and with almost no refined carbs.

      • sputnik

        Well, now that you mention it, I was skeptical about that, too. But it was there, and I coughed it up. Too much “science” goes on that way.

        I noted, while reading Adele Davis in the early ’80s, that she would repeat the establishment line on saturated fats and cholesterol, and then turn right around and praise ancestral diets which happened to be very high in animal fats, diets as radically different as those of the Maasai — high in beef and milk — the Inuit — very high in various animal fats — and the south sea islanders — who put away prodigious amounts of coconut loaded with coconut oil which is about 85% saturated.

        Lo and behold, some 33 years later, I discovered that the original study finding detrimental effects from these substances, dating from 1956 or thereabouts, conducted by one Ancel Keys, was a perfect example of cherry picked data.

        …a major criticism is that Ancel Keys had chosen to study only those countries where both saturated fats consumption and heart disease were high. He ignored other countries that ate similar diet but had low rates of heart disease.

        http://stop-trans-fat.com/ancel-keys.html

        And this may be a tangent to your piece here, but it’s very important. People be DYIN’ from this bad reseach, that’s how WRONG it is.

        Bad science kills. It can. Literally. Yes, literally, folks. I’ve never eschewed the fat. Always chewed it. All my adult life. About a decade ago, I came up “perfect” on a blood chemistry. Not my choice of adjective, the doctor’s. And there are days I’ll go through 2/3 of a stick o’butter.

        Incidentally, I’ve always theorized that a high carb intake signals a body that it’s NOT times of plenty, so STORE FAT, STORE FAT. Who knows…? The complicating factor is that the human body needs to get the excess carb out of circulation to avoid insulin overload, but then a body wouldn’t necessarily need to store it.

        • Graham Strouse

          High carb diets don’t make much sense unless it’s either the only thing available or you’re a serious endurance athlete. The body can utilize carbohydrates pretty effectively if you’re consistently involved in intense anaerobic exercise. If you’re not, it basically just turns into fat.

      • Guestronomy

        One small correction Dean.
        High card availability is less a sign of plenty, and more a sign of imminent shortage of food, as most of the card staples are storage bits of plants,
        and they developed to see the plant through drought, annual floods, winter or other lean period, and we are tied to that preexisting pattern.
        (not that it actually changes your argument, just thought it may interest you)

      • Graham Strouse

        I find it interesting that most remains of Pleistocene-era humans suggests that they were about the same height as modern humans, generally as if not more robust and even had larger brains. Early “civilized” humans who subsisted on heavily grain-based diets were much smaller. Not sure about their relative brain size.

    • http://www.avoiceformen.com/ Dean Esmay

      I should add, that 7 year average between kids is basically from birth to birth. So there’s about a year of being pregnant in there.

  • Andy C

    Its good to be reminded from time to time that were not so different. That women do love etc. After that though got a bit tl/dr for me. Sorry.

  • http://mensrightsaustralia.com/ Robert Brockway

    Dean, typo: “dos not”.

  • Steve Denheyer

    Hi Dean – could I see your source(s) for the 80:40 mitochondrial DNA claim being debunked, please & thanks?

    • http://www.avoiceformen.com/ Dean Esmay

      The (now proven incorrect) 80:40 reproductive advantage for females came from Baumeister. And let’s be clear: he was not in any way being deceptive, this was just the science available at the time he published.

      More recent science has superceded Baumeister’s numbers. His estimates on historic
      male/female population sizes are based on The Most Recent Common
      Ancestor for both males and females. At the time the 80:40/ claim floated, TMRCA for males had been found to be between 50-100
      thousand years ago, and the TMRCA for females was 200,000 years ago. This led to a belief in a 2 to 1 split favoring female ancestors.

      Revised genetic studies have found that TMRCA for males is ~142,000
      thousand years ago and the TMRCA for females is ~177,000 years ago.

      This
      means that the conclusion that there’s a 2:1 advantage for females is void. It’s doubtful Dutton, Baumeister, or any of the other sources (some of whom I’ve spoken to by the way) would refute that.

      There is a slight skew towards
      female ancestors but this is easily accounted for by the fact that females tend to reproduce earlier in life. The small difference can also be contributed to by the fact that it looks like Exclusive Same Sex Attraction in males may make reproduction somewhat less likely than it does for Exclusively Same Sex Attracted females. In any case, the best numbers I have so far (these are a couple years old) can only converge, they can’t diverge. Which means there’s only a small difference based on what we know, and the difference can likely only get smaller if new information crops up.

      Here are some references to spend time with:

      Duttons:
      http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/11/2047.long
      TMRCA for females estimate:
      http://dienekes.blogspot.ca/2012/04/copernican-reassessment-of-human.html

      TMRCA for males estimate:
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21601174
      Interesting background stuff to look at:

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21109223
      While I’m quite certain–I can practically see it being written now–that someone will claim I said there’s no reproductive advantage for females, just like some are out there even now suggesting I dispute that Male Disposability is a thing (in fact I think one wag here already did that). It’s bunk. There’s a small advantage to females, it exists. It’s just been grossly exaggerated by certain “manospherians” who appear to be in the habit of grabbing the first bit of scientific data that seems to match conclusions they’ve already reached in their heads, and then just stop there.

      • Steve Denheyer

        Thanks – great response. There’s some stuff to chew on there but since Wilder is involved in the revised science, that’s strong evidence that the recent stuff is more accurate. Consider me updated.

      • http://bittergubben.wordpress.com bittergubben

        Your link under “Duttons” goes to “Genetic Evidence for Unequal Effective Population Sizes of Human Females and Males”, reaches conclusions that you compare to phrenology. (I don’t see why you call it Duttons, did you mean to link to something else?)

        The forth link is interesting. It does refer to Keinan et al, finding a male bias instead of a female one; but it is not rejecting the idea of a larger variability in male reproductive success and different effective population sizes, on the contrary, it says that if it was predominantly males that migrated out of Africa, then that would be compatible both with the previous finds of a larger female effective population size, and with Keinans findings. So it does not rule out the stuff that you compare to phrenology.

        I was not aware about such findings about TMRCA. The study linked below has estimates that go even further, with a marginally older estimate for males than females:“We estimate the Y chromosome TMRCA to be 138 ky (120–156 ky) and the mtDNA TMRCA to be 124 ky (99–148 ky”

        However, that is not the issue for which you invoked phrenology – that statement is about effective population sizes. While TMRCA was seen as an indicator of that when the 2:1 claim was first made, it was never the main argument. There are at least 2 methods used for estimating effective population sizes – neither one of which I get, they are technical – but the TMRCA was just something that fitted nicely and thus gets mentioned.

        “Our observation that the TMRCA of the Y chromosome is similar to that of the mtDNA does not imply that the effective population sizes of males and females are similar. In fact, we observe a larger Ne in females than in males”, “Sequencing Y Chromosomes Resolves Discrepancy in Time to Common Ancestor of Males versus Females”, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4032117/

        Their estimate for effective population size is also twice as large for females as males (but they provide no bounds, so they are not formal about that estimate).

  • http://bittergubben.wordpress.com bittergubben

    I am not a PUA, do not share in their priorities. If you want to advocate norms that promote pair bonding, norms that are beneficial to children and society at large, and claim that most of PUAs are at odds with those norms, then I agree.
    But I perceive what you are doing here as strawmanning. People in all parts of the manosphere are subjected to enough strawmanning from feminists, there is no need to pile it on.
    While PUAs got the term “alpha” from its earlier use for wolves, that does not provide its meaning. The basic idea is that what women in general find attractive (1) for a no strings attached one night stand, differs from what they find attractive (2) relationship wise. An alpha male is someone who is attractive in the first sense (regardless if he would be in the second), and a beta male is someone who is attractive in the second sense, but not in the first. If someone is very interested in what women are attracted to, as PUAs are, then that is a relevant distinction.
    “Alpha Male/Beta male is pseudoscientific bunk, period.”
    To go that far, you would need to show that there is no substantial difference in what women are attracted to when it comes to purely carnal pleasures, and what they are attracted to when it comes to long term relationships. Good luck with that.
    You seem to be attacking parties that think we are a tournament species, without pair bonding. Who says that? What I usually hear is either that we are an in between, or that “we are pairbonders through and through”. While many PUAs emphasize the competition and do not interest themselves in the pair bonding, they do not deny that it is a trait of the species?
    In a pure tournament species, there is massive sexual dimorphism (males larger and stronger than females), there is huge variability in reproductive success among males, it is combat-capable aggressive males that are successful, there is no paternal investment in offspring, large sexual difference in lifespan.
    In a pure pair bonding species, there is very little sexual dimorphism, there is low variability in reproductive success among males, parental capability is important for male reproductive success, but aggression is not, there is high paternal investment in offspring, no gender difference in lifespan.
    So were do humans fit in? We have moderate sexual dimorphism, variability in reproductive success is substansialy higher among men then women, both parenting capability and combat capability matters for male attractiveness, there is usually high paternal investment in children, and moderate difference in lifespan. We are an in between, a blend between tournament and pair bonding.
    (for more of the same, see Stanford professor Robert Sapolsky lectures on the biology of behavioral evolution, at about 1h19: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0Oa4Lp5fLE)
    Well, you clearly disagree about the variability of male reproductive success: “If you are repeating the claim that female humans have a 2:1 reproductive advantage over male humans, you are repeating something as blatantly untrue as phrenology.”
    Have heard such claims before, but never seen any sources. When I searched myself 2 years ago, I found three studies, all of which are roughly consistent with 2:1 – one of them has that as low end, one as high end, but they more or less go there. This is not my field, so perhaps I miss important studies?
    Study 1: “… our results indicate that the [non-recombining portion of the Y chromosome (NRY)] tends to have an approximately twofold smaller [effective population size] and TMRCA than [mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA)] within human populations. There is no indication from our data that this difference is caused by different forms or intensities of natural selection acting on mtDNA and the NRY. Instead, we favor a hypothesis whereby sex-specific demographic processes act to reduce the male breeding population size. … Shen at al. (2000) observed an approximately 5:1 ratio of autosomal to NRY variability in their global survey of nucleotide variation. This observation differs significantly from neutral expectations based on a one-to-one breeding ratio but is extremely close to the expected results given a breeding ratio of two females per male”, ”Genetic Evidence for Unequal Effective Population Sizes of Human Females and Males” http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/11/2047.full
    Study 2, Hammer at al, instead analyzing the X-chromosome: ”… we estimate the range of the breeding sex ratio to be 2.4–8.7”, ”Sex-biased evolutionary forces shape genomic patterns of human diversity” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2538571/
    Study 3: ”Our updated estimates are at the low end of the estimates obtained by Hammer et al., which ranged from 1.8 to 14,2 and thus do not strongly support the results and conclusions discussed by these authors.”, “Response to Lohmueller et al.” http://www.cell.com/AJHG/retrieve/pii/S0002929710002612
    So what is your basis for comparing the 2:1 belief to phrenology?
    Plenty more I would disagree with, but is to long already …

    • http://www.avoiceformen.com/ Dean Esmay

      I’m not talking smack. I’m challenging pseudoscience already floating around MGTOW and PUA spheres regularly. There is NO strawmanning of any kind. I’m answering what’s already out there.

      And it is on the purveyors of concepts like “alpha male” to defend their bullshit. It’s already known pseudoscience, so if they’re admitting that they never meant there was anything scientific about it, well, then they should say so.

      • Graham Strouse

        Actually, as I was about to say before before disqus cut me on the the second part of my post, I don’t have a problem with anyone who wants to call themselves MGTOW. I just find it kind of puzzling sometimes. firstly, because it sounds like an acronym for an anti-tank missile, but mostly because if you’re going to go your own way, why to you need a club with membership criteria? I totally get that a lot of guys who identify as MGTOW have been severely fucked over by women and by gynocentric court systems. I understand that they’re wounded and angry and maybe seeking a new identity to help heal their wounds and validate themselves. But if you’re going to go your own way isn’t it easier to just, y’know, do it? I’m an atheist but I’ve never felt the slightest urge to, say, attend an atheism+ convention. That’s the nice thing about atheism. You can take your weekends off and eat whatever the hell you. There aren’t any membership requirements.

        • Mr. E

          Graham – We have been having a long-running discussion on many of these very same topics in the AVFM Forum lounge. I would like to invite you and anyone else to come and join us:

          Chivalry in Modern Times

          http://forums.avoiceformen.com

          The thread got spun up in the middle of a conversation here in the Disqus comments, so we moved it over to the forum so we could keep it going. Bear that in mind a little if you come to visit. It may take a few pages to really get what we’re talking about, and of course we ramble quite a bit off and on the subject.

          But overall, the gist of it is pretty simple, we’re discussing what can be the basis of a “new deal” between men and women. We are talking about a lot of the very same things you bring up in your article.

          We would *love* to have your experience and viewpoint come join us. Feel free to tell us that everything we’ve said is shit– if that’s what you think. The point is we’re having a great conversation about it and you’re invited!!

          :-)

          http://previewcf.turbosquid.com/Preview/2014/08/01__13_22_41/yin&yang.jpgeae5188e-768a-46cd-b500-61ae7c3caacdSmall.jpg We Are One — Support the MHRM / MRA Movement

          • Graham Strouse

            Danke! I think I’m registered in the forums but I’ll have to check. Sounds like a good conversation!

          • Mr. E

            We’ve been having a good time with it. We’re up to 60 pages of stuff so far. Either we’re really long-winded (a very distinct possibility there) or there have been some good points bandied about. Either way, we’d love to have you and your POV come join us!

      • https://www.fanfiction.net/u/2375055/Paul-Midnight Pajaul

        Hello, just like to politely ask for your sources- not for any use of argument, just because I’d like to learn more. Specifically the research into wolves, early human pair bonding, and all related material, if you please. Thank you for your time.

  • Mr. E

    “But the reality is some men’s pathological hypergamy does lead them to being wildly unfaithful boyfriends or spouses. Just as it does in women.”

    I assume you mean some WOMEN’S pathological hypergamy.

    • http://www.avoiceformen.com/ Dean Esmay

      Hypergamy is as much a male trait as a female one. The only real difference here, besides how exactly it tends to express, is that society is now more inclined to punish men for being hypergamous and reward women for it. But both sexes have hypergamous traits and both can take their hypergamy to pathological levels. It’s just easier for the woman to get away with today.

  • Mr. E

    Dean – We have been having a long-running discussion on many of these very same topics in the AVFM Forum lounge. I would like to invite you and anyone else to come and join us:

    Chivalry in Modern Times

    http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showthread.php?16588-Chivalry-in-Modern-Times-2-0

    The thread got spun up in the middle of a conversation here in the Disqus comments, so we moved it over to the forum so we could keep it going. Bear that in mind a little if you come to visit. It may take a few pages to really get what we’re talking about, and of course we ramble quite a bit off and on the subject. But overall, the gist of it is pretty simple, we’re discussing what can be the basis of a “new deal” can be between men and women. We are talking about a lot of the very same things you bring up in your article. We would *love* to have your experience and viewpoint come join us. Feel free to tell us that everything we’ve said is shit– if that’s what you think. The point is we’re having a great conversation about it and you’re invited!!

    :-)

    http://previewcf.turbosquid.com/Preview/2014/08/01__13_22_41/yin&yang.jpgeae5188e-768a-46cd-b500-61ae7c3caacdSmall.jpg We Are One — Support the MHRM / MRA Movement

  • Mr. E

    “Women may be a bit more pragmatic and utilitarian about love; there’s evidence that most romantics are men not women. But saying women value men only for utility is exactly like saying men truly only value tits and ass. It’s a bullshit statement in both cases.”

    It’s not a bullshit statement, rather it’s an over-simplification which ignores the emotional component. However, I think there is a *very* good case to be made that emotional attachments are simply “pre-judgements” of someone based on their perceived value.

    From my post in “Chivalry For Modern Times” just this morning, located here: http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showthread.php?16588-Chivalry-in-Modern-Times-2-0&p=148452&viewfull=1#post148452

    Suppose you have two people, a woman and a man, standing at each end of a field. They can see each other across the way and never have the slightest inkling that someday they will “discover” that they are “soulmates” and “destined” to be together always.
    Or they could pass by each other a hundred times on the same busy city street. Never glancing over. Never saying “Hello”. Never even knowing the other exists at all– and yet be destined to meet some night in a pub, or at a concert, or wherever and become helplessly, hopelessly head-over-heels madly “in love” with each other forever.

    The point is that neither of them *starts out* in love, it is something they acquire through interaction with each other. Little tiny moments and gestures which add up to an understanding of shared interests and common goals. When you have a few, you have “friends”. Add a couple more and you have “friends with benefits”. Toss in an ooopsie or two, and now you have “Married with Children”. When you have enough of them together in a pile, you have “soulmates”.

    Conversely it is also possible for the relationship to turn sour. A little selfish indulgence here, a thoughtless word there, and before you know it, you have two people who can’t stand each other who are held together by– what? What is the glue? Inertia? Easier to continue than to change? Mutual obligations? I think it’s that last bit, more than we admit, which is the true glue for many relationships. Even the best of relationships are really more friendships of convenience until the serious obligations come along.

    And what is a “friendship” but a form of shared obligation– an alliance of sorts between two people with shared interests and common goals. We’ve talked about this a bit before– for most people friendships come with tally sheets. Perhaps not overt ones but a sort of unstated tit-for-tat / quid-pro-quo relationship, where I help you now in return for you helping me out later. Very few friendships are completely one-sided 100% of the time. A friendship which is exceptionally one-sided is a relationship where one of the participants feels like the other participant is “too needy” or “too clingy” or “emotionally draining”– or any of a dozen other soul-sapping maladies which can befall a friendship. So, when you think about it, even friendships are typically built on more than simple “emotions” and are more along the lines of informal “deals” / alliances between mutually-interested people.

    http://previewcf.turbosquid.com/Preview/2014/08/01__13_22_41/yin&yang.jpgeae5188e-768a-46cd-b500-61ae7c3caacdSmall.jpg We Are One — Support the MHRM / MRA Movement

  • iggy

    Dean you had a lot to get off your chest, glad you did. I have no formal training in this subject but have been poking around enough for the past few years to see the truth in your statements about humans as pairbonders. For me MGTOW has always been a reaction to bad laws, which incentivize women to legally weaponize marriage contracts, dramatically increasing the negative consequences of the man’s bad decision if he pairbonds with a messed up women. The gun in the room, which only women are able to use, and many do. Women, as voters, are definitely accountable for their actions (or inaction towards bad feminist ideology) for creating the negative incentives that are part of the marriage contract… and ultimately destroying the family and pair-bonded unit. Men, as voters, are also accountable, but we seem so damned pre-disposed to defer to women’s preferences that few of us seem to have the political will to try to remove the bad laws and incentives.

    So we end up with MGTOW… men who recognize the bad deal and see that not enough other men are willing to do anything about it, so they withdraw for self-preservation.
    Which sucks… because it eliminates the best tools for having kids and raising healthy kids. But it doesn’t change the fact that (in general) men are pre-disposed to be fathers.
    MGTOW is a symptom, a short tern solution… and yes in some cases an excuse (even if it’s for valid reasons) to resist marriage… but that also seems to lead to men resisting pair-bonding and child-raising, and that is not good news for mankind in the long show.
    If Feminism can change culture… so can men human rights… even if its hard and the odds are stacked against us right now. History of civilization is full of really bad ideas that get replace by better ideas (ending slavery, stop infantilizing women). Its just a very slow process and I would theorize that mankind has grown too impatient to think long term (assuming we ever have).

    MGTOW will diminish only once marriage laws (particularly divorce courts) become less abusive towards men. Our kids are paying the price for all this bullshit, because even if a few kids escape the horrific statistical consequences of no family structure… they still have to live in a world filled with kids that didn’t escape those horrific statistical consequences.

    As a father, I don’t have the luxury of backing away and handing this pile of shit to my son and daughter without at least trying to affect a change on bad ideas and bad laws. I’m not MGTOW because I am still engaged, and will always be engaged, till my last breath.

    • Mr. E

      As a Father of two boys, I have the same responsibility.

    • – TheFinn –

      Agree with a lot of what you’re saying here, yeah. Good insight for someone not MGTOW :)

  • artiefischel

    This is very interesting and has the ring of truth to it. One argument against the whole alpha/beta paradigm that has occurred to me is that those who fancy themselves as alpha males and tournament maters into their 20’s and 30’s or even later must be colossally inept at it. Because…where are the babies? There’s no evolutionary gain simply from rubbing your bits together with some woman. That doesn’t spread your genes. It only makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint if you’re leaving a string of pregnant women in your wake, and that doesn’t seem to be the case or even a desired outcome with these guys. I know guys who’ve only had sex with one woman in their life, but have 5 or 6 kids and so are wildly more successful in the replicating genes department. As you say, it’s a pose, and a somewhat sad one at that.

    The only thing in the article I would question is this statement:
    “I will entertain requests for specific references where you can go do
    some reading on various points but I’m not compiling a bibliography.
    This is grownup stuff and Google isn’t going to give you your answers. ”

    Huh? This is exactly why you compile a bibliography and use footnotes. Even the best work becomes unsupported assertions without a basis of supporting documents. That’s why scholarly articles are written in a way that doesn’t substantially deviate from one discipline to the next. It’s a good article, but please, show your work.

    • boganus

      or maybe they just used protection? ridiculously blinkered comment.

      • artiefischel

        If only your parents had.

        • boganus

          ahh, personal attacks. the refuge of those without actual arguments.

          • artiefischel

            Says the man who provided no refutation of the point I made, or I suspect even understood the point.

  • john

    I have an argument for people like Dean that has yet to be overcome. Sir, please tell me about your experience in the family/divorce court system. If you have none then you have no idea what you are talking about. I am a veteran of it and know more about it than your attorney who cannot be trusted. When all the ideologies crash upon the reality of the family/divorce court system the only thing left standing is the family/divorce court system where she gets the gold and the man gets the shaft. Please, I beg you, prove me wrong.

    • The Spooky Ghost

      I don’t think that Dean really tried to say otherwise (or I misinterpreted it when he did). IIRC, he barely touched on laws and so on. It’s not what he was trying to do. But even when he did touch upon these things, he didn’t say that things were fair to men;

      “the laws are often horrifically unfair to men” (in fairness, this one was in regards to parenthood, but still).

      “society is so gynocentric that it’s ruined marriage or almost any form of mating as extremely dangerous for men”

      (forgive me if they aren’t verbatim, I cbf trying to find them again).

      • john

        Hey dude, or dudette, thanks for the interest. The point I was trying to make is that reality, and I know that most reality is subjective, eventually crashes upon a reality that is not subjective. The gender debate in the West is totally subjective. The steel of Isis is anything but subjective. Historically, in any debate between subjectivity and steel, the steel always wins. It is like the first Terminator movie. The terminator cannot be reasoned with and it will not stop. The future of Europe is Isis. The future of America is the future of Europe. Please convince me I am wrong.

  • The Spooky Ghost

    That was a very interesting read, Dean. A lot of stuff I’ve known, and been trying to tell people, for quite a long time. But also a lot of new and very interesting information I was not aware of.

    In regards to MGTOW… call my outlook naive, but to me, MGTOW has always seemed more of a counter reaction to the heavily biased laws and prejudices surrounding marriage and parenthood and so on. Then again, I often steer clear of much of these things, especially reddit, so it’s quite possible I have not seen a lot of what these movements entail.

    I have always felt a certain degree of resonance with the notion of “going your own way”, in fact, I am sure many of us feel a strong resonance with the notion of having free will and making our own choices, and I suppose this is exactly the process by which most twisted ideologies find traction in society. (Before anyone says anything about decisions and free will; I do a lot of work in AI and Decision Theory, so I am somewhat aware of how constrained and artificial most of our decisions are).

    Anyway, very interesting read, Dean, thank you for taking the time to write this up :)

  • Graham Strouse

    Evolutionary psychology is a pretty fascinating subject but you can’t cherry pick data. I agree that humans are primarily pair bonders but it’s also true that men will tend to use money/status to gain sex and women will use sex to get money. That’s an over-simplification but not entirely untrue. A few points:

    1) Although it is often overlooked, the 200 plus years of the industrial revolution and the seven decades since the end of WWII have had a profoundly distorting effect on the way men and women work together. Ours is an extremely dimorphic species, a fact that SJWs and feminists tend to simultaneously deny and try to exploit. Technology has made (some) of the gender roles we’ve had wired into our species less relevant, a fact that we might intellectually recognize but creates a lot of cognitive dissonance in our hardwiring. It’s not the first major event that’s forced us to scramble for change faster than our nature could handle. The Black Death, the advent of agricultural society, the great dying at the end of the Pleistocene, and if you go back a lot farther, to around 70-75,000 years ago when the Toba eruption nearly wiped out our species, events occur which precipitate change faster than we can process it. Those who can adapt rapidly live & those who can’t die.

    • Graham Strouse

      (Cont.) Sorry about that, didn’t mean to hit post…anyhoodle…

      What I was getting it is that for most of our species history, we tended to value females over females for some very rational reasons. Human females have a pretty short breeding window–15-20 years for the most part. Human babies take a long time to develop, take a long time to mature relative to other primates and require a lot more care. Moreover, childbirth was until recently, a very dangerous activity for both mother and child. Maximizing breeding opportunities and protecting breeders was critical to species survival. This isn’t so much of an issue for the most part now. And that brings me to a second (tangential) point.

      2) The main reason that most families in the first world have been having fewer children is mostly a survival instinct. Since WWII the population of the earth has tripled. Since I was born in 1973 it has increased by a little over 80 percent. And most of that growth has occurred in the ME, Asia and parts of Africa. The reason we’re having fewer kids in the west is less the result of a social construct and more of a recognition that we simply don’t have the resources to support a geometric population increase in a world with finite resources.

      3) I don’t really care if someone calls themselves a MGTOW or a PUA or a even a feminist. I’m more concerned by how people behave. Although I grant I’m likely to be skeptical of anyone who self-identifies as an SJW. 😉

  • FlightlessBird

    Dean, first of all, thankyou, some common sense finally. The arguments I’ve heard do a serious disservice to myths about men, imo.

    One question, you think its about 7years of investment, my thoughts are that its longer than that, I think fathers are invested in their children’s future success (I believe this is evidenced today too) and that takes us more into teenage years.

    Particularly for sons, being their legacy as you rightly point out, and what we see in more primitive cultures today (or in the near past) where fathers are an important part of rite of passage events, and making decisions about their children’s marriages. Have you thought about that? Do you think fathers had quit that pair bond by then yet still maintained involvement with family?

  • CeterisParibus

    Thanks Dean for a clarifying narrative. I’ve always felt that a true understanding of history is important to the membership of a given society. In current discussions of male/female roles and relations there is a terrific amount of poison. Some of it comes from ideologues, some of its purchase on today’s society comes from bad history factual error (eg. the Horst Wessel Song). On the issue of evopsyche there is a pre-history that can also be important if understood. Poorly understood concepts and their application confuse rather than clarify and even become the tools of propaganda (eg. the monkey trial by Clarence Darrow). In the end everyone takes the information and filters it through the lens of their own experience whether done well or ill. It can only be hoped that facts and theories are stated most clearly and most correctly. I think your applications here do that pretty well.

  • Don Saxton
  • BeijaFlor

    Thanks, Dean – this was a sorely-needed dose of reality and biology.

    I posted some of the high points, for discussion, on GoingYourOwnWay.com – I would not be surprised if some of our readers will have a hissy-fit, but I also understand that the aberrations we see today are not truly representative of Desmond Morris’ “Naked Ape.”

  • Don Saxton

    Dean Esmay might have set the BS gender war on a whole new course — real science. It is rough and may spark honest debate, but it is completely refreshing and novel approach to the feminist fantasy.

  • Hippiefreak

    It really would have helped for the author to include a bibliography and quote sources. Otherwise, just because this article stands out for its length, forcefulness and thoughtful effort does not mean it’s carries more truth than any other opinion piece. I like some of his comments, though, pointing out some of what we already know that contradicts the conclusions we draw. Here is one reference to support what the author says about changes to a man’s body once he knows he will be a father:

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-brains-of-our-fathers/

    • anyhowtown prufrock

      A quote from the article you cite makes it clear that the biological changes occur after birth, not after conception. The changes are brought on by social circumstances, not biological conditions.

      “A recent wave of studies are starting to bear fruit: We are now learning that in the first few days after birth, changes occur in the brains of both the dad and the baby, depending on whether the father is around or not. Perhaps neuroscientists have finally cornered the elusive father-child bond, and found the b iological hook that makes sure a father sticks around after birth.”

  • – TheFinn –

    Tend to agree, there’s a lot of vast oversimplification and wishful thinking.

  • Dawolf

    While I immensely enjoyed this article, this: “I will entertain requests for specific references where you can go do some reading on various points but I’m not compiling a bibliography.” seriously undermines its credibility. I abstolutely agree that there is way too much pseudo-science going, but simply throwing around more assertions in return isn’t exactly going to help the situation.

    Had you taken the time to actually document your sources for the things you say here, this article could have been immensely useful against the corrupt ideologies that are causing so much trouble, not to say a very interesting research summary. Could you at the very least give some references, if only as a starting point for someone who wants to research the subject?

  • anyhowtown prufrock

    Thank you very much for a very interesting article. I do have a few questions about it.

    1) You say that men and women look for the same features in a partner, but just rank them slightly differently. If you had 10 attributes of Baseball Players and you had to rank them 1 to 10 in order of importance for each player. Say that 1 to 5 make an ideal hitter and 6 to 10 make an ideal pitcher: the ideal batter will be ranked 1 to 10 in order, but the ideal pitcher will be ranked 10 to 1 in reverse order. Are you saying the roles are interchangeable because all are playing the same game – Baseball?

    2) You say the Alpha, Beta talk is nonsense,and I tend to agree. However, you say Men and women look for similar attributes in each other, unless it is for a casual fling. Are you saying that people look for one partner for a long term relationship, and another type of partner for a fling? This suggests that you may be, and surely the long term partner is the Beta and the Casual Fling is the Alpha? Maybe I have misunderstood you. I certainly think that both sexes are equally guilty of the Alpha/Beta divide and having flings.

    3) You say we evolved away from Tournament Mating a million years ago, then you modify your statement to hundreds of thousands of years ago. I have never seen any evidence of the social structure of any human society that existed hundreds of thousands of years ago, let alone a million. I know there were anatomically modern humans in Ethiopia a million years ago, but that is because of isolated skeletal discoveries that have been made – Societal structure is totally unknown. I do not know of any details of Social Structure from hundreds of thousands of years ago. I would be very interested in your references for this. Thank you.

    4) The evidence I have seen consists of Anthropological Studies of Modern World Hunter-Gatherer Societies. These studies suggest that Paternal Parental care is greater among hunter gatherers than among more primitively organised Agricultural Societies. In fact many hunter gatherer groups exhibit “paritable parenting” – Which is when more than one male claims fathership and parental responsibility for children. Some societies of this type have communal Paternity, where all children are cared for by all the males equally. In fact, studies suggest that human sperm is peculiar in that only 40% is designed to fertilise ova, the rest is designed to attack rival sperm, or form barriers to access of rival sperm. This suggests that past history did not exhibit any Tournament mating or Pair-Bonding, but actually suggests a social structure in which everyone mated with everyone else, and that the battle for supremacy was within the womb, not for access.

    You say that we pair-bonded way back in history – What genuine evidence do you have for this? Thank you.

    5) You say you have evidence that knowledge of impregnating a woman changes the male hormonal balance. I need a couple of points clarifying here, please. Do you mean the male changes when he knows he has impregnated a woman, or that his hormones change when he knows he has fertilised a woman? Are you sure you have understood the evidence correctly – What evidence I have seen says that child care involvement changes the hormones of a man, not the knowledge of fertilisation. This means, along with the paritable parenting information about Hunter-Gatherers, that men become hormonally more fatherly when there are children around for them to be involved in the care of. These children do not have to be their biological children at all. I am interested in the evidence you have that says it is definitely only biological children that causes biological changes.

    ————————————————————-

    Sorry if this is a bit long. I hope you understand that I am trying to be constructive rather than destructive. Thanks again for a very interesting article. I may say more or modify my opinion after reading your paper again.

    • anyhowtown prufrock

      Some more thoughts on the article.

      1) “Because hypergamy is a normal, natural, healthy trait that both (yes both) sexes possess. It’s pathological when it starts to cause major problems.”

      Hypergamy – “marrying-up” for social status or for money is normal, natural and healthy. What leads you to this consclusion? At what point in history did money enter the human social cycle, and what forms did social status take in the earliest human social communities? To be sure something is natural or normal you have to be able to prove that hypergamy has always been a possibility, caused by the structure of social relations. When you have no idea of what these social relations were One Hundred Thousand Years ago, then you can have no clue as to when hypergamy became possible, let alone “natural”. To call any form of Hypergamy “natural” or “normal” is to make a value-judgement that no scientific study can afford to do while maintaining any credibility.

      2) “anyone, male or female, needs reasons to love someone.”

      I am not sure what you understand here by the use of the word, “love”, and I am unsure of the “reasons” people need to love someone. I assume you are speaking of agape – Romantic love, as opposed to love of children, or love of parents. Is there any
      relationship at all between the concept of “love”, referred to here, and the rather ‘utilitarian’ list of traits used in studies for ranking qualities sought in a partner. How can you be sure that love is the right word for the collection of sought-after-traits people
      seek in a partner.

      Also, is this partner that the traits are used to select, the same partner sought to ‘make-love’ with, or do people seek these traits for a long term partner, and use a different set of traits for other types of partnership?

      3) “The history of war suggests pair bonding is the best survival strategy for both men and women”

      This is a very confident assertion. At what point to War enter into human Partner choice determination? The first war was the mythical Cain and Abel in about 4000 BCE, if you could call that a War. Humanity has been reproducing for much longer than warfare has
      been around. Has Warfare modified biology significantly in the past 6000 years. If you turn to pre-historic conflicts then you find hill forts etc., built following the advent of agriculture – so back to 9000 BCE maximum – even if new discoveries push agriculture and cities back to 20,000 BCE, then that is still very recent in terms of human reproductive choice.

      Again, I do not think you have any evidence to support any such supposition. In history most pair-bonding seems to be related to the practicalities of economic management of property, and that childbirth is a key point in the establishment of property rights and wealth transfer over time. Such bonding is Economic, not romantic, and not concerned so much with child care, as with wealth manipulation and entitlement. It is interesting that modern marriage and divorce are State-overseen contracts concerning wealth distribution after marriage, the children being treated as gyno-tropic assets of the marriage. Love has nothing to do with any of this quantifiable relationship history. The reasons for “love” can only be a utilitarian list, but other factors are qualitative, not quantitative.

  • franco-american

    Enjoyeable read! Nice to see some straightforward rationality!!

  • Radium

    The inner cities are interesting experiments in female mate selection when there is no need for provisioning. When young women require provisions, they select mates who can provide, and men compete to become the best providers.

    When the government provisions young women, something interesting happens. Just about the only young men who become baby daddies are also D/F students with the associated antisocial behaviors of a D/F student. To be fair, D/F student girls are also more likely to become baby mommies, but they are not the only baby mommies. Even A student girls become baby mommies. In other words, most women and some men are becoming baby mommies and daddies in the inner cities.

    As for there being nearly equal numbers of female and male ancestors, other modern experiences would say otherwise. Crazy Horse’ band was one of the last native American groups to leave the plains. If I remember correctly, there were something like 899 in his group when they entered the reservation with something like a third being men. Few of the missing men were killed by the soldiers. Most were killed in the relentless intertribal warfare that was a constant part of the plains. Warfare was birth control. The warriors who survived into old age talked about going to war to impress young women, which gave them mating opportunities.

    • anyhowtown prufrock

      The deaths of the men at the time you are speaking of were killed by soldiers. It is true that warfare among native Americans grew from the advent of arable agriculture onwards, getting steadily worse from 1350CE onwards. Warfare was endemic in the 1700’s, but, most of the warfare is guaged to have been the destruction of settlements by fire, with accompanying skeletal remains showing death by violence. Because these deaths in warfare are associated with destroyed settlements then there is a strong possibility that many of the associated with the deaths of women and children as much as men.

      • Radium

        Not true. The plains Indians were in nearly constant conflict with each other over scarce food resources. There are many accounts of intertribal warfare that preceded conflicts with those of European decent.
        Nearly all people from the beginning of our species had a scarcity of resources. This is the basis of Darwin’s theory of natural selection. EO Wilson’s “multilevel selection” theory of social evolution is based on the idea that humans became social and developed very large brains when there were campsites with resources worth defending. Those groups who could cooperate to either defend their resources or rub out others with resources passed their genes onto the next generation.
        Humans don’t fight mono e. mono for resources. We band together, and the men defend the groups resources or attempt to take resources from others. The women are far to valuable to potentially lose in a conflict. However, women are not passive bystanders. There are many accounts of women shaming young men to fight in the native American cultures as well as in the world wars.
        Just like any other species, humans have nearly always reproduced faster than the resources supply could be expanded. Nearly perpetual conflict has always been the norm, and with the addition of about a billion people per dozen years, will likely become the norm again in the near future. Men will always be the ones most likely to be killed because women are far to valuable to risk in conflict.

        • anyhowtown prufrock

          Yes, radium, true. Please read what I wrote. I said the deaths at the time you spoke of (the surrender) were caused by soldiers. I said warfare was endemic before that. Darwin’s theory of evolution was nothing to do with resources, but the accidental fittedness for survival of a chance mutation. Social Evolution is another matter altogether and should not be mentioned in the same paragraph as Darwin who hated the attempts of Spenser and others to produce a Social Evolution Theory based on the works of himself and Wallace.

          Humans do fight each other for resources – your mone e. mono statement is wayward because the Social make-up of a group varies over time. At certain times people claim to be allies, at other times enemies, and at other times groups split and civil wars occur.

          David Wishart (http://plainshumanities.unl.edu/encyclopedia/doc/egp.war.023) makes it clear that wars between native americans occured a lot and that village burning and destruction is the main evidence of these wars.

          I am unsure why you talk about the value of women in conflict. Rarely has any conflict occured in history when the Women, Children and elderly were not the main casualties, truth always being the first. Shaming occurs in all societies as a means of maintaining social control.

          It is a fact, rarely acknowledged, that in every war since the 30 years war (1618-1648) that civilian casualties far outnumbered combatant casualties. What archaeological evidence exists suggests the same is true of most Native American Wars.

          During the Indian Wars in the America’s, the Murder of Native Americans was the first recorded “genocide” in History – A Genocide being a calculated attempt to kill an entire Socially proscribed group of people, echoed in the statement, “The only good Indian is a dead Indian”. Previous mass killings were arbitrary and accidental or hubris. The wiping out of Native Americans was a matter of policy, and at the surrender, the dead were killed by soldiers of the USA.

          • Radium

            Not sure what you mean when you say that Darwin’s theory of evolution has nothing to do with resources. Isn’t that what competition is all about? Well, at least half about. Sexual selection is the other part of competition.
            Of course group membership is dynamic and ever changing. That doesn’t change the fact that humans compete at least on one level as a group. This is why we have tribes, nations, and even Apple products. We identify with ever changing groups, which provides fiction authors with an endless supply of material.
            I mention women in conflict only because the demographics of primitive peoples who had the most intense warfare had a disproportionate number of women. There is no doubt that women and children were killed in the relentless warfare of primitive people. However, in every example I know, the demographics indicated the highest casualty rates among young men. This was always the group in shortest supply.
            Don’t forget, we live in a time when food production doubles every 20 years. At no time has this ever happened in the past. We will be confronted at some time in the near future with what people and all other species has always known, and that is more people will be born than the planet can support.

          • anyhowtown prufrock

            Thank you for your responses, and the general discussion, it is good to chew things over at a site like this. But…

            The Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution is a theory about fittedness for survival following a random mutation in a creatures structure. It has nothing to do with resources. Survival is dependent, not on competition, but on whether or not a random mutation makes life untenable. In nature competition rarely exists, specialisation of food source is far more common. Creatures that can only eat specialised foods will go extinct when their food source is wiped out. They eat one food source only because a varied diet makes accidental poisoning possible. Human survival and dominance is probably due to the fact that they eat a varied diet of fruits, vegetables, meats, seafood etc. No other creature is as varied in it’s diet, and no other creature is able to poulate all areas of the planet as well as homo sapien sapien have done.

            Food production doubling every twenty years is happening now, and probably occured for a short period following the advent of agriculture. In fact, the wide availability of many foods after the start of agriculture also lead to the development of many diseases and conditions that acted as a check on population growth. Skeletal analysis has shown that general health and longevity declined after the advent of agriculture, and did not recover for many centuries. Intense civilization (moving into cities) also caused declines in health and longevity for many years. The “competition” has been against the elements and disease far more than against people.

            Only when agriculture was well established was it possible for any societal grouping to develop a “Warrior” caste – a product of a dividion of labour.

            Do we have Tribes for purposes of Competition? There is evidence suggesting that Tribes are for co-operation. You are turning socialisation into a team game. Quite what the dynamics of such a social life would involve needs proper detailing. All you are doing is suggesting a Social Narrative.

            Where do you get the idea that “Primitive Peoples” have the “most intense warfare”? You actually have no details at all of the death rates in the warfare of Primitive peoples from centuries ago. The only details you have for sure are those of the survivors of native americans after surrender to an invasive colonial authority at the close of the 19th century.

          • Radium

            You might want to check out EO Wilson and his book called “the social conquest of the earth” for more information on the evolution of human groups or you can google “multilevel selection”. Of course tribes are for both cooperation within the group and competition between other groups.

            You might also want to check out Jared Diamond’s book called “the world before yesterday” for more information on the high death rates that primitive people experience due to constant low grade warfare. Few primitive people die from starvation in spite of the fact that most women can produce one child about every four years. It is through disease and warfare that populations remain stable. The scarcity of food increases the risk of both.

            As for evolution not being related to competition, I’m not sure what to say about that. Of course most genetic mutations lead to immediate death. Very few will have a benefit in a particular niche. However, there is always competition for resources and mates. OK, there might be a very short period with low competition directly after a mutation opens up a new niche, but because of the power of exponential growth, that time period would be very small.

  • boganus

    Absolutely bogus article. You merely assert many positions of Pua/MGTOW are wrong or misleading without justifying, offering studies or data, etc. One could be excused for thinking you are one of the feminists these groups frequently complain about.