Authors note: I have to offer a public thank you to Tom Golden, LCSW, whose regular, sterling insights helps to shape a good bit of the work I do. Had he not provided me with the research information in this article, I would not have obsessed on writing it over the past 24 hours. Also, Tom will be using some of this information in his next Youtube video, due out soon, and it will be featured here as well. Thanks, Tom.
“That’s not opinion, it’s science.
And science is one cold hearted bitch with a 14 inch strap on.”
-From the television show, “Dexter”
On July 24th of this year, I posted “Patriarchy for Dummies,” on this site. In it, I proffered that there was an element to the normal female psyche that gravitated toward violent, dangerous- murderous men. I used Scott Peterson and Joran van der Sloot, and the numbers of women sending them marriage proposals in prison as prima facie evidence that supported my contentions. I also pointed to the fact that van der Sloot went on a sexual rampage, attracting scores of attractive young women after he skated on the Holloway murder.
It turned out to be one of the more read and commented on pieces on this site. And not just here. One of the other places was over at reddit.com/mensrights, which has a few actual MRA’s, including a couple of really insightful ones, and a slew of feminist trolls that down vote anything pro male or that hints of fairly criticizing females or feminism. Let me digress further to add that most of them down vote MRA articles without commenting, which I suppose is their version of drive-by-activism, but some actually speak up, reminding us of why we oppose feminism- and why we see its practitioners as such insufferable dullards.
At reddit, even the most thoughtful comments dissenting from the ideas I suggested boiled down to a regurgitated load of NAWALT vomitus.
Oh, noooooo, women can’t be like that! Women choose men based on qualities like sensitivity and whether they like Teddy Bears and snuggling up on the couch to watch The Bachelorette. Those other women who are like that? They are just sicko’s, sad exceptions to the rule And they probably got that way because of some abusive, violent man.
Of course, that’s the PC line, and we all know that women are only what the political correctness police tell us they are, which is basically sugar and spice and all things superior. There is no way that women in general get the ‘gina tingle for gangsters, thugs and killers.
Just ask any feminist over at reddit.
But just in case you are interested in answers that aren’t screened by gender ideologues, there is some actual research available to consider.
From a study done on the Yanomamö, a large Amerindian hunter-gatherer people that reside in the Amazon Basin, some very telling observations were made regarding sexual competition and violence among men by Chagnon (1988, 1997).
First, in Yanomamö culture, like most all hunter-gatherer (and agricultural and pastoral) societies, violence occurs either continuously or frequently. It is the men who are more aggressive and violent. And it is the most violent men that are successful at being selected for sex.
Yanomamö who are fierce warriors, and “fierce warrior” is defined by those who have participated in the killing of at least one member of a rival village, have 2.5 times as many wives and 3 times as many children as men who don’t kill.
It is also noted that the status of material wealth was not connected at all to being a fierce warrior. Indeed, there was no other difference identified between killers and non killers except that the former were much higher up on the ladder of sexual selection.
The same elevated status, and lack of other corollaries, also held true for men who were politically powerful. (It should be noted that political power frequently translates to power over life and death, though the killing is often done by decree, and executed by men who specialize in violence.)
So it can be legitimately deduced that in hunter-gatherer societies, those with the power -and the tendency- to kill are at a sexual premium with women in those cultures.
Now, it must be asked, from which type of society did our modern, post agrarian life emerge?
Ah, yes, that would be hunter-gatherer, the base template for all of modern human existence- and the mode in which most human evolutionary development occurred.
Now, I am sure that the average PC ideologue would insist that since the invention of internal combustion engines, non fat latte’s and women’s studies programs that we have unwritten three million years of sexual selection programming and now women really prefer those soft little puppy dog guys; that the women who go for thugs and killers are just freaks; rare, unenlightened throw backs to the African Savanna.
But of course, like with most everything else, they are dead wrong.
While it is true that women’s selections have shifted somewhat in keeping with modern realities, it only demonstrates that growing numbers of them will select the guy who controls, and sometimes kills, other men, than settle for the guy of lesser status. How many people is President Obama getting killed right now? How much trouble would he have getting laid? How many women would jump his bones if Michelle herself were in the same room screaming bloody murder?
Plenty. And you have to being in complete denial of human nature to blind yourself to that reality.
Politicians have the favorable characteristics of political savvy and the power to kill, even if with just the simple stroke of a pen. Is it any wonder why for most all of them that a quick blow job is just a snap of the fingers away?
This is the power that most, if not all, women respond to. From Al Capone to John Dillinger, Genghis and Kublai Khan, Scott Peterson and Joran van der Sloot, Adolph Hitler and Alexander, and Ronald Regan to Barack Obama, men who kill, and men who have the power to have men killed cause a ‘gina tingle in many, many women that would register on the Richter Scale.
And there is one more bit of information in basic biology to help us understand this.
For a half century now we have made a half assed study of men’s violent tendencies as though they happen in a vacuum. We have mostly put that study in the hands of women with so many neurotic self image and Daddy Issues, and a political agenda to act them out, that anyone with two brain cells to rub together could see that their efforts were not headed for a scientific end.
As a result, their conclusions about men’s violence falters after they demonstrate the obvious, that men are naturally more violent than women.
They reach conclusions that are something like this:
“Men are violent because, well, let’s see, yeah, it’s because they are fucking pigs, that‘s why! Now where’s my Nobel?”
What these Einsteinettes, and their supportive male sycophants have failed to notice -as do many people who allow a degree in women’s studies pass for an education- is that throughout the animal kingdom, two things are universal.
Whichever sex, male or female, that is in the position to compete for sexual selection, develops more aggressive and violent traits, among other things.
Whichever sex, male or female, that is in the position to choose among those competing for sexual selection, chooses those that are the biggest, strongest, most aggressive and violent.
It doesn’t matter if we are talking about human beings, hedgehogs or house cats, it has nothing to do with what sex the animal is, and everything to do with whether or not the animal is competing to be selected for sex, or doing the selecting.
With seahorses and sandpipers, whose males gestate and tend to the young, we find -you guessed it- females that are more aggressive. Interestingly enough, we also find in those species that the females are larger, slower to develop, and die younger.
Sound familiar? It should. It is the same across the animal kingdom.
And this is where feminists, with their myopic and ideologically twisted use of research have done little more than reduce understanding of human behavior to “Man Bad-Woman Good.”
I suppose that is far as you need to go when staying locked in a cyclical pattern of man hating is your primary goal in life. But for people who want to understand this sometimes crazy, mixed up thing we call the human condition, a little more perspective is in order.
Men are violent largely because being violent, or having the capacity for it, gets them a few significant rungs up on that sexual selection ladder- because those are the men that women select. Those are the men that turn them on.
This isn’t going to change any time soon. Maybe never- it took millions of years to get where we are, although that should not stop people who claim enlightenment on the sexes from viewing it objectively and understanding where it comes from.
But since our culture still recognizes feminists as the authority on that subject, that isn’t going to change any time soon, either.
- Interdisciplinary Shaming Dept. Part III – Tom Pynn - January 26, 2015
- Byron Hurt throws black men under bus while feminists drive it - January 25, 2015
- Interdisciplinary Shaming Dept. Part II – Stacy Keltner, garbologist - January 19, 2015
- KSU feminists panic over AVfM stickers - January 18, 2015
- Interdisciplinary Shaming Dept. Part I – Introduction - January 16, 2015