/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14857942
meh thats just an assortative mating I believe
smart people mating within themselves

>>14857960
Holy shit, I just maybe realized something... what if this whole red pill shit is just downwardly mobile smart people trying to adjust their psychology toward the less intelligent women they have to aim for. Would explain why it's such an online thing.

>>14857942
What about alphabetas and betaalphas?

>>14858092
>redpill
>smart people
Holy Kek

I don't understand why anyone gives a single fuck what women think.
If you want to be happy, just be yourself. I am a huge dweeb with only the most extreme autistic interests like collecting calculators and CRT monitors, yet I did fine and am married with kids.
There is no one on this earth that is worth you not being genuine to yourself. It is better to be alone than it is to be a fraud. If the universe or chance deems you worth or not, is not something you should worry about.
So to all the young dweebs that are where I was 20 years ago, don't even worry about it. Stop caring if the chad and the stacy are having sex, you wouldn't enjoy being in a relationship with her anyways.

I'm certain that 99% of guys that get huge and muscled do it because that is what they like, women are an afterthought. So "Alpha" isn't even something these guys consciously do, its just who they are.

>>14858095
Well like, relative to the bitches they have to settle for.

>>14858112
Based and truth

>>14858112
yeah, its just in their nature after all
but I kinda read one interesting study about early sexual debut and promiscuity
that paper pretty much said that woman with high self-esteem more likely to stay virgin while the woman with low-esteem more likely to have sex in order to cope

>>14858092
but thats not an assortative mating though
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270739/
> (i) The heritability of intelligence increases from about 20% in infancy to perhaps 80% in later adulthood.
>(iii) Assortative mating is greater for intelligence (spouse correlations ~0.40)
But I feel that the numbers are probably higher than the 0.40, when the people with above average IQ doing it

>>14858457
That sounds more like an issue of obtaining self esteem or expecting better self esteem from the validation of having sexual partners. It's a broken method of finding your self worth and value through others.

>>14858112
I care because I want intimacy. If I acted genuine to myself I would sit at home playing retro pixel games all day and try to make one myself. Obviously, i would never meet a woman living like this. So I HAVE to do things that are not in my nature to get what I crave.

>>14857942
The terms "alpha" and "beta" don't exist for humans. There is no such thing as an alpha/beta female/male. The person who popularized those terms later recounted about how they regret using those terms because of the misconceptions created by the use of those terms.

However the articles are correct in the sense that women like men that would make for good fathers and husbands versus psychopathic and narcissistic men that use and abuse women. Women are not attracted to men that don't respect and love women. Women want gentle, passionate, open lovers; men that are feminist and believe in gender equality.
>>14858112
>If you want to be happy, just be yourself.
Completely agree. I think there should be a balance and at least consider what women or others want. You aren't set in stone and if you come to agree with someone on something, you can implement it especially if it's trivial not to. A relationship is built on cooperation. Part of that cooperation is at least considering the other person's wants and needs.

>>14858611
>There is no such thing as an alpha/beta female/male.
OK, I'll define it then:

alpha: guy who fucked your wife, got her to fulfill all his dirty fantasies, and then dropped the bitch for another beta's future wife
beta: you

>>14858637
Why would a guy fuck my wife?
>beta: you
That seems like a very limited definition. So you kind of agreed with my point that betas don't exist, besides me.

>>14858611
>Women want gentle, passionate, open lovers; men that are feminist and believe in gender equality.
Women say they want that on surveys. What they really want is someone to tell them what to do, defend them, and support their children. Strong men are generally better at all of those things than conscientious men, so they pursue strong men.

Heres the thing..
I think SMART women and men want to fuck bad boys/girls, on the ASPD spectrum, but both genders will never marry one.
I want to fuck a narcissistic looking degenerate slut, but I will never wife such a creature, because they're usually souless unafectionate stupid whores.
They have no intellect, they're just plain dumb.
I think women are the same, they would fuck an "alpha" psychotic guy, but they wouldn't want them as their husband.
Nobody wants to deal with these type of retards.
The only women and men who deal with people on the ASPD spectrum are extremly low iq, desperate simps and..girls who accept getting beaten and abused, most of the time these people are extremly naive and dumb as rocks.

>>14858653
>tell them what to do
Sorry but the trad LARP is dead. Women are feminists.
>defend them
Women are perfectly capable of defending themselves chud. Also there is this thing called the police and military. We aren't living in the jungle with lions and tigers and bears, oh my!
>support their children
I mean sure they want a man to be with them to be part of the family. Men aren't the government and their welfare programs. But this means that want men capable of loving and pairbonding. So gentle, loving men.
>Strong men
Define "strong" because to me that means being a team player and keeping the family together. To do this the male partner must be gentle and loving; not callous and domineering. Strong men respect women and are feminist, not insecure and beholden to false ideals of masculinity. Both women and men want strong partners in this respect.

>>14858585
You can still have those things and find a partner. You don't necessarily have to have the same passions to make things work, but it obviously helps when you can have that as a topic of conversation. There's also teaching a partner about your interests if they're willing to learn. You're going to have to think about how you would meet them though, and that's the hold up for a lot of people now.
>>14858611
I don't think that most women really desire anyone proclaiming to be a male feminist. They're weak in mind and body, degenerate, and typically have a misogynistic streak as strong as anyone claiming that feminism ruined everything.

>>14858654
does it really happen?
IQ gap mating?
seems like datas are suggesting otherwise
>>14858571
Yeah,
here you go
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0238515

>>14858662
Its not that they don't understand, they just don't want to accept it

Where's the guy posting big woman and small man?

>>14858711
I hope big woman small man anon joins in. (There are multiple :))

In the meantime, have muscular woman and twink man instead.

>>14858737
vgh...

>>14857942
>The study demonstrates mathematically that the most commonly proposed theories for the transition to human pair-bonding are not biologically feasible.

Ahh yes. Intellectualized conjecture. Empiricism is based on observation, not speculation. In the bin it goes.

>>14858711
>>14858737

>>14858860
>what is an assortative mating
THE GENES!

>>14857942
If women prefer to date the top % of attractive men, but relationship standards have changed so much for women to the point where we have more men and women single than ever. Women want a partner that shares their values and is in a similar position to grow with economically, socially and age wise. When you have a bunch of terminally online retards who praised shit like Andrew Tate or dumb redpill bullshit and a consistently more educated and financially independent type of woman you'll see the gap immediately.

>>14858915
That behavior that's informed by your genetics that has multiple studies backing up women desire those "asshole" types which this fallacy of a "study" doesn't even come close to challenging? No idea.

This could actually be true, you just have to show some type of actual empirical proof that topples all the current empirical studies we have.

>>14858917
>based and redpill
I mean it was a good thing in the start, it used to be associated with statistics and truth

but the normies managed to bastardize it by associating it with being yourself or whatever that shit is
if that is true then everyone is based and redpilled considering the fact that most people act the way they are

>Women want a partner that shares their values and is in a similar position to grow with economically, socially and age
that is the norm though
people usually choose to mate with someone similar to them
Its goes like this
Phenotype>IQ>Politics>rest

>>14858925
what?
when did a few sluts being slutty made the whole female population sluts?
that's a fucking stupid way to look at the things
>(iii) Assortative mating is greater for intelligence (spouse correlations ~0.40) than for other behavioural traits such as personality and psychopathology (~0.10)
>or physical traits such as height and weight (~0.20).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270739/

>>14858933
No one said "a few sluts", bud. Even your original study declares the common view is the one you're arguing against.

Wait, so you think women are selecting for intelligence?

Okay, so then knowing about the wilson effect (heritability of IQ) why then:

-are intelligent people less likely to reproduce despite doing better in society in general
-are IQ levels steadily dropping as they have been since the mid 80's

Intelligent people built a society that's functionally removed external pressures. Women are objectively selecting stupid confident people now.

>>14858937
No, I said that smart people mate within themselves
of course there are exceptions

>>14858611
the alpha/beta doesn't exist to any animal. 99% of the time the "beta" wolf simply leaves the pack and form their own. other animals have males that "cheat in the game" creating a caste of "cheaters". an example of this is the salmon fish. hierarchy is quantitative.

>>14858939
Ahh. I see. Well they aren't mating enough objectively. Obesity is also linked to low IQ, and we're also getting fatter as a society.

>>14858611
you do realise it is in the interest of women to lie about what they want right?

Women want the real deal, the real psychopath, not some beta who is pretending to be a psychopath because he read in a magasin that women prefer betas.

>>14858942
>Well they aren't mating enough objectively
yeah that's the problem
in the past, they used to have more kids than the poorfags
but considering the fact that the extreme right has the highest fertility rate, so I don't think we are that fucked
>Obesity is also linked to low IQ, and we're also getting fatter as a society
true
Honestly, I am just hoping for purifying selection for incels
it should be able to increase the average IQ

>>14858711
Here I am.
I'm on my way to work so I can't post now. I'll post this afternoon

>>14857942
They will copulate with them relentlessly, they just don't like them. And you will raise Chad's offspring.

>>14858961
short hair sucks

>>14857942
>>14857960
>>14858092
>newfags don't even understand alpha fux / beta bux
fuck, zoomers really are braindead.
>less intelligent women they have to aim for
all women have the same fundamental preferences, retard. it's just that smart/wealthy women will settle for smart/wealthy husbands, at least temporarily.

redpill shit isn't advice on how to end up in a sexless marriage with a frigid hag who hates you and seeks other men behind your back. it's about what you're supposed to do to actually make women want to sleep with you.

>>14858991
>redpill
no its about truth and facts

>>14858991
>all women have the same fundamental preferences, retard.
No they don't retard

>>14857942
women like me and I am alpha af nerd

>>14858925
There are no such studies that you're talking about. You literally just made this up

>Alpha fux, beta bux
Women want an alpha male for sex and intimacy, and as gene provider for their children. Women want a beta male as financial provider and as cuck caregiver for alpha's children. No woman wants an omega male.

Are there people on this board who genuinely believe that redpill shit has any scientific foundation?

>>14859608
Redpill is cringe. Only blackpill is supported by science.

>>14859611
What's blackpill?

>>14858711
>>14858961
I'm back AMA
>>14858970
I disagree

>>14859613
A collection of facts about dating, the nature of women and the unwritten laws of society.

>>14859637
Tell me some blackpill things and I'll tell you if they're actually correct or not

The whole pill thing is a psyop
It was forcefully injected into the nomenclature
It’s a way to reduce complexity and many individual and related statistics into a few cases to influence thoughts and manipulate emotions
It’s psychological warfare and it has succeeded
If you use the pill words you are taking thought drugs
Much like someone who is mentally lobotomized through actual medication, you’ve instead just completed that task through reading and repeating words yourself

>>14858662
desu, how attractive and tall you are as a man dictates whether you get a traditional woman or a masculine one. This is an idiotic statement they are not necessarily feminist or equal to their women they are superior to their women, have an abundance of options, and are romantic towards them. A woman isn't willing to submit or even showoff a man they deem inferior to them let alone have his kids(they are the bearer of children's for a reason they select who gets eugenised and who survives to the next gen) . Lastly with the halo effect of looks,height, and some money you can come into a disrespectful domineering alpha role at any point and you can stay in a kind beta form just as easily as long as you don't overdo either.

>>14859671
These are the actual traits being selected for in the modern world

>>14859651
I'll start with a few trivial and uncontroversial ones.
>The decision whether a female considers a male attractive or not is made subconsciously within the first 400ms of the first sight.
>The most relevant features of male attractivity are height, frame and facial structure.
>Attractive males are benefiting from the halo effect while unattractive males have the handicap of the negative halo effect. The pervades all aspects of society and isn't limited to dating.
>The dating market is an unregulated market. Unregulated markets converge to an accumulation of resources (in this case reproductive resources) in the hands of very few participants while simultaneously creating a lowest caste of participants who are basically excluded from the market (see e.g. homeless people or permanently unemployable people as analogous to incels in the housing or job market)
>Every group of people quickly evolves a social hierarchy. The rank of a male in that hierarchy is determined by popularity, where popularity is primarily determined by looks as well as perceived social and financial status.
>Genetically attractive people experience a lot of positive feedback, already starting in early life / childhood. Positive feedback allows them to develop a positive attitude, confidence etc. In contrast, unattractive people are prone to becoming the victims of bullying and exclusion, leading to lifelong emotional trauma and depression.

>>14859738
Already I know that this is bullshit, seeing as smaller males have and had greater reproductive success than large ones over human evolutionary history, and there is no genetic correlation or basis for height preference in women.

>>14859757
You're the "short male / tall amazonian female" shitposter, so your opinion is automatically redirected to the trash.

>>14859769
I do research in computational genomics. I'm correct about everything I say and I actually know what I'm talking about. You do not.

>>14859671
>Using debunked alpha/beta words unironically

>how attractive and tall you are as a man dictates whether you get a traditional woman or a masculine one
Well it depends on preference. Society is growing out of traditionalism in favor of gender equality.
>they are superior to their women
Men aren't superior to women. A high quality man would look for a high quality mate too. Unless his preference is for a meek and obedient partner. But I don't see why as a guy you wouldn't choose a strong woman as an equal for your relationship.
>A woman isn't willing to submit or even showoff a man they deem inferior to them let alone have his kids
Same for guys too.
>they are the bearer of children's for a reason they select who gets eugenised and who survives to the next gen
Nonsense both man and woman are needed for baby. It may feel like that to lower quality guys but it's the same for women too. E.g. no man wants to choose me and they all go after stacy. You can see some of the coping on /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
>you can come into a disrespectful domineering alpha role at any point and you can stay in a kind beta form just as easily as long as you don't overdo either.
Sorry I don't follow with these /pol/ buzzwords

>>14859794
You're arguing with retards who genuinely believe shit like >>14859738

This in spite of the fact that all evidence in the fossil record and genome analysis points to the a different conclusion. These guys aren't interested in actual science. They just want to hate women

>>14858112
Based and truth-pilled

>>14859779
>I do research in computational genomics.
Alright, tell me the best method for constructing a phytogenetic tree.

>>14859807
How does the fossil record disprove the halo effect?

>>14858611

You have two large problems in your attempt, and they are interrelated.

First: you lack a level of self-awareness. If you thought back to your dating habits as a teenager, you would likely see you did not seek out emotional, feminist men.

This leads to the second problem: You're trying to deny a certain truth in reality. Many women DO choose psychopaths. There is substantial evidence to this. We have convicted felons receiving fan mail from horny women. You refuse to acknowledge this behavior.

I'm not saying your entire post is wrong. It's actually has it's own truth and bearing to reality.

However, because you fail to acknowledge all those murderers with women chasing them, your attempts to persuade or help the frustrated men here will fail, because you are mainly displaying female dishonesty.

>>14859794
>Society is growing out of traditionalism in favor of gender equality.

The truth is that society is becoming ever more female dominated. We'll see if the historical collapse that follows this plays out in the 21st century.

>>14858662
>Women are not animals with instincts from prehistoric times

You don't belong on a science board.

>>14859652
I've always felt that way, but was never able to put my thoughts into words like that, i wholly agree with you.
The x-pill this, y-pill that mentality nonsense is so pervasive barely anyone questions it.
The terms "red-pill" and "blue-pill" themselves come from the popular matrix movie, they have become pop culture terms, and not as "niche" or ""based"" as people here seem to think, i.e. "red-pill" and "blue-pill" or whatever other "pill" are normie terms now

>>14859826
There are a few techniques depending on the data. Generally speaking, you'd use a stochastic gradient descent, where you'd set up initial parameters and then have a random walk where you'd compute the distance each cycle.

>>14859831
It doesn't. It disproves the idea that larger males were selected by women over human evolution. The exact opposite happened. Smaller males were selected, human males got smaller over time, and smaller males had greater reproductive success.

>>14859872
>There are a few techniques depending on the data. Generally speaking, you'd use a stochastic gradient descent, where you'd set up initial parameters and then have a random walk where you'd compute the distance each cycle.
That's the brutish plebian approach of someone who just finished babby's first machine learning course. When you only have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

>human males got smaller over time
Sorry sweaty, but nephilim are a bronze age myth that has been deboonked.

>>14859838
>However, because you fail to acknowledge all those murderers with women chasing them, your attempts to persuade or help the frustrated men here will fail, because you are mainly displaying female dishonesty.
Also the difference between female dishonesty an male dishonesty. Men don't believe their own lies, but women will gaslight themselves to believe them so they appear honest to others.

>>14859872
>It doesn't. It disproves the idea that larger males were selected by women over human evolution. The exact opposite happened. Smaller males were selected, human males got smaller over time, and smaller males had greater reproductive success.
Human males have grown taller over time due to access to better nutrition.

>>14859757
>seeing as smaller males have and had greater reproductive success than large ones over human evolutionary history

This depends largely on environment doesn't it?

It's also, in itself, vacuous. 'Large' and 'small' are ill-defined in this context.

Clearly, just today, you can see some instances (Netherlands) where height, for whatever reason, was very successful. Other places, it was not.

>>14859908
>Sorry sweaty, but nephilim are a bronze age myth that has been deboonked.
>>14859922
>Human males have grown taller over time due to access to better nutrition.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1910606116

https://australian.museum/learn/science/human-evolution/how-have-we-changed-since-our-species-first-appeared/

>>14859941
>This depends largely on environment doesn't it?
Yes
>It's also, in itself, vacuous. 'Large' and 'small' are ill-defined in this context.
Yes. Here, "large" means greater male-biased size dimorphism, and "small" means lesser male-biased size dimorphism.
Pre-human hominid ancestors have great male-biased size dimorphism, with males much larger than females. The size difference decreased for humans. Human males are not much larger than females.
>Clearly, just today, you can see some instances (Netherlands) where height, for whatever reason, was very successful. Other places, it was not.
Yea it varies based on the area. Just like height preference. This indicates the preference for male-biased dimorphism is socialized.

>>14859942
Your study shows that during this specific time period people lost 10cm during a period of climatic change and hardship, and then gained 3cm as the climate improved. It also says that humans gained much larger amounts between the Bronze Age an modern era, as the average height in Europe has increased by nearly 3x the loss experienced in antiquity, with modern European humans currently standing 10cm taller on average than the "tall humans" you claim came before us.

>>14859915
>Also the difference between female dishonesty an male dishonesty.

I'm not sure this is well-defined. I have a vague notion of what you're getting at, but I don't think it's nearly as clear as you wish it to be. Especially as men today are losing testosterone.

>Men don't believe their own lies

Not my experience. I have had considerations it is due to us living in a female dominated society, they are emulating female tactics. But especially this far, I am unsure.

From what I can consider:

Women don't really have a sense of objective truth or rational argument. Therefore, they don't have a sense of honesty. They are more social, and so social reality dominates. Village gossip was more likely to get you killed than miscalculating the number of predators.

Men, at least when properly developed, possess a much greater sense of material objectivity. This is why they are better engineers, have better spatial visualization, etc. etc.

Now, as populations have grown, and so have population densities, the social reality has gained power simply by numbers. This is partly the reason for female success the last century, and also the reason many men are adopting feminine behaviors in order to adapt.

All of this gaslighting of self and others is very ominous. Unfortunately, there seems to be very little way to get a person to stop.

I think both men and women can be taught from childhood to avoid it. Much as men are adopting this mode of thinking, a young girl can be taught to think rationally. Much of this behavior is memetic and passed down generationally. Thus, you see how women becoming teachers has contributed to it.

>>14859957
Men averaged 6'2" in the early paleolithic.

>>14859955
>This indicates the preference for male-biased dimorphism is socialized.

You don't think it indicates the preference may be based on optimal evolutionary strategy for the environment?

Clearly, larger male dimorphism is generally advantaged in scenarios where either food is plentiful, or violence very common.

>>14859966
Your claimed study says they averaged 5'8" or so, so you're either lying or just mistaken.

>>14859971
No, seeing as smaller males also superior at hunting in hunter gatherer societies (see Richard Lee's work on the !Kung San people as an analysis on hunter gatherers), and superior in combat vs. larger males (see basically all military science)

>>14859983
>and superior in combat vs. larger males (see basically all military science)
False claim.

>>14859984
No it isn't. Smaller males are advantaged in almost all forms of weaponized combat.

>>14859983

Ah, the fetishist's self-deception comes to bear again.

Why don't you watch some modern martial arts and tell me how smaller size is superior in combat?

You've once again shown your intellectual failings. You normally qualify this with the notions of modern combat, where guns reign supreme, but you just failed to make that qualification and look like a retard for it.

>>14859980
I was mistaken, it was 40,000 years ago in Europe, they averaged 6'1". Sorry.

>>14859986
Except every kind that requires reach and leverage, as shown in every modern and premodern combat manual. Only combat with firearms causes size to be a disadvantage. Hence why all competitive combat forms have weight classes, since size/weight are huge advantages in competitive success.

>>14859991
>modern humans in Europe, present by 42,000 to 45,000 y before present (BP) (5, 6), were relatively tall (mean adult male height in the Early Upper Paleolithic was ∼174 cm).
174cm is 5.7-ish feet. 5'8"

>>14859992
>Except every kind that requires reach and leverage

Not to mention strength...

Beating on someone wearing armor it really does matter how much momentum you can put into a swing.

>>14859987
>>14859992
Small males are advantaged against large ones in fights with bows and spears and poisoned blowguns etc. as well as firearms. It's not just firearms where we have the advantage. We have no advantage in hand to hand combat. However we've been advantaged for basically the entire evolution of our species, it would make no sense for women to develop a preference for large males based on fighting, as the smaller ones would win the fights more often.

>>14859994
See the one from the australean museum
>40,000 years ago: European males – 183 cm (6 feet). Cro-Magnon people were the first modern humans (Homo sapiens) to inhabit Europe. These hunter-gatherers lived a physically demanding lifestyle that would have required greater body strength than the average human today. Their recent African ancestry may have also affected their height, as tall, long-limbed builds are useful adaptations to the warmer African climate.

>>14859997
Humans didn't evolve wearing armor, we evolved fighting with spears and bows half naked.

>>14859999
>Small males are advantaged against large ones in fights with bows and spears

Yes, draw strength on a long bow is meaningless. Thrust reach and force with a spear isn't an advantage.

>However we've been advantaged for basically the entire evolution of our species

Blatant denial of the reality you sit in.

>>14859997
I was mainly thinking of some of the practical medieval combat manuals I've read, where oftentimes it was advised to use your weapon as a lever to unseat the other person and make them fall so they could be trampled or finished off by your comrades behind you.

It seemed like the best example of a strategy that small people couldn't succeed at.

>>14860002
>we evolved fighting with spears and bows half naked.

We evolved beating each other over the head with rocks, you mentally ill pervert.

>>14860004
I'm not denying anything, all evidence indicates that smaller males had greater reproductive success over human evolution, and that smaller males are advantaged in weapon combat.
A small quick hard to hit dude with a spear will generally stab the larger stronger also quick but not as quick dude with the spear first. Or shoot him with the poisoned dart, or whatever.
>>14860007
We've been using spears for over half a million years

>>14860002
I prefer peer-reviewed content rather than museum articles. The peer reviewed article denies your conclusions, and furthermore even the 183cm average is equal to the modern White European average, which is in the 180-185cm range.

If anything the height of non-miscegenated Whites has never changed much except in times of poor nutrition.

>>14860014
>I prefer peer-reviewed content rather than museum articles
Fair, but the source is linked on the bottom
>183cm average is equal to the modern White European average, which is in the 180-185cm range.
White dudes are ~175cm like they've been for the last century.

>>14860018
>White dudes are ~175cm like they've been for the last century.
Mutts in America sure. Pure Europeans, especially North and Central, are 180+.

>>14860008
>all evidence indicates that smaller males had greater reproductive success over human evolution

Except for the fact that across virtually every population today, men are larger than women. Your entire thesis is, "I know better than humanity's genetic history. Evolution is not as smart as I am."

>A small quick hard to hit dude with a spear will generally stab the larger stronger also quick but not as quick dude with the spear first.

Now you're conflating size and speed. Larger men can be lean and fast. Usain bolt was not short. Michael phelps was not small. This is actually Napoleon complex fantasizing from a chihuahua.

>We've been using spears for over half a million years

I'm going to wager blunt weapons absolutely dominate the total % of kills in human history.

>>14860022
>Mutts in America sure
lol
>Pure Europeans, especially North and Central, are 180+.
I can believe the Nords, but not anyone else.

>>14859999
>Small males are advantaged against large ones in fights with bows and spears and poisoned blowguns etc. as well as firearms
Statistics from modern wars disagree. tall males are more likely to return home, the running theory is that they have an easier time handling the heavy weapons though in my opinion inter-side dynamics also play a role, you would probably have an easier time getting a smaller male on your side take some dangerous position in a gunfight. Maybe you would make him take a position more exposed to gunfire or something like that.

>>14860024
>Except for the fact that across virtually every population today, men are larger than women. Your entire thesis is, "I know better than humanity's genetic history. Evolution is not as smart as I am."
No, I'm talking about a reduction in male biased size dimorphism.
Over human evolution males went from being over 50% larger than females, to only about 15% larger. Men have gotten smaller, not larger.
>Now you're conflating size and speed. Larger men can be lean and fast. Usain bolt was not short. Michael phelps was not small. This is actually Napoleon complex fantasizing from a chihuahua.
Dexterity, not speed.
>I'm going to wager blunt weapons absolutely dominate the total % of kills in human history.
I'm going to wager spears have been the primary hunting and warfare weapon that humans have used

>>14860030
>the running theory is that they have an easier time handling the heavy weapons

Don't you see? If men were just half the size then we could just use 2 of them to carry that same weapon! All while making them smaller targets.

The statistics are clearly biased by the tall male conspiracy.

Throughout history sexual selection has probably been favoring taller men while natural selection shorter men. Now that that recently natural selection has become less influential you would expect sexual selection to drive up the height.

>>14860030
>tall males are more likely to return home
I know the study you're talking about based on the returning veterans of WW2. But see

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR2800/RR2849z3/RAND_RR2849z3.pdf

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0738894215570424

>>14860032
>Men have gotten smaller, not larger.

The size based dimorphism of males and females has been reduced. People are generally taller today due to nutrition, if not sexual selection.

>Dexterity, not speed.
>small quick male
>quick
>dexterity

See? Your mind is so reeling from its internal contradictions you're losing your grip of the English language.

But since you mention dexterity.

You know what happens when a 5' 100lb male faces a 6'5" 250 lb male with a spear?

The larger male grabs the smaller male's spear, and rips it from his tiny hands, you fucking imbecile.

>I'm going to wager spears have been the primary hunting and warfare weapon

First, hunting is meaningless in this discussion. You cannot stay on topic.

Secondly, you focus on warfare to discount the fact that murders were common in societies without police.

The more I engage you the more you reveal yourself to have an infantile view of reality and human history.

>>14860040
Women literally could not even reproduce with males that were too much larger than them for the majority of human evolution. It makes no sense for them to have developed a preference for larger males. The ones that would have had it would have died in childbirth.

>>14860044
Quickness is dexterity, not speed. I'm not confusing my words.
>The larger male grabs the smaller male's spear, and rips it from his tiny hands, you fucking imbecile.
This is the fantasy. What would actually happen, is the guy would get stabbed. He would not become an anime character and grab a spear or some stupid shit dude. Go actually fight with fake spears and see if you can easily use strength against a quick and nimble guy (you can't consistently)

>>14860037
We know that child soldiers are effective, why wouldn't child soldiers on steroids be more effective?

Time to switch gears and get into the actual discussion that we all know need to happen.

Name 1 (ONE) reason not to genetically modify humans to become the big female small male dimorphism. Ignoring the arguments given which prove that smaller males were advantaged in the past, we all agree that in the modern world, smaller males are clearly superior in basically every way. So why would we not modify human male to all become as small and athletic as possible?

>>14860057
>Quickness is dexterity, not speed. I'm not confusing my words.

Pic related.

I'm screen capping this for future use. Every time you start shilliing your fetish, I'm going to post this so people realize you have delusions of grandeur and refuse to even admit when you're misusing common English vocabulary.

Just pathetic. Just castrate yourself already.

>This is the fantasy

It is not. The larger man carries a larger spear and naturally has greater reach. Should the smaller male approach he can grab the spear before it reaches him. The moment he has a grip on the pole (you'll note, such possession fights happen in equal sized opponents) the smaller male simply lacks the ability to maintain control of it.

Anyhow. I now have evidence I will use to shame you forever. You did this to yourself with your own hubris.

>>14857942
Women *say* they prefer beta males in the same way that women *say* they prefer sensitive guys or fixer uppers. They like the *idea* of them.

>>14860076
>literally trying to argue using a dictionary
lol
Onto the real point,
>It is not. The larger man carries a larger spear and naturally has greater reach. Should the smaller male approach he can grab the spear before it reaches him. The moment he has a grip on the pole (you'll note, such possession fights happen in equal sized opponents) the smaller male simply lacks the ability to maintain control of it.
This is just straight up not true dude. We already know that smaller males are better hunters in hunter gatherer societies based on Lee's work already referenced, and in fights with spears we can conclude this based on all the rest of the data showing males became smaller, and also we can just test it by actually doing it.
Make the spears proportionate, there's still going to be no advantage for the larger guy

>>14858611
>Women are not attracted to men that don't respect and love women. Women want gentle, passionate, open lovers; men that are feminist and believe in gender equality.

>>14860088
>>literally trying to argue using a dictionary

If you cannot even admit you are objectively confusing your words, why should anyone talk to you about anything ever?

You realize this outs you as intellectually dishonest and worth nobody's time?

>>14860092
I was confusing my words, I thought of quickness as meaning being quick in your motions, like dexterity, not being fast in your sprinting speed. This is how I use it in my daily use too
Reply to >>14860075

Just wondering, were you the anon who made that thread a few weeks ago complaining about my posts? I honestly have no idea why I get under your skin so badly. I dont try to.

>>14860120
OP here. No, I'm not

>>14860128
Are you the guy I've been arguing with for the past hour or so?
This board needs IDs

>>14860132
OP here. No, I'm not. I only posted the thread and nothing else

>>14860147
what do you think about how the thread has turned out?

>>14860092
>>14860096
Why will you not argue against the big female small male dimorphism? That's what I actually want to discuss.

>>14860169
I already knew you all would be in denial and coping

>>14860197
Where am I in denial and coping? I agree with the OP.

>>14860203
Oh sorry then. I agree with the anon who posted about women selecting for short men and the guy who posts about small men and big women. This tall men obsession is mostly an american/british thing

>>14860206
>American British thing
>American British thing
>American British thing

I hope your women continue selecting weaker and shorter men until we invade the anglos. Shit is gonna be fun.

>>14860206
It makes no sense to me to think that sexual preferences are not socialized, and informed by culture and the society one grows up in.
If we took a bunch of babies and raised them on an island with only tall women and small men, and the babies were selected specifically to be male babies who would grow to be short and female babies who would grow to be tall, all the children would develop preference for tall women and small men. We wouldn't have to change anything about the human genome. The girls would not all sort of become uncomfortable as they grew up, thinking "somethings off, the boys are too small" or whatever, and the boys would not grow up to feel their masculinity threatened or thinking that the girls should be shorter, etc.

I genuinely think anyone who disagrees with this is full of shit and lying to themselves.

>>14860218
What are you talking about?

>>14860231
I noticed that men are very fond of huge dismorphism among men and women. You see, human males and females do not naturally look THAT different, yet society (built by men) tries to make dismosphism among human look greater artificially: Women and men adorn themselves very differently, women need to shave their body hair, men think the biggest the breasts and butt and the wider the hips in a woman, the better, women strive to achieve this sort of look to attract men, a "handsome" man to the media is a super buff muscled up dude, etc. Not to mention gender behavior rules where society prescribes certain mannerisms and behaviors that do not necessarily have anything to do with being male or female, to each sex (women need to speak more softly, not fart, not burp, etc). Women on the other hand are not that big of a fan of great sexual dismorphism among humans

>>14860078
Just like FtM transgenders are fujoshis who fetishize the idea of a "sensitive gay man" and then are horrified to find out that gay men are just regular frat bros who like shit on their dick.

>>14860251
What do you think of the dimorphism in that picture?

>>14860251
Also, notice how men are always talking about wanting to be overly "masculine" and wanting overly "feminine" women. Women don't care much about this sort of stuff. If you look at MTF trannies, they are always some caricature, stereotype of women. Men are obsessed with huge sexual dismorphism

>>14860268
AND whenever gender roles are violated, its always mostly men that get angry at it

>>14860267
Tall women and small men is better evolutionary speaking. The enormous breasts and hips are pathetic, women dont look like that naturally and it is a huge exaggeration. While one can say wide hips are a sign of fertility in women, big breasts are not

>>14860276
I like you you're cool

>>14860273
Women are actually very harsh on whorish women if they feel they're competing with them for A-grade male attention. You probably don't know any women if you think most social pressure on women comes from men.

>>14860287
Because patriarchy brainwashed them to. Notice how the more feminist we get, the more friendly women are to each other and the less they care about this. In the past, if a man cheated on a woman, the woman would blame the mistress. This is not much the case nowadays for instance. Women had no rights, were treated as second class citizens and this increased competition among them. Its like what happened during slavery where there always an uncle tom black slave who would treason his brothers and sisters in hopes he would increase his status and be seen as a white man and "not like the other black slaves"

>>14860276
When we genetically modify women to become really tall, we are going to give you all wide pelvic bones and big hips like that and modify your genes to deposit a lot of fat around that area of your hips and butt. Not quite that large but honestly not much smaller than that. Breasts size doesn't matter and that will be left alone and dependent on the individual's genes and such.

>>14860287
Because patriarchy brainwashed them to. Notice how the more feminist we get, the more friendly women are to each other and the less they care about this. In the past, if a man cheated on a woman, the woman would blame the mistress. This is not much the case nowadays for instance. Women had no rights, were treated as second class citizens, were hugely demoralized (and still are to this day but its dimishing) and this increased competition among them. Its like what happened during slavery where there always an uncle tom black slave who would treason his brothers and sisters in hopes he would increase his status and be seen as a white man and "not like the other black slaves"

>>14860305
No need to genetically modify people. Just let natural selection run its course naturally and stop men from trying to artificially intervene

>>14860307
>Notice how the more feminist we get, the more friendly women are to each other and the less they care about this.
ahahaha no way. You've never even seen how women talk about each other when men aren't around. There's nothing so horrifying as the backbiting you can receive from female "friends" as a woman.

>>14860310
It was worse in the past. Nowadays women are more friendly to each other than they used to be and tendency is for the backstabbing to stop in the future. Men used to compete among themselves more in the past until civilization came about

>>14860315
Ohhh nonono it's much much worse now. Especially in corporate environments, women social-climb with more vicious aggression than ever before.

>>14860309
That's my life's goal. To genetically modify people to become the big female small male race

>>14860316
Its not, I'm a woman so I can speak about this with property. You are not. You want women to hate each cause you hate women and want us to go back to humiliate ourselves and compete for your worthless shitty dick. This is changing and the world will become fairer when it comes to the relation between the sexes. Now, I'm no longer gonna waste my time with you. You will insist I'm wrong, finda a bunch of excuses and cope massively like you always do. I'll leave with another newsbreak for you: Only men are obessed with and attracted to hypermasculinity in men, women are not. Your "alpha training" bullshit is only attractive to you yourselves

>>14860323
Thats gonna happen naturally if men stop fighting against it

>>14860325
We don't get along better. If anything, social media and competitive, gossipy work environments have made social conditions worse between women. Not only that, but there's an even larger socialization gap between women that are childfree and women that have children now. That makes sense because of different lifestyle choices, but it still creates a divide.
The "alpha male" meme needs to die, but so does the "sensitive male" meme. Just be a balanced, mentally healthy person that doesn't tard rage or break down into a weepfest when shit doesn't go your way.

>>14860325
>Its not, I'm a woman so I can speak about this with property.
You're a man who fetishizes giantesses.

>>14860327
Not the way I describe, there's basically no way to express the dimorphism I want without genetic modification

>>14860409
That anon isn't me.
This board needs IDs

>>14860325
desu your probably not that appealing of a woman if you can't get these tall attractive chads. I think you've deluded yourself into thinking you aren't attracted to them(knowing whole heartedly they might reject you and allow your presence temporarily). It's like me saying I am not into to pretty girls to protect myself against hard rejections and to act holier than thou to fake saintly average or below average preference for females(he doesn't care about looks O:). I don't think your representative cause if you were actually pretty all your time would be consumed by Instagram and tiktok....... or at least constant attention from everyone.

>>14859693
To the faggot that posted this I read some of the original paper and something is just off. Here are 2 of the excerpts about height they both mention its importance and cite previous papers that have also mentioned this importance.

>>14859693
The most damning paragraph from that paper

>>14860459
oops reverse that order the first screenshot is the one with the most damning evidence second one is the one you start with

>>14860268
The horror of wanting males to be masculine and females to be feminine.

>>14860273
>AND whenever gender roles are violated, its always mostly men that get angry at it

That's because women are always hypocrites about it.

They want to remove all of men's privileges in society while maintaining women's privileges.

>>14860325
> I'm a woman so I

Can accurately know the minute social conditions of times and places I never lived...

>>14860418

So you're admitting that natural selection does not lead to your fantasy.

You're getting there.

>>14860451
>I think you've deluded yourself into thinking you aren't attracted to them

I concluded the same thing reading it. Sour grapes.

> It's like me saying I am not into to pretty girls to protect myself

Yep. It's difficult because obviously, there is a subjective aspect of beauty. But even still, you can see how people in the 4-7 range often convince themselves they prefer obese, less symmetric partners..

>>14859810
>pic
Thanks for the reminder Anon

>>14860477
It wouldn't be hard for natural selection to make women taller than men, but the extreme female biased dimorphism and all the traits I talk about (you know the ones) I don't think it would arise without direct modification.

>>14860325
ok femcel.

>>14860499
>It wouldn't be hard for natural selection to make women taller than men
It would be pretty hard. Only a few mammal species have these traits and they're some of the most bizarre and dysgenic animals. Think spotted hyenas who give birth through a fake penis.

>>14860457
>p

>>14860499
>the extreme female biased dimorphism and all the traits I talk about (you know the ones) I don't think it would arise without direct modification.

Yes, and this is the point you should realize that genetically modifying infants to satisfy your sexual fantasy is unhealthy.

You're essentially saying you want to make humanity dysgenic in this post. This is the point it becomes clear that whatever historical or genetical evidence you try to base this on is irrelevant.

You don't care if it's what is optimal, you just care that it gets you off...

>>14860451
I can get pretty much any man I want. I get over 600 matches on dating apps per week. You on the hand gets zero and still prefers walking barbie dolls with exaggerated supernatural forms, so this disprove your idea.

>>14860506
Hyenas aren't the only ones, and they're a strange case in a lot of ways.
Bats, females are larger for most species. Leopard seals have larger females too, as do various whale species (the female blue whale is the largest animal ever on earth), various rodents, spider monkeys, and some others. It's not dysgenic.

For humans in the modern and future world, it is clearly better to make men small and women big. Why do you hate that so much?

>>14860530
Do you post on /r/femaledatingstrategy?

>>14860533
>For humans in the modern and future world, it is clearly better to make men small and women big. Why do you hate that so much?
It's just your fetish. I don't enjoy your fetish so I don't support you forcing it on the world's population.

>>14860540
>I don't enjoy your fetish
Why not?

>>14860547
Why do you enjoy yours?

>>14860548
I like it because it's superior. It makes more sense and is more arousing
Just look at the pictures I post and it's clear

>>14860562
It's not arousing and doesn't seem superior so I guess you just have to jack off alone.

kudos to big woman small man anon
he is pretty much right on the fact that we are hardly mating on the height
its used to be like 0.8 but now the numbers decreased to 0.1
And humans are starting to mate based on their IQ with the correlation of 0.4-0.6

>>14860563
The fecundity and resource efficiency is superior, and it is more arousing.
Big men and small women can't even make babies without birth complications and c sections. It doesn't even fucking work and it looks ugly. Big women and small men are superior

>>14860571
Sorry but I prefer petite Asian women and my extended family's Hapa children will outbreed you at a measured rate of 2:0.

>>14860574
>outbreed
your children are genetical nightmare
and god hates them

>>14860574
Your hatred for me is psychotic. I honestly think you'd shoot me if you met me. Just chill out anon I just have different ideas about humans and what direction we should take

>>14860514
Why is genetic engineering dysgenic by definition? If the people are healthy, intelligent, and make a lot of babies then they'd have high fitness. It's not dysgenic.

>>14860591
I'm trolling you because you're deranged and it's funny. Stop trying to force your fetish onto people.

>>14860603
I don't want to force it on anyone and I don't think I need to, I want to get a lot of people who like it to join, and we'll make like a nation or something and go in that direction. But the breed would expand so fast that it would become a major subset if not the dominant dimorphism in the genepool overall. I'm not deranged

>>14860608
You're like an autogynephile or a mommy fetishist or something. It's a kind of psychiatric condition where you want to be infantilized.

>>14860571
What type of height difference are you talking about with tall male-small female partnerships that need c-sections and result in birth complications?

>>14860614
No, I just like giant women. I get off to female biased dimorphism in general. I'm sure you can come around to it eventually as well, just think about it and you'll realize the truth!

>>14859810
you forget the Jesus

>>14860621
I don't get off to the weird shit you do, anon. I like women how they are in nature. Modest sizes in all fields.

>>14860628
There are women in nature that are big

>>14860637
Not that big. Give me a good 5'10" Swedish broad and that's "big," not some monstrous woman double my height.

>>14860637
anon the son will also going to inherit his mother's dna
and considering that height have a heritability of 0.8 we can safely assume that the son will be taller than his father

>>14860654
Imagine being ~3'10", and lean, and you can run fast and jump high, and do backfips/gymastics easily and are generally very athletic and fit, and your wife is a 6'5" or 6'8" thick strong woman and the two of you have a litter of like 4 intelligent beautiful kids together. The world would be a paradise for everyone

>>14860530
lol for women its quality not quantity, as amazing as 600 matches is, your hypergamous nature will only allow you to choose a hunk and I am guessing you aren't that sought after by chads if your on 4chan lucky for you there are no such things as femcels even if you are unattractive.

>>14860666
Get thee behind me.
Sir, you appear to have tall person privilege. You wouldn't be wanting this dynamic if you understood how bad it was to be short.

>>14860616
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3126796/
It's not every time but it's significant enough that it would most likely not even be risked in hunter gatherer societies, i.e. it was not even possible for women to breed with men that were too much larger than them during human evolution. This makes it very difficult to imagine that women would develop an "innate" preference for large men; The women who would develop that would have died in childbirth, whereas the women who liked smaller males would reproduce more. This also aligns with why human males are not that much larger than human females and why the dimorphism between males and females of our species got smaller over time.
However, it doesn't happen all the time, so that might not have happened too.

>>14857942
If a man gets regular sex then he's an alpha by definition.

>>14860671
If all men and women were like that (small males and giant females) then it would be the normal thing, and no one would care or judge each other for it. There would be no privilege for tall or short people, because a major part of the species' would be the extreme female biased dimorphism.

>>14860679
a main part of the species phenotype*
Basically because it is so delineated there would be no "tall females" who's femininity is denied or "short men" who's masculinity is denied etc.

>>14860666
this reverse sexual dimorphism sicko posts on all the genetic engineering threads and gender threads. What man in their sane mind would want to be 3'10 fuckin delusional..... IF any gene editing were going to be happening it would be one where you can give men the highest IQ, attractiveness, and relatively tall heights(e.g. characteristics of dominance not efficiency). Have you seen the NBA? Football? these men are above 6ft tall with 40 inch verticals, there is a 5'5 dunker porter Mayberry black guy jumps well above 50 inches but only black people can jump that high..... Lastly in what world is a 6'5 woman choosing a 3'10 man absolutely fuckin delusional midgets suffer in life for a reason even the game of thrones actor peter dinklage has talked at length at how mistreated he has been by women.....

>>14860683
You haven't read through the thread?

>>14860595
>Why is genetic engineering dysgenic by definition?

It's not. Using genetic engineering to create something that natural selection itself would reject is.

Your entire worldview is shallow and retarded. You don't understand humanity, you don't understand evolution, and you certainly don't understand yourself.

>>14860679
Thing is you can't make all people one thing, simply isn't possible they tried to force vaccinate the entire world and they still failed in giving their poison shot. Nobody is giving up their advantages for your sick fetishist experiment to make men small and women tall to create some pseudo matriarchy goofy as hell I must be talking to a woman or a gay man probs a sick tranny

>>14860689
what you described is a dystopia

>>14860689
>What you mean my theoretical musing about how all sexual desire is socialized is conflicting with the reality where short men are severely mistreated by women?

You consistently deny obvious reality in preference to your theoretical fantasies.

You like citing peer-reviewed sources, then insult someone for citing the dictionary.

You talk about genetically engineering babies to fit your exaggerated sexual inclinations.

You should realize you're tainting the view of your fetish by generally being a scummy person.

>>14860675
Head size at birth is not necessarily correlated with body size at adulthood. It is somewhat, but not in the case of all races.

>>14860690
>It's not. Using genetic engineering to create something that natural selection itself would reject is.
It wouldn't reject it, it just wouldn't be able to reach it. If there were a way to levitate, that would be a very fit trait, despite the fact that natural selection might not be able to get to it through it's normal random genetic mutation algorithm being acted on by environmental selection etc.
Just because we have to edit a lot of SNPs in one generation, and it seems like this is not something that would ever happen "naturally" (randomly) doesn't mean that it wouldn't be good to have.
>Your entire worldview is shallow and retarded. You don't understand humanity, you don't understand evolution, and you certainly don't understand yourself.
I don't agree with you. I don't see why this matriarchal dimorphism is somehow anti-human or something.

>>14860699
>I don't agree with you. I don't see why this matriarchal dimorphism is somehow anti-human or something.
Female rule has in all cases resulted in societal collapse.

>>14860692
>Thing is you can't make all people one thing, simply isn't possible they tried to force vaccinate the entire world and they still failed in giving their poison shot
This is a good point and you are right, it wouldn't be possible to force people into this, but I don't think I need to. I think that, realistically, I can get between 1-2% of the population to join and willingly go in this direction, maybe even up to 5%, idk

>>14860699
>If there were a way to levitate, that would be a very fit trait

So, are you ignoring all the ways that your desired traits would make those women's lives hell?

Do you know about Q angle? What is the fitness of carrying around a bunch of fat for no purpose than because a fetishist put it there?

>I don't see why this matriarchal dimorphism is somehow anti-human or something.

Well, considering you are actually inverting a long-standing trait of humanity. It is, by definition.

>I don't understand how removing our capacity for language is anti-human or anything.

>>14860697
>You should realize you're tainting the view of your fetish by generally being a scummy person.
I am not trying to be scummy. I admitted I used the word incorrectly.
>>14860701
>Female rule has in all cases resulted in societal collapse.
I don't like misogynistic arguments

>>14860697
Also the "mistreatment" of short men by women is not universal within or between cultures. Women are not innately predisposed to wanting to feel small and hating small men for making them feel big. This is a social construction

>>14860709
>So, are you ignoring all the ways that your desired traits would make those women's lives hell?
How would they make women's lives hell? You mean the litters?
>Do you know about Q angle? What is the fitness of carrying around a bunch of fat for no purpose than because a fetishist put it there?
What fat? Do you mean when I mentioned having fat distribute around the hips and butts of the women?
I don't want to hurt the women or men but I don't think that this would hurt them.
>Well, considering you are actually inverting a long-standing trait of humanity. It is, by definition.
I guess it's anti traditional human, yea you're right. But I don't think the human condition overall would be worse, it would be different.

>>14860726
>I admitted I used the word incorrectly.

Only after denying you used the word incorrectly, then insulting me for citing the dictionary.

That's still scummy, and you're still being scummy about it.

Being scummy seems to be in your nature. From now on, your entire view is the result of a person struggling with an inferiority complex and general failings of morality and ethics.

>>14860726
>I don't like misogynistic arguments

His argument isn't misogynistic, it's based on historical fact.

I hope this PDF actually helps you gain some perspective on human history.

>>14860733

Yes, all your exaggerated characteristics would cause the women to suffer. Most notably the increased hip width, which results in an increased Q-angle, which already causes women knee problems.

You see how I asked how extra fat would increase fitness, and you dodge away from talking about fitness?

>>14860739
I was saying that when I use the word dexterous I always think of it as being quick and skilled. I was mistaken and I admitted it.
>Being scummy seems to be in your nature. From now on, your entire view is the result of a person struggling with an inferiority complex and general failings of morality and ethics.
You're not being fair right now. I don't have an inferiority complex and I don't have failings of morality and ethics.

>>14860746
>Yes, all your exaggerated characteristics would cause the women to suffer. Most notably the increased hip width, which results in an increased Q-angle, which already causes women knee problems.
I don't want that. Do you think increasing the length of the ACL would help?

>>14860748
>I was mistaken and I admitted it.

Only AFTER insulting me for citing the dictionary because you arrogantly proclaimed you COULD NOT be in error.

>>14860748
>You're not being fair right now.

Nah, I can tell when I've hit the mark.

I'll give you advice that I use all the time. Insulting someone randomly isn't effective, it may upset them briefly, but it's easy to shrug off insults that aren't true.

It's when someone sees your true character and can tell you the flaws you're in denial of that pain really hits.

You have potential to improve. To some extent I share something similar to your fantasy. However, my morals are far more developed. My concerns far more subtle. My scope, far grander.

I've contemplated cross-breeding Tibetans with Bajau, to see if I could get an interesting result from their unique adaptations, but I am also extremely concerned this would result in some immense problems for the bottom end of the bell-curve.

Moreover, I would prefer something like a Brave New World society. There we could breed oompa loompas to work in confined spaces, while also breeding giants, if nothing else than to marvel at their grandiosity.

>>14860756

Honestly, I'm not familiar enough to know why women don't just stand with a wider stance?

Like I don't get why their knees need to come together.

>>14860726
>I don't like misogynistic arguments
I don't make the rules, I just observe and report them.

>>14860759
I don't see why you wouldn't just take desired traits from every population, or what the use is of large males or smaller females at all at that point.

>>14860762
Beats me. If we need to increase the ACL or do something else with the knees to help offset the increase in the hip size then I need to work on that. IF it turns out that it's not possible then we can't increase the hip size, and that's annoying. The larger bodies would still be better at birthing and gestating litters but we wouldn't have the decrease in pelvic complications etc

>>14860769
>or what the use is of large males or smaller females at all at that point.

I don't share you interest in reversing human dimorphism. It's more the interest in the evolutionary fate of humanity and trying to guide evolution to a positive end. Some of this does require discussion about what it means to be human, and what we should like to see for the future of humanity.

But this is a sober discussion. Basing it on trying to defend a sexual fetish warps your view.

>I don't see why you wouldn't just take desired traits from every population

Well. My real vision is a Bene Gesserit type breeding program run by an AI and genetic testing...

As I said, I have highly developed morals. Such a system would be voluntary. Don't want in? Don't do it. For everyone else it would be the new online dating. People already let a machine tell them who to date, why not base it on genetics and your potential offspring?

>>14860759
>I've contemplated cross-breeding Tibetans with Bajau, to see if I could get an interesting result from their unique adaptations, but I am also extremely concerned this would result in some immense problems for the bottom end of the bell-curve.
What you'd end up struggling with, as with any cross-breed admixture, is that a lot of genetic diseases which are suppressed in the host population by virtue of dominant allele versions of that gene, have no such gene in the other population. So you get a lot of half-breeds from differing races (especially white or asian with black, since the genetic difference is very high) where they get almost all the negative genetic traits from both families, since they have no resilience from compatible genetic lines on the mother or father's side.

>>14860780

Yea, outbreeding depression, essentially.

Mixed race breeding is generally greatly increasing your risks of a problem, while giving you a small chance at a boon. This is essentially the suffering of evolution in a nutshell.

In-vitro fertilization while screening the zygotes for optimal matches would be the best way to avoid this.

>>14860787
You would waste thousands of ova for a single viable crossbreed to do something like this. And at the level of technical sophistication necessary to perform such a task you may as well just edit the genes yourself because you have the technology already.

>>14860669
Again, I can get any man I want dude. Even if I was fat and had tooth missing, I would probably still be able to easily have sex with "hunks". I can get impregnated by such men at any time. I don't want to though, cause I find you despicable.
>no such things as femcels
Thats right. You on the other hand, is an incel, an ugly hypermasc ape. A genetic dead end. No woman wants you.

>>14860795
sheesh. you have unresolved psychiatric issues dude

>>14860778
I just don't agree with you.
Making men small and women large IS in the best interest of humanity towards a positive end. I think it would be better for humans if men were small and women were large
I agree that it should be voluntary. I've also thought about a genome-based dating app, but more as a side thought rather than the main idea.

>>14860078
exactly - women say they want sensitive guys because they like the idea of a guy who's emotionally vulnerable with them and cries at movies and shit... but if you ever do that shit in front of them the relationship is DOA because they suddenly realize they only like the concept as a schlick fantasy and don't actually like it in practice

>>14860811
It's the same with FTMs who want to be "one of the boys." They really don't understand what men are like and think it's some 24/7 yaoi manga.

>>14860795
>Again, I can get any man I want dude

Typical female delusion and self-reassurement.

It's funny, Incels are actually common throughout history. Men have always had a harder time reproducing.

Failing to reproduce as a woman is literally losing the game on easy mode.

>>14860791
>And at the level of technical sophistication necessary to perform such a task you may as well just edit the genes yourself because you have the technology already.

I do not believe that to be the case. I'm cautious even about in-vitro, though that has more to do with not trusting the people in charge. Such people have been known to slip in their own children as an advanced act of cuckoldry.

Part of why an AI based genetic matching appeals to me the most. Much less potential for abuse.

> I think it would be better for humans if men were small and women were large

You say this, but you've demonstrated very well that your considerations are not based on sober rationality. They are based on sexual impulses.

Do my ideas smack of fetishism, or intellectual motives?

>>14860830
How is increasing female fecundity and minimizing male energy requirements not rational?
I'm going to sleep, let's continue tomorrow if the thread is still up

>>14860826
Delusion? Kek, as man yourself you know damn well what I'm saying is the truth. From hunks to whatever, it doesn't matter, you're all easy and cheap. The only person failling to reproduce here is you. I'm getting married to a beta male and having plenty of babies

Jake Kwon says that white women are flooding into South Korea for that sweet oriental lovin'
cnn.com/travel/article/south-korea-western-women-seeking-love-intl-hnk-dst/index.html
The funny part is that black women are doing it too but that the Koreans don't want 'em

>>14860837
>How is increasing female fecundity and minimizing male energy requirements not rational?

Well. First. Female fecundity has dropped more precipitously than your dimorophism measure. Developed nations do not need super-breeders. We've had this discussion before, and you dismiss it.

Currently, most women should have around 2 children average. The world has no need for hyper-fecundity.

>minimizing male energy requirements

Because that's not currently a pressing issue. The amount of energy we consume frivolously in industry, entertainment, etc. is orders of magnitude higher than our metabolic needs. Moreover, you could even achieve this end simply with lifestyle changes and caloric restrictions (fasting).

Like you're talking about reducing male energy requirements when a majority of first worlders are obese. You're not optimizing something that can in any way be said to be a modern issue.

You should read the PDF I gave you. It will further illustrate possible bad consequences of giving women too much power without altering their social instincts.

'The Fate of Empires' is in my top 3 most important works I've ever read.

>>14860840
>as man yourself you know damn well what I'm saying is the truth

Actually, I know it to be the opposite. I remember my freshman year of college when I told my roommate that this fat chick was into him and he cringed.

>From hunks to whatever, it doesn't matter, you're all easy and cheap.

Anyone that isn't delusional knows this is obviously wrong. Movie stars aren't dicking just anyone.

>I'm getting married to a beta male and having plenty of babies

Thankfully, this is likely just as delusional as the rest of your post.

>>14860856
The incel cope is eternal

>>14860860
>Yea man, I could totally sleep with any movie star I wanted

Yea, sure. I'm the one coping.

It's funny, it doesn't even matter how you look, your personality is so toxic you probably cannot keep a relationship.

>>14860795
lol, and thats why you'll end up alone you have the biggest ego(non submissive/argumentative) you aging and getting fat won't do any good for you either pretty soon the dudes you want will dry up, your career/independence/ (and you trying to gene edit matriarchies will fail in a blast of fire while you age to oblivion... to top it off here is a beautiful vid for you to watch 10 secs SEETHE BITCH SEETHE!!!!!! https://www.youtube.com/shorts/CtHRM9Vj-os

>>14860863
>It's funny, it doesn't even matter how you look, your personality is so toxic you probably cannot keep a relationship.
The sad thing is that there are men so desperate they wouldn't care. The funny part is that this woman thinks herself above them and will die lonely anyway.

>>14858092
>Redpill shit

Reading MS paint infographics doesn't make you smarter than others retard

>>14860895
NTA, but non-submissive women aren't bound to a life of cats and boxed wine. Marriages and kids happen because not every man is attracted to a doormat baby portal. Don't want an argumentative wife? Don't marry an argumentative woman.

>>14860937
It's less about assertiveness and more about having an odious opinion about men. The kind of man a woman like that will settle for isn't the kind of man willing to get stepped on by a woman. They have other choices.

>>14860940
They might have other choices, but since when are humans known for making great decisions regarding relationships? The anon was arguing with you on here though, not with tonight's match, so maybe they perform differently within a relationship. Maybe not, arguments add spice and help people figure one another out.

>>14860937
Thing is that emotional chaotic nature and ego is innate it isn't something you can remove or anything? But just like angry men can become calm, argumentative unsubmissive women can tone down their ego through trained effort problem is no one holds women accountable long enough to do that except other women and maybe slightly abusive/commandeering men

>>14858112
Why are you retards always like this?
>stop basing your happiness on deeply ingrained biological imperative
>me? Oh I'm happily married with multiple children

>>14860850
>Well. First. Female fecundity has dropped more precipitously than your dimorophism measure. Developed nations do not need super-breeders. We've had this discussion before, and you dismiss it.
I dismiss it because our fertility rates are not at replacement. It's a problem. If women always birth 3 or 4 babies, the society would never have fertility rate issues
>Currently, most women should have around 2 children average. The world has no need for hyper-fecundity.
I think women having 4 children average is desirable. I like the idea of large families.
>Because that's not currently a pressing issue. The amount of energy we consume frivolously in industry, entertainment, etc. is orders of magnitude higher than our metabolic needs. Moreover, you could even achieve this end simply with lifestyle changes and caloric restrictions (fasting).
>Like you're talking about reducing male energy requirements when a majority of first worlders are obese. You're not optimizing something that can in any way be said to be a modern issue.
It's not pressing but that's not the motivation. I'm not looking to reduce consumption, we don't need that. Would you rather everyone be obese, or lean and athletic? I don't really see why you would want to have fewer people if you can have more of them or a greater fertility rate.
>You should read the PDF I gave you. It will further illustrate possible bad consequences of giving women too much power without altering their social instincts.
Ok, I'll read it. However, what makes you think their social instincts couldn't be changed (if innate) or that they wouldn't just change (if socialized)?
>'The Fate of Empires' is in my top 3 most important works I've ever read.
I'll read it this afternoon.

This is huge. If these theories prove to be correct it could spell disaster for the whole redpill movement.

>>14862552
It's a good thing they're not correct.

>>14862558
All of them are correct.

>>14857942
Betas dance for a kiss
Alphas tickle their cervix with a simple "lets fuck".

>>14862563
If you believe that, why lead with the appearance of being undecided?

>>14858112
Alot of white men have been brainwashed into believing women want a human partner so they believe understanding girls and being nice to them will aid them in dating, it wont and it it does that only means YOUR GOOD LOOKING AND THATS IT. In reality women like men that treat them like pure shit they hate nice behavior from men to a pathological level hence the "nice guy" slur they use all the time. Its good for men to never care what women think as this will help them get sex more often than fags who empathize with women who see them as genetic garbage for not being evil scumbags. The appropriate response to a woman trying to argue with you is literally punching her up until she shuts up its savage but this is simply the subhuman reality of the human female.

Walking home today I saw 17 couples where the girl was taller than the boy. I counted.

>>14857942
It's true, women don't like them. They just fuck them.

>>14862601
They don't like them or fuck them

>>14862592
>17 couples where the girl was taller than the boy
Based. Big female smol male master race soon.

>>14857942
>Seethe and dilate. Cope as much as you want
Why would anyone on /sci seethe over this? It would be fantastic news for this board, if only it were true

>>14862614
6% of women are fine dating men who are literally 4'6". 4'6" was the shortest male in the group, but we can conclude that what is really being said is that 6% of women are fine dating really tiny males. Right now, one in nineteen women would be fine being double the size of men
We need to get that number up to 100%

>>14857942
modern women want partners that they feel like they can dominate
the henpecked husband that just takes it and never lashes out has been a trope since forever

>>14858112
what worked for you 20 years ago when the most popular cellphone was pic related will certainly still work now

>>14862741
when the guy who refuses to listen about how online/app dating has provably changed the dating scene is telling you it's all in your head, remember that the most advanced communication device when he was your age was this

>>14862744
>listen up pal I don't want to hear your incel nonsense all you have to do is get her digits and hit her with a HEY BB WHT R U UP 2 L8R

/thread

>>14862744
Go outside lol

Here is a small collage of images of boys on steroids that I put together.
They are all between 3 and 4 feet tall and a few dozen pounds in weight. They can bicep curl 25-30 pounds, can sprint ~20 miles per hour, can perform dozens of push-ups before tiring, can squat up to 180 pounds (sometimes more), can deadlift up to 230 pounds, can bench about 100 pounds, can jump up to 3 feet in the air, and only need a few hundred calories per day to maintain this.
ALL of them would be able to pass the military fitness requirements for the United States Marine Corps.

Now, make these guys 25 years old, with 150+ IQs, and all the training and experience of a full grown adult.

Name ANY task, in the civilian world or in the military or whatever, that could not be performed by such a male. If the task requires being stronger than the listed strength, then explain why some of the giant women in society couldn't just take over those tasks (and there are very few such tasks; there would be more than enough women to fill those roles).

You deniers have to accept it already. Giant super fecund women and small super athletic men are the ideal dimorphism. We are all going to be genetically modified to become the big female small master race.

Femanons, you will be modified to be towering matriarchal fertility goddesses, amazon queens, who run society.
Maleanons, you will be modified to be small lean strong boys-on-steroid things like the boys in the collage.
All of us will be better off for it.

>>14862807
That's really gross, anon. We don't want to hear about your pederast fantasies.

>>14862809
This is what you and I are going to look like in ~10 years

>>14862812
I don't want to look like a child. I'm a normal, mentally healthy adult not a pedophile like you are.

>>14862807
aren't you the guy who used to chronically masturbate with shota porn and made a paper about that?

>>14862818
>resorts to calling me a pedo
It's going to happen anon, accept it

>>14862820
No, I've never done that

https://youtube.com/shorts/Tc0tI4b8GcI?feature=share
I found your guy sci

>>14861633
>I think women having 4 children average is desirable.

What happens when humanity reaches the Earth's carrying capacity? See, you question about rationality, and then become very irrational.

>It's not pressing but that's not the motivation.

So you admit, the reasons you give why your vision is 'rational' are not actually problems. You're making up excuses to justify thrusting your fetish on the world.

>Would you rather everyone be obese, or lean and athletic?

Clearly, lean and athletic. But I have a simple solution to that which doesn't require tinkering with the human genome.

>I don't really see why you would want to have fewer people if you can have more of them or a greater fertility rate.

Because Earth is finite, and I prefer quality to quantity.

>what makes you think their social instincts couldn't be changed (if innate)

Oh, they definitely could. It's just another aspect of your plan that would go awfully awry if you don't account for it. Like, you would probably want to give women higher bone density to compensate for their greater size, etc.

You have to realize, men and women's social instincts evolved around the fact that men had physical superiority. Our entire society is still coded around it, but in denial of all the ways that it benefitted women.

For example, women receive drastically less prison time for the same crimes when compared to men. A woman can slap a man in public, and people laugh. A man slaps a woman, and they assault him.

All of these are things that would be upset if women were given physical advantage. They're already problematic, but women would become absolutely tyrannical if these instincts in both sexes were not tweaked.

In particular, women already have a lot of power over men through emotional manipulation. Part of our evolution. Men evolved for physical intimidation, women evolved for social manipulation. You see this often resulting in a demoralized man with a harpy for a wife.

>>14859625
Have you found your amazon yet?

>>14863380
From the looks of the thread he got banned for posting a collage of little boys.

>>14857942
Womxn change their mind every 5 seconds

>>14857942
No shit retard, when it comes to family they want a provider, when they're used up roasties.
When it comes to dating, a woman's preference is physical attractiveness. Height, race, face.
Personality copers should have their skulls crushed along with you.

>>14863385
I'm not banned, I deleted that post, but I'll post what I wrote about it.
The strong boys in the image that I posted are all between 3 and 4 feet tall and a few dozen pounds in weight. They can bicep curl 30 pounds, can sprint ~20 miles per hour, can perform dozens of push-ups before tiring, can squat up to 180 pounds (sometimes more), can deadlift up to 230 pounds, can bench about 100 pounds, can jump up to 3 feet in the air, and only need a few hundred calories per day to maintain this.
ALL of them would be able to pass the military fitness requirements for the United States Marine Corps.

Now, make these guys 25 years old, with 150+ IQs, and all the training and experience of a full grown adult.

Name ANY task, in the civilian world or in the military or whatever, that could not be performed by such a male. If the task requires being stronger than the listed strength, then explain why some of the giant women in society couldn't just take over these tasks (and there are very few such tasks; there would be more than enough women to fill those roles).

Bump

>>14857942
https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill

>>14858991
>all women have the same fundamental preferences
Bullshit, I know some who just enjoy sleeping around and don't give a fuck who its with.

>>14858112
>you wouldn't enjoy being in a relationship with her anyways.
This a thousand times.
If you haven't turned into a man whore yet, you're actually a good normal person who will most likely have a strong stable family and children who aren't fucked up.
Wait until you meet the right woman, and learn quickly to stop time wasters and women who just want to fuck. Not worth it. I can tell you this as a man who can't have sex with a woman without becoming emotionally attached. People who can do that are not worth knowing im telling you know.

WHY ARE YOU GUYS SO FUCKING STUPID TO UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF ASSORTATIVE MATING
PEOPLE MATE BASED ON GENETIC AND PHENOTYPE SIMILARITY

>>14866297
Are u single?

>>14860075
Males should be smaller and females should be smaller, for efficiency. The optimal height difference is her being approximately 8 inches shorter.

>>14866969
>her being approximately 8 inches shorter.
Aww but then how will my musclefu be able to dom me. I want to take my wife's last name. Also smaller women have more difficulty with birth than if woman is bigger than man. So bigger than man woman is actually more efficient.

>>14857942
So this is why zoomers have the lowest testosterone levels ever? Another study was linked here stating 1 in 4 fathers are raising someone else's biological child. So while they are marrying meek men, they're still being seeded by alphas on the side.

Let me guess, they asked women about what women want, right?
And the answer was "personality", was it not?

>>14867097
It was 1 in 25 or 4%. But yeah it's clearly evidence for hypergamy in action.

>>14858112
>married boomer with children who didn't have to compete with every chad on the globe on 2000 dating apps tells you to not base your happiness on getting a woman
lmao go mow your lawn you fucking lucky piece of shit.

>>14867118
No. Scientists concluded that through mathematical models

>>14867126
I don't think it's hypergamy. That's just marrying up, I'm talking about breeding In 90% of mamals, males compete and stronger seedsthe next generation. Researchers even found that the mammals that pair bonded for life, the female would still breed with others. Jackals and bluebirds are an example.

>>14866295
They are still attracted to them. It's not like men who will fuck something disgusting because we're horny.

>>14866969
Why would making females shorter be more efficient when larger women have greater fecundity.

>>14857942
>Women chose beta providers with resources to settle down with once they are done fucking the men they are genuinely attracted to throughout their 20s;;

WOW anon .. my brain is blown ...

>>14867084
>Also smaller women have more difficulty with birth
incorrect, evidence is asian and south americans have no difficulty. invasive and usually unnecessary surgery like Clc-section are profit driven
>Aww but then how will my musclefu be able to dom me.
easily and you'll enjoy it more
>>14867200
more (according to you) doesn't mean efficiency

>>14857942
>go out
>go to library acrose the street .
>go to romance section .
>look at coverse
>every man on the covers is musculaire ,tall, attractive , narrow cheekbones .
Me; yep, OP is a faggot
>go back home .

>>14867286
if we made everyone small we wouldn't make women 8 inches shorter than men, we'd just make everyone around the same size and small, like monkeys or gibbons. This would be good and I think that this will be another phenotype that could happen.
>more (according to you) doesn't mean efficiency
Men don't make babies. Women have an increase in fecundity with greater size so there is motivation for it. The only motivation for larger males is sexual preference which isn't as compelling. the men and women in the big female small male society will be just as turned on with their size difference.

>>14857942
Pathetic troll thread full of foids and mentally ill men posting their delusion. Since i am feeling generous today i'll shed some truth on the points made, the arguments in their favor are so weak anyone able to follow a simple logical argument already knows they are wrong. Of course foids and mentally ill men aren't known for their great cognitive abilities so these types of arguments are expected.

The problem with redpill and PUA stuff isn't in what they say, which is correct, but in the metaphysics they follow, which centers women and their needs and desires. This is to be expected as what they do is make empirical observations and modern society is a gynocratic shithole. Everything they say is true as can be proved by going outside and looking around (without feminist feel good bias, of course), however instead of realizing the situation is bad and working to change it all they do is accept it and try to gain something (little) with it. What science says to "disprove" doesn't matter, science means math, physics and chemistry. Biology is already in the camp of sociology and political "science", fraud fields whose only job is to churn out justifications and rationalizations and narratives that satisfy the current leaders. The actual problem is not so much researchers thinking true and proved statements regarding foid inferiority are false, cooking research so it gives the desired results, refusing to carry out research that goes against feminist ideas (all of these are well known issues by anyone with a brain and in the field), the true problem is the lack of math and models and formalization. Even the theory of evolution, the only thing with some substance to come out from the field, is often misinterpreted with the addition of moral qualities, like foids and male feminists in this thread are doing.

>>14868351
Trads are a little different, they recognize modern society is a shithole and want to change it but they don't really know how, so their proposed solution is to go back to 1950, a time they think things were different. The problem is that things were different only on the surface, ideologically things haven't changed since liberalism and the french revolution happened. Feminism was already in full swing: when you believe foids should have a say over society and men then you have feminism. If you think women should vote you are a feminist. All the talk about marriage and family reflects this too, this is feminist bullshit, men have only to lose from these things. The solution trads can't see because they are feminist is that men and men alone should rule, this cringe society is what happens when society isn't made by men for men. This is the case with this thread too, what women like and don't like doesn't matter, only what men like and prefer matters. Their choice is fine only when it agrees with what men want, for example it is true that foids blindly follow authority, but this isn't a reason for them to obey to men, like trads say. The reason they should obey men is because men benefit from it.

>>14868359
Last point, society isn't for gender equality, what happened is that idiots put male feminists and foids in position of power and they are now shitting everything up and giving foids as many privileges as possible. Anyone with a three digits IQ knows that a society where there is a male draft, male genital mutilation, affirmative action and the like isn't equality. Nor can you have equality when half the population is weaker and dumber than the other half, the only way foids can compete and "be equal" is if men are brought down to their level (just like it happens in communism). Feminism keeps changing the rules to benefit foids until foids are so privileged they come on top, then claims it's a meritocracy and there is equality. This happened everywhere, from school to the military to the workplace. Again anyone with an at least average IQ realizes this.

>>14868361
Extremely low IQ, ugly and 100% homosexual

>>14868359
>foids blindly follow authority
Bro look at Reddit and there are many men on there. You can't excuse men here.
>Anyone with a three digits IQ knows that a society where there is a male draft, male genital mutilation, affirmative action and the like isn't equality
This isn't gender equality and I agree. It works both ways.
>The solution trads can't see because they are feminist is that men and men alone should rule
But when you do this you get societies like Mormonism and Islamic fundamentalism like Wahhabism or Salafism. These societies are ruled by men and harshly oppress women. Why as a man would you want to live in such a society? Why as a man would you want to live in patriarchy in general. You also miss the point like the tradcels because the issues you see in society stem from patriarchy and traditionalism forcing men and women into their roles. It assumes only women are caretakers and empathetic so there is your reason why women are shielded but men are pushed into war meatgrinders. If you accept gender inequality then that's how it's going to be. The misconception with patriarchy is that men have the power in society. This is false. Patriarchy doesn't give men power, it gives a very small percentage of men power. It represents power inequality between the sexes and among the male sex. The rest of the men face the oppressive inequality much like women. This is why as a man you should want patriarchy destroyed. Gender unequal societies are boring and brutal to live in (unless you are the Pharaoh, the rest of the men are slaves and whipped to death) compared to societies in which gender inequalities are minimized or eliminated. These are much more interesting and happier societies to live in.

>>14868495
Gender, much like money, are social constructs that bring suffering and misery. Artifical and imaginary barriers we place on ourselves that imprison us.

>>14867286
>incorrect, evidence is asian and south americans have no difficulty.
because the men are also small.
The difficulty comes when women are a lot smaller than the man. If both the man and woman is small it's fine. If the woman is small but the man is big, they can't naturally reproduce
There is no reason whatsoever to make women smaller than men. You have to get over your dislike of men who are smaller than you because it's nothing but your own problem.

>>14868351
>>14868359
>>14868361
Terrible posts that have no data to support any claim

Quick somebody post that image of Leon meekly standing behind Ada as she demands they fix his order

>>14868361
You sound exactly like ancient greek pederasts

>>14868361
I have double digit iq and i was able to understand that society is not interested in equality. Dont believe to the same one's psyop

>>14868495
>Why as a man would you want to live in such a society? Why as a man would you want to live in patriarchy in general.
Because it's awesome and successful.