5 ms·
Males have evolved to extract resources from the environment. Females have evolved to extract resources from males.
by gspetr 10y ago
Males have evolved to extract resources from the environment.
Females have evolved to extract resources from males.
- scandox 10y agoI think by removing the word "monkey" you have opened yourself up to a charge of inaccuracy. After all, I'm going to hazard a guess that this is not true of all males of all species. Now some cynical people might think that you removed the word monkey in order to map this research onto humans, in order to make a point. While I'm sure that's not the case, I think it's worthwhile to recall many other evolved qualities human beings have, such as: cannibalism child molestation incest murder organised genocide disorganised genocide So I think we can all agree that our ability, however occasional, to transcend our evolved behaviours is a positive and that people who advocate for further improvements are to be respected.
- saiya-jin 10y agoyou don't get this joke, do you (yes, it's mostly for guys but not only, and no it's not completely hypothetical)
- scandox 10y agoI'd be very interested in your explanation of the joke. Please elaborate in as much detail as you can.
- raducu 10y agoThe joke is we're primates too, and human females do this all of the time, you can see this in the motif of two heros(one "good" and the other "bad") fighting for a female, "golddigger" being most of the time attributed to the female, to the psychological game called "Rapo" where a female entices a particular male's attention so that another male would fight the first male, and so an and so on. The joke is believing all of the "Women are wonderful" effect, that there's a "rape culture", vilifying men and pedestalizing women, and all of the PC crap that dictates males and females think/feel and behave the same way and disregarding all of the obvious evolutionary and logical conclusions that males are predisposed to violence and females to manipulation in order to get what they want.
- ethanbond 10y agoYou don't have to believe all women are "wonderful" in order to find distasteful the notion that women evolved to manipulate men. Why not "men evolved to be dumb as rocks on the topic of what they put their penises into?" Equally applicable and evidence backed, no? Equally irrelevant to the topic at hand? But instead men are simultaneously superior and somehow at the mercy of these "manipulative women."
- namaemuta 10y agoI would say that "dumb" has nothing to do about the topic in question since reproduction is probably one of the first goals of a male (non-human) and they will do whatever is needed to reach that goal. It isn't practically a choice for them.
- stevetrewick 10y agoYeah, we got that part from the original. To qualify as a joke I would have thought there needs to be a punchline that allows it to transcend lazy stereotyping. "Ha he means gold diggers" isn't adding that.
- scandox 10y agoYou know I could be tricksy but I'll answer you straight. Even if I thoroughly believed the rather reductive propositions you make about male/female biology, I would still disagree with your conclusions. You seem to want it both ways: you assert men are naturally violent, women are naturally manipulative, therefore we should accept this state of affairs and not be dishonest about it. At the same time you want us to reject the idea of rape culture, even though inherent in your assessment of men is an acceptance of exactly that. Has it ever occurred to you that Political Correctness acts as training wheels for people who are exhibiting bad natural behaviours? And that this might be a good thing? We teach our children to have good manners, to share and to curb their violence. Of course, no adult wants to be treated as a child, but if there is a social consensus that somebody is infantile, then it seems appropriate to have a mechanism to put manners on them. That consensus is far from punitive. For the most part it doesn't restrict individual liberty. Many contrarians and "rugged individualists" I know seem to fear that we will fall into a kind of group-think if we allow PC ideas to develop. This it seems to me is just the despair of autocrats. It's our social consensus. We get to form it together. But just saying "PC Crap" doesn't work. We live in a big complex society. It's going to just get more complex. Many smart people are bored and repelled by these arbitrary social rules - I get that. But your natural repulsion is overcoming your judgement. These are systems. They can work well or badly. Contribute to them to support your values.
- midgetjones 10y agoGood trap. He totally fell for it!
- dang 10y agoPlease don't post like this here. There's no information or substance about it—just flame fodder. We don't want that on HN.
- ainiriand 10y agoI think this is a reductionist point of view. There are bazillions of cases in which is not true. Female lions for example.
- da1 10y agoI think he means restricted to humans. In the animal kingdom you have uncommon scenarios such as seahorses where the male caries the fertilized eggs or spiders where many times the male is just eaten by the female.
- DanielleMolloy 10y agoHow do you mean "restricted to humans"? What exact cases do you have in mind?
- 75j 10y agoWhat the hell is going on here? Why are you being downvoted for politely asking for clarification?
- hubert123 10y agoBecause the question is extremely stupid, he should take an extra 10 seconds and it should be obvious
- DanielleMolloy 10y agoIn which sense is this "obvious", hubert123? I am really interested in what the comment meant by "restricted to humans". Try to be explicit in explaining.
- dang 10y agoThis breaks the HN guidelines about civility. We ban accounts that do that, so please don't do it. You should also have better manners than to presuppose "he" when speaking of a fellow user.
- known 10y ago"By all means marry; if you get a good wife, you'll be happy. If you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher." --Socrates
- gspetr 10y agoSpoken like a true footballer.
- hashmap 10y agoSecond comment from the top, "Women are gold diggers." Screencapping this for when HN's users claim they don't make the tech space awful for women.
- coderdude 10y agoBe sure to also screencap the hundreds of statements made against males in order to keep your perspective accurate.
- DanielleMolloy 10y agoPlease link a few of these hundreds of statements made against males on HN in order to provide accurate evidence for your claim.
- coderdude 10y agoYou can do the work for yourself and search HN. I'm not going to sift through it all. If you're actually interested in knowing, take a few minutes.
- 75j 10y agoYou do it. You're the one making the claim. I've been on HN like 8 years and I'm wondering what you mean too.
- coderdude 10y agoAs someone who has actually been here for like 8 years, I know better than to be baited into doing basic legwork research for the uninitiated.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- 75j__throwaway 10y ago
- lexhaynes 10y agoIt might be pithy but nature is full of counter-examples. Come on, now!
- SNwaiga 10y agoLoool ok, not that for the longest time society has dictated that women shouldn't work outside of the home and should be housewives that depend on their husbands.
- Kenji 10y agoHahaha, you triggered some feminists and sensitive political correctness people. And here I thought Hackernews had become one of those disgusting safe spaces where you cannot say anything that could possibly offend a human on planet earth.
- dang 10y agoThat's a misinterpretation of how HN works. We don't care about being political, we care about not being stupid. This thread is the stupidest one I've seen in months and, considering which months, that is impressive. The rest of the internet has the opposite priority, so you don't lack for other places to post like this. Please don't do it here.
- ClassyJacket 10y agoThat's a ridiculous oversimplification.
- dang 10y agoLow-substance comments about inflammatory topics, like this one, end up triggering flamewars, like this one. We're trying to avoid those on HN. They're boring—alternately flippant and nasty—and if the term 'stupid' has a local definition, this would be it. There are other places on the internet where you can ply that art if you want to. If you want to continue to post to HN, please behold the damage you wrought and refrain from doing it again here.
- gspetr 10y agoI thought HN welcomed diversity of opinion. Starting flamewars was not my intention. When I posted the comment the title of this posting was quite different and it made more sense in that context. If you wished to ask me to substantiate the comment - you could have done exactly that, no need for threats. EDIT: I've read the thread in it's entirety. You're right, it's not the level of discussion I had hoped for. But I will still maintain that I acted with intellectual integrity and if people have collectively steered towards the lowest common denominator - that is just the way people are. A sign of times perhaps, but so was this US presidential election. I subscribe to Marcus Aurelius' philosophy of stoicism: "All men are made one for another: either then teach them better, or bear with them."