4 ms·

Extremely controversial. Could we not also blame men for competing for the attention of the most attractive women, who then in turn can demand more resources?

Extremely controversial. Could we not also blame men for competing for the attention of the most attractive women, who then in turn can demand more resources? I do think we attack men for being shallow more often than we attack women for being materialistic. The latter doesn’t get as much attention or critique, eg wanting a bigger house or label fashion is often seen as aspirational and positive; wanting a more attractive partner is not seen in the same light. Why do men who have a partner already feel obliged to continue capturing more and more resources? Are these just instincts that exist independently? Would removing one remove the other? Are they even so strong as to bind us by them? In reality I think these instincts don’t rule us. Choosing a partner is a combination of physical and mental attraction, as well as a function of social status. We can choose. Timshel.

joelbluminator 6y ago
> Why do men who have a partner already feel obliged to continue capturing more and more resources? Great question. I think there are strong forces and dynamics that push us to earn more and "improve", constantly, regardless of whether we have a partner or not. It's kindof what a capitalistic society is built upon. If we didn't consume much gdp wouldn't grow right? If we didn't compete how would earnings increase? It's coming from peers, parents, spouses and from the way society itself is structured. I think it doesn't have tons to do with genes or evolutionary instincts though they may also explain some of it.
- storminabucket 6y ago
  I think it is in our nature to strive for more. An interesting read about this phenomenon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill We aren't made to be happy, only motivated
globular-toast 6y ago
> Why do men who have a partner already feel obliged to continue capturing more and more resources? Two reasons. First, women are hypergamous and will always be looking for the best mate possible. When men become complacent, they lose their women. The battle isn't over when the first mate is attracted, it has only just begun. Second, men are polygamous. Men still want to be attractive to other women as well as their own. There is essentially no limit to how many women a man can mate with. These instincts do rule us, unfortunately. Although many like to think otherwise.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
  > These instincts do rule us, unfortunately. Although many like to think otherwise. Let me see if I have this straight: selection processes have favored those with the ability to provide for their offspring because it ensures the survival of their lineage. Consequently women tend to consider competitive men who have high wealth and status more attractive, therefore it is the fault of women that men are so competitive? In your reasoning, men do not have the agency to choose not to be competitive, women do have the agency to choose who they are attracted to, and natural selection pressures are blameless. That's a pretty arbitrary place to draw the line don't you think?
  - globular-toast 6y ago
    > fault This is where you begin to introduce your own ideas rather than talk about mine. I didn't use that word and certainly didn't imply that anybody is at fault here. Sometimes things are just true. It doesn't mean anybody is to blame or that anybody is "better" than anybody else.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
      > the people with the power to change the never-ending hamster wheel situation are primarly women Why have they singled out women here if not to place blame? Women are a product of selection pressures just as much as men are. Moreover, it isn't like women are not on the same hamster wheel as everyone else.
      - globular-toast 6y ago
        For a start, you can't "single out" half of the population. Women aren't a minority. I disagree with anyone who wants to pin the blame on current individuals or groups for things which were caused by evolution. Check the comment I was replying to here.
  - growlist 6y ago
    If men choose not to be competitive and women don't change, those men just exclude their genes from the gene pool.

joelbluminator 6y ago

> Why do men who have a partner already feel obliged to continue capturing more and more resources? Great question. I think there are strong forces and dynamics that push us to earn more and "improve", constantly, regardless of whether we have a partner or not. It's kindof what a capitalistic society is built upon. If we didn't consume much gdp wouldn't grow right? If we didn't compete how would earnings increase? It's coming from peers, parents, spouses and from the way society itself is structured. I think it doesn't have tons to do with genes or evolutionary instincts though they may also explain some of it.

storminabucket 6y ago
I think it is in our nature to strive for more. An interesting read about this phenomenon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill We aren't made to be happy, only motivated

globular-toast 6y ago

> Why do men who have a partner already feel obliged to continue capturing more and more resources? Two reasons. First, women are hypergamous and will always be looking for the best mate possible. When men become complacent, they lose their women. The battle isn't over when the first mate is attracted, it has only just begun. Second, men are polygamous. Men still want to be attractive to other women as well as their own. There is essentially no limit to how many women a man can mate with. These instincts do rule us, unfortunately. Although many like to think otherwise.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
> These instincts do rule us, unfortunately. Although many like to think otherwise. Let me see if I have this straight: selection processes have favored those with the ability to provide for their offspring because it ensures the survival of their lineage. Consequently women tend to consider competitive men who have high wealth and status more attractive, therefore it is the fault of women that men are so competitive? In your reasoning, men do not have the agency to choose not to be competitive, women do have the agency to choose who they are attracted to, and natural selection pressures are blameless. That's a pretty arbitrary place to draw the line don't you think?
- globular-toast 6y ago
  > fault This is where you begin to introduce your own ideas rather than talk about mine. I didn't use that word and certainly didn't imply that anybody is at fault here. Sometimes things are just true. It doesn't mean anybody is to blame or that anybody is "better" than anybody else.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
    > the people with the power to change the never-ending hamster wheel situation are primarly women Why have they singled out women here if not to place blame? Women are a product of selection pressures just as much as men are. Moreover, it isn't like women are not on the same hamster wheel as everyone else.
    - globular-toast 6y ago
      For a start, you can't "single out" half of the population. Women aren't a minority. I disagree with anyone who wants to pin the blame on current individuals or groups for things which were caused by evolution. Check the comment I was replying to here.
- growlist 6y ago
  If men choose not to be competitive and women don't change, those men just exclude their genes from the gene pool.