Thousand Year Old Wokepire

[This Guy]

Geeky is obviously correct that you should ignore me even when I'm saying correct things and deffo you should restrict your creative instincts and water your shit down for the markets. Only produce and consume diluted shit, never from concentrate.

Luckily I have not had to ignore you for saying correct things yet but I am sure it will happen any day now.

Any day.

This many days since I've had to ignore This Guy for saying Correct Things: 0

I was hoping this was the day it would finally tick over to 1 but alas.

Buck up buddy it'll happen one of these days.

[Trond]

Not really, unless you consider a story my telling you there were already feminist articles in the TSR magazine (Dragon?) back then, don't remember exactly which issue tho, something about chainmail bikinis, and one more my brain is farting and won't let me remember what it was about.

Can you believe this sort of lameness actually caught on? To the point where in many groups you have to say that OF COURSE you're a feminist and OF COURSE chainmail bikinis is an affront to women's rights........or else.

[GeekyBugle]

Not really, unless you consider a story my telling you there were already feminist articles in the TSR magazine (Dragon?) back then, don't remember exactly which issue tho, something about chainmail bikinis, and one more my brain is farting and won't let me remember what it was about.

Can you believe this sort of lameness actually caught on? To the point where in many groups you have to say that OF COURSE you're a feminist and OF COURSE chainmail bikinis is an affront to women's rights........or else.

Yeah, I totally can, we're a gynocentric species, we evolved to protect the women, everything in our species, including our cultures evolved out of that necesity.

Even the most oppressive things, like the muslim rule that women can't go outside without a male escort comes from the necesity to protect the females.

"Think of the women!"  Has been proven to have more weight than "Think of the children!". How else do you explain that in Hollyweird the scandal was women willingly exchanging their body for fame, money, power and not the children beign raped left and right by the nest of degenerates there?

[This Guy]

Not really, unless you consider a story my telling you there were already feminist articles in the TSR magazine (Dragon?) back then, don't remember exactly which issue tho, something about chainmail bikinis, and one more my brain is farting and won't let me remember what it was about.

Can you believe this sort of lameness actually caught on? To the point where in many groups you have to say that OF COURSE you're a feminist and OF COURSE chainmail bikinis is an affront to women's rights........or else.

Yeah, I totally can, we're a gynocentric species, we evolved to protect the women, everything in our species, including our cultures evolved out of that necesity.

Even the most oppressive things, like the muslim rule that women can't go outside without a male escort comes from the necesity to protect the females.

"Think of the women!"  Has been proven to have more weight than "Think of the children!". How else do you explain that in Hollyweird the scandal was women willingly exchanging their body for fame, money, power and not the children beign raped left and right by the nest of degenerates there?

fuck them kids, you can always make more, it's their one good quality.

[Trond]

Yeah, I totally can, we're a gynocentric species, we evolved to protect the women, everything in our species, including our cultures evolved out of that necesity.

Even the most oppressive things, like the muslim rule that women can't go outside without a male escort comes from the necesity to protect the females.

"Think of the women!"  Has been proven to have more weight than "Think of the children!". How else do you explain that in Hollyweird the scandal was women willingly exchanging their body for fame, money, power and not the children beign raped left and right by the nest of degenerates there?

That's an overstatement, it's just one key drive that we have among many others. In some areas women are the first to go when family honor is at stake, for instance. Sometimes girls simply aren't worth it for poorer families, so they get rid of them.

I do agree that there IS an element of "save the women" in humans though, and this was emphasized by Medieval Chivalry. Feminists are usually the last to acknowledge it, even if they use it whenever it suits them.

[GeekyBugle]

Yeah, I totally can, we're a gynocentric species, we evolved to protect the women, everything in our species, including our cultures evolved out of that necesity.

Even the most oppressive things, like the muslim rule that women can't go outside without a male escort comes from the necesity to protect the females.

"Think of the women!"  Has been proven to have more weight than "Think of the children!". How else do you explain that in Hollyweird the scandal was women willingly exchanging their body for fame, money, power and not the children beign raped left and right by the nest of degenerates there?

That's an overstatement, it's just one key drive that we have among many others. In some areas women are the first to go when family honor is at stake, for instance. Sometimes girls simply aren't worth it for poorer families, so they get rid of them.

I do agree that there IS an element of "save the women" in humans though, and this was emphasized by Medieval Chivalry. Feminists are usually the last to acknowledge it, even if they use it whenever it suits them.

Lets see, "family honor" who benefits the most from monogamy? The woman that needs a protector and provider for the children and herself during pregnancy and the child's infancy. The man would be better of in poligamy passing as many of his genes as possible.

BUT, once established monogamy has one advantage for some males, they now can get a woman where before only the alpha could.

BUT, since they are having to provide for more than one mouth they need to know they are feeding their offspring and not some other male's. You see this a lot in other animals too.

From this is that "family honor" evolved. To protect the honor of the woman so she could get the best man to marry her.

True, in some cultures poor families prefer boys over girls, not because the girl is less important, but because the boy is expected to take care of his elderly parents, cuz his labor isn't his.

Now, I never said gynocentrism was the ONLY drive, just a really big one in almost all aspects of life. Millions of years of evolution make it so.

[Trond]

Lets see, "family honor" who benefits the most from monogamy? The woman that needs a protector and provider for the children and herself during pregnancy and the child's infancy. The man would be better of in poligamy passing as many of his genes as possible.

BUT, once established monogamy has one advantage for some males, they now can get a woman where before only the alpha could.

BUT, since they are having to provide for more than one mouth they need to know they are feeding their offspring and not some other male's. You see this a lot in other animals too.

From this is that "family honor" evolved. To protect the honor of the woman so she could get the best man to marry her.

True, in some cultures poor families prefer boys over girls, not because the girl is less important, but because the boy is expected to take care of his elderly parents, cuz his labor isn't his.

Now, I never said gynocentrism was the ONLY drive, just a really big one in almost all aspects of life. Millions of years of evolution make it so.

Well that was very poorly phrased then, just re-read what you said in the previous post.

And no, family honor isn't necessarily connected to monogamy, and it doesn't even always have to do with women.  It usually has everything to do with status. Family honor can also lead to family vendettas for instance.

[GeekyBugle]

Lets see, "family honor" who benefits the most from monogamy? The woman that needs a protector and provider for the children and herself during pregnancy and the child's infancy. The man would be better of in poligamy passing as many of his genes as possible.

BUT, once established monogamy has one advantage for some males, they now can get a woman where before only the alpha could.

BUT, since they are having to provide for more than one mouth they need to know they are feeding their offspring and not some other male's. You see this a lot in other animals too.

From this is that "family honor" evolved. To protect the honor of the woman so she could get the best man to marry her.

True, in some cultures poor families prefer boys over girls, not because the girl is less important, but because the boy is expected to take care of his elderly parents, cuz his labor isn't his.

Now, I never said gynocentrism was the ONLY drive, just a really big one in almost all aspects of life. Millions of years of evolution make it so.

Well that was very poorly phrased then, just re-read what you said in the previous post.

And no, family honor isn't necessarily connected to monogamy, and it doesn't even always have to do with women.  It usually has everything to do with status. Family honor can also lead to family vendettas for instance.

Right, on the instances where it doesn't have to do with women it has also zero to do with monogamy, you're correct. But since we were talking about gynocentrism I disregarded the rest since it's not relevant to the conversation.

I wonder tho, can't something arise from one source and then be adapted to other different areas of human interaction?

From organized religion we then derived the divine right of kings for instance, can it be possible that honor arose from one thing and then was adapted to other areas?

Sex/Reproduction is one of the mayor driving forces of evolution, and our behaviour evolves just like the behaviour of other animals. Unless of course you believe in the tabula rassa religious dogma of the left.

[Trond]

Right, on the instances where it doesn't have to do with women it has also zero to do with monogamy, you're correct. But since we were talking about gynocentrism I disregarded the rest since it's not relevant to the conversation.

I wonder tho, can't something arise from one source and then be adapted to other different areas of human interaction?

From organized religion we then derived the divine right of kings for instance, can it be possible that honor arose from one thing and then was adapted to other areas?

Sex/Reproduction is one of the mayor driving forces of evolution, and our behaviour evolves just like the behaviour of other animals. Unless of course you believe in the tabula rassa religious dogma of the left.

Well this went from this;

" Yeah, I totally can, we're a gynocentric species, we evolved to protect the women, everything in our species, including our cultures evolved out of that necesity.."

.... to what you're saying now. Again, I'll just chalk it up to being extremely poorly phrased. But just talking about reproduction in general does not necessitate any of this. Grizzly bears don't care that much about protecting the females.

[GeekyBugle]

Right, on the instances where it doesn't have to do with women it has also zero to do with monogamy, you're correct. But since we were talking about gynocentrism I disregarded the rest since it's not relevant to the conversation.

I wonder tho, can't something arise from one source and then be adapted to other different areas of human interaction?

From organized religion we then derived the divine right of kings for instance, can it be possible that honor arose from one thing and then was adapted to other areas?

Sex/Reproduction is one of the mayor driving forces of evolution, and our behaviour evolves just like the behaviour of other animals. Unless of course you believe in the tabula rassa religious dogma of the left.

Well this went from this;

" Yeah, I totally can, we're a gynocentric species, we evolved to protect the women, everything in our species, including our cultures evolved out of that necesity.."

.... to what you're saying now. Again, I'll just chalk it up to being extremely poorly phrased. But just talking about reproduction in general does not necessitate any of this. Grizzly bears don't care that much about protecting the females.

We are a gynocentric species, we evolved for thaqt, and yes our cultures evolved from that too. Nowhere do I say our cultures evolved ONLY for that tho.

Yeah, Bears don't care about protecting the females, they also aren't a social species and are much far away than our nearest cousins Chimps and Bonobos. You do see in them a possesive protection of the females, as in they chase away strange males. You also see in them protection of the offspring.

But they and we have a major difference, we are monogamous, they aren't, and yet the males do protect the females and the offspring.

Why would you go for bears when you have a much closer animal that shares many of our genes and other characteristics?

I wonder.

[Shasarak]

fuck them kids, you can always make more, it's their one good quality.

Yeah you are not "Anti Evolution" are you?  Fuck those science deniers.

[Trond]

Right, on the instances where it doesn't have to do with women it has also zero to do with monogamy, you're correct. But since we were talking about gynocentrism I disregarded the rest since it's not relevant to the conversation.

I wonder tho, can't something arise from one source and then be adapted to other different areas of human interaction?

From organized religion we then derived the divine right of kings for instance, can it be possible that honor arose from one thing and then was adapted to other areas?

Sex/Reproduction is one of the mayor driving forces of evolution, and our behaviour evolves just like the behaviour of other animals. Unless of course you believe in the tabula rassa religious dogma of the left.

Well this went from this;

" Yeah, I totally can, we're a gynocentric species, we evolved to protect the women, everything in our species, including our cultures evolved out of that necesity.."

.... to what you're saying now. Again, I'll just chalk it up to being extremely poorly phrased. But just talking about reproduction in general does not necessitate any of this. Grizzly bears don't care that much about protecting the females.

We are a gynocentric species, we evolved for thaqt, and yes our cultures evolved from that too. Nowhere do I say our cultures evolved ONLY for that tho.

Yeah, Bears don't care about protecting the females, they also aren't a social species and are much far away than our nearest cousins Chimps and Bonobos. You do see in them a possesive protection of the females, as in they chase away strange males. You also see in them protection of the offspring.

But they and we have a major difference, we are monogamous, they aren't, and yet the males do protect the females and the offspring.

Why would you go for bears when you have a much closer animal that shares many of our genes and other characteristics?

I wonder.

Because that's how generally you phrased it.

And no chimps are not very concerned with protecting the females. Male dominance isn't the same.

[This Guy]

fuck them kids, you can always make more, it's their one good quality.

Yeah you are not "Anti Evolution" are you?  Fuck those science deniers.

Evolution is for people who can't grow their own wings so hope by concentrating real hard they can live vicariously through their kids, it's the high school football dad of science.

[GeekyBugle]

Right, on the instances where it doesn't have to do with women it has also zero to do with monogamy, you're correct. But since we were talking about gynocentrism I disregarded the rest since it's not relevant to the conversation.

I wonder tho, can't something arise from one source and then be adapted to other different areas of human interaction?

From organized religion we then derived the divine right of kings for instance, can it be possible that honor arose from one thing and then was adapted to other areas?

Sex/Reproduction is one of the mayor driving forces of evolution, and our behaviour evolves just like the behaviour of other animals. Unless of course you believe in the tabula rassa religious dogma of the left.

Well this went from this;

" Yeah, I totally can, we're a gynocentric species, we evolved to protect the women, everything in our species, including our cultures evolved out of that necesity.."

.... to what you're saying now. Again, I'll just chalk it up to being extremely poorly phrased. But just talking about reproduction in general does not necessitate any of this. Grizzly bears don't care that much about protecting the females.

We are a gynocentric species, we evolved for thaqt, and yes our cultures evolved from that too. Nowhere do I say our cultures evolved ONLY for that tho.

Yeah, Bears don't care about protecting the females, they also aren't a social species and are much far away than our nearest cousins Chimps and Bonobos. You do see in them a possesive protection of the females, as in they chase away strange males. You also see in them protection of the offspring.

But they and we have a major difference, we are monogamous, they aren't, and yet the males do protect the females and the offspring.

Why would you go for bears when you have a much closer animal that shares many of our genes and other characteristics?

I wonder.

Because that's how generally you phrased it.

And no chimps are not very concerned with protecting the females. Male dominance isn't the same.

Yeah, any chimp from other tribe can just walk in and grab a female or attack her and the males wouldn't rise an eyebrow.

Stop drinking that koolaid.

[Trond]

Yeah, any chimp from other tribe can just walk in and grab a female or attack her and the males wouldn't rise an eyebrow.

Stop drinking that koolaid.

That's the protection you're talking about? Many animals behave like that. Lions even.
So you do talk in very general terms then? Why did you protest my mentioning bears?? (Not social but territorial with females with territory)
So any animal where males guard a group of females from mating with other males is "gynocentric" in your book?