8,000 YEARS AGO, 17 Women Reproduced for Every One Man

" a biological anthropologist, hypothesizes that somehow, only a few men accumulated lots of wealth and power, leaving nothing for others. These men could then pass their wealth on to their sons, perpetuating this pattern of elitist reproductive success. Then, as more thousands of years passed, the numbers of men reproducing, compared to women, rose again. "Maybe more and more people started being successful," Wilson Sayres says. In more recent history, as a global average, about four or five women reproduced for every one man."

"In more recent history, as a global average, about four or five women reproduced for every one man
I don't get this part, where is this happening and why?


Other urls found in this thread:


Only communism can end cuckoldry

You can't get cucked if monogamy doesn't exist.

what if we had 20% reproducing men, 50% women, and 30% crossdressers? This sounds like a winning formula

But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.

The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.

He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.

For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.

Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.

Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.

We're basically moving to wealth inequality levels from that time.

If we move from 4:1 women/man reproduction ratio to 17:1 + …. I dunno, I dunno
It already sucks how it is.

I'm going to turn super culturally conservative (but still economically liberal), until the left can fucking explain how anything other than monogamy can prevent a scenario like this.

bullshit "liberal science" article comparing historical circumstances to modern situations #430229

SJW being anti-science out of agenda #88588

You are new here aren't you?

They come in here when triggered every once in a while. Usually through an otherwise non-SJW

Reddit has been coming here and there's a lot of open SJWs, in particular Afroplasm, the whitest man in the UK, and Lares, a Puerto Rican underage teen that openly says identity politics is beneficial and necessary. Of course, he hasn't read a single book because they don't have those in Puerto Rico.

Does anyone other than SJWs really oppose monogamy though. I've always leaned towards cultural conservatism and pathetic as they may be, incels and the manosphere do have a lot of important points about women and how they choose partners.

Join the largest communist parties (Russia, China), and Angela Nagle in Ireland and the late Christopher Lasch in the US in becoming a conservative leftist

Reminder you're either a sjw or nazbol, one or the other, pick one and only one.

Wrong url sorry.

Agreed, people like Roger Devlin exaggerate (I think) and could use more empirical citations, but they kind of hit the money on.. if it's not happening now in the US, what could happen very soon.

But Devlin is a fucking idiot on race and national health. Having an ethnostate is a non-starter, there's no reason to do it. Closing borders, sure, but an ethnostate, no


They are "important points" because they are recycled fascist propaganda for the new millennium. The free sexual market inevitably creates loosers and winners and you can easily pander to the loosing side with the right words and "studies" (totally valid, every single one of them, believe me, I'm the best at studies).

Enforcing monogamy has nothing to do with marriage. Marriage as it is now is a bourgeois institution, concering itself with the management of estates. Remove the bourgeoisie and the institution changes. Many civilizations had some form of marriage before capitalism, feudalism or even before that. The form it will take post revolution won't be rooted in money, so no more marriages for it. Other than that, you cannot tell anyone who to not fuck.

It's just what>>2278514

You "lean towards cultural conservatism" because you have a shit-tier understanding of theory.

It's not propaganda, it's basic history and pretty obvious stuff going on around us. What evidence is there that Nazis made the sexual arguments in the early 20th century that they are making now?

Plus Nazis aren't the only ones making these points, there are leftists doing so too, they are just louder.

The only group that stays away from evopsych as a whole is feminism, and the reason they do it is because evopsych points out differences btw genders, that's all, that's the root of the whole thing, they don't reject evopsych because it's a soft science

everyone knows evopsych is a soft science, but at least it's based on science and not a religion like feminism

Marriages tie people down reproductively, but only if it's lifelong, has nothing to do with it being prole or bourgie.

most communists by numbers in the world lean cultural conservative. Cultural liberalism in the left is an anglo-saxon phenomena

Regular psych points out the differences, evopsych is a protoscience at best. It's completely untestable unless you can somehow conduct experiments on a macro-evolutionary timescale.

Most Communists by numbers in the world also have a shit-tier understanding of theory [not least that Communists themselves are not the active agents of revolution].

regular psych has just as good a track record as evopsych, and literally the only org opposed to evopsych is feminist orgs, it's taught in every college around the world

I don't even have to search for some esoteric leftist study. It's pretty easy to see the connection between fascism and the modern ideology that is taking hold of the incel/manosphere space.
And please stop reddispacing and calling feminsts out whenever you need a boogeyman. None fucking cares about them here.

that has nothing to do with what I asked for

"'where my womenz at"'

Oh you mean to say that aut-right/incel groups/mgtow/redpillers never made arguments such as:
-women destroy civilizations. The more liberty they are given the closer societal collapse is (cue Roman empire example)
-women are biologically inferior to men
-the intrusion of women in male workplaces would disrupt the natural hierarchy of them
-women should not have constitutional rights outside those given by their men and any movement forming to give such rights to them is a dangerous disruptive force

Jeez I really wonder where manosphere rethoric comes from.

I never hear them say that, I just hear them say that women are social darwinians, in a way like Nazis are, that is unpleasant

Yea I don't hear people today argue that either, some will argue women need to submit to men, but out of a social consensus on the matter

leftists were opposed to this too

again, patriarchy wasn't just a right wing thing

Anyway, if you are trying to say both today's and yesterday's nazis are anti-feminists (yea) and anti-modernists (sorta), then yea and sorta

Other groups are anti-modernist, pro-natalist etc

Like hippies
There was a popular thread in Holla Forums a while ago trying to find ways to make themself like the hippie movement out of fun, just because of the similarities

I always wonder, does that have any link to women's moderate neoteny?

Even the first MRA was a socialist.

True, E. Belfort Bax

you cant be left or right handed if we cut off everyones hands

dark humor

if you do that you get invaded, conquered and eradicated by a semitic civilization with a more oppressive culture

This entire thread is incel thread in disguise. Mods need to anchor it immediately.

you need to stop with you dumb moral panics over science

Wrong, us big men will defend trap with great care.

This guy would live in a world with 17:1 woman/man reproduction, and think he could be a winner in that, lol how charming

you literally have no testosterone, fuck you


oh no a metric tonne of sociology related areas dont touch evopsych with a ten foot pole
explaining human behaviour with evolutionary behaviour scares the gender theory adherent

didnt stop Akkad wont stop islam

And totally not because it's as scientific as feminist theory itself.

a lot of evopsych is just basic logical conclusions from the basics of evolution

You need to differentiate evopsych from ordinary psych. Ordinary psych just observes and tests human behavior both learned and inherent. Evopsych seeks to explain why the inherent behaviors developed, it is irellevant to the sexual politics at hand.

OP in a nutshell.

And the idea behind it is sound, but just drawing intuitive conclusions by applying evolutionary priciples to observed inherent behavior isn’t science proper. You have to make predictions and test all that shit.

evopsych also tests human behaviour and compares it to similar animal behaviour
they've recreated ritualistic behaviour in pigeons its an interesting study and supposed to be a good example of how religious customs developed in humans

Is there even one for that? I always hear The Fall Of Rome being brought up as some typa multiculturalism bogeyman, but I've never heard it being used to make MGTOW-tier arguments before.

Really? It’s not that uncommon a claim.

Does anyone have a link to that one guy who made responses to Molymeme’s bullshit about Rome?

so like 90% of women want men to be taller than men

about 60% of men don't care either way

guess what percentage of couples have a taller man than woman? Exactly 90%.

You ask why and feminism says "I dunno stop asking"

Evopsych says "cuz women are the sexual selectors"

*men to be taller than them

googled it. This was the third result

women got more socially liberated in the later stages of the Roman Empire before the wars of the Tetrarchy happened
some noblewomen could hold public office, they werent charged with adultery anymore and it was common for Roman women to have multiple lovers, and the rich ones to have boy toy slaves
its just one of the signs of the collapse of empire, any nation or empire that attempts to adhere to the ideal of Rome is doomed to share its fate

This is an a posteriori assertion without an actual basis. It might be true, but there's no scientific support for it. You can easily say that is is because of modern society, rather than genetics.
What actually is is just an easy way to justify beliefs and behaviours meant to exploit a segment of the population.

And fuck you for forcing me to defend feminism.

redpillers have now given 99999 mysognist theories about women, often times contradictory, they are always going to land on fascist stuff because they talk about sexuality honestly 50000x more than the left

I don't like TRP cuz it's pickup artistry, but I've posted in TRP advocating communism and social democracy and gotten upvoted!

If I were to argue fascism in a leftbook group for long enough I'd be fucking stalked and told that I"d be shot.

What these idiots forget is that women have always been in a privileged position in Rome compared to any other European civilization. There were laws against rape and domestic abuse, many women held considerable economical power (Cicero's debtors were half women, half men for example), etc. To say that giving them more liberty was what caused the downfall of the empire is ridiculous.

oh no the mgtow argument is it caused the downfall of the empire
what I've read in the books that do discuss this is that the liberation of women is just a symptom of the end

So what? You are comparing a self professed apolitical group with a political ideology that was quite recently almost driven to extinction by fascist and reactionary forces. I wonder why they are defensive against fascist sympathizers.

That's meaningless. The point is used against women having those liberties, not to explore what brought society to that point.

If women having sexual freedom let's them become the social darwnian tinder monsters that the OP describes, the yea fucking lock down their choices.

I"d advocate controlling the demand side as well. Men shouldn't proposition so much, it makes women more choosy, and they are all choosy for the same set of men with a wide enough pool. Look at dating sites, and if not that, look at sperm banks where they all pick literally the same 1% of sperm initially

well what does bring society to that point is complacency
a century of war with no real threat to major industrial and economic centers
a plethora of corrupt leaders who use social welfare to gain popular support from the people
eventually barbarian migrations/invasions into your peaceful economically stable land coupled with overpopulation and an infrastructure broken down and plagued with internal corruption results in a sustained period of instability
then civil war, barbarian invasions and plague did the rest

That’s just normal psychology. Evolutionary psychology attempts to explain why those behaviors emerge. Pointing out that women are he sexual selectors doesn’t expain how it originated or what survival benefits there may be.

Barbarians had already immigrated and intigrated into Roman society for a very long time when the western roman empire collapsed. The economic issues had to with military expansion occuring faster than transportation, communication, and infrastructure development could keep up, supported by a bloated military budget that went primarily toward supporting military infrastructure. Everything your describing occured over the course of centuries and is yet another example of someone expanding and contracting complicated periods of history to make a bullshit political analogy that doesn’t actually translate to anything. All topped with the historically ignorant, “immigration/multiculturalism contributed to schism and fall of Western Rome” point that is equally as wrong as “women did it”.

Why are you forcing me to play the feminist?
We reached this point not because of evolutionary psychology or innate human tendencies, but because of the ruling ideology of our time.
I don't remember who said it, maybe Zizek, but this new century saw the birth of a new type of totalitarianism. The typical tale we are fed is that totalitarian regimes died together with the last millenium, but it can (and should) be argued that we are living in a market totalitarianism. Last century totalitarian meant having the state determine everything, this century it means having the market dictate every single aspect of our life. This also mean our emotional satisfaction needs to be seen from a market perspective, in terms of demand and supply, of costs and profits. It is no surprisingly then that our emotional lives are shattered and alienated. The market requires to function poor and rich, alienated and oppressed.

But of course because of ideology we do not see this transformation directly, we do not see that the fault lies in the underlying structure of our society, so we search for esoteric sciency-like explanations that allow ourselves to detach from the reality that the market found us wanting and discarded us like it did with so many faulty products before.

You may succeed in making some progress against this social stratification and marketization of the human experience, but the source will not be affected until capitalism is dismantled. Culture will follow the base not the other way around.

Millions of deaths by civil wars and plagues are complacency.
how are you making this assertion? Much of the empire's economy was destroyed by the civil wars.
This is a classic misconception. The Roman empire did not have welfare, it simply provided heavily discounted food to the unemployed in the city of Rome (and no other city). The intent was not to gain the favor of the masses but to avoid massive riots in the streets. Much like the modern welfare state.
Most barbarian tribes wanted to immigrate in the empire and peacefully integrate. They were forced to relocate because of the shitty living conditions of northern Europe, made worse by the Hunnic invasions. And the empire was everything but peaceful and stable, it was in a constant civil war, barely holding together.
Not to mention overpopulation is a laughable claim. The empire lost a great portion of its population during the 3rd and 4th century due to various plagues and wars.

It is starkly evident to anyone even just knowledgeable of history that you are trying to shoehorn modern problems in an historical reality that had little to do with them.

which ones?
the Celts the Romans conquered?
the Germanic tribes they extracted tribute from?
the Goths didn't integrate into Roman society until after they'd burned Rome and demolished Gaul and Iberia
the Vandals terrorised the Mediterranean for about 130 years before they settled down
Rome had stopped expanding militarily for 200 years before the Western regions collapsed
the population of the Roman Empire was inflated far beyond what their local infrastructure could support
any interruption to the grain shipments from North Africa to Europe resulted in starvation and famine for Roman citizens
what I'm describing occurred within 120 years, from the Gothic migrations to the Hunnic invasions to Genseric and the plague of Justinian
I love how you use a reductionist argument to make it seem like it wasn't a contributing factor

shitty living conditions became the casius belli to sack Rome?

And the empire was everything but peaceful and stable, it was in a constant civil war, barely holding together.
the war of the Tetrarchy was Romes last great civil war
the next major conflict in Roman territory would be when Atilla the Hun rode in from the east

one major civil war, then continued on and off again border skirmish wars with Persia
the city of Rome had a population of about 60 million people living in it
20% of the population of the world lived in or around the city of Rome
this was only possible because of Roman control of grain distribution
the major plague of the time wouldnt heavily depopulate Roman territory until the 6th century AD

Alexandra Kollontai

I really am not, I just don't see why we need a bunch of incels on top of christians who already enforce monogamy in society.

/Tips fedora

Yes women need to have a quota for how many men they sleep with.


The point is lifelong monogamy.


It's important to realize this shift happened after most of humanity weren't hunter-gatherers anymore. Accumulation of resources includes women, who are also a kind of a resource.

I'm not surprised



rape culture is real

It's real but the solution should be to target powerful predators perpetuating it not collectively blame all men for it like a pol their Jewish conspiracy

but 'strawman liberal monster-under-the-bed woo-mans' want to end rape culture via education and $$$raising awareness$$$ to make it less socially acceptable to commit rape by forcing WASPs to become whiteknight rapist hunters like the christian anti-pedo legionnaires of the 1990s. The alternative solution of training and arming those under oppression with commodity 9mm handguns, let alone knives or even spoons, is strictly prohibited. It shouldn't be because self defense is less complicated or centralised than relying on the male feminist meme.
Anti-gun is reactionary.

This basically BTFOs Holla Forums, sexual inequality is in fact influenced by social & material factors, not just genetics & culture, and would be vastly exacerbated under the conditions they're trying to restore. Only communism can bring about happiness for everyone.

So passed out drunk teenage girls should defend themselves with bullets?

Neo-nazism is based in aesthetic and rhetoric is created afterwards in a top-down fashion. Speaking of fashion, I want to find a justification for NAZBOL so that I can wear leather in public while still pretending to care about Marx.

Good point. You've found a flaw.
Well, banning alcohol doesn't work, shit. How about nationalising designated sober nerds to look after the respective 'Cadbury' drinkers of society.
I'll admit I don't spend more than forty seconds thinking before posting anything on this site, why bother with such a lack of accountability?

The only acceptable formula is 100% cuteboys

Anyone have/know about a french documentary that talks about sex and relates it to the market? It was a image of various stills of the movie with captions.

I'm so tired of this cuckpanic. Just invent artificial wombs already so we can make people in factories and be done with this gross primitive travesty of reproduction.

Retard males do not breed, period. Never, fucking ever. This should be the most obvious thing ever.

it was from an movie adaptation of a book by Houellebecq : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whatever_(1999_film)
the guy is a reactionary
can't find it but here's a very close quote

Would be nice, but 99% of men make for awful traps. We'd need to start some sort of breeding program with only the most effete men, but that kind of defeats the point since traps are for receiving hot dickings and not for impregnating girls.

He didn't came up with that, but rather appropriated the position of a french marxist sociologist called Michel Clouscard.

Finally someone with some taste.

The only reason why I have had sex is because of gay shit

who cares
you don't need to procreate. Whether it's 4/1 or 17/1 or 1700/1 or 0/0.

oppose monogamy as a facet of opposing all relationships.

just imagine the fragile little mutt on the other side of this post. "y-you literally have no testosterone! s-sure the other kids beat me up, b-but at least i can imagine i have more hormones than you!"
bet he wears glasses.

reproducing is losing tbh unless you're an absentee parent who bails on child support.
if you want to win at life you need to get yourself in the history books.

i still want to regulate the flow of oxygen to your head with my hands.

FINALLY someone else talking sense.
based onanist socialist

Is that Puerto Rican kid even still alive? Haven't seen them since the hurricane.

Hopefully he's shitposting on the great imageboard in the sky now

I can't find this movie anywhere on the internet

8000 years ago was the stone age, the destruction of social institutions like marriage and the state would cause us to be like anprms in the OP

And nature is cruel. The female base sexuality is social darwinism. The male base sexuality is promiscuity.

Destruction of social institutions creates a social darwinian atmosphere. Like Tinder, but IRL and 500x times worse.

The MGTOW men, even though they have retarded politics, are probably foreshadowing something much larger, until we can build back the old institutions or build back ones that level the playing field

this could be done under socialism, capitalism etc… just depends on how it's implemented, but there needs to be a strong social contract, not a weak one

Men in the USA jerk off to what is, on the whole, essentially a classless society (the sort of constant Woodstock festival porn is essentially). Women, jerk off to the billionaire and make that fantasy the second highest selling book in the world, ever.

Houllebecq's various books offer ways out of this nightmare. In Atomized, the nudist resort in the Cap d'Agde offers sexual freedom for all who enter. Dutch, Scandinavians, and Germans can be trusted to enjoy a

Comrade, we don't want any economic liberals around here, holy shit, the whole point of Communism is the real movement to abolish liberal economics.

Read a book. We're not liberals, we're socialists.

So are you saying that guys are more sexually "progressive" than women?

Point is women's base sexuality is social darwinist. Take that however you want.

economic liberalism is just a euphamism for any economic politics to the left of liberal Democrats, stop parading your dumb fanaticism

Gonna be honest, if you're unhappy about a lack of sexual partners, become a furry, let it make you gay, then just get with another gay furry male, tidy yourself up for your gay furry partner, and be happy for life with someone who wants to fuck all the time.

I should have said economically egalitarian with an anti-market stance, but the fiscal liberal vs fiscal conservative American thing was what I was referencing.

ancom is code word for

which is basically the stone age


lmao what

absolute heresy.
Use this pic from now on jeez

These threads are going to make me catatonic, /leftylol/ can not keep its shit together when sex toots its silly ass clown horn, fuck me dead I hate this place sometimes.


but im horny and frustrated, the 'free' market continues to cuck me day after day

Ask your doctor about chemical castration.

Don't worry, us egalitarians will regulate the sexual free market
we will end lady's night

Monogamy is literally why betas exist

automatically put a sage in the email field plus a == Sage ==

Afroplasm hasn't been posting that heavily, and he's not exactly an SJW stereotype either he's just (LARPing as) black

If the sexual free market were regulated, landwhales like vid related would be forced fuck their looks match.

Come on, he is not that white.