Human instincts, monogamy, and agriculture


Boxer argued that humans are hardwired for monogamy.

This interested me, because I suspect that white people might be hardwired for monogamy (and Kevin MacDonald might be able to prove it) but I doubt that humans in general are reliably monogamous.

Humans often resort to monogamy. They rarely seem to be very comfortable with it.

Boxer says:
February 8, 2017

This is a (fairly) accessible read for novices (like me).

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/38/15167.full.pdf

We are built for marriage and monogamy. Some of us might not choose it, but it’s hard to deny that it is our default setting, as a species.


[someone else wrote]
But that *is* dismal. Particularly when just about every man entering marriage thinks he will be in the outcome attained by just 15% or at least just 30%.

That legally intact marriages are often (or even usually) rife with threatpoint, henpecking, headship inversion (which should be called ‘buttship’ from now on), and obesity is itself a devastatingly bad deterioration of even ‘intact’ marriages.

Remember, UMC women don’t get divorced as much; this instead manifests as threatpoint and henpecking.

Here’s the issue: None of us are going to make a dent in the amount of young men who are going to choose to get married. The MGTOW movement promised big things, and failed. It will continue to be a failure, because inborn human nature drives most people to a large extent, and inborn human nature dictates to young men that they should find a bangable wife, lock her down and get on with being an adult.

So what does the linked science paper actually say? It says:

The teams further classified mating systems
differently, with one team criticizing the clas-
sification of the other (4).
The teams agreed on one crucial point,
though, which is that paternal care is more
likely a consequence of monogamy—an evo-
lutionary afterthought with benefits—than
the key to its existence. This conclusion left
the other two factors, female sociality and
infanticide, as possible drivers, and it is here
that the teams parted ways.

The paper introduces several points, and even argues for some of them. However, it does not reach any firm opinion: everything is presented as speculation:

Perhaps monogamy did
not evolve in the genetic sense at all, but
rather in a cultural sense, because even though
some fossils have been interpreted as evi-
dence for monogamy during human pre-
history (11), humans and their ancestors
are too sexually dimorphic in size to be
considered naturally monogamous (12).

At no point does the paper claim to prove that humans are evolutionarily hardwired for monogamy.

So Boxer was misreading the paper, IMHO. Any evolutionary biologists are welcome to argue against my claim.


Feminist Hater objected as follows:

Marriage is not ‘innate human nature’ but banging hot chicks is. Marriage took eons to create into a viable institution that took the best of human nature and discarded the worst, it took strict discipline within society to make it work against the parts of human nature that would destroy it.

Feminist Hater’s full objection to Boxer was as follows:

Feminist Hater says:
February 8, 2017 at 4:09 pm
[quoting Boxer]
The MGTOW movement promised big things, and failed.

What big things did MGTOW promise? What is the determination for ‘failure’ in this regard?

I don’t think you know what it means. Countless articles proving marriage is dead, a con and doesn’t have the best interests of the family in mind. MGTOW is simply about giving men information that can possibly save them from making the biggest mistake in their lives. It has no purpose beyond allowing men to find their own path in life.

It is you chaps who are against MGTOW that have either to pass or fail. Good luck, I don’t envy you one bit.


Feminist Hater says:
February 8, 2017 at 4:15 pm

We don’t accomplish anything by indulging in woe-is-me rhetoric, or trying to convince young men not to marry (that just alienates us from them). We accomplish most when we work with human nature, not against it, while working hard to subvert the social and political structure that encourages marital failure.

You’ve already lost. Marriage is not ‘innate human nature’ but banging hot chicks is. Marriage took eons to create into a viable institution that took the best of human nature and discarded the worst, it took strict discipline within society to make it work against the parts of human nature that would destroy it. That is what feminism has done, it has dismantled the strict adhesive parts that kept marriage a viable institution, we are now back to having true human nature as the all determining factor of male/female relations and marriage, real marriage, isn’t a feature.

This isn’t indulging in woe-is-me rhetoric. It’s putting a massive disclaimer in front of the ‘do you want to get married’ sign…

Why don’t you get married Boxer? Do it for the good of accomplishing social and political aims of reinforcing marriage.


Feminist Hater says:
February 8, 2017 at 4:25 pm

Dalrock knows the answer to his own question. What is the reason that the results are not worse?

Cultural inertia, marriage is running off the years of success built up over two millennia of sacrifices made by our ancestors. Same reason that printing off trillions of dollars and hiking up the unfunded liabilities hasn’t gutted the American and World economies… yet. The wealth and good will that generations before us built up turned the West into the dominant force on the planet, most of that has been burned up, we’re now dealing with squabble over kitchen scraps.

It’s only a matter of time, but the tide is unrelenting.

Later comments clarified that MGTOW was decentralized, but some people, such a Rob Fedders, made grand claims for what MGTOW would accomplish.

Rob Fedders was apparently the author of “No, Ma’am!”:

http://no-maam.blogspot.com/

Source:

https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2017/02/06/setting-the-record-straight-on-duluth

Advertisements
This entry was posted in battle of the sexes. Bookmark the permalink.