No, there’s an even better system that women could adopt. They could just adopt one low-fitness male each as a husband and financial provider, and then continue to have sex with ultra-high fitness males, where fitness is determined by a screening process that women put potential suitors through. In this hypothetical scenario, some men might even form an underground community of rationalists and try to reverse engineer and crack the female screening system, and get the last laugh in the end.
They could just adopt one low-fitness male each as a husband and financial provider
And relentlessly hen-peck him, deny him sex apart from once a month and then divorce him and take him to the cleaners in the female-friendly divorce courts.
Not that this behavior would necessarily be common, but worth keeping in one’s mind as what would be possible in this hypothetical.
There is an element of truth behind what you say, but ask yourself what your desired response was to this comment and whether it is the optimal way of eliciting that response.
Far more care is required when presenting facts that could support positions that are not politically correct. Without such care such claims can actually immunize against future acceptance of the information.
There will be no acceptance, this is a political correctness of awesome power. The choice for each individual in such a scenario is to either deal with the situation well or poorly.
I think that this is a great example of the concept of Beyond the reach of god (though a relatively mild one compared to all sorts of other evils in the world): life is not fair, and there may be cases where there is a systematic and amoral force pushing it away from fairness. In such cases, you better have a plan to deal with the problem, and if you don’t, you’ll just suffer the consequences. The world (including other humans) will not help you or shift their position when you point out that it’s unfair.
No, there’s an even better system that women could adopt. They could just adopt one low-fitness male each as a husband and financial provider, and then continue to have sex with ultra-high fitness males, where fitness is determined by a screening process that women put potential suitors through. In this hypothetical scenario, some men might even form an underground community of rationalists and try to reverse engineer and crack the female screening system, and get the last laugh in the end.
Consider the stereotype: Beautiful young woman marries rich older man, cheats on him with the handsome young pool boy.
Forgot to mention:
And relentlessly hen-peck him, deny him sex apart from once a month and then divorce him and take him to the cleaners in the female-friendly divorce courts.
Not that this behavior would necessarily be common, but worth keeping in one’s mind as what would be possible in this hypothetical.
There is an element of truth behind what you say, but ask yourself what your desired response was to this comment and whether it is the optimal way of eliciting that response.
Far more care is required when presenting facts that could support positions that are not politically correct. Without such care such claims can actually immunize against future acceptance of the information.
;)
There will be no acceptance, this is a political correctness of awesome power. The choice for each individual in such a scenario is to either deal with the situation well or poorly.
I think that this is a great example of the concept of Beyond the reach of god (though a relatively mild one compared to all sorts of other evils in the world): life is not fair, and there may be cases where there is a systematic and amoral force pushing it away from fairness. In such cases, you better have a plan to deal with the problem, and if you don’t, you’ll just suffer the consequences. The world (including other humans) will not help you or shift their position when you point out that it’s unfair.