Male K pop stars are an example of men typically considered “unmasculine” by other men but who tend to be attractive to women. I think the women are just right here, and K pop stars are more ideally hetero-masculine than the muscly guys who are actually less attractive to women. It’s more conceptually appropriate to define ideal hetero-masculinity in terms of appeal to women and vice versa. (The men could in theory be correct if they admitted to latent homosexuality, but they won’t!)
It’s natural and basically eugenic (in the literal sense, not the political sense) for straight men to compete with each other for women and vice versa, with the competition between straight men being more intense than for straight women. The patriarchal pattern of men coordinating with each other to split the women more evenly may be “culture” but that doesn’t make it good.
Often yes. But within-sex coalitions can be “cartel-like” in a way that is dysgenic, analogous to how economic cartels reduce economic competition. Within-sex coalitions are often more about military than evolutionary fitness. For instance, consider this quote from the Futurist Manifesto:
We want to glorify war—the only cure for the world—militarism,
patriotism, the destructive gesture of the anarchists, the beautiful ideas
which kill, and contempt for woman.
The pattern of enforced monogamy is also a product of within-sex coalitions; it reduces the level of competition among males compared to the evolutionary average.
The pattern of enforced monogamy is also a product of within-sex coalitions; it reduces the level of competition among males compared to the evolutionary average.
Not sure what you mean by this, as the link goes to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancestor. Do you mean in the long run, all males in a monogamous society will have the same expected number of children?
Male K pop stars are an example of men typically considered “unmasculine” by other men but who tend to be attractive to women. I think the women are just right here, and K pop stars are more ideally hetero-masculine than the muscly guys who are actually less attractive to women. It’s more conceptually appropriate to define ideal hetero-masculinity in terms of appeal to women and vice versa. (The men could in theory be correct if they admitted to latent homosexuality, but they won’t!)
It’s natural and basically eugenic (in the literal sense, not the political sense) for straight men to compete with each other for women and vice versa, with the competition between straight men being more intense than for straight women. The patriarchal pattern of men coordinating with each other to split the women more evenly may be “culture” but that doesn’t make it good.
If within-sex coalitions are common and adaptive, isn’t being good at the politics of those coalitions “eugenic” also?
Often yes. But within-sex coalitions can be “cartel-like” in a way that is dysgenic, analogous to how economic cartels reduce economic competition. Within-sex coalitions are often more about military than evolutionary fitness. For instance, consider this quote from the Futurist Manifesto:
The pattern of enforced monogamy is also a product of within-sex coalitions; it reduces the level of competition among males compared to the evolutionary average.
Not sure what you mean by this, as the link goes to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancestor. Do you mean in the long run, all males in a monogamous society will have the same expected number of children?
“Some research suggests that the average person has twice as many female ancestors as male ancestors”