Women tend to overplay the “poor oppressed minority who must be forcibly given equality”. I’m actually sickened by their lack of embarrassment trying to rewrite history. The male chemically motivated need for sex has easily been exploited throughout history by women and while they have crap for upper body strength they are devious and cunning and able to manipulate males effortlessly. I’d say the playing field is more than even, or even that they have ALWAYS had the upper hand. Whinny bitches. Now, I’ve been puzzled about women’s status seeking preoccupation for some time. It goes against family stability and it goes against their need for security. And if seen through the lens of accepted history it makes no sense. If there is only one chief, or even NO chiefs as is the case in smaller tribes, to what point would a hardwired need to seek status be? If only one gal can win the prize of the chief, why would the other fifty keep seeking higher pecking order? Look at today’s ladies- putting aside the distortions caused by surplus energy, similar to every other period in history going back hundreds of thousands of years. Women use their looks to lure the highest ranking male available, even if they themselves have achieved this on their own. This can’t be about security. Achieving higher status is actually counterproductive to security ( assuming debt to appear higher status, for instance ).
In primitive society, war meant risk, but it delivered higher status. And what good was status if it was so dangerous? The women were seeking status, and men were seeking women. This perfectly explains both the counterintuitive need for status and the counterintuitive propensity to happily march off to war even if the economic rewards were not apparent. This is evolution happily sacrificing the individual to further the species survival. Women seek status despite the risks- if family protection was all important, the empty posturing for rising up the social ladder would be counterproductive. But if family security is tied in with tribal security and THAT is benefited by war to dominate resources even in times of plenty ( controlling resources when you are strong is smarter than waiting for you to weaken and then desperately attempt to steal what you need for survival ), status seeking allows all women to benefit from war. If one chief position is available, most women would lose and the status efforts would diminish. But if a successful warrior gave status, most women could be rewarded. Even using adultery to further status ( trying to win a richer or braver warrior ) makes sense. In the long run this is decidedly dangerous to the individual woman, but to the tribal war effort it might even motivate the males to fight more as he attempts to replace the cheater from a neighboring tribe ( or gain multiple wives in cases of infertility or economic success when women’s labor enriched the house- in these cases, status seeking intensified as more females were added which just fueled the cycle ). The males are just trying to get laid, but their mindless efforts secure resources for the tribe. And the women are just seeking higher status- they believe it will benefit them and their offspring. Both genetically winning the lottery and securing their share of resources. They just don’t realize the risks because it is a hardwired response. If their champions lose, the whole tribe including the women and children are slaughtered or starve to death. Well, that’s all my theory, anyway.
Please support Bison by buying through the Amazon ad graphics at the top of the page. You can purchase anything, not just the linked item. Enter Amazon through my item link and then go to whatever other item you desire. As long as you don’t leave Amazon until after the order is placed, I get credit for your purchase. For those that can’t get the ads because they are blocked by your software, just PayPal me occasionally or buy me something from my Amazon Wish List once a year.
All My Contact Info, Books For Sale, Links: