pansophist:
The female from natures perspective.

Women select men, and that makes them nature. Biology has conferred on the female a duty to choose the traits in the human species that will be passed down the next generation. Women are the sole determiners if the next generation of humans will be dwarfs, tall men, or whatever physical traits she deem fit. A woman rejecting your advance from an evolutionary sense basically means that your genes are not worthy enough to qualify to the next round. Nature has given women that power, and to have a successful relationship with the female, the male needs to understand what attracts her and finetune himself to be deemed desirable. Unfortunately, not all men will qualify to the next round, perhaps, it is survival of the fittest.

What makes her attractive to the male is naturally bestowed on her. From the age of 15, she is becoming attractive to the opposite sex. Her curvaceousness portrays definition, her voice sweeter and she becomes biologically set to procreate. She doesn't have to do anything special and the male will find her attractive. The value she brings to the sexual market is her beauty, femininity, nurturing abilities and loads of passive qualities (eg submissive, shy) the male finds desirable. From that moment, she experiences sudden waves of advances, commitment, compliments from the male, and all she has to do is just choose, as she tries to make sense of the paradox of choices scattered all around her.

She is never in lack of male attention and advances. The overwhelming interactions she receives massages her ego, she feels like the most important person in the world, perhaps, nature has bestowed on her a crucial duty of making sure the best genes of the human race continue and as a reward for being the reproductive carrier, nature has absorbed her of all responsibility to be taller, richer, stronger, and other traits that are mainly men's domain. She may represent the aformentioned,but wont be penalized for it in the market of attracting the the male.

As women are nature themselves, they are instinctively aware of desirable qualities from the male that are deemed crucial for the survival of the species, her eyes are equipped with an automatic filtering lens of men she will not procreate for, a lens a man as a rule, unfortunately, will not be able to see how he is perceived from the perspective of a female until he reaches his grave. The man tries to rationalize and make a sense of what makes him attractive to her, which might even make sense to her, but won't stimulates her from within to commit. It is not a logical thing, as logic does not exist in nature. He may try buying her commitment by materialism, give out commitment freely, and be in his best behavior, but the battle between what she is biologically wired to desire and what is logically plausible to her is yet unsolved. He may be rejected (colloquially known as friend zoned), or given a chance due to the compelling complimentary he posses, albeit, such interaction has been positioned to be shortlived, or susceptible to unfaithfulness.

She is instinctively aware that her countdown to pinning down a valuable male is shortlived after the peak of her beauty, hence, her ruthless elimination and default view of disdain to men that do not meet her stringent requirement. Her eggs begin to becomes less effective for child rearing to a point of menopause when her duty to nature as a procreator is nulled, becoming less attractive to the male. The man in his logical mind will question her illogicality in mate selection, and the cumbersome miles he has to reach to satisfy her, albeit, he consistently, consecutively and as a norm, infinitely not predisposed to see himself from a female's perspective, he is not meant to, as his ignorance is crucial in the selection process. Again, logic exist only in the mind.


Red pill! Well said. Sadly, only few will really understand or even find it interesting enough to read! If only they knew, if only...

first and foremost, i have read this somewhere thousands of time, now my questions are all women attractive and beautiful? is it all women that get attention from men?

How will a woman determine if the next generation of humans will be dwarfs, tall men, or whatever physical traits she deem fit, when copulation is between men and women... how does it work when it is said that a short man and a short woman will born offsprings that are short, a tal man and a short woman might born offsprings that are averagely tall or tall, if a fine man marries a beautiful woman, there is no guarantee they will bring beautiful offsprings

my stuff is this..when i read things like this, it makes me feel like men are taking women to be GODs and putting them on a pedestal.

no gender has the monopoly of reproduction or choosing a better mate, the way men select who is good for them that is the way women do, everything boils down to choice, what the individual wants

lilwetdick:
first and foremost, i have read this somewhere thousands of time, now my questions


are all women attractive and beautiful?

is it all women that get attention from men?

How will a woman determine if the next generation of humans will be dwarfs, tall men, or whatever physical traits she deem fit, when copulation is between men and women... how does it work when it is said that a short man and a short woman will born offsprings that are short, a tal man and a short woman might born offsprings that are averagely tall or tall, if a fine man marries a beautiful woman, there is no guarantee they will bring beautiful offsprings

my stuff is this..the write up sounds like a tribute to women rather than red pill, most write up that sounds like this makes women to be GODs and putting them on a pedestal.

no gender has the monopoly of reproduction or choosing a better mate, the way men select who is good for them that is the way women do, everything boils down to choice, what the individual wants.

pansophist:
lilwetdick



I think we can both agree generally that the female is the chooser when it comes to copulation with the male, and that is the premise of this writeup. Regardless of her physical appearance, it doesn't change this biological fact. All things equal, an unattractive female has more chance to attract a partner than an unattractive male.



You may want to look upon the ''good gene theory''. In a nutshell, if a woman is impregnated by a dwarf, it is highly likely that the offspring will be a dwarf like the father. On this account, the female will only be pregnant to a man she deems attractive, as it will be an archetype of how her child will look like. Every other thing you wrote are just cultural blunders. This dynamic is in naked display in the wild, as they operate purely on instinct and not restricted by imposed culture, tradition and religion. If you regularly watch animal mating videos, it will be easily understood.



It is not a zero-sum game. Just as women have their biological advantage, so as men. We compliment each other. Perhaps, I may write the perspective on the male to balance it out. Just too lazy.

i do not agree that the female is the chooser, men choose women, they choose whatever women they want...we can, in fact, see many of the cases in an arranged marriage when the man choose the woman and she has to agree. i have seen real-life cases where the man and his parent went to different families and they brought out their girls, he rejected them and went to another family until he found the right and beautiful girl that he wants.

if we you say women choose men, then women should do the toasting while men wait but it is the other way around, a man sees the woman he likes, first he is attracted to what he desires, he then go after her and convince her to be his gf or wife.

for the unattractive female theory, many unattractive men get many attractive female and partners, i have seen more unattractive male with partners than unattractive female.

it is funny, how you used the animal world to give an example for the human world, the animal world and the human world are a different world and the animal world cant be used as an example to judge human behaviour..using the animal world to judge human behavior is just laughable

so are you trying to say culture, tradition, and religion does not play a role in the selection of mates in the human world? that women just select mate on instinct, so why do we often hear women that say they can't marry a Muslim, a Christian, or any other race that doesn't look like there?

i have look at the Good genes hypothesis,it is an hypothesis which doesnt mean it is true and it suggests that the traits females choose when selecting a mate are honest indicators of the male’s ability to pass on genes that will increase the survival or reproductive success of her offspring and it went on to say Although no completely unambiguous examples are known

pansophist:
Maria Lavina I see you.
Na lie I talk?

MariaLavina:
What can I say? you've typed nothing but the truth

pansophist:


Surprisingly, no woman I have discussed this with disagreed, but the overwhelming majority of men are oblivious to this biological truism (e.g lilwetdick ). And trust the opportunistic nature of women, they are gladly mining male ignorance to their advantage.

Una de enjoy o

pansophist:


Surprisingly, no woman I have discussed this with disagreed, but the overwhelming majority of men are oblivious to this biological truism (e.g lilwetdick ). And trust the opportunistic nature of women, they are gladly mining male ignorance to their advantage.

Una de enjoy o

MariaLavina:



How we take dey enjoy? We only choose who to enslave us, well I have to give credit to civilization from taking some burden off us, nevertheless the patriarchal nature of our society can not be overlooked.

lilwetdick:


No woman will disagree with you because you are praising them...you are the one giving them the power, as i have said earlier, your write up was more like a tribute to women rather than redpill, you brought out the notion like women are the perfect being, they are Godlike and do not have insecurities, when boys read these type of stuff, you create a sense of heroism in them...that before they can be taken seriously as men, they need to worship at the foot of women and that is not how it is suppose to be

boys need to be thought not to fear women but to know that women have fears, many have insecurities, they fear like you, breath like you and are opportunitic like you...and that they should be logical and not emotional when dealing wth women.

pansophist:


You told me you ain't a feminist, but clearly, youve subscribed to the feminist narrative of the patriarchy oppressing women since time immemorial.

pansophist:
lilwetdick



I think you are confusing the initiator (which men are) and the chooser (which women are). A woman accepting a man's advances is a mere confirmation of him been chosen in the first place. The arrange marriage you used as an example is not a good one, as in most cases, her choice is not a priority in the decision process. Her parents most probably have arranged for him and she just has to comply, in many cases, she cant even say no.

Also, arranged marriage is something common in poor, underdeveloped countries with uneducated masses, within the demography where the need for her security is premium over the true desire of attraction and love. A good example will be egalitarian societies like the Scandinavia, where women chose their mate purely by their own desires, not external pressure. And if you toast a woman and she agrees, it simply means your choice aligned with hers, and you being the initiator is just the vehicle for confirmation if you both match. As an addendum, please read up again on ''briffault law''. It explains more on this theoretically.



This is an opinion, so no point responding to it.



Actually, human behaviours are similar to the wild, just that we have advanced so much in our civilisation that we somehow believed we ain't related behaviourally. Any well-salted biologist will tell you these.



Okay

pansophist:


You told me you ain't a feminist, but clearly, youve subscribed to the feminist narrative of the patriarchy oppressing women since time immemorial.

Chidimizzle:


It's not a 'feminist narrative', it's reality, face it.

pansophist:


Face what exactly?

The idea that marriage is slavery for women is a lie by feminist, and completely untrue.

Chidimizzle:


Nope. I was referring to the general idea of, in your words 'patriarchy oppressing women since time immemorial'. Recently I got introduced to a popular series: The Handmaid's Tale and I found out the story was based on a book written in 1985.

I found it perplexing that a book (about female oppression albeit luridly) while written in the 80s still stood out in 2019. Goes to show that women are still oppressed. I don't have to be a feminist to clearly see that.

pansophist:


How are women still oppress? Examples please

Chidimizzle:


Its everywhere, marriage, religion, occupation, society, etc.

I really don't know what examples you seek again cos if with all happens around us on the daily you see it not, I doubt that I can provide answers that'll soothe you.

pansophist:


Okay let's pick marriage out of the area you highlighted, how are women oppressed in marriages? Please be specific. Just saying marriages is too broad, go deeper.

How exactly are women oppressed in marriages?

Chidimizzle:


Well I'll be broad and highlight not just marriage but society and religion.

Gender oppression in marriages could take on several forms but the clearly seen and the ones we can easily identify with is gender roles. Women are projected to be homemakers, housekeepers and what not whereas men are supposed to be the providers, protectors etc. Why assign roles?

What of forced marriages, under aged marriages?

Marriage ceremonies clearly show you who is expected to wear the boots afterwards. Who is paid for and purchased, to put it mildly, whose dowry is paid for?

And if a woman chooses not to get into such patriarchal marriage system and wait for a man who understands things her way, she gets bullied by society. Today a man i thought was smart put up a status saying women who are unmarried should be very worried.

Not to go far, look at what happens here on the daily. Why are women over a certain age on nairaland termed 'evening newspaper' yet men in such age groups are termed what? Isn't that oppression? Why should a woman's worth be defined by her marital status?

Let's take a look at Islamic marriages, do you think it pleases a woman to have to share her man with upto 3 other women? But she has to cos the religion says it's normal.

Female oppression is a lot to talk about but i must sleep now.

pansophist:


From your first two paragraphs, it dawn on me that your outlook is far left leaning. Not surprised, normally if you just read mainstream garbage without deep analysis, you'll be left wing by default. About gender roles, what wrong with that? It's a system that works all through human existence and brought us here. Probably you'll also believe the nonsense notion that gender is a social construct? Is it? Also, now that women are emancipated, why are few not becoming trashmen, fighting boko haram, working in oil rigs and all the dangerous jobs men do? There is no gender role after all. Smh

Also, your write up is completely rooted in the idea that men and women are completely identical, without any biological differences. This is a dangerous stance to take. Men and women are different, complimentary and equal albeit different. To understand how gender roles becomes a thing, you'll need to diverge into the study of evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology, an area of studies that from my anecdotal experience, feminist refuse to talk about. But to give you a peak view, gender role is about convenience.

For example, It's stupid for a society to send women to war because a population cannot bounce back to normal level since women cant impregnate many men, but if for example millions of men died in war and there x10 of available women compare to men, the men can impregnate them all and population bounce back to normal, the Soviet union and nazi germany is a classical example this.

Also, since men are on average, taller, stronger, have more muscles, mass, testosterone, it make sense for the men to be the provider, to go out into the wild to provide, and protect the family. Men cant be pregnant, hence men protected and defended their women, who are vulnerable during and after pregnancy, which make sense as men has to be the backbone during this crucial period in her life, to provide for her and her child. Will you in good conscience allow a pregnant woman to slave in a dangerous job instead of being provided and protected for by her man? What kind of inhumane society will that be ? This your elimination of gender role is nonsense, doesnt work. If the Male lion can protect the females, you should learn from them. Lions need to eliminate gender roles after all.

Just as I do not condone the evening newspaper thingy, Men are also termed broke, so what's your point? Are men shouting female oppression? About your dysfunctional view of marriages, describing it as being purchasing a woman, you might indeed listen to how the redpillers and mgtows describe marriages as a bad deal for men, and see it as slaving away to cater for a woman till death. Little wonder marriage rate is decreasing everywhere. Also, research shows that women are more interested in marriages than men. Need a link to the study? Your narrow and myopic interpretation of reality is only feeds your belief, it's not realistical.

Also, nobody in his right mind will support child marriage, cant say much on that.

Be careful with this brainwashing you're buying into. I could have replied to every other things you wrote but the post will be too lengthy and tiresome to read. Men and women are not the same, and in as much as I support equality of opportunities for the sexes, I understand that equality of outcome is impossible.

Chidimizzle:


Lol! @ Brainwashing. Too lengthy to read already but I get the idea that you're busy trying to differentiate a man from a woman. I never said they were equal, I don't think they're same or as you term it: equal. By design we know that both sexes aren't 'equal' so I don't know where you picked that up from. Equal opportunities is what is sought not making both sexes equal.

You read comments off one topic on social media from me and can clearly label me myopic cos I have an opinion contrary to yours, it's normal on here so I'm not surprised. I see nowhere you said all I have written is wrong and do not happen, you only tried to show me why it is so, so thanks for the refresher course.