Conversation

I should elaborate on this post, b/c I don't think people have gotten deep enough into the evo-psych schizo evolutionary scholarship hole to just recognize "fisherian runaway."

Basically in the early 1900s Ronald Fisher posited a series of theories for why male birds evolve colors, particularly peacocks. Ostensibly this was due to sexual selection, because spending energy on creating massive tails and being visible is counterproductive to survival and hunting, so the theory is basically taken as fact. Fisherian runaway is a scenario where sexual selection becomes so strong it overrides other factors and leads to traits so detrimental the species goes extinct. The alternative to this is rape, where female sexual selection is overrided via force, one sees this in the breeding patterns of ducks, turtles, and many reptiles (worth noting that mallards are much more muted than peacocks).

While many midwits sperg about the mouse utopia, I would liken the current scenario to a fisherian runaway where women are selecting based on their urges without any counterpressure from society (force), culture (force), or other factors (force). Women do not select mates or do collective action for mate selection in a manner that is conducive to society, which is understandable, they've no understanding of mass violence or organization just as peacock hens don't understand energy and risk associated with tails.

Society either re-corrects via force, or it dies.

RT: https://wolfgirl.bar/objects/9c82bdb2-7f72-44f1-a47c-2d6060ceaae9

Public

Notices

Feeds