I'm sorry, like, are we reading the same article

Tradeoffs again: perhaps nature designed women to seek to be lovable, whereas men were designed to strive, mostly unsuccessfully, for greatness.

Nature consciously designed each gender to be different - let's repeat that concept - NATURE (pause) CONSCIOUSLY DESIGNED (pause) EACH GENDER (very big long pause ) TOBEDIFFERENTONPURPOSE.

I mean hokay dude I think we need to revisit a couple of really important concepts right now. Like intelligent design vs. evolution. Like what evolution is.

True, women are less aggressive than men, no argument there.

Why is there no argument there.

Women are if anything more likely than men to perpetrate domestic violence... Women also do more child abuse than men... you can’t say that women avoid violence toward intimate partners.

wat

Women specialize in the narrow sphere of intimate relationships. Men specialize in the larger group. If you make a list of activities that are done in large groups, you are likely to have a list of things that men do and enjoy more than women: team sports, politics, large corporations, economic networks, and so forth.

Well fuck me, right?

remember, most men didn’t reproduce, and we’re mainly descended from the men who did fight their way to the top. Not so for women.

I'm sorry let me clarify something. Most men are descended from the men who fought their way to the top...but most women aren't? The whole logic here is that "men have to fight their way to the top to reproduce" and then there's this whole "the men that father children contribute half their genes and so on." But this sentence that I quote is literally basically saying "Men descend from men who had to fight their way to the top. But women, they don't descend from women who had to fight their way to the top, it was just the men who had to do that."

'SCUSE ME. Fuckin' scuse me. Did not the men and women of today's generation both descend from the same groups of men and women who reproduced? I.e., the women came from the seed of men who had to fight their way to the top, even if they came from women who didn't. and the men alive today came from the wombs of women who didn't have to fight to reproduce, even though they come from the seed of men who did.

Am I drunk? Am I reading this wrong? Is the author actually trying to say that men descend from men who had to fight their way to dominance, and therefore have significantly better genes, as opposed to women who didn't have to because every man wanted their woman-womb? Is the author actually totally ignoring that if those are the men that survived and were able to reproduce, it would impact both those men's male as well as female children? And vice versa?

AM I DRUNK?

The generally accepted view is that back in early human society, men and women were close to equal.

I completely fail to see how "what happened in early human society" is supposed to reflect some ideal to which "current human society" is trying to work its way back to.

"Current human society" is trying to work its way towards "equality." It is completely moot what we used to do way back in the way back. Personally, me? I try not to backtrack. My goal is to always move forwards.

most cultures keep their women out of harm’s way while using men for risky jobs.

Oh. Well, since I understand that's because I've got a womb and that womb has got to be protected for the furtheration of our species, I'm totally okay with being cloistered away for my own "protection." Down. Got it. No problem.

JUST KIDDING

__

I could keep going. I mean,

Women favor the kind of relationships in which each person is precious and cannot truly be replaced.

tell this to one of my ex-boyfriends. I mean, any one.

Whoops - did I just prove the point all on my womanly ownsome?