Saturday, 15 September 2012

If psychopathic behaviour is rewarded by sex, why should men bother being pro-social? Stupid immoral women reward murderous men. Why is this unpunished? Because men are no longer men.

"The fact of the matter is that social rewards are backwards. A man will get more attention and fame through infamy than accomplishment. As a whole, people can often identify serial killers better than Nobel Prize winners. Not to mention that current gender roles and culture norms devalue hard working "good guys". Women, in turn, follow that social information, popularity, and status when assessing who to select as a "mate". So, we have a mess.

 "My point is a simple behavioral one. People perform behaviors where rewards outweigh punishment. Holmes found all punishment and no social reward in doing the right thing. Many other men face that similar situation. Holmes has subsequently found more reward in infamy (no matter how he is punished). How long before other men become disillusioned, disempowered, and follow suit? How long before doing "good" is so unrewarding and punishing for guys that deviant behavior is actually the better option?

"Sure, we can rely on the empathy and morality of these men to not go in that direction. But, does that mean they are any less tortured or desperate? Shouldn't we fix the desperation and change the reward structure, rather than just shaming men into enduring punishing "good" behavior that gets them nowhere?"



http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-attraction-doctor/201208/james-holmes-mental-illness-or-social-frustration


Me:


A way of discouraging them would be to name and shame these women. Their letters could be opened and photocopied and their names and addresses put online when they say how much they want to be the sex partner of these mass murderers.

My Facebook friend Rookh Kshatriya:

"Women are interested in males who prove themselves superior above other males and who are dominant. Physical violence is the most trivial way on demonstrating your dominance.

If a male rebels against the rules of the group, commits crimes and or kills other people, especially other males, he proves himself to be capable to physical violence, disobedience and fitness. This elevates him immediately in the sociobiological pecking order.

This can be effectively noticed already in the elementary schools, where the bullies are the most popular boys and how the girls have crushes on the bullies.

Women are slaves of their hormones. Women are far less capable on rational thinking and to control their emotions than males, and women will always make their decisions on emotional grounds and never rational. When women see a man is a killer, their hormones interprete this man is an alpha male and a good father candidate. Which makes them to fall in love with the most vicious and violent of all men. It can be safely estimated that 70% of all women would rather be a death row groupie than marry a nerd.

That is why murderers have groupies but scientists don't.

Violence and viciousness is a good procreation strategy for a man in the sociobiological sense. Violent and criminal men get a lot of mating opportunities and they get to copulate often. What they lose in spousal quality they win in quantity.

Generally speaking, marital fidelity is an extremely poor procreation strategy for a man. A man who wildly copulates with as many women as possible is likely to pass his genes on with far greater probability than a husband who is true to his wife.

Even if James Holmes is sentenced to death, he will still have opportunities to mate and procreate. If he manages to pass his genes on before he is executed, he will be an evolutionary winner.

And that is all what really counts."

FINANCIALLY INDEPENDENT WOMEN MAKE BAD REPRODUCTIVE CHOICES

Rookh Kshatriya:

"I believe that women's economic independence (along with their expanding reproductive, monetary, and legal dominance) have given women historically unprecedented unilateral discretion over mating. As such, women are indeed unconstrained by any other concerns and able to pursue "hot" men (more aptly "high status" men). This is also driven by the fact that women's general sexual preference is towards hypergamy - desiring to mate with a partner who is of higher social status than themselves.

Taken together then, we have a group of powerful, high status women, who don't "have to settle" for any old husband to take care of them, and can hold out for mating with a high status or popular male (politician, celebrity, rock star, local hero, famous serial killer, etc.). Because men in general have become socially devalued, beaten down, and are not motivate to succeed, the pool of men that are of higher social status than the average woman is also rapidly shrinking. In addition, women's mating choices are more sensitive to social information. So, when society devalues most men, women take notice and find them unappealing. They also take notice of the few men the media and society highlight. Basically then, a ballpark figure is something like 80% of women are all chasing the top 20% of socially popular, famous (or infamous), and high-status men.

That is the situation that leads to the problem of the "average" man not being able to find love or sex. Because society has devalued them, women again don't find them worthy. Instead, women too become frustrated, because they are all chasing the same "attractive" men, not wanting to "settle", but never being able to get those attractive men to commit. Of course, those men are feasting! So, why would they commit to a monogamous relationship, when they can have a different woman a night?

All of this leads to the mistaken perceptions and confusion. Women often believe that "all" men have women throwing themselves at them (a comment above said 5 women to 1 man). BUT, those women are only counting the men they DESIRE, the other 80% of men are invisible and uncounted. So, those women feel that THEY are at a disadvantage...not because there are NO men available as they perceive, but because they have been socially conditioned to not even consider the 80% of men in their count. Therefore, these women end up competing for and "settling" with casual sex from high status men. Nobody is happy...except the 20% of men getting all the sex.

Of course, I'm speaking in GENERAL. Some high status men commit. Some women love and marry "good" and "average" men. Other women get sick of chasing "attractive" men and "settle" for an average guy later in life. In general though, marriage is on the decline and divorce is on the rise. The hook-up culture is becoming the dominant one.

My (long winded) point in all of this is that the majority of people are unhappy. When society started to devalue and disrespect "average" and "good" guys, it also began punishing them and holding them back. It also persuaded women that those men were not good enough to be lovers, spouses, and fathers. So, women began chasing a select group of men, frustrating those women, and further socially and reproductively punishing the large group of men. So, we're now on a downward slide...unless we take notice and turn it around."

No comments: