Following the reading of this
article, a man by the name of Cesur wrote this
comment. (The one at the top, highlighted in yellow.
I recommend at least reading the comment, for that, essentially, is what I'm basing this post on.
The comment was so interesting
at least, I knew I'd want to talk about it.
If you don't want to read the whole thing, here's the guy's short version.
In most of the animal kingdom; and certainly for the primates; sexual selection is done by the female. Males first have to compete amongst themselves so they can later even have a shot at trying to impress the females enough to have a chance to procreate. For different animals, all this competition means different things. Longer horns here, brighter feathers there, a hit song in the charts or a huge bank account. Like we still see today at bars, all the female has to do is sit tight and chose.
Think about the "sexist double standard" of promiscuous men being called the positive "studs", and promiscuous women being called the negative "sluts". As Jim Jefferies points out, it's very easy to be a slut. Being a stud, however, is fucking hard.
To be a stud you have to be witty, charming, well-dressed, have nice shoes and a fake job. To be a slut you just have to be there. There are fat-ugly sluts out there; there are no fat-ugly studs. I've met slutty dwarfs; I've never met a stud dwarf.
This was actually his original comment.
Why aren’t the women who are outnumbering men in undergraduate institutions leading the information economy? “Because they’re dabbling,” she snaps.
I think she really nailed it. Women have so many options that they aren't really motivated to excel in anything. Especially not to find a suitable partner.
Is that so? The guy also cites individual acts that men do to try and set them apart, like the rednecks jumping off higher and higher roofs into a pool...
Now, anecdotally, I can say, "that's not true at all. I can think of plenty of women in my life driven to excel professionally. My own girlfriend, for instance."
But the truth is I don't know that
many, and anecdotal evidence is irrelevant anyway.
What about on a larger scale? Is this difference real at all?
Most of his point is based on Evolutionary Psychology, which I know isn't... isn't the firmest
ground to stand on. How much of this behavior, then is societally imprinted, and how much of it is
directly related to our biological modus operandi?
Is testosterone and sexual competition in men why men seem driven to succeed more than women who are have, on the large scale, less need to have large bank accounts to compete sexually? Or is this just pseudo-scientific bullshit?