When men want women on this kind of basic animalistic, just life level, to reproduce. Right? So the most obvious way to distribute women is to give all the women to the strongest man. Right? So you get — reproduce from the strongest person. That’s the way gorillas — many gorillas, silverbacks live. The one guy gets all the girls. And the problem with that is it sounds like a good idea, but it’s unstable because, obviously, all the other guys finally get think to themselves, oh, I know what we’ll do. We’ll get together and we’ll kill the main guy, the alpha guy, and we’ll steal the woman. And that’s why those governments are unstable. That’s how you get Magna Carta where the aristocrats, the most powerful people, go to the king and say, we want power too. That is, kind of, the human way of acting out that gorilla system. Ultimately, other men want women.

When you have a democracy, the best system is monogamy. Right? One per customer. Everybody gets a woman. And it sounds like that means that weak people will be allowed to breed, but it turns out it’s actually a pretty good system because it favors diversity. Because a lot of times, the smartest guy in the room and the strongest guy in the room are two entirely different people. So you want the strongest guy to reproduce, but you also want the smartest guy to reproduce, and that is how humanity advances. In fact, monogamy, one per customer, is a really good basis for a society. However, it goes against the gorilla code, and the gorilla code is written into our DNA.

  • TimeSquirrel@kbin.melroy.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    68
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    “Women have to find different ways of being safe, and one of those ways is finding a man to protect them.”

    A Glock will do just fine thanks.

  • just_another_person@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    64
    ·
    4 months ago

    Wow. What in the fuck is wrong with these people? Seriously. Is there something in the DSM that describes the things this guy suffers from?

  • just_ducky_in_NH@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    4 months ago

    Men are stronger. Men are mean. They’re more aggressive. They will take them over. They’ll do it anytime they can, anywhere they can. They will abuse them. They will hurt them.

    I’m surprised a man would admit that he’s like this.

    • TipRing@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      58
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      Conservatives: Men are aggressive and will hurt women.

      Also Conservatives: Why would women choose the bear?

    • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      4 months ago

      Are you really? I’m not. He sounds like all the other weirdos who say the same thing. He’s old and quite weird.

    • 242@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      4 months ago

      They used to be more careful about admitting who they are. Trump broke their brains and they’re all trying to one up each other when it comes to shitty opinions and dumbass hot takes. It’s better when they’re honest though, at least you know which ones to avoid. Which is basically all Republicans.

    • solsangraal@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      why surprised? republican men think they’re (somehow) all alpha males, somewhere on the spectrum between conan the barbarian and john wick, and it’s not they who have problems, but literally all the women who avoid them like the plague

  • LesserAbe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    4 months ago

    This is like a child’s understanding of the world. Someone who has little exposure to actual people and who is unable to conceive of a more sophisticated model of the universe.

    • Serinus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      4 months ago

      There’s a grain of truth in there, under all the weird stuff about women and monogamy.

      We did intentionally spread power and resources because it was better for everyone. Turns out kings don’t like getting beheaded.

      • LesserAbe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        4 months ago

        You’re right, he would be fairly on point if he was just talking about resources and not people too.

        Besides the obvious issue of treating people like things, he also thinks the government is lying to us to… get our women? Who in the government is getting the women? Also if the lie is women don’t need men, then how will these supposed liar feds sway the women to them after they abandon their existing men?

        And he presupposes that the only way to “acquire” women is to either convince them their man sucks, or that they don’t need a man. Why not just find an unattached woman? And/or become a more desirable man?

        This is a guy who needs someone to blame when things don’t go his way.

  • Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    4 months ago

    I propose a new social convention where anyone who starts talking about people of any kind in terms of being breeding stock is declared free game to be immediately socked in the gonads by any and all listeners present.

    Under this subheading are topics Up to and including :

    • Racist narratives about racial replacement or “breeding groups out of existence”

    • Facist and Misogynistic theory about the redistribution of resources ie : women

    • Transphobic conspiracies about how they are really trying to sterilize swacks of the population through hysterectomies

    • Homophobic narratives about how same sex relationships are not “fruitful” and thus worthless

    • Idiot relatives who are so desperate to get you to mash your genitals with someone else’s so they can babysit as a hobby that they will drive you to murder if not stopped.

  • Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    4 months ago

    “women cannot take care of themselves” ~ guy who probably couldn’t boil water, or do his own laundry, needs mom to survive.

    • revelrous@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      4 months ago

      I had a job once with a coworker who had to go home everyday to make her fully able husband lunch or he wouldn’t eat. She didn’t like doing it and often apologized because it made her late. How the does acting like this give these guys an impression of ‘strength’?

  • Codex@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    4 months ago

    Wow, I figured the notion that Harris having a good shot at the presidency would drive the MAGAs totally insane was silly. And yet, here we are! The conservatives do seem to well and truly be losing their shit about it.

  • Nougat@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    4 months ago

    Tell me you don’t know what the Magna Carta is without saying you don’t know what the Magna Carta is.

    • ATDA@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      Sitting here like, man I know I didn’t pay a WHOLE lot of attention in history but his version is not the lesson I gleaned from the story…

    • polonius-rex@kbin.run
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      the magna carta protected the rights of some barons, not the common people, so he’s actually correct

      • Nougat@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        Magna Carta was the first document to establish that the monarch was not above the law, and established law as a power itself.

        When people talk about “the rule of law,” that’s what they’re talking about.

        • polonius-rex@kbin.run
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          yeah, but it still specifically protected barons, not the common person

          when he says this:

          That’s how you get Magna Carta where the aristocrats, the most powerful people, go to the king and say, we want power too

          he’s correct

            • polonius-rex@kbin.run
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              That’s how you get Magna Carta where the aristocrats, the most powerful people, go to the king and say, we want power too.

              Tell me you don’t know what the Magna Carta is without saying you don’t know what the Magna Carta is.

              he’s literally correct about what the magna carta is

  • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    4 months ago

    These guys can never fathom that it’s possible for a woman to fuck multiple men. It’s like they think monogamy is a law of the universe like the speed of light.

    • Shou@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 months ago

      They also seem to think dominating others and leadership are the same thing.

  • Hazzia
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Okay, so reading the whole thing and trying to figure out what he’s really trying to say through all that rambling.

    First he’s talking about how monogamy and polyamory are 2 different systems for reproduction, which, yeah technically true. I think he means the “one woman per man” in a sense of, that’s how monogamy is structured, not literally “we are going to make the government gather the women and distribute the women evenly”, though I still don’t know what fucking point the weirdo’s trying to make.

    Then he talks about “strong” men trying to get the women back. At this point I (naively) considered the possibility that he was actually going to make a critique about the “alpha male” bs, since that’s how they commonly think.

    But then he starts talking about how they do that is by telling the women they can be self-sufficient??? And that what women really need is a man to protect them?? Even if we did go with the simplistic reasoning he was basing this off of, that might makes right, the strong men could clearly just beat the shit out of the weak men and take their women. What fucking nonsense are you smoking to think that the strongest guy in the room would need to play those mind games??

    My guy has clearly never genuinely looked at the relationship between an abuser and his victim, or looked at the fucking Taliban that operates on this same shitty logic and see how very much worse off those women are.

    So in conclusion, while he seemed to start off saying that monogamy > polyamory purly as a genetic device, monogamy is actually bad because then the “strong men” with try to steal the women by checks notes empowering them??

    Fuckin weirdo.

  • memfree@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    4 months ago

    The premise is suspect.

    First, there are lots of (mostly) monogamous animals (‘cheating’ in monogamous pair bonds gets a fair amount of study).

    Second, which gorillas? Are you talking about the ones that form alliances with several males and maintain friendly relationships, groom one another, and fight together against common enemies?

    Third, monogamy (even with cheating) seems to have an advantage for species where females forage on their own rather than in groups/herds. There’s more to it, though.

    This is from a pre-print study, so should be viewed with some suspicion, but it at least describes the current state of investigations:

    Since phylogenetic inertia is not a realistic explanation given that four very distantly related lineages are monogamous, the implication is that monogamy has alternative fitness advantages for males. These benefits must also be advantageous for the female, otherwise she would be not willing to tolerate the male’s continued presence – and, perhaps more importantly, would not be willing to undergo the evolution of the expensive cognitive and behavioural traits associated with pairbonding (Dunbar & Shultz 2021).

    the fact that primates, in particular, have a long period of offspring dependency suggests that the problem is more likely to be associated with offspring survival.

    For human-specific stuff, here’s a piece on promiscuity: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3210680/

    And one on the ideology of female ‘honor’ and predictors of who will feel what and how strongly : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10563489/