And yet, we still need to parse the effects of biology and the effects of situation. Sex differences across species vary based on the various incentives they experience. Sex itself arose out of a need for multicellular organisms to iterate more quickly. In less extreme and volatile conditions, asexual reproduction makes more sense. In certain organisms, all members contribute both male and female gametes, while others have individual organisms specialize in one or the other. It all depends on their specific challenges, modulating to changes in context.

When we think about why men might have advantages over women at the heads of large organizations, we’d have to look more at the context of what is adaptable in those empires. How much of it is due to biological advantages, and how much of it is due to the same self reinforcing mechanisms that favor pale skin over darker skin? The effect of skin color is totally cultural, yet the disparities between darker and lighter skin are compared gender in several places.

There are about 121 non white US House Representatives and 128 women. Assuming a 50/50ish gender breakdown, the disparity for race would be 13% while the disparity for gender would about 21%. In the US Senate, there are 12 non white people and 25 women, meaning racial minorities are underrepresented by about 29%, and women by 25%. For CEOs, women are underrepresented by about 18.5%, and racial minorities by about 17%. If race, a completely cultural factor, has such a similar effect to gender(equivalent to sex for most of these cases), what does that say about the effect gender or sex might have on someone’s ability to have positions of power?

Male and female bodies are different, but how much of an effect do those differences actually have on the behavior of domination? How much of the difference comes from gender as social construct, and how much of it comes from the realities of our bodies? Men can usually lift heavier things and women often have to give birth. Men are more likely to die in battle, women in childbirth. People who identify as male prefer to think and act differently than I do, but it’s unknown how exactly those predispositions shape our outcomes because there’s a mountain of culture woven into every part of those differences. Male behavior is part of human behavior, regardless of how much more often they do it.

Masculinity is but one part of fascism, not the core reason or mechanism behind it. It’s just an important identity to manipulate for fascists looking to wield power. The will to power above everything else is at the root of fascism, and the basic will to power is just a fundamental adaptation for all life. If you want an evolutionary explanation, that’s it. Seeking power is near universal for all organisms, as power allows them to continue their existence. Those that don’t seek enough resources and control to continue simply don’t continue. However, all drives can be counterproductive in certain ways, getting culled into homeostasis eventually.

I’m sorry to hear that you feel that way. The joke is that it’s not a good thing to do that, even if it wasn’t done on purpose. We often joke about our bratty impulses while recognizing that they aren’t ideal. While it’s possible to be bratty about minor things for a laugh, it’s also important to not do them when it really matters.

I do get why it’d still be upsetting, as ironic jokes can be used to normalize bad behavior. Despite what memes may say, don’t actually commit war crimes, gaslight, or be evil.

I didn’t gasflame because I genuinely forgot the truth 😎👉

Gorillas and chimps are not similar at all in terms of social structures. Gorillas are heavily polygynous while chimps are more classified as promiscuous. There are more dominant and less dominant males for chimps as well as competition for social status, but social status is less connected with reproduction than in Gorillas, where the head male monopolizes groups of females and infanticide is common.

Most importantly, they are both very different from humans, who are far more monogamous because raising our babies is incredibly difficult. We’re fairly flexible and able to have all types of relationships under the sun, from polygyny to polyandry. Our social structures can have more or less dominant members. While that often coincides with men who best wield violence, there are many other important things that are used to exert domination and control, from group support to one’s usefulness at important tasks.

Above all else, “alpha” men who rise through the ranks by being brutal assholes are not always those who are successful. If anything, the original alpha male study showed how behavior is flexible given the context. In brutal conditions with mostly strangers, violence and domination is likely the most successful strategy. Typically, wolf hierarchies are based on seniority within family units, where being an asshole isn’t always the best idea. The situation drives behavior, so alpha bros will only be as prevalent as our social structures support.

We are capable of whatever currently works best because nature is fundamentally about whatever works best. Biology evolves slowly, but it’s also designed to adapt to a variety of circumstances. Most toxic men are made by being rewarded for toxicity instead of being rewarded for rejecting it. Different people tend towards different behavior through a multitude of factors, but room can be made to satisfy most typical impulses in a positive way.

You are kinda right about harnessing things like biology, but our understanding of things is the most dangerous thing of all.

It’s more the idea that they can’t be both independent and friendly in a way that’s similar to cats. They can be both free and not feral. There was a dog in my neighborhood who patrolled the road and the park nearby, having a similar level of independence as a housecat. As a result of being a large enough dog to be safe from coyotes, he was friendlier with strangers than the cats in the neighborhood. Sometimes people picked him up, thinking he was lost, but he was just vibin.

For independent dogs, it’s better to be friendly than hostile like stereotypical pitbulls. Often when dogs are mean like that, it’s because they are defending the rigid boundaries of the yards they’re kept in. The dog that isn’t contained in their yard will be friendlier with strangers than the dog that escaped it.

As far as vomiting words on the internet goes, that’s exactly what I did, so it’s all good.

I totally understand, but cannot relate because I’m not about nightclubs.

They’re not better than each other, they’re both amazing :3

They could be, and them not specifying it makes it seem more likely. That said, cannibalism isn’t as odd for certain animals, even of a mother’s own kids.

This makes a bit more sense than “Master of Puppets”

If anyone had the guts to do this, I’d honestly find it charming.

Cows actually have a decent kill count on their own.

That’s still cannibalism over getting bumped. It’s not like a basketball player eating a horse jockey is any different from me eating you.

Dogs aren’t as inherently submissive and dependent as people assume. Many areas of the world still have town dogs who survive on their own while still being affectionate with humans. All dogs being helpless furry children by default is a newer development that comes out of the west. Dogs weren’t as selectively bred, being shaped into our best friends more by evolutionary pressures than the eugenics programs that are now normalized.

People hem and hah about dingos going extinct by breeding with wild dogs, but dingos are just what works in the Australian outback. They were originally brought to Australia by humans and were often friendly with people depending on the circumstances. These independent dogs outcompeted the Tasmanian tiger and took over their niche, allowing them to be less reliant on humans and less inclined to be friendly. The new wild dogs that successfully mingle with dingos only succeed when they have advantages in the wild canine genepool. Most escaped pups probably die because they can’t survive as well as the original dingos. Dingos are only going extinct if you buy into purity genetics.

Species distinctions are lines we draw based on our efforts to understand the world, not some fundamental truth. Dogs aren’t what we think, and neither are most species. We think about life in a fundamentally limited way and we need to understand those limitations or we’ll get constantly misled by our bias.

It’s probably just that our community is the very niche for this.

She might need to learn what she’s missing out on. Self love feels so euphoric that it becomes addicting. Once I fought back against the assumption that I was a piece of shit, I realized I could be so much happier than I ever thought possible. Coming out was necessary, but it wasn’t enough.

The first time I hung out with other women and felt included, I was asked how I felt. All I could say is that I felt “Happy.” I just hadn’t felt that way before. Despite being in my 20s, I had never been so happy existing with others.

It took time to recognize that it was because I wasn’t dysphoric about my social existence for once. I didn’t feel like a gross outsider. I felt like one of them. It hurt when I had to go back. Finally feeling right made feeling wrong again so much worse.

The blonde girl is named Bibi. Amy is this gay mess:

You? 👉👈

The transgender population singlehandedly keeping IKEA profitable

The “🤔” is a telltale sign