Rosie, I cannot tell where to begin pointing out the brobdingnagian errors in your comments. But here’s a shot:

1) women have initiated around 70% – 80% of divorces since we have records of divorces (hundreds of years). The #1 predictor of female initiated divorce is the woman’s ability to remarry – well. This is not theory, it’s history. In fact, the younger, hotter the wife, the more likely it is she that initiates the divorce. The canard that women’s choice for career was defense against “amply justified perception that men would dump their wives in middle age and leave them with no means of support after they gave them the “best years of their lives.”” Absolute poppycock. This has NEVER been common. You are committing the Apex Fallacy – taking the results of the top couple of percent and imputing those results to the masses. There is also ample evidence that child custody laws are indicative of who files. Children are deemed to be the most valuable asset in a marriage, and rules regarding their custody are usually dispositive.

2) divorce in USA correlates (with about a 2 1/2 year lag) with adoption of hormonal birth control. Reason being, women’s mate preferences change across the ovulatory cycle, and HBC makes her body think that it’s pregnant, and her limbic system prefers a different sort of man than she would when off HBC.

3) pre-selection is a thing. Every woman wants what every other woman wants (theory of sexy sons). This is a well studied and understood phenomena in the animal kingdom as well as pick-up artists. The commenter responding to you by pointing out that 80+% of men are invisible to women bears this out. Alpha lays, beta pays.

4) hypergamy is very, VERY real. The field of evolutionary psychology has it as one of its primary objects of study. Hypergamy is NOT optimization. EVERYone wants the best that they can get, the difference between men and women in this regard is that women have a FLOOR under which they will not experience arousal. They may trade sex for resources via marriage or prostitution, but the tingles are not for their husbands/customers. That’s for “Chad”, the HAWT guy. This is the definition of the beta: trading sex for resources makes sex a COST, she bangs the alpha ’cause he’s HAWT, ie, sex – in and of itself – with him is a BENEFIT for her.

For a more thorough refutation of Rosie’s crippling nonsense, Heartiste is probably not the best site, although you could do worse. I recommend therationalmale.com. Scroll all-l-l-l-l-l-l the way down to the beginning, and start from there. The comments are especially insightful, as there are many female commenters, and like Rosie spout feminist drivel. They are quickly, consisely, and entertainingly debunked.

To all of the ridiculous people that criticize this article:

It’s worse than you think. Women’s sexual strategy has a dual nature. A woman in pre-industrial times must have someone to help in the raising of an infant. She would be incapacitated for at least some weeks during pregnancy, as well as for at least the first few months of the infant’s life. This explains her desire to mate for resources. However, she still has only one womb, and when it’s occupied, tends to be out of commission for a good couple of years at a time. So Women evolved to desire the highest quality genes she could lay her vagina on. The men bearing these genes were mostly our ancestors. The indicia of these quality genes are some things that we can now measure: social dominance, outcome independence, facial symmetry, high muscle to fat ration, iow, in general, the effects of high levels of testosterone. And there you have it, the dilemma of female hypergamy: good genes or good resources? How about both, hubby (presumably the good provider) will never know!

As for the evolution of monogamy/marriage, it turns out that paternal investment seems to trump good genes six ways from Sunday, hence, civilization.

Curiouser:

Why aren’t more humans “high T”? How do you know that we aren’t? Who’s to say what would’ve been? Evolution selects for the most “fit” – what would things be like if the less fit happened to outreproduce? Would that out-reproduction redefine them into being fit?

One side effect of civilization (medical care) is the survival and reproduction of those that would’ve died (out) without it.

Anon[156]:

Not just brain power, co-operation is the overriding factor. Remember the ‘alpha’s’ (the male desired for his genetic benefits, i.e., he’s hawwwwwt!) main characteristic: social dominance. The betas (resource provider) can acquire resources much easier/faster by cooperating, a behavior outside the wheelhouse of the typical alpha. We see this in analysis of dating site data sets as well as academic studies: women are not as attracted to men that rank high in agreeableness, male photos that show a large smile get fewer responses than those that show a somewhat angry face.

Frederick V Reed:
> Unless you can show that hourglass-shaped women are more fertile than boxier ones, or that plain features correlate with lower resistance to disease or less endurance or lower intelligence or some such, the evolutionary just-so story fails.

All of which have been shown in several studies.

Read an evo-psych textbook. Female preference for male symmetry (indicative of high T) has been shown numerous times. Not only that, but her preference changes across the ovulatory cycle, in that her desire for a high T face is highest during ovulation. Also, during ovulation, her scent preference for males with differing major histocompatability complexes [MHC] (males with genes further differing from her own, i.e., less related) increases. The MHC is a primary part of the immune system. Facial symmetry is known to be correlated with a healthy immune system.

Every measure of attractiveness, male or female, has been shown to confer a reproductive advantage.

In short, I’m busy, you’re wrong.

Rosie, are you more attracted to men with money or lazy homeless bum? If your husband/lover/boyfriend decided to stay home all day and play video games, how long would it take for you to dump him?

All women are whores (and that’s a GOOD thing), they merely differ on the terms – for some it’s marriage, for others it’s marriage to a man of certain means, most western women don’t even need that. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, if women weren’t concerned about resources, we wouldn’t have civilization.

Jeff Stryker:
The good news (for most men) is that behavioral cues trump genetic cues six ways from Sunday. Hence, the pick-up artist community.

No evidence other than the cops’ word that Cure was doing 100 mph. The video evidence available shows maybe, MAYBE 70ish.
Since when do you believe government workers?

I’ve been circumcised. I’m 65, and raised evangelical protestant. I find Jews to be fascinating, but lately, more and more repulsed by their extraordinary high in-group preferences. I find little if any of the characteristics you describe in your comment in myself. How so? In isolation, circumcision seems to be of little effect. To what do you ascribe these effects, then?

The man that designed the guidance systems for Mercury and Gemini, was Ernest J Plata, a Seventh-day Adventist from Venezuela that I worked for at the National Cancer Institute (he got tired of being transferred to ICBMs after the space program was over and decided to go into a life science and picked the field and school that gave him the biggest stipend). He never mentioned any particular ethnicity involved in the projects except for the fact that most of the (computer) programmers were black women (see movie Hidden Figures), something I found quite surprising in 1979.

You have hit the nail on the head! Organized Jewry’s greatest fear is not eradication by conquest, but by assimilation. To Kevin MacDonald and those that agree with him, I will say that the way to beat Jewish Supremacism is not to become like it (Nazism), but to become as much UNlike it as possible (radical individualism) and seduce them away from their psychopathy. “Love your enemies, do good to those that hate you . . .”

Complete nonsense. The primary port that the Houthis are attacking is Eilat, at the southern-most part of Israel, on the Red Sea. It is Eilat that is nearly completely shut down. Haifa is Israel’s main port, which receives most European goods. It is not shut down . . . yet. Let Israel attack southern Lebanon and Hezbollah will certainly take care of it.

Why should the Houthis care if they commit an act of war against the US? What do they care about what the uS might do to them? What WOULD the US do to them? Switch pilots in the aircraft that bomb them? How does that matter?

Background: For several years the Houthis have been bombed by US made bombs, guided by US intel, dropped by US made jets, flown by Saudi pilots, and it deterred them not one bit. I submit to you that it will not matter one iota.

Have you ever read an Israeli newspaper? Israel will NEVER move more Palestinians to the West Bank. As we speak, the “settlers” are running amok murdering their neighbors, implementing their final solution.

Cow pucky. Murry did NOT hate Christianity, he was married to a Christian, and adored her. He also gave credit to western civilization and culture for creating an environment conducive to Liberty. (Idk about von Mises)
Rand DID loathe all of what she called “religionists” and her legacy of “objectivism” has become a fig leaf for Zionism.
We do not win by becoming our enemy. Our tactics/methods MUST be congruent with our aims/goals.

I contend that decentralization – the core of libertarianism – is vital and it is decentralization that Zionists fear, as it promotes assimilation, their very greatest fear. Think very strong, masculine white men marrying Jewesses and raising the children Christian. I could get behind that.

You seem to think that open borders is the very soul of libertarianism. It isn’t.

Ad hominem much?