Normies like to downplay the “blackpill” as nonsense, by labelling it as “toxic ideologies” or some kind of “conspiracy theory”. But this post is all straight facts. This is the most basic, yet irrefutable explanation of biological fatalism in the human species. Normies will not touch this post.
Biological Fatalism by the Link between Human Biology and Evolutionary Survival Instinct
Human reproduction is more effective in a situation where there’s fewer men than women, in comparison to a situation with fewer women than men. This is why women are more likely to be safeguarded, while men are more likely to be employed in dangerous situations (e.g., warfare, hazardous stuff like underground excavations, construction sites, sieges). This isn’t necessarily a consequence of human biology. Also, it is not a consequence of social attitudes towards the importance of men and women. It is a consequence of biological fatalism. To be exact, it’s a direct consequence of evolutionary survival instinct being bounded by human biology. The cost of preserving the species’ ability to reproduce is lesser if you allow more men than women to die. The rate at which one man can reproduce with multiple women, is higher than the rate at which one woman can reproduce with multiple men. For this reason, it is easier to recover from a population deficit when there are more women around than men, and population deficits can pose a threat to the survival of the human species, depending on how many humans are lost.
The possibility of a female-majority environment is always a significant point of consideration with respect to the survival of the human species, as it’s easier for humans to recover from population deficits in a setting that is female-majority / male-minority. Human culture is directly influenced by this kind of biological fatalism, because it affects two things specifically:
More humans can be reproduced under a female-majority setting than a male-majority setting within any given amount of time. This is another aspect of biological fatalism – As humans are generally hardwired to survive and self-preserve, it’s simply easier for women to breed than men, for the simple reason that fewer men than women are required for babies to be produced at any given rate, and the survival of the species drastically depends on human reproduction, which means women are more likely than men to be safeguarded with respect to the survival of humanity. In order to produce any number of babes within a specific period, you wouldn’t need more than one man, but you will need more than one woman (depending on how many babies need to be produced)
For example, if 10 babies need to be produced within a year, you need at least one fertile male and at least ten fertile females (if each female is to birth only one child per pregnancy). It shouldn’t take the average fertile man longer than a month to impregnate ten different women (assuming each woman ovulates at some point within the same 30-day timespan).
It takes a much shorter amount of time for a man to impregnate a woman, than the amount of time it takes for a woman to endure a full pregnancy. If human biology was different, in such a way that (a) it took the average man longer than 9 months to impregnate a woman, or (b) it took a woman seconds or minutes to endure a full pregnancy and birth a new human, then it would all be reversed, i.e. it would be easier for the average man to find partners of the opposite sex than the average woman, and the safeguarding of men would be of higher importance --- But this isn’t Bizarro World. The amount of time it would take for a man to impregnate a woman, is much shorter than the duration of a woman’s pregnancy phase. Thus men are more disposable than women, which ultimately means the safeguarding of women has priority over the safeguarding of men by the human standard of evolutionary survival instinct
This is the reason why in economically difficult times, men are more likely to be sacrificed, while women are more likely to be safeguarded. It’s so that other men might survive long enough to reproduce with the remaining women at a higher rate than what would otherwise have been possible if more women than men had died instead
The Modern Feminist’s Delusion of the “Oppression of Women in History”
Feminists tend to spew a rhetoric along the lines of “women were oppressed, men oppressed us” But if anything, history indicates that men have faced more oppression than women, as countless men have had to suffer and die as a consequence of serving their kingdom or community, while women remained safe and comfy, far away from the battlefields and other hazardous environments where men were risking their lives to protect women and children. Men are the ones who have historically protected the women, elderly and children whenever the community or nation was in dire straits. Men are the ones who WILL have to protect the women, elderly and children in economically difficult times that might arise in the future
Modern feminists try to cast the illusion that women were oppressed and they try to gaslight others into sharing their fanciful perceptions of the woman’s condition in the history of human civilization. But if you exclude the important men of history (e.g. nobles, monarchs, alpha men, dark triad men, male celebrities), and account for only men who were average or below average in social status, history shows these classes of men were the bigger victims, for two key reasons:
(1) These men had a harder time finding someone of the opposite sex who was willing to reproduce with them. Historically women were twice as likely to reproduce as men. Most women became mothers, but the majority of men never became fathers (80% women vs 40% men). This is also evidence that polygamy / hypergamy is not a new phenomenon - It has in fact been happening for eons, except it might have been less noticeable in previous eras (due to lack of available statistical data to validate it)
skeptics.stackexchange.com
(2) Men are the ones who were more often sent to perform hazardous tasks and self-sacrificed in order to protect the nation or community. In wartime conditions, it is mostly men are sent to battle, while children and mostly women are kept safe, far away from the battlefield. Historically most casualties of war were men; this included civilians and citizens of non-hostile countries
Biological Fatalism by the Link between Human Biology and Evolutionary Survival Instinct
Chivalry is not dead when it comes to morality
We're more likely to sacrifice a man than a woman when it comes to both saving the lives of others and in pursuing our self-interests, a team of psychology researchers has found.
www.sciencedaily.com
Human reproduction is more effective in a situation where there’s fewer men than women, in comparison to a situation with fewer women than men. This is why women are more likely to be safeguarded, while men are more likely to be employed in dangerous situations (e.g., warfare, hazardous stuff like underground excavations, construction sites, sieges). This isn’t necessarily a consequence of human biology. Also, it is not a consequence of social attitudes towards the importance of men and women. It is a consequence of biological fatalism. To be exact, it’s a direct consequence of evolutionary survival instinct being bounded by human biology. The cost of preserving the species’ ability to reproduce is lesser if you allow more men than women to die. The rate at which one man can reproduce with multiple women, is higher than the rate at which one woman can reproduce with multiple men. For this reason, it is easier to recover from a population deficit when there are more women around than men, and population deficits can pose a threat to the survival of the human species, depending on how many humans are lost.
The possibility of a female-majority environment is always a significant point of consideration with respect to the survival of the human species, as it’s easier for humans to recover from population deficits in a setting that is female-majority / male-minority. Human culture is directly influenced by this kind of biological fatalism, because it affects two things specifically:
(1) It affects the chances of the average man / woman being able to find a consenting sex partner of the opposite sex (odds are generally higher for women)
(2) It affects the chances of the average man / woman being asked or coerced to complete a hazardous task where the risk of injury or death is moderate or significant (odds are generally higher for men)
More humans can be reproduced under a female-majority setting than a male-majority setting within any given amount of time. This is another aspect of biological fatalism – As humans are generally hardwired to survive and self-preserve, it’s simply easier for women to breed than men, for the simple reason that fewer men than women are required for babies to be produced at any given rate, and the survival of the species drastically depends on human reproduction, which means women are more likely than men to be safeguarded with respect to the survival of humanity. In order to produce any number of babes within a specific period, you wouldn’t need more than one man, but you will need more than one woman (depending on how many babies need to be produced)
For example, if 10 babies need to be produced within a year, you need at least one fertile male and at least ten fertile females (if each female is to birth only one child per pregnancy). It shouldn’t take the average fertile man longer than a month to impregnate ten different women (assuming each woman ovulates at some point within the same 30-day timespan).
It takes a much shorter amount of time for a man to impregnate a woman, than the amount of time it takes for a woman to endure a full pregnancy. If human biology was different, in such a way that (a) it took the average man longer than 9 months to impregnate a woman, or (b) it took a woman seconds or minutes to endure a full pregnancy and birth a new human, then it would all be reversed, i.e. it would be easier for the average man to find partners of the opposite sex than the average woman, and the safeguarding of men would be of higher importance --- But this isn’t Bizarro World. The amount of time it would take for a man to impregnate a woman, is much shorter than the duration of a woman’s pregnancy phase. Thus men are more disposable than women, which ultimately means the safeguarding of women has priority over the safeguarding of men by the human standard of evolutionary survival instinct
This is the reason why in economically difficult times, men are more likely to be sacrificed, while women are more likely to be safeguarded. It’s so that other men might survive long enough to reproduce with the remaining women at a higher rate than what would otherwise have been possible if more women than men had died instead
The Modern Feminist’s Delusion of the “Oppression of Women in History”
Feminists tend to spew a rhetoric along the lines of “women were oppressed, men oppressed us” But if anything, history indicates that men have faced more oppression than women, as countless men have had to suffer and die as a consequence of serving their kingdom or community, while women remained safe and comfy, far away from the battlefields and other hazardous environments where men were risking their lives to protect women and children. Men are the ones who have historically protected the women, elderly and children whenever the community or nation was in dire straits. Men are the ones who WILL have to protect the women, elderly and children in economically difficult times that might arise in the future
Modern feminists try to cast the illusion that women were oppressed and they try to gaslight others into sharing their fanciful perceptions of the woman’s condition in the history of human civilization. But if you exclude the important men of history (e.g. nobles, monarchs, alpha men, dark triad men, male celebrities), and account for only men who were average or below average in social status, history shows these classes of men were the bigger victims, for two key reasons:
(1) These men had a harder time finding someone of the opposite sex who was willing to reproduce with them. Historically women were twice as likely to reproduce as men. Most women became mothers, but the majority of men never became fathers (80% women vs 40% men). This is also evidence that polygamy / hypergamy is not a new phenomenon - It has in fact been happening for eons, except it might have been less noticeable in previous eras (due to lack of available statistical data to validate it)
Of all humans ever born, did most men not become fathers?
I quote in full a passage from the book Is There Anything Good About Men?: How Cultures Flourish by Exploiting Men by Roy Baumeister, pages 63 – 64: Counting Ancestors Let’s return now to the qu...
(2) Men are the ones who were more often sent to perform hazardous tasks and self-sacrificed in order to protect the nation or community. In wartime conditions, it is mostly men are sent to battle, while children and mostly women are kept safe, far away from the battlefield. Historically most casualties of war were men; this included civilians and citizens of non-hostile countries
@based_meme @cvh1991 @SoycuckGodOfReddit @LeFrenchCel @SandNiggerKANG @AsiaCel @Buried Alive 2.0 @Lookslikeit @Gott _mit _uns94 @SlayerSlayer @Lifeisbullshit95 @DarkStar @GeckoBus
Last edited:
. Men have always been sent to the meat shredder, while women are allowed travel freely in combat-free zones. If more countries are annexed in future, like Taiwan or South Korea, the same patterns will be observable there. Most men in history never reproduced. All they ever did was serve their overlords until death. There are probably many childless and unmarried slavs from both Ukrop and Russia who died in the war in Ukraine. Forgotten men who's names won't even make it into history books
