Free will is a myth(in raw sense).

[pedrolopezwasright]

What we are calling "free will" is abstinence from biological urges; Every action both positive and negative, moral and immoral etc. is ruled by our brain. Brain is part of a human biology. Divine things by which believers so urgently cope are nothing else as biologically driven coping mechanism.
Therefore arises the question: how foid imperative towards hypergamy is different from our biological urges. Foids have imperative, something they can't control willingly or unwillingly. Men don't have hypergamy imperative and can decide accordingly to situation. (low hybristophilia rates among males are proof of thereof).
Imperative = biological limit which is placed and can't be ruled by self. Femoid inferiority comes furthermore from the drive towards imperative, they not only cannot resist such urge nor apply any direct influence on it; It is their standard way of behaving and can be influenced only by the will of external person.
Model of human female and male can be presented as:
H = hypergamy
B = biologically binded urges
F = human female
M = human male
E = external influence
>, < = representing control possibility markers
E > M < (B - H), M > H
E > F < H, F < B
@Flagellum_Dei @Horatio Alger

 

[Emba]

E>M<B>A

 

[pedrolopezwasright]

E>M<B>A

Whats A

 

[Emba]

Whats A

Affirmative action

 

[Flagellum_Dei]

Every action both positive and negative, moral and immoral etc. is ruled by our brain. Brain is part of a human biology

It cannot be proven; for you assume every thing has it cause. Causality is just a priori form of seeing reality (as Kant proved), a way to see phenomenons; therefore you can't assume that thing-in-itself (in this case human motivations) have any cause. Development of the human wants is development of self-knowledge of the absolute, thus it's free ex definitione.

Besides that I of course agree at foids.

 

[AtrociousCitizen]

It cannot be proven; for you assume every thing has it cause. Causality is just a priori form of seeing reality (as Kant proved), a way to see phenomenons; therefore you can't assume that thing-in-itself (in this case human motivations) have any cause. Development of the human wants is development of self-knowledge of the absolute, thus it's free ex definitione.

Doesn’t Kant also forbid knowledge of the noumenon? And defining human freedom as self knowledge of the absolute is not a demonstration but a presupposition, and there's plenty of empirical evidence that supports causal explanations of human behavior.

 

[Flagellum_Dei]

Doesn’t Kant also forbid knowledge of the noumenon?

He did.

And defining human freedom as self knowledge of the absolute is not a demonstration but a presupposition

Not exactly. Postkantian philosophers proved, that only I, that's thought, can be proven (see Fichte absolute ego), thus it's valid to build entire world on such concept, for other ones are unsure. Kant opposed such idealism, but his arguments can be easily countered with proof, that thought can be noumenon itself, which is source of phenomenons to-itslef, that's through man.

and there's plenty of empirical evidence that supports causal explanations of human behavior.

Such as? Even if so, they would still remain phenomenons, therefore they have no connection to thing in itself other than merely being our illusion of it perceived with apriorical forms of our possible experience.