Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Blackpill Male-on-male aggression more common among "peaceful, feminist" bonobos than "violent, patriarchal" chimpanzees, new study says

  • Thread starter WorthlessSlavicShit
  • Start date
WorthlessSlavicShit

WorthlessSlavicShit

Overlord
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 30, 2022
Posts
9,720
So, now that this study just came out after years of smug feminists saying "Well, bonobos are humans' closest relatives and they are female-ruled, so by your logic, that's how humans should naturally live, checkmate rightist misogynists:foidSoy::soy:," I wonder how they will react to this?


Bonobos and chimpanzees are humans’ closing living relatives. While chimpanzees are known to show aggression against each other – sometimes to the point of death – bonobos have long been thought to live more harmoniously, with no known killings. The difference has led to the theory that natural selection works against aggression in male bonobos.

Now research has turned the idea on its head, revealing that bonobos show higher rates of male-on-male aggression than chimpanzees – even when researchers looked specifically at cases where the males came to blows.

Oh, no. Does this mean that female social power doesn't necessarily lead to a peaceful society?

Of course:feelskek:.

Mouginot and colleagues describe how they followed 12 male bonobos across three communities at the Kokolopori Bonobo Reserve in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and 14 male chimpanzees across two communities at Gombe national park in Tanzania.

Overall, the team recorded 521 aggressive interactions involving tracked bonobos over 2,047 hours, and 654 aggressive interactions among the identified chimpanzees over 7,309 hours.

The team say that despite previous studies finding chimpanzees show more severe aggression – such as killings, infanticide and sexual coercion – the results reveal aggressive acts between males were 2.8 times more frequent in bonobos than in chimpanzees, with acts involving physical contact specifically found to be 3.0 times more frequent.

That said, despite all the differences, one thing, and nobody here will be surprised what specifically, was unchanged among both species:

For both species, more aggressive males had greater success in mating with females.

It doesn't matter how your society is run, it doesn't matter if females have social power or not, in the end, the strong Chad bully always wins, kicks your ass and goes to fuck the Stacy who would never so much as look at you. That's how it is with humanity's closest relatives, that's one of the things the two species genetically closest to us have in common, yet you are considered to be a "crazy misogynist" if you say that maybe, just maybe, the same is the case with humans as well.

That said, the different social structures between those two species do have effects other than that:

Yet, while not quite the model of gentlemanly chivalry, male bonobos treated females differently to chimpanzees: the team found male-on-female aggression was less common, and female-on-male aggression more common, in the former than the latter – something the team put down to female bonobos often outranking males in the social group.

“We know from the literature that, for example, male and female [bonobos] form a close association … and we do not observe that in chimpanzees,” said Mouginot, noting that humans, too, form such associations.

So, basically, bonobo males fight each other for female approval:soy::soy::soy: much more often than chimpanzees, and in turn, they are more likely to be targets of female aggression than chimps, while being less likely to attack females instead, their aggression is much more focused on other males. Truly a society built to please females. Chads enthusiastically beating up lower-status and weaker males while not attacking females much.

The researchers add that while only 1% of aggressive acts among male bonobos involved the primates teaming up, the figure was 13% in chimpanzees – a finding that may explain the lower frequency of aggression in chimpanzees.

“It’s just more risky because of course if you have several individuals against you, you might be completely beat up,” Mouginot said.

Interesting. Yet another stat showing just how much of bonobo aggression is about males randomly fighting other males for access to females, while chimpanzee violence tends to be more organized, if I understand this right:waitwhat::waitwhat:.
 
in turn, they are more likely to be targets of female aggression
jfl, over for oofy-doofies and simps even in the jungles of the congo

Yet another stat showing just how much of bonobo aggression is about males randomly fighting other males for access to females, while chimpanzee violence tends to be more organized, if I understand this right
Yeah I think chimpanzee violence is about maintaining the social order, whereas bonobos are just fighting to mog. The fate of the defeated male is the same in both cases tho so I'm not sure it's important.

Very good thread as usual, thank you for the high effort.
 
High IQ as always. Thank you for your contributions to this forum.
 
Without patriarchy, males are destined to be stuck in deadly mating competition with one another. Probably the main reason as to why matriarchal societies never developed; take the pre-colonial bantu africans and native americans, for instance
 
So, now that this study just came out after years of smug feminists saying "Well, bonobos are humans' closest relatives and they are female-ruled, so by your logic, that's how humans should naturally live, checkmate rightist misogynists:foidSoy::soy:," I wonder how they will react to this?
This kind of logic they have is ignorant for many reasons:
-Most advanced civilizations in history were incredibly patriarchal(minus the Goddess worship).
-Most primitive & more tribalistic societies were quite matriarchal.
-Although they are the closest to us, that does not imply that they are fully developed for thinking, cognitive function, etc. the way any human is.



Oh, no. Does this mean that female social power doesn't necessarily lead to a peaceful society?

Of course:feelskek:.
In fact, I think I saw something once that most wars were started by Queens as compared to Kings and/or male leaders: I will have to look for more info, since I am planning on including this in a thread I am making.
That said, despite all the differences, one thing, and nobody here will be surprised what specifically, was unchanged among both species:



It doesn't matter how your society is run, it doesn't matter if females have social power or not, in the end, the strong Chad bully always wins, kicks your ass and goes to fuck the Stacy who would never so much as look at you. That's how it is with humanity's closest relatives, that's one of the things the two species genetically closest to us have in common, yet you are considered to be a "crazy misogynist" if you say that maybe, just maybe, the same is the case with humans as well.

That said, the different social structures between those two species do have effects other than that:



So, basically, bonobo males fight each other for female approval:soy::soy::soy:
Ah, just another:


women's in-group biases were 4.5 times stronger
Classic as always. :feelsjuice:

Also, about the part concerning female-on male violence being more prevalent, that correlates well with some other information I've seen, though I will have to dig it up.

It also adds onto my theory that foids bully males more than males ever would bully them(water for us, but earth-shattering information for normies)
much more often than chimpanzees, and in turn, they are more likely to be targets of female aggression than chimps, while being less likely to attack females instead, their aggression is much more focused on other males. Truly a society built to please females. Chads enthusiastically beating up lower-status and weaker males while not attacking females much.
Correlates extremely well with our nature as "humans"

Tbh, I'm becoming such a misanthrope, I believe all humans should have some kind of "shock-system" built into them, which will electrocute them whenever they behave in an animalistic manner.
Interesting. Yet another stat showing just how much of bonobo aggression is about males randomly fighting other males for access to females, while chimpanzee violence tends to be more organized, if I understand this right:waitwhat::waitwhat:.
Good read as always.
Without patriarchy, males are destined to be stuck in deadly mating competition with one another. Probably the main reason as to why matriarchal societies never developed; take the pre-colonial bantu africans and native americans, for instance
:yes:

And living in this r-selective society reflects so.
 
interesting read
High IQ as always. Thank you for your contributions to this forum.
;):feelsokman:

In fact, I think I saw something once that most wars were started by Queens as compared to Kings and/or male leaders: I will have to look for more info, since I am planning on including this in a thread I am making.
If I remember right, that study was about married Queens being about 23% more likely to start a war than Kings, with the researchers speculating that it was because they had their husbands to command the troops so they could still focus on ruling, while Kings, whether married or not, would be expected to lead and accompany their troops, which would hinder their ability to rule the country.
 
So, now that this study just came out after years of smug feminists saying "Well, bonobos are humans' closest relatives and they are female-ruled, so by your logic, that's how humans should naturally live, checkmate rightist misogynists:foidSoy::soy:," I wonder how they will react to this?




Oh, no. Does this mean that female social power doesn't necessarily lead to a peaceful society?

Of course:feelskek:.



That said, despite all the differences, one thing, and nobody here will be surprised what specifically, was unchanged among both species:



It doesn't matter how your society is run, it doesn't matter if females have social power or not, in the end, the strong Chad bully always wins, kicks your ass and goes to fuck the Stacy who would never so much as look at you. That's how it is with humanity's closest relatives, that's one of the things the two species genetically closest to us have in common, yet you are considered to be a "crazy misogynist" if you say that maybe, just maybe, the same is the case with humans as well.

That said, the different social structures between those two species do have effects other than that:



So, basically, bonobo males fight each other for female approval:soy::soy::soy: much more often than chimpanzees, and in turn, they are more likely to be targets of female aggression than chimps, while being less likely to attack females instead, their aggression is much more focused on other males. Truly a society built to please females. Chads enthusiastically beating up lower-status and weaker males while not attacking females much.



Interesting. Yet another stat showing just how much of bonobo aggression is about males randomly fighting other males for access to females, while chimpanzee violence tends to be more organized, if I understand this right:waitwhat::waitwhat:.
Always has been a dog eat dog world
 
;):feelsokman:


If I remember right, that study was about married Queens being about 23% more likely to start a war than Kings, with the researchers speculating that it was because they had their husbands to command the troops so they could still focus on ruling, while Kings, whether married or not, would be expected to lead and accompany their troops, which would hinder their ability to rule the country.
Considering foids nature, it makes sense that they would do this in order to assert much more control over the country. :feelsjuice:
 
So, now that this study just came out after years of smug feminists saying "Well, bonobos are humans' closest relatives and they are female-ruled, so by your logic, that's how humans should naturally live, checkmate rightist misogynists:foidSoy::soy:," I wonder how they will react to this?




Oh, no. Does this mean that female social power doesn't necessarily lead to a peaceful society?

Of course:feelskek:.



That said, despite all the differences, one thing, and nobody here will be surprised what specifically, was unchanged among both species:



It doesn't matter how your society is run, it doesn't matter if females have social power or not, in the end, the strong Chad bully always wins, kicks your ass and goes to fuck the Stacy who would never so much as look at you. That's how it is with humanity's closest relatives, that's one of the things the two species genetically closest to us have in common, yet you are considered to be a "crazy misogynist" if you say that maybe, just maybe, the same is the case with humans as well.

That said, the different social structures between those two species do have effects other than that:



So, basically, bonobo males fight each other for female approval:soy::soy::soy: much more often than chimpanzees, and in turn, they are more likely to be targets of female aggression than chimps, while being less likely to attack females instead, their aggression is much more focused on other males. Truly a society built to please females. Chads enthusiastically beating up lower-status and weaker males while not attacking females much.



Interesting. Yet another stat showing just how much of bonobo aggression is about males randomly fighting other males for access to females, while chimpanzee violence tends to be more organized, if I understand this right:waitwhat::waitwhat:.
Chimpanzees are our closest relative kek. Way more intelligent than Bonobos too. I am sure a troupe of Chimpanzees would annihilate a bunch of soyboy bonobos in an instant.


That said all these science and stuff are calculated attacks on the masculinity of Aryanic men. Aryans and their subsidiary groups are the epitome of humanity, the masters and the Ubermensch. We have always lived in Patriarchical Societies(as our religions and nature commands) and it has made us stronger than the effete and matriarchical negros. Matriarchy is a negro trait(negro men are too effete and weak to run their households and nations).

They have already served a deathblow to us by destroying our Clan based socities and now they wish to dismantle our patriarchy too to further weaken us).
 
Considering foids nature, it makes sense that they would do this in order to assert much more control over the country. :feelsjuice:
It won't last. Foreign patriarchical tribe will destroy a matriarchical tribe. The Ancient Yamnaya(predecessors of Indo Europeans) did this too the Cucuteni Trypilla culture in Ukraine. On a more modern scale Europeans and Arabs did this to Africans(a lot of african tribes and societies were Sheboon run matriachies). Kek at foids thinking they can be leaders. Stating facts doesn't make me misogynist and the fact is women are too stupid to create equal, stable and strong society. Whenever Empresses or female rulers ruled China it eventually fell in ruins and then male Emperors would have to restore it. Women are too run by their base instincts. For them the only people who matter are men they like(who often have bad/weak traits for survival since female brains cannot look past their own immediate needs. Fisherian Runaway is very common in those societies) and their children who aren't even trained to carry civilisation. A male leader will create a system where everyone has a role to play and gets a reward.
 
How many researches, studies, and scientific discoveries are merely political propaganda?
 
Based fucking thread brother and its true, no fucking way any animal society including humans, where hoarding resources is key to survival is non aggression rewarded.
 
IMG 0531
 

Similar threads

SociallyStupid
Replies
11
Views
529
highschoolcel
highschoolcel
Stupid Clown
Replies
52
Views
1K
dirlewanger88
dirlewanger88
T
Replies
7
Views
292
currycel102
currycel102
opioidcel
Replies
53
Views
2K
Rabbi Schneerson
R
D
Replies
9
Views
475
edgelordcel
edgelordcel

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top