Blackpill Stop calling females "gatekeepers" to sex & genetic quality of the species

[Evildоer]

I see this kind of thinking here way too often, and thus i decided to start an open discussion, as i disagree and have solid arguments to back me up.

Sexy son hypothesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Female mating preferences are widely recognized as being responsible for the rapid and divergent evolution of
male secondary sex characteristics.

Put it simple - more sexual dimorphism. It is supposed to signify good competitiveness of future male offsprings and goes perfectly within hypothesis itself: females care about their sons, not daughters. Male offsprings with "good" genes selected by females are supposed to increase likelihood of adaptation and survival. Well, some of us believe it to be. Let's check if it's true.

New driver of extinction: Adaptations for sexual selection

By analyzing thousands of fossilized ancient crustaceans, a team of scientists found that devoting a lot of energy to the competition for mates may compromise species' resilience to change and increase their risk of extinction.

www.sciencedaily.com

So we have a solid article, and it's almost solely about mollusca. I'll not focus on these "Cthulhu" thingies, but i'm very interested in this part:

Hunt says some scientists have proposed that the energy animals devote to developing these traits may limit
the resources they have available for survival, particularly when something in their environment changes.
That would put species with strong sexual dimorphism at greater risk of extinction.

And what changed so much in human environment for the past several millennia? Technology and progress reduced natural selection significance to basically nothing, it doesn't bother humans anymore. Sexual selection, however, does.

We're basically left alone with sexual selection which determines the future of human species. Women chase most dimorphic men. And as height being the most obvious example of human sexual dimorphism, i would gladly take it as an example as well.

• http://singularcity.com/short-men/
• https://www.revelist.com/dating/women-dating-short-men/11939
• http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-ways-life-different-if-youre-short-male/
• https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1474704915604563

But then we have these:

• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2566735/ - taller height and cancer risk
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25051127 - taller height and heart disease
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3061965/ - taller height and lower back pain
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3148429/ - taller height and cancer risk once more
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29581483 - THIRD TIME'S A CURSE! (taller height and cancer risk again)

Oh, no, turns out height was never meant to be an advantage or adaptation for survival today and females still craving taller men is just a textbook example of Fisherian runaway. Where is our valiant gatekeepers and their glorious selection now? Turned to dust. Insatiable lust for more dimorphism in partners marked an end for good gatekeeping.

Fisherian runaway

Fisherian runaway is a model of how sexual selection can lead to exaggerated physical or behavioral traits (ornament) and exaggerated preferences for these traits...

incels.wiki

Fisherian runaway - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Conclusion/TLDR: Even if females are supposed to be "gatekeepers" for sex and selectors of genetic quality of the species, they obviously fail badly at their job. There could be a factor of natural selection (but that never stopped some species from still going extinct under pressure of sexual selection) but it's no longer the case for humans. Uncontrolled female hypergamy enabled by degeneracy doesn't even select best genetic quality, it just leads human species nowhere.

 

[TheGoodGuy]

Where did you get the screenshots of girls hating short men I can see it is from Twitter but I am not familiar with it so how do I find post like these do they use hashtags or some shit like that?

 

[ItsAllOverButTheCry]

Low IQ.

gatekeeping - the activity of controlling, and usually limiting, general access to something.

By definition, women are the gatekeepers to sex.

As for genetic quality, it depends on the times. If there's constant war and famine, a taller guy may not be as attractive as a healthy shorter guy. In todays era of social media and lookism, a taller guy is definitely higher quality.

 

[horseshoe]

Women selecting full heads is legit since male pattern baldness is more likely linked to heart disease.

 

[Gymcelled]

Men get far more of their mom's genes than women.
Because men always get their y chromosome from their dad and X chromosome from their mom.

The X chromosome has far more genetic information than the y one, which is tiny af. I can't remember the exact value but iirc hundreds or thousands of times more gene data. (though it doesn't necessarily mean that the women's genes will dwarf the men's ones, it also depends on whether or not the guy's genes are dominant)

If you look it up you'll find that the balding gene for instance comes exclusively from the mom. Ironic isn't it?
iirc height is also more strongly correlated with the height of the mom than the dad.

Women and betas love to say that women are just making the next generations better looking, taller etc but actually the ugly women are reproducing, creating an endless cycle of losers, incels etc

It's a never ending cycle of suffering.

 

[VirginAutistManlet]

Men get far more of their mom's genes than women.

This is wrong. I have slightly more DNA from my dad than my mom.

 

[real truecel]

Where did you get the screenshots of girls hating short men I can see it is from Twitter but I am not familiar with it so how do I find post like these do they use hashtags or some shit like that?

just search for short men

 

[TheGoodGuy]

just search for short men

I just did on Twitter but I don´t find much.

 

[Gymcelled]

This is wrong. I have slightly more DNA from my dad than my mom.

I'm talking purely in average. If your dad's genes are more dominant they'll be expressed more.

Males inherit more genetic flaws from their mothers than females, research shows

Certain types of mutations only have negative consequences when passed from women to their sons, according to studies

www.telegraph.co.uk

And even for women there's the mitochondria effect

Do you share more genes with your mother or your father?

How many times do people make the comment about which parent a child takes after. So what does genetics say?

theconversation.com

 

[real truecel]

I just did on Twitter but I don´t find much.

You could find a lot of sluts shaming short men under tweets with bagelcel videos

 

[ReallyRice]

Height threads are always ER fuel tbh

 

[Italcel]

As for genetic quality, it depends on the times. If there's constant war and famine, a taller guy may not be as attractive as a healthy shorter guy. In todays era of social media and lookism, a taller guy is definitely higher quality.

low iq during war and famine fat males are still considered subhumans while disgusting landwhales reproduce without any problem

 

[ItsAllOverButTheCry]

low iq during war and famine fat males are still considered subhumans while disgusting landwhales reproduce without any problem

Low IQ, fat males are indicator of being rich. You don't become fat during war and famine. Check history and you might even still see this in third world shitholes.

 

[78980n]

tl;dr women shouldn't have rights

 

[Deleted member 818]

“Short guys should kill themselves”.

Fuck these hoes, man.

 

[Deleted member 18912]

Low IQ.

gatekeeping - the activity of controlling, and usually limiting, general access to something.

By definition, women are the gatekeepers to sex.

As for genetic quality, it depends on the times. If there's constant war and famine, a taller guy may not be as attractive as a healthy shorter guy. In todays era of social media and lookism, a taller guy is definitely higher quality.

^

 

[Deleted member 18975]

Women are extremely evil. They are only good to good looking man but they show their nature to unattractive men.

 

[IamLost]

Foids destroy genetic quality. They only go for facial looks and facial looks didn't create civilization.

 

[johnnyb]

the true "chads" of the species is us incels. its why we don't get to fuck. kikes breeding out the true rulers of the world with low value dna that's seen as desirable. what is chad is actually in a correct unkiked society would be incel, as his facial structure represents trash quality genes. and what is seen as trash quality (us) is kike manipulation to breed us out, the true future of the human species.

 

[KaizenYagi]

Yeah agree with this totally. Women chase beauty not quality genetics. They are gatekeepers to their vaginas.

 

[BlkPillPres]

I see this kind of thinking here way too often, and thus i decided to start an open discussion, as i disagree and have solid arguments to back me up.

Sexy son hypothesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Put it simple - more sexual dimorphism. It is supposed to signify good competitiveness of future male offsprings and goes perfectly within hypothesis itself: females care about their sons, not daughters. Male offsprings with "good" genes selected by females are supposed to increase likelihood of adaptation and survival. Well, some of us believe it to be. Let's check if it's true.

New driver of extinction: Adaptations for sexual selection

By analyzing thousands of fossilized ancient crustaceans, a team of scientists found that devoting a lot of energy to the competition for mates may compromise species' resilience to change and increase their risk of extinction.

www.sciencedaily.com

So we have a solid article, and it's almost solely about mollusca. I'll not focus on these "Cthulhu" thingies, but i'm very interested in this part:

And what changed so much in human environment for the past several millennia? Technology and progress reduced natural selection significance to basically nothing, it doesn't bother humans anymore. Sexual selection, however, does.

We're basically left alone with sexual selection which determines the future of human species. Women chase most dimorphic men. And as height being the most obvious example of human sexual dimorphism, i would gladly take it as an example as well.

• http://singularcity.com/short-men/
• https://www.revelist.com/dating/women-dating-short-men/11939
• http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-ways-life-different-if-youre-short-male/
• https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1474704915604563

But then we have these:

• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2566735/ - taller height and cancer risk
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25051127 - taller height and heart disease
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3061965/ - taller height and lower back pain
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3148429/ - taller height and cancer risk once more
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29581483 - THIRD TIME'S A CURSE! (taller height and cancer risk again)

Oh, no, turns out height was never meant to be an advantage or adaptation for survival today and females still craving taller men is just a textbook example of Fisherian runaway. Where is our valiant gatekeepers and their glorious selection now? Turned to dust. Insatiable lust for more dimorphism in partners marked an end for good gatekeeping.

Fisherian runaway

Fisherian runaway is a model of how sexual selection can lead to exaggerated physical or behavioral traits (ornament) and exaggerated preferences for these traits...

incels.wiki

Fisherian runaway - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Conclusion/TLDR: Even if females are supposed to be "gatekeepers" for sex and selectors of genetic quality of the species, they obviously fail badly at their job. There could be a factor of natural selection (but that never stopped some species from still going extinct under pressure of sexual selection) but it's no longer the case for humans. Uncontrolled female hypergamy enabled by degeneracy doesn't even select best genetic quality, it just leads human species nowhere.

I was just about to talk about fisherian runaway as I read further into your post and saw you already discussed it further down, great thread

I made a thread about this very topic once, that women being the selectors is to the detriment of the species in the long run, because women select for the most shallow traits, too much of something good can become something bad, I worked at a pharmacy once, saw a lot of old people coming to collect their medication, the short old men were more "lively" for the most part, the tall as hell old dudes had canes or walked in a pained and stumbly manner, one guy even had his wife helping him walk through the store halls, humans don't really need to be tall, because were not picking shit from trees now are we, but women will select for that trait regardless because "muh vaginal tingles", and if they had their way we'd have more men walking around wtih genetics that's not good for long term health, were not brawling with swords and physical strength anymore, and in those days you didn't live long anyways so it didn't matter if your knees would give out in your 60's, but its different today

https://incels.is/threads/females-b...tes-is-to-the-detriment-of-all-species.96372/

 

[Teutonic Knight]

Women were never in position to choose much.

Back in uncivilized society men had the brutal strength and back in the muh patriarchy era men had the last word in arranged marriages.

Even before the very modern feminism women were dependent on men economically and their options were severely limited.

It's only in the modern era of dating and courtship coupled with women economical and social privileged position that women get to pick partners freely. I think this is actually the reason why they're so bad. They were never in such position before historically and don't know what to do so they go with the popular consensus among their gender of what a good man is which creates a 20/80 situation.