We have to be careful, though, when reading evolutionary biology and evolutionary theory, to see it as exposing deep subconscious drives at play in our lives rather than excusing stereotypical behavior and validating constrictive gender roles.

So, I say, use caution when reading the Moral Animal, but read it!

Of course men, and boys, have strong emotions. I think when we were growing up we were still taught to repress them. Of course, it always comes out in one fashion or another. Violence is largely the result of sublimated loss or despair, I’d think.

Nice idea, but about a century too late.

We will just have to live with men being thuggiest thugs competing for women, no loyalties, “Gangland” writ large throughout society except the very, very top, which will resemble 1950′s America.

Most women will be perfectly happy with this. Most women will happily trade exciting and dominant sex with the Alpha now for being alone with entertainment later. Shrug. There’s no possibility of reversing this, as women are bloc voters and the dominant voting bloc.

Women always want comparitive advantage over the men in their erotic field of view, to weaken him financially so that she will be more of a ‘catch’ for him. Women tend to be so childlike and selfish in this pursuit that they fail to notice that the men in their erotic field of view usually compromise the top 10-to-maybe-15% of all men, and these guys aren’t going to be interested in them anyway. They wind up being “for” policies that hurt the vast majority of men. The super-good-looking men that so many women deeply resent for their lack of noticing them, are never going to be knocking on those gal’s doors anway………………..unless they are starving.

Politics, for most, is deeply personal, and policies gain traction only when people think it will aid their personal status. Few people are willing to support things that are truly good for the entire populace even though it may not be immediately beneficial to their own person.
For example, if a law was proposed that made women give men any children they have and gave them sole custody and made the women liable for child support up to half of their income………………………………it would be “good” for us guys, but I wouldn’t be for it because thats not what is best for the kids or for society. If a law like that came up with the roles reversed, many women WOULD be for it, and so would their liberal-male enablers, because it sticks it to guys………………….and to hell with the consequences.

I think when marriages end in divorce, the woman should get the kids from Monday through Friday MORNING. The kids should go home with dad after school on Friday and dad should take them to school on Monday morning. That way mom has the kids about 4 1/2 days and dad has the kids 3 1/2 days. Child support would be capped at about $200 a month per child at the most. Nobody would be allowed to live over one hour from each other at the most unless both decided to move to another city for work purposes. It would “share-the-pain” and make it somewhat uncomfortable for both parties.
In cases of infidelity, the cheater would find himself/herself rather screwed as the other party would get full custody and they’d only see their kids every other weekend and they’d be liable for quite a bit of child support. I bet I could stop the infidelity in marriages pretty cold in its tracks in this way.
As long as we provide incentives for bad behavior, thats what we are going to get. Weve incentivized women’s bad behavior long enough. And we have a litany of single moms, men who wont marry, unmarried lonely childless women, too few children, and screwed up children as a result. We have overindulged females long enough.

Women will probably respond more to this kind of thing in places like Los Angeles and Miami as they watch themselves be ethnically replaced by newcomers and wonder how that ceaselssly keeps happening and why their social status gets lower and lower “out there”. I can’t emphasize enough, many people still dont believe we have a low birhtrate problem in this nation, especially in coastal areas. They have no idea at what things will be like 20 years down the line.

Arguably,mens’ obligations have increased in the interim.A man’s prospects for marriage are bound to his level of income.The minimum, beneath which no woman will stoop,has steadily risen over the years.Even as his means have steadily eroded.

Thus far,superfluous males have been driven to the wall by a series of expedients:suicide,prison,war,drug addiction,alcoholism,skid row.

But as the knife cuts ever deeper into ever higher strata of male society,the likelihood of insurrectionary conflict increases.

Lively times are in store.