Oddbean new post about login | logout Men like to talk about how some male behavior like being kind, protective, doting, and generous is "beta", but look at which men have wives and kids. Turns out, evolution favors those "betas".
Ha! Exactly my thought right now. I think I‘m a good secondary.
Funny when childless, womanless men criticize married men and fathers as "beta". Ummm.... He's the man of the house and you just bang random slags, bro.
No Grey area!
there are caretakers and players sometimes players have more kids they just hide the eggs in someone else's nest most women prefer these assholes until age 40. I call it a "bad man detector"
Most players aren't having that many kids, anymore, because of contraception (and, to a lesser-extent) abortion. And they tend to be reproducing with women who aren't good mothers. Doubt those children will be very successful.
Interesting. I have almost the opposite position. It is these kids that are looking for success because they miss other things. And they do tend to have more kids
They don't have more kids, anymore. Married women have the highest fertility. And the statistics for fatherless children are dismal, across the board. It's not a death-sentence, but they all suffer from it. As far as I know (and I've looked!), there are no statistics where fatherless children outperform those raised in the house with their dad. Unless you consider "being more likely to commit suicide or be murdered" as outperforming. Example: https://ifstudies.org/blog/life-without-father-less-college-less-work-and-more-prison-for-young-men-growing-up-without-their-biological-father
Well i didn't say fatherless. That's a total different thing. I said parents who don't really care.
Those two things tend to correlate. Parents try very hard to stay together, when they care.
Exactly. Players don't try to stay together because of the children. That's exactly my point. They make a kid, when the situation becomes demanding the divorce. Then a kid with another partner, both women and men. Then divorce again. Having kids is not a measure for quality. Not at all
It actually is, as sustainable marriages are the most fertile. There are different methods for achieving "kids" or even "more kids", but the most reliable path is to just find one woman and treat her well-enough to stick around. That's why men have evolved to treat women well.
Just have to look at life success statistics for fatherless children versus those raised in the house with their father. They fill the prisons, the brothels, the psychiatric clinics and detox centers. You can see the damage right in their DNA: "Kids who were raised without a dad have much shorter telomeres, the protective caps at the ends of chromosomes that are believed to affect health and longevity" https://www.christianpost.com/news/fatherlessness-shows-up-in-childrens-dna-affects-lifespan-study.html
the kids are raised by other men
Well, easy enough to avoid unwittingly being "the other man", nowadays. Also, if the "other man" has children with her, too, or is incapable of siring children, he may decide it's worth the effort. Being a stepfather isn't necessarily a bad deal.
Evolution obviously favors men who actually like and love women I think it's a bit gay to be all macho and stuff Love and dote on women if you're straight
The men who are "...kind, protective, doting, and generous..." also need to have a self-constrained capacity for danger, an important nuance. There is no Virtue in being harmless
Protective men are not harmless, by very definition. Don't know why you see a conflict there. He shouldn't be smacking his wife and kids around, to prove his bonafides.
Protective doesn't mean they are capable of providing such protection.
It usually does, tho. Simply being able to live in a low-crime neighborhood in a well-built house with safe transport and having good health care and healthy food already solves for most danger. One of the things "beta males" excel at is "collective security". Pooling resources and effort to create a safe environment.
I'm agreeing with the original statement, I prefer the "betas" over the Sigma Male Bros, just adding the nuance between "saying" someone has those characteristics and actually "having" those characteristics. Yes, the lowering of risk factors in the environment is an act of protection. All of that means nothing if the man isn't prepared to resist an attacker.
That's where I'm disagreeing. It has a protective value on its own, that is of higher practical use than mere brawn. Even if he's "just" watching the kids or keeping house, so that you can focus on maximizing your own income, you and the children are MUCH safer with him, than without him, because his presence allows you to have an overall safer existence.
It's also simply the fact that men who don't value women won't be inclined to protect them. Why should he? She's not special to him. The mere willingness to protect is half of the goal. Someone who looks like Rambo and has an arsenal at home, but doesn't love you, is more of a danger to you than a benefit.
Was just thinking this yesterday, watching my husband play darts with his kids and joking around with his son and recommending companies he can apply to for his internship. Looks like "winning", from where I'm standing. 🤷♀️
Pop culture amirite.
