The ultimate sexist take: women don't really have any skin in the game of our society because they'll get to reproduce whatever happens.
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @RokoMijic @RokoMijicUK
counterpoint: this should give them more skin in the game
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @kwamurai
Why? You only have skin in the game if your outcomes are affected.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @RokoMijic @RokoMijicUK
"you" in the somatic sense or the germ line sense? people act to ensure the survival of both. people with children have more investment in society this is why "enforced monogamy" is better for social stability than tons of single men
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @kwamurai
The genes know whether they are in a male or female body and program it to act accordingly. I'm not sure I agree with the last part. It's complicated.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @RokoMijic @RokoMijicUK
a woman's skin in her germ line is the same as a man's. a different thesis for why women have less investment in society as such is because whatever supersedes it will not hinder their ability to reproduce (indeed, depending on how it comes about, it may imply worthier men)
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @kwamurai @RokoMijicUK
They're not. She's always in the position of being less intelligent, less understanding of male social networks, less physically strong, etc. so she's always seeking to get better information and her man losing a war is information that makes her less attached to his children.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Assuming she's still of reproductive age.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.