You haven't thought through the implications of "most of our ancestors are women". It doesn't mean "women got to pick the top men each generation and the rest just accepted it" - it means the opposite of that - men banded together and removed female mate choice entirely.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @woombie2
No you dim-wit - because men formed war bands and conquered the neighboring tribes and took their women as spoils. The complex social agreement is the formation of large scale male cooperation to form war bands. It had nothing to do with female choice.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @woombie2
Again, just no - you don't get it. Monogamy exists so the tribe can be cohesive and ready for when it has conflicts with men of other tribes. The tribe that gets more out of their men, wins If this breaks down, that tribe loses to a tribe where it hasn't - which keeps it stable
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @woombie2
Sure, without the culling of the overall unfit via plauge and starvation you get genetic decline - especially when you subsidize women's sexual choices by paying to make sure that bastards (the result of female sexual incontinence) don't starve as they should.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
Women haven't had sexual choice in the Eurasian species of human in 50k+ years and certainly haven't shaped those human species. Female sexual selection did great in creating peacock tails though.
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.