Women's loyalty is not first and foremost towards her children,

What did OP mean by this?

Oregano

>>36189820
That doesn't make sense from an evolutionary perspective. Woman who sabotaged their sons would go extinct.

File: greek_pericles.jpg (18KB, 277x403px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 277x403px

>>36189852
>>36189855
OP is saying basically that shrew mothers who helicopter parent their kids are a natural occurence in nature designed to self regulate their poor genetic quality.

If you cant break past the hurdle in life thst is your mom, you dont deserve to live.

I disagree with OP on the idea that all women do this though. Bad parenting is not universal

>>36189855
In a group it does, only the strongest in the GROUP would procreate, remember that women think tribally, they don't identify as an individual, they identify as a woman.

Also sabotaged/shit tested or dead sons would save potentially wasted time and energy on upbringing, thus more chances to get impregnated again by an alpha.

>>36189855
Being gay doesn't make evolutionary sense from an evolutionary perspective, yet here you are.

>>36189959
A major principle of evolution is selectivity. There wouldn't be any negative selective pressure on women who did not do this.
A woman who did do this, however, would be heavily unfavored to pass on her genes.
Therefore such a behavior could never evolve even in a group.

>>36190033
You completely missed the point.

my mum and dad tried to turn me into beta cuz they can t use logic
I just got lucky I ended in chad social group in 1. grade so I became asshole aggressive alpha

>>36190049
A group that practiced infanticide - or prevented weaker males from procreation - would be stronger than other groups, and so evolutionarily more successful.

>>36190049
Several species of fish excrete a warning pheromone when killed to warn their kin about danger. While not detrimental, it is certainly unhelpful to the original fish.

In this example, if a weak son could cause the destruction of a group, then groups who didn't sacrifice would be selected against as a whole.

Not that I believe there is anything behind this theory. The OP is definitely just a wizard working on his spellbook. However, let's not shit on evolutionary theory while we are at it.

>>36190163
This trait would have to appear in all women of the group at the same time in order for this to happen.
>>36190243
>While not detrimental, it is certainly unhelpful to the original fish
Fish also give birth to like a 1000 fishes at a time. It is therefore much easier for traits that offer no individual benefit to evolve.

>>36189855
Checked

Case in point
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKVLRH5m6Wk

>>36190243
How do you want you want to explain SID syndrome and the frequently obsessive thoughts women have about killing their baby?

And "evolutionarily speaking" trying to make your sons into soft weak men should have resulted in a deceased lineage, yet it hasn't. Do you have another theory to posit - or is it just women being stupid and shortsighted as usual, wanting someone who will submit to their will?

>>36190437
>SID syndrome
>women killing their babies
If women were smothering their babies the coroners would be able to tell.

Even by /r9k/ standards, this is completely retarded. OP, you're gay for Chad aren't you?