Interesting graphs and charts department

[Clodfobble]

So just to be clear, it's NOT that women were all fucking the 17 hot dudes at the top with the most expensive set of arrowheads, while all the ugly cavemen were lucky to get a single pity-lay. It was, as usual, because the men were being aggressive dicks and slaughtering each other en masse.

[Griff]

We need to elect more women. If you look at our national spending habits we easily defend aggression over compassion. A largely male Congress has convinced itself that cuts to compassion make us stronger. We are unbalanced.

[Undertoad]

It surely worked then like it does today, and female sexual selection is an important part of the hierarchical nature of humankind, one of the major things that invokes the warring nature of man. (Invokes, not causes. It's built-in.)

(i.e., you don't make us go to war - but we would only do it because of you. We don't defend territory, like dogs; we defend family and tribe, like apes. Plus I saw Omar looking at your ass so I hit him with a big rock. Don't you like that?)

[Clodfobble]

But historically, aren't cultures with less female sexual selection (i.e. women as property, etc.) *more* likely to engage in tribalistic warring behavior? When one woman becomes a dude's property, that doesn't make him go, "cool, cool, this is enough." Now he just wants a second woman for his property, too. And suddenly we're back at harems for the rich and powerful, and the dudes with no women are blaming the women again.

Here's what I've noticed about many socially-awkward, historically-un-sexually-selected men: they're actually quite picky, and reject a huge number of average-and-below-average biologically female humans who would be interested in dating them, but they only want the hot ones (who they bitterly accuse of being shallow for only wanting the hot guys.) I know a number of heterosexual women who have never been asked out by anyone, ever, which under the Female Sexual Selection theory ought to be impossible.

Full disclosure: this subject hits my Asshole Button because for whatever reason, I have always seemed to attract exactly the kind of guy who gets enraged when I am politely uninterested. My theory is that it's because I'm just enough of a butterface to make them confident: smart/funny/waistline/blah-blah-blah, but they see the glasses and non-chin and say, "Ah ha, I am the only man who sees her true inner value, and she will surely be grateful for it." I have always been hit on more often than my objectively way-hotter friends, and when *they* turn them down, the guys say, "ah, well, she was out of my league," but when I turn them down, it's stalker-time. No man in the history of the world has ever thought I was out of his league, and I couldn't even begin to count the number of times I've been accused of unfairly hoarding my vaginal resources.

[Undertoad]

But historically, aren't cultures with less female sexual selection (i.e. women as property, etc.) *more* likely to engage in tribalistic warring behavior?

That's what wesee today, because we get to compare cultures against each other; the "rules" in people's heads are all defined differently now that we've laid down frameworks for the development of behavior. Frameworks handed down for Centuries, that start in infancy.

But in 6,000 B.C. we didn't have any of that... it's pre-culture. No books, no schools, no way to communicate across tribes, no way to socialize people and explain how to behave productively and fairly. All we had was a dumb beast who had achieved some level of consciousness.

But even though there was no communication, the behavior was the same across continents. That's what's so wild about it.

I have always been hit on more often than my objectively way-hotter friends, and when *they* turn them down, the guys say, "ah, well, she was out of my league," but when I turn them down, it's stalker-time.

It's a small rejection for you, but the most immense rejection POSSIBLE for them. Humanity is telling them they are so unworthy that humanity doesn't want their genes in the pool.

No wonder they are angry. To replicate our DNA is the very deepest drive we know. It's built in to not just humans, but every single evolved species on earth. Every living organism has had to work out a strategy for how to deal with this.

Previously, humanity's answer was to fight to the death. That's still the answer for a lot of species. Fighting, even if both die.



Part of the pain you get to experience (lucky you) is this violent avenue being taken away from males via socialization. No wonder it is so insane and awkward.

[Undertoad]

The "anomaly" here, the number being graphed, is the temp versus the 1980 average. So, in April 2018, the planet lower troposphere of the planet was considered to be 0.21 degrees C hotter than it was in 1980.

For those following along at home, the May 2018 numbers are in; and the anomaly was +0.18, down 0.03 from April. That makes May 2018 the 10th hottest of the last 40 Mays.

Each month's anomaly change doesn't tell us much of anything about warming -- like being told one day's Dow Jones closing number and change amount doesn't tell us how our long-term investments are doing. It's just a single point of perspective.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Who's driving how far.

[tw]

A woman needs a husband because she needs a chauffeur.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Shrinking households...

[Undertoad]

In our modern day, nobody knows why Gloria and Meathead didn't move out to a studio apartment in Brooklyn.

[Gravdigr]

Gloria was smokin' back in the day...

[Clodfobble]

I wonder what the percentage breakdown is between divorced singles (30+) and young unmarried singles who can afford/are allowed to live on their own, both of which have increased since the 60s.

[Clodfobble]

Also, how many of the 6 and 7+ households were just parents and kids, vs. extended family and/or boarders? Inquiring minds want to know.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Disasters...

[Clodfobble]

Go Texas--lit up in all six categories!