![Carbon 60 is a Longevity Gamechanger [Infographic] 1](https://linkyou.blog/wp-content/uploads/xcarbon-60-is-a-longevity-gamechanger-infographic-168x117.png.pagespeed.ic.JSA-QnHCO5.jpg "Carbon 60 is a Longevity Gamechanger [Infographic]")
Why Men Created Everything Save for later Reblog
Why was it almost entirely men who built all of civilization? Why did women NOT build civilization? Was it some male conspiracy against women, to “oppress” women? No…..It’s really quite simple: It’s because women prefer men who are useful to them. So it’s a variety of things related to human biology and female sexual choice that drove the shape of history, that drove and resulted in men inventing the modern world, not women. All the reasons for the shape of history being driven by men, centering on men, it all happened because behind it was female sexual choice, driving the whole process. By making a few First Principle observations about biology and a few adjacent facts around this biology, the reason why it was men who invented civilization, not women, can be inferred and derived from those First Principles about human biology. At the heart of it is a pretty simple central focus: female sexual choice. Because of female biology, men invented civilization. Details to follow.
A few simple observations about nature and evolution are all we need to derive that answer, by deductive analysis. The best way to figure this out is to argue from First Principles, like is done in Physics. Start with things we can prove. Start with a few things we know for sure. Then work outwards from that, based on logic and common sense.
First Principles. A few facts:
-humans are sexually dimorphic
-human babies take a long time to rise to maturity
-human lifespan was very short, for over 99% of history and evolution
-human females have a limited fertility window
-almost all our technology was invented within the last 100 years or so
-infant mortality was quite high for all of human history, till extremely recently
-there are measurable brain size differences between men and women
-men don’t get pregnant
-biologically, most of the burden of bringing life into the world goes to the woman
-in the wild, women are unable to survive without men, when they have young infants
-as in all mammals, human females decide who they want to have sex with
One way of looking at this: Women didn’t build civilization because they decide who they want to have sex with. That basic female sexual choice and control over sex is inherent in every mammal species. It’s not just something in humans. It’s in whales. It’s in chipmunks. It’s in lions. Females evolved to chose out males for reproduction. This fact drives evolution and is essential for keeping the species alive.
This means men competed with each other, to do things for her….to get sex. This resulted in men building civilization to pretty much just please women and basically to get laid. Women didn’t need to do the same because men will sleep with women, whether women do anything for men, or not. That means women don’t have a need, don’t have an incentive to create and build and protect, the way men have an incentive to create and build and protect. These basic and obvious facts of heterosexual relationships seem to elude feminists.
So, feminists have told women that the past was a conspiracy against women, that the unequal contributions of the sexes, that this was supposedly some sort of organized conspiracy against women. Sorry to feminists, but that’s complete nonsense.
I remember as a child growing up in a small religious sect that emphasized fertility, often the women on the farm would have many many children. In small agricultural communities in pioneer America, it was not uncommon for women to have large numbers of children. Having a lot of children helped a lot, in early pioneer farm life. I remember old women with six or eight or fifteen children, in one case. It was the tail end of the great American agricultural expansion of the 1800s that lasted into the early 20th century in some places.
This was the common pattern in the United States in the 1800s: “According to most census estimates, an American woman had on average seven to eight children in 1800. By 1900 the number dropped to about 3.5. That has fallen to slightly more than two today. Birth rates fell first in New England, and then among pioneers as they headed west.”
(from LiveScience link below)
The reasons for large families in pioneer times were pretty simple. There was lots of room for economic expansion in North America, there was a whole continent to fill and build. That needed people. Extra farm hands were quite handy to have at that time, since mechanization of agriculture was not really completed till well into the 20th Century.
Watching these women, it became obvious to me that Motherhood is hard. It has always been hard. The reason being a human Mother is hard, is that human babies are born helpless. It is the biological price humans pay, for having such big brains. As Scientific American put it:
“Human babies enter the world utterly dependent on caregivers to tend to their every need. Although newborns of other primate species rely on caregivers, too, human infants are especially helpless because their brains are comparatively underdeveloped. Indeed, by one estimation a human fetus would have to undergo a gestation period of 18 to 21 months instead of the usual nine to be born at a neurological and cognitive development stage comparable to that of a chimpanzee newborn.”
https://www.livescience.com/54605-why-are-babies-helpless.html
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/why-humans-give-birth-to-helpless-babies/
https://www.livescience.com/4333-women-babies.html
Human babies take a long time to develop. Our big brains take decades to develop, within a given human culture, which itself is an expression of the complexity of human brains, compared to other mammals. All mammal newborns are dependent on their mothers for survival, but some mammals are more capable than others. Human baby mammals are incredibly helpless, that’s how they evolve, that’s why being a human Mother is so difficult.
Nature has different plans for different organisms to survive. This means some animals are born with the ability to survive on their own very quickly. Others take a long time. There are advantages and disadvantages to each plan. Being immediately able to survive on your own as a mammal is great in some ways, but the trade-off is that cognitive complexity….big brain power, does not come with an organism designed to be born ready to survive on its own. For humans, the problem is the opposite: We have enormous brains that help our survival, but the cost is we have a very long period of development, before we can survive on our own. In nature, human Mothers pay a great deal of that cost. That’s why human Motherhood has always been difficult.
Many other mammals can fend for themselves without any parental supervision almost immediately: Baby turtles can crack their shells and scoot off immediately into the cold ocean and survive. However, they cannot write a symphony.
Human babies, however, are a different story, from turtles.
Ask a Mother of a newborn. She’ll tell you:
For the first two months of life, babies can’t even lift their heads without help. They can’t even roll over on their own, till 4 months. And it takes them half a year, just to sit up. It takes 9 months before babies try a very wobbly attempt at standing, often falling down. Then another 3 months they wobble across your living room rug like a drunken sailor.
That’s barely the beginning. Babies and young infants are basically death magnets once they start walking. They have no clue about any danger and have to be constantly watched, lest they wander outside into traffic. Even learning to walk without the gait of a drunken sailor, the fine tuning basic motor skills and learning to feed themselves, that takes at least another year. And when everyone was a child, we were still very much dependent on adult supervision for at least the first ten years, before we could walk around and explore the world, more or less independently. We evolved in East Africa. I once took a walk on the open Savannah in Masai Mara Park in Kenya and happened upon a lion, hidden in the grass. It became apparent to me that in an open fight, he had the advantage. I retreated to my Land Rover, having been put in my place on the reality of the natural world.
All of this very long human development length has a great payoff: everything from complex language and reasoning and communication, highly developed social worlds…and eventually leading to the creation of the modern world, which is the result of a long gestation and growth time for a cognitively gifted ape, such as us.
Looking at the anthropological literature of most primitive human societies, what evolved was a general sexual division of labor. While men helped out with the young children, the raising and socialization of young children tended to be dominated by groups of women…in all cultures. Regardless of race or religion, the pattern in thousands of human cultures was more or less the same: women were found to be better suited to raising young children, so that is what they focused on. And of course pretty much all cultures had initiation rituals, where boys left behind the woman’s world and entered the world of men.
So, women were quite busy in evolution. Very, very busy. Yard apes are very difficult to rise to maturity, unlike sea turtles and kittens. Human Mothers had little time for anything else other than mostly being a Mother, taking care of the constant demands of raising young yard apes.
So, returning to my original question: Why was it almost entirely men who built all of civilization? It’s really quite simple: It’s because women prefer men who are useful to them. It’s how women love men. Why did women NOT build civilization? Was it some male conspiracy against women, to ‘oppress women’? That’s what the feminists falsely claim.
The answer turns out to be surprisingly simple: One of the very basic reasons women didn’t build all of civilization is that they were quite busy. In a technologically primitive environment, which is to say 99.999% of our evolution, we were nothing but simple mammals trying to survive alongside of sea turtles and horses. Given the limitations of evolved human biology, of big brains and very long human developmental periods as well as constant environment threats of marauding bears and lions, the evidence shows that in order to survive, all human societies came up with a basic plan: of women doing most of the caring of young humans. The demands of raising young babies and children, the physical demands were so extraordinarily high, that the female half of the population had to socially segregate, set up a largely female social world and social dominance hierarchy, and females had to put all their energy as women, into the caring and raising of young humans. If they had not done so, none of us would be here. We should be extraordinarily thankful to those women. They were the heroines of our past that kept us alive. Much honor they are deserving of. They lived within severe limitations. As philosopher Thomas Hobbes once said, “ life outside society <in a primitive society> would be ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short’.’The demands of the historical and evolutionary past were so difficult, this sexual division of labor was the only practical solution available to humans, for survival. That’s why we see the pattern we do, of human females organizing and concentrating on the care of children: it was all they could do, to keep the human race alive.
Why then, can’t feminists see this? Why do they teach the garbage they teach, of the past being a conspiracy of men against women, to stop women from achieving the building up of civilization? Because they are ignorant of the big picture human past, they are ignorant of science. They personalize everything, emphasize blame and emotion in place of actual fair narrative, they are substituting their own personal prejudice and misandry…hatred of men, in place of logic, reason and evidence. Feminists start with hate, then build their case on that.
The nature of modern life also makes all people ignorant of the past, unless they have a peculiar interest in the past, or life experiences that inform them. How so? Most people grow up now with computers and televisions and I phones and grocery stores stocked with an endless variety of edible consumables….and assume this is reality. And so most people, if they give it any thought at all, which is unlikely, they assume the past was just like the present. On such an uneducated ignorant experience base, feminists foist their lies and hatred of men, on an unsuspecting body of fresh faced young women studying “gender studies.”….or “women’s studies”….and so the young American naive woman will often believe such nonsense…..after all: authority figures tell her male oppression of women was the root cause of the bad lives women had in the past. So she has little to compare her uninformed ignorance and miseducation with….and she will believe the feminists.
Humans are sexually dimorphic. That is, men are larger than women. Men are more muscular, much stronger and more able to run fast, than are females. Since men don’t get pregnant, this body arrangement in men worked for women’s benefit: Strong men could protect her. They could bring her resources to keep her alive. They could do the hunting and the work needed to build a civilization for her benefit. Men being free of the constraint of biology that women have, which is to care for new life, men have had much more free time than women, to build civilization. So they did.
Men created civilization invented practically everything, because: they were not pregnant. Women on the other hand, spent most of evolution being pregnant and looking after young children. In the wild, human or chimpanzee females could never survive on their own. That’s why humans and chimps evolved in tribes. Tribes are the only way sexual dimorphism will work. It’s because women are smaller physically and more vulnerable, that being in a group or tribe gives them protection. Tribes protected the women, the clever men in the tribe eventually invented civilization.
Another cause of men inventing civilization is a very uncomfortable fact. That is, the provable fact is, male IQ is slightly higher than female IQ. Added to this, there are a lot more gifted men than there are gifted women. The thing is, it takes very gifted humans to advance civilization. As it happens: Almost of these extremely gifted people, they happen to be male. They are male not because of some vast Patriarchal conspiracy against women. They were male because biologically, males evolved in such a way as to produce more biological extremes in the male organism….than the female. This is a feature of nature, not a conspiracy. For instance there are a lot more intellectually challenged males, than there are intellectually challenged females. There are more male dunces, more male geniuses. Not surprisingly, feminists have little trouble believing there are more male dunces around, than female dunces. However: There are fewer female geniuses, fewer female dunces. That first fact bothers them, to no end. However: Nature seems to balance itself out. And of course, this fact eats at the heart of the feminist fairy tale of supposed equality of men and women. The fact is, human males and females evolved to be mutually complimentary….like yin and yang. We are equal in the sense that the evolved design of females, with its strengths and weaknesses, was every bit as important in our evolution as was evolved male design, with it’s strengths and weaknesses. This is a hard thing for feminists to admit, as their goal is for females to be “equal” to males in every way. Since that goal is biologically ludicrous and unattainable, because of evolved biology and evolution itself, the more that goal is pushed, the more pain is inflicted on society.
So…. men invented civilization in part, and females didn’t, is due to the fact that men evolved with more genetic variation. You see this in other mammal species as well, not just humans. In male birds, there is more variation in overall body size, in beak size and many other biological characteristics, than there is in females of the species. Nature plays new biological games, tries new things out more with males, than females. This means nature succeeds….and fails….more with males, than it does with females. We see that in the simple fact that all modern humans have twice as many female ancestors, as male ancestors, as Jordan Peterson has pointed out. The reason is, there are a lot more male failures than female failures, because nature is trying out new ideas on males. Sometimes it succeeds. But often it fails miserably. Incidentally, that’s why, if you volunteer at a community kitchen for the homeless, you will find that at least 95% of the homeless are male: there are more male losers in evolution, than female losers. So that’s the survival game of evolution.
However, before any male reader is deluded into the false belief that men creating civilization, this fact makes men “superior” to women, consider: Males being intelligent, is biologically useful to females. It aids their survival, because clever men have an advantage over dull men. Couple this with the fact that it is the female in nature more often, who picks out the male and decides who to mate with and you will conclude it was largely female sexual selection of males that drove the evolution of male intelligence, giving males the edge. So yes, girls made you smart, if you are smart. So, in a way, it was women who created intelligent men. We don’t exist as sexes biologically exclusive of each other.
So that’s where superior male brains came from, the ones that created all of civilization: they came from female sexual choice.
The reason women spent most of evolution and history pregnant was that infant mortality was so very high for most of our past, because babies were commonly dying. Every woman had lived through the death of a child, or knew someone who did. I once was visiting a cemetery of people who lived in the 1800s. To my surprise it had many young babies and children in it. Visit a cemetery today and very few dead children are found there. Thank you, science. Even a little over a hundred years ago, modern medicines such as anti-biotic were simply not invented, so babies died as a very common thing in every family.
https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality-in-the-past
| Paleolithic | 33 | Based on Neolithic and Bronze Age data, the total life expectancy at 15 would not exceed 34 years.[11] Based on the data from modern hunter-gatherer populations, it is estimated that at 15, life expectancy was an additional 39 years (total 54), with a 0.60 probability of reaching 15.[12] |
| Neolithic | 20[13] to 33[14] | Based on Early Neolithic data, total life expectancy at 15 would be 28–33 years[11] |
| Bronze Age and Iron Age[15] | 26 | Based on Early and Middle Bronze Age data, total life expectancy at 15 would be 28–36 years[11] |
| Classical Greece | 25[16] to 28[17] | Based on Athens Agora and Corinth data, total life expectancy at 15 would be 37–41 years[11] |
| Classical Rome | 20 to 30 | Data is lacking, but computer models provide the estimate. If a person survived to age 20, they could expect to live around 30 years more. Life expectancy was probably slightly longer for women than men.[18] |
| Medieval Islamic world[19] | 35+[need quotation to verify] | Average lifespan of scholars was 59–84.3 years.[20][21][22][23] |
| Pre-Columbian Southern United States[24] | 25–30 | |
| Late medieval English peerage[25][26] | 30 | At age 21, life expectancy of an aristocrat was an additional 43 years (total age 64).[27] |
| Mughal India[28] | 35 | |
| Early modern England[15] | 33–40 | 34 years for males in the 18th century.[29] |
| 18th-century Prussia[29] | 24.7 | For males.[29] |
| 18th-century France[29] | 27.5–30 | For males.[29] |
| 18th-century Qing China[29] | 39.6 | For males.[29] |
| 18th-century Edo Japan[29] | 41.1 | For males.[29] |
| 19th-century British India[32] | 25.4 | |
| Early 19th-century England[15] | 40 | |
| 1900 world average[33] | 31 | |
| 1950 world average[33] | 48 | |
| 2017 world average[34] | 72.2 |
Add to this the biological fact that human females evolved to have children for a short biological window. Basically human female eggs can give birth to life only when females were between approximately age 14 and 30. After that, female fertility slows down. By age 35, female fertility basically jumps off a cliff and falls to nothing. “The Wall”….Human females did not evolve to have babies, for all their lives. Add to that short life spans, early deaths for women and long gestation and long periods of time for bringing up children, this meant women were using up all their short life energy mostly for raising children, keeping the human race alive. The biological burden fell more heavily on women, for raising children. They had no time to invent civilization.
Humans lived short lives for pretty much all of the past. Early death was much more common than it is today. To keep human populations going, in a world where female fertility was limited, no modern medicine and technology were around, where infant mortality was very high, it was found necessary for most women to spend much of their lives, most of it really, either pregnant or looking after young children….just to keep the population going in the face of many threats. Given these very practical limitations, it is ludicrous of feminists to imagine that in the past, it was in any way practical and feasible for human life in the past to be arranged in the way that an upper middle class white privileged 21st Century American female might like the past to be.
Looking at things from a male perspective: So given these commonly known biological facts, how was a human male to survive in evolution? Men survived by being useful to women. Given the constraints of biology which women faced, for their survival, the men they chose tended to be useful. What do useful men do? They create civilizations and everything in them.
…..There is much of the human past that we look back at, in our comfort and we are appalled that they were not as “civilized” as we are. Not as “woke”….I supposed being without a Smartphone in the Pleistocene Era, does that to you. This is of course an ignorant and ungrateful attitude that fails to understand how hard reality is, and fails to understand the very complex story of how some heroic men….and a lot of heroic ordinary women….got us here. Picking on the deficiencies of our past, while failing to notice the extraordinarily heroic narrative of the past, is for ignorant fools.
So restating my initial question: Why was it almost entirely men who built all of civilization?
The answer:
It’s really quite simple: It’s because women prefer men who are useful to them. It’s how women love men. It’s how women survived evolution. It’s how men survived evolution. Why did women NOT build civilization? Was it some male conspiracy against women, to ‘oppress women’? No. Actually your female ancestors were quite busy keeping the human race alive, within the limitations of nature. And they were doing an heroic job of it.
Give it up feminists. You are deluded about reality.
A better use of your time is to go thank your grandmother for all she did, if you are lucky enough to still have one. Think of all the grandmothers of human history. Look around you. They made what you see, possible. If history is a “conspiracy” it’s a conspiracy of the extraordinary every day women conspiring to keep her babies alive, making all of what you live and see, possible.
3 comments on 'Why Men Created Everything'
they take a lot of selfies, though. might come in handy when an extraterrestrial species is analysing the extinction of human beings on earth.
and while infant mortality etc is low now, females are still choosing to put their "careers" before their physiological role of bearing children, which is a shame, really, because only women can have children, not men.