Altruism, Adversarialism and Women: 01

In this post I am asking a simple question:

Is it worth playing nice with a woman, ever?

Note that ‘nice’ is used in the context of any significant altruistic behavior, as opposed to being a doormat. Essentially, is it ever worth treating women in a non-adversarial manner?

Let us start by analyzing the usual arguments for playing nice with woman. The most common arguments range involve excessive anger hurting oneself. Anger can hurt you only if you keep it bottled inside you, or turn it against yourself. Chanelling anger away from you in an objective manner has no ill effects, for you. Others may not enjoy it, but guess what- who cares?

Another argument involves the idea that women interpret anger as being a ‘loser’. My answer to that is- who cares? Women always behave in an adversarial manner, when their interests are concerned. It certainly helps that such adversarialism is not linked to objectivity. Even if you were the most objective and altruistic human being, some woman could find a reason to call you a loser. My counterquestion is: does it matter what a woman thinks about you?

There seems to be a general zeitgeist that women have an important role in weeding out bad seed for reproduction. My answer is- who cares? Prior to the post-industrial age raising kids well was a viable retirement plan. However the current social mores and possibilities ensure that kids can and will dump your ass, unless you are lucky. Any major plan that depends on luck is not worth it. Think about it, if kids are an investment what is the return in the current scenario?

The only major reason for putting up with a woman, namely kids, is no longer a reliable retirement option.

The other argument about having kids involves the concept of “leaving a legacy”. My counterpoint is: how is that useful for you? Can your legacy do anything worthwhile for you? In any case, humans will become extinct if we remain a one planet, purely biological species. Every species that ever lived on this planet is doomed for extinction, trilobites were around for over 300 million years, dinosaurs and large marine reptiles dominated the world for over 100 million years. Where are they now? What about Homo erectus (almost a million years), Homo neanderthalensis (at least 500,000 years)? They are all DEAD!

We can find fossilized turds (coprolites) of such animals far more easily than their skeletal remains. You see, their biggest legacy is fossilized turds.

Another reason for being altruistic to women is that they eventually learn the error of their ways. Two words- who cares? Even if they really saw the error of their ways,do you want a 35 year old cum rag who would not have given you a chance when she had something to offer? What are the chances that seeing the error of her ways is linked to her biological clock and rapidly aging body? If she made a decision , she should take the consequences (good and bad).

Linked to this notion is the concept of women taking care of you. While this is partially true in non-western cultures, it is no longer valid in western cultures. You will be disappointed if you think that the current generation of young women will grow into caring old women. Infact,that concept was never really true for western women for over the last hundred years. Cultures with caring old women have something that the west lacks, namely mechanisms to handle adversarialism. The west celebrates adversarialism, but does not want its long term fruits.

If you think about it, “game” is essentially male adversarialism in response to female adversarialism.

Any bets on where this will end? Never mind.. Societies that cannot handle adversaliasm may have bursts of great creativity and progress, but they won’t be around to enjoy its fruits.

Adversaliasm cannot be eliminated, merely controlled and chanelled towards less destructive ends.

It is something humans as a species will have to ultimately grow out of, if we are to survive over any significant period of time. But to tell you the truth, I don’t care. Unless, I have a positive incentive to care, you will reap what you sow.

A word of advice: If you justify your behavior based on that of wolves, hyenas, lions, apes, primitive tribes and long dead empires or eras don’t expect to live any better.

Zero sum based behavior has its consequences. Increasing complexity requires increased altruism, but you will learn that the hard way. BTW if you think we can “go back”, you will be unpleasantly surprised.

I am going to explore another heretical idea in my next post, namely that sociopathic behavior is the default setting for human beings. The next post in this series is now up: Altruism, Adversarialism and Women: 02