Females Can’t Into Territory

Territoriality is hardwired into males, but not females. I’m talking primates here.

In the video above, we see that is the male chimps which patrol, making a circuit of their territory, defining and defending the resources within the territory, including the females. Only males engage in this behavior, which suggests that the behavior is selected for only in males.

Why would the behavior only be selected for in males? From Chimps, Too, Wage War and Annex Rival Territory:

When the enemy is encountered, the patrol’s reaction depends on its assessment of the opposing force. If they seem to be outnumbered, members of the patrol will break file and bolt back to home territory. But if a single chimp has wandered into their path, they will attack. Enemy males will be held down, then bitten and battered to death. Females are usually let go, but their babies will be eaten.

Notice that the males and infants are killed, while the females are generally released. We see this behavior in other animals, such as lions which fight for territory. Once the lion has killed or defeated and run off his rival, he will often kill his rival’s cubs. When chimps kill the infants, this frees the female from having to provide resources to the infant and if she is nursing her milk will dry up. This then allows her to go into estrus sooner. The rival male chimps genes (the infant) are removed from the competition for resources, and the female can be ready to breed that much sooner.

The males are killed, obviously because they are direct competitors for resources and for the females. Expansion of one group into another group’s territory will necessitate the death of most or all of the adult males.

Either way, the females will be bred by the most aggressive and dominant males. Aggression, dominance and territoriality are selected as the genes of the victors (who display these traits) are propagated. The genes of males who are less aggressive, dominant and unable to hold territory are deleted from the gene pool. In this way, territoriality is hardwired into males.

Females, on the other hand, can best propagate their genes by submitting to the victors, even the ones who killed their infants and their infants’ fathers. In this way, lack of territoriality and loyalty is selected for in females. Those females who adapt and submit have their genes propagated, while those who fight and do not submit are more likely to be killed or die from lack of resources.

Females can’t into territory. 😉

To expand this to humans, we see female defense ministers in Europe and female leaders such as Merkel in Germany. And these women do not appear to be doing a great job defending their territory. Instead, they seem to actually be welcoming the mostly fighting-age male ‘refugees’ into their territory. Why would this be? Because it is in the female nature to submit to the most aggressive, dominant and territorial males. They are hardwired for it.

Why is the Arab invasion of Europe so hard for European males to watch? Because it is the males who will be killed and bred out of existence. Their genes will be deleted from the gene pool, as genes for aggression, dominance and territory are selected. While their women will be bred. But, they will have the consolation of being able to write “At Least He Wasn’t a Racist” on their tombstones, before some Arab knocks it over and pisses on it.

European males around the world, face an existential threat from more aggressive, dominant and territorial males invading their territories. There is a reason that there used to be laws against interracial marriage in European countries, because the dominant males of those territories had institutionalized their control over the women in their territories. Then those dominant males were dethroned by whining females and allowed themselves to be cucked by non-Europeans in the countries that their ancestors had built.

European females are not going to stop the invasion of Europe. Only European males have the evolutionary hard-wiring or the evolutionary incentive to do so. Tolerance is an evolutionary dead-end. Anti-racism is an evolutionary dead-end. In chimps and humans, nature rewards aggression, dominance and territoriality in males, and submission and non-territoriality in females. Sure, we can trade with the rest of the world and cooperate profitably, but only if they stay out of our territory. Any males who come into our territories without our permission are fair game.

Happy hunting, fellas!

22chimpspan-articleLarge

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “Females Can’t Into Territory

  1. Females, on the other hand, can best propagate their genes by submitting to the victors, even the ones who killed their infants and their infants’ fathers. In this way, lack of territoriality and loyalty is selected for in females. Those females who adapt and submit have their genes propagated, while those who fight and do not submit are more likely to be killed or die from lack of resources.

    This is the old, tired hypergamy argument from the manosphere. It is very simplistic and not very predictive of modern humans.

    And you do see that most European leaders promoting multi-cult-uralism are white males, right?

    Sure, we can trade with the rest of the world and cooperate profitably, but only if they stay out of our territory. Any males who come into our territories without our permission are fair game.

    This is a value judgment that is imposed. Who gets to impose the judgment?

    Like

      • That Not an argument for hyprgamy

        The usual definition of hypergamy is: the desire to mate up or across some hierarchy. In your example, it is the actual physical dominance/violence/aggression hierarchy. In the manosphere/PUA crowd it is the (easily imitated) “social dominance” hierarchy.

        Also, calling an argument ‘old is not a Counter-argument.

        “Old, tired” was meant as out-dated and/or obsoleted. In other words, it seems fairly obvious that most humans (men and women) want to mate up and across some hierarchy.

        And to ensure we aren’t wasting each other’s time, are you interested in this sort of back & forth discussion; or are you just creating some “dank meme” in this post?

        Like

      • asserting without counter-evidence

        Counter-evidence of what? You can call it the equivalent of an ad-hominem on a concept, which is exactly what it is.

        tactical nihilism

        Tactical? Almost certainly. Nihilism? To clarify then; if you are subscribing to PA’s view of “humans-as-chimps,” isn’t whatever you are contrasting “nihilism” with just a clever trick your “chimp” brain is pulling on yourself, aka “self-deception?” Have you read PA’s post on “Language as Expression of Self-Interest?”

        Like

    • Here’s the latest, unrefuted and irrefutable news from Reality:

      “Like every other creature on the face of the earth, Godfrey was, by birthright, a stupendous badass, albeit in the somewhat narrow technical sense that he could trace his ancestry back up a long line of slightly less highly evolved stupendous badasses to that first self-replicating gizmo—which, given the number and variety of its descendants, might justifiably be described as the most stupendous badass of all time. Everyone and everything that wasn’t a stupendous badass was dead.”

      Yeah, that’s from a novel, and truer than anything they teach at Harvard, these days.

      Like

  2. You do know that if this is how the game is played, it isn’t enough to eliminate the Muslim men, but also NECESSARY to impregnate the Muslim women.

    Racism understood as autosomal purity is selected against as well.
    https://mercuryunbound.wordpress.com/2016/02/24/the-most-dangerous-idea-in-the-world-paternal-lineage/

    What works is a double standard/intersectionality. For women as well. From the white feminist POV, Islam is that wonderful religion of which you can use the men without strings attached, while it keeps its women away from OUR men!

    Like

  3. God love ’em! Lefties love to champion Bonobo monkeys as the dream society for humans because they fornicate with any orifice they can find, male or female, in order to make peace and get along. Bonobos, the Cuddle Puddle Primates!

    But when you point to chimpanzee culture as a hierarchical primate society like human society, they freak out.

    Put a bunch of chimpanzees together with a bunch of Bonobos and tell me which group survives.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s