Women are too selfish to care about the genetic makeup of their children. They're too busy looking for good times for themselves. Or revenge. Or some other emotional, childish meme.
To whatever degree they care about "good genes," it's so they can later brag about owning a blond doll-child, about how their kid got an award at soccer camp, etc. Just an indirect source of flattery for themselves (or their supposed cold intellect and cunning at picking the correct haploid -- same difference).
Is it really true that you have a high probability of producing better offspring when you pick the best male? No. They tried and tried to produce a superior colt from Secretariat. The best they got were Risen Star and Tinner's Way. Why is this? Because many genes are recessive, and because many traits are the product of several genes. If it takes several recessive genes to reproduce Secretariat's large heart, the chances that any one son will have a large heart are very slim. Much less that he will have all the other recessive traits and himself be a superior racehorse. But even more importantly, it is highly unlikely that the mother carries all the requisite recessive genes needed to pair up with the father's. IOW, do you really think that some dumb club slvt or cheating wife is a genetic gold mine? No. The genes that she does express -- seem to be inferior. Her ability to understand and apply [what to her are] the abstract concepts of loyalty, fidelity, honor, integrity, and responsibility, are no better than her ability to understand and apply the abstract concepts of genetics.
Women don't care about children. They care about being perceived by others as caring mothers. It's status seeking.
One of the greatest mistakes made by DJs is to assign male logical ability to women. They don't have it. They can't employ it. Andropomorphism is a fallacy.
Women don't give a rat's ass about the genetic makeup of their children.
To whatever degree they care about "good genes," it's so they can later brag about owning a blond doll-child, about how their kid got an award at soccer camp, etc. Just an indirect source of flattery for themselves (or their supposed cold intellect and cunning at picking the correct haploid -- same difference).
Is it really true that you have a high probability of producing better offspring when you pick the best male? No. They tried and tried to produce a superior colt from Secretariat. The best they got were Risen Star and Tinner's Way. Why is this? Because many genes are recessive, and because many traits are the product of several genes. If it takes several recessive genes to reproduce Secretariat's large heart, the chances that any one son will have a large heart are very slim. Much less that he will have all the other recessive traits and himself be a superior racehorse. But even more importantly, it is highly unlikely that the mother carries all the requisite recessive genes needed to pair up with the father's. IOW, do you really think that some dumb club slvt or cheating wife is a genetic gold mine? No. The genes that she does express -- seem to be inferior. Her ability to understand and apply [what to her are] the abstract concepts of loyalty, fidelity, honor, integrity, and responsibility, are no better than her ability to understand and apply the abstract concepts of genetics.
Women don't care about children. They care about being perceived by others as caring mothers. It's status seeking.
One of the greatest mistakes made by DJs is to assign male logical ability to women. They don't have it. They can't employ it. Andropomorphism is a fallacy.
Women don't give a rat's ass about the genetic makeup of their children.
Last edited:
