Wolfe: Misogynist Or Realist?

Adam Thornton · 20 Oct 2006, 05:51 · from 2006-October.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: adam at io.com (Adam Thornton)
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 22:51:07 -0700
Subject: (urth) Wolfe: Misogynist Or Realist?
In-Reply-To: <45385823.30404 at io.com>
References: <BAY103-F30A4182337041EBAE50DFCD70D0 at phx.gbl>
	<83AD2E63-39ED-43E0-8DDF-27991602176A at io.com>
	<45385823.30404 at io.com>
Message-ID: <7D7C247C-37D3-4BA9-B9AF-0999600E1A72 at io.com>

On Oct 19, 2006, at 10:01 PM, Jeff Wilson wrote:
> Adam Thornton wrote:
>> On Oct 19, 2006, at 7:33 PM, b sharp wrote:
>>>  And timidly suggest the answer
>>> is....chivalry?  For what other reason (again won't get into
>>> biology) can we
>>> as a society consider men to be more expendable than women?
>> Chivalry *is* biology.
>> One guy can impregnate thousands of women.  A woman can bear a
>> lifetime maximum of, what, maybe 20 or 30 children?
> I'll bite: Why protect one woman and her children if there are  
> thousands
> more for you to knock up?

Uh, cause there are going to be approximately equal numbers of men  
and women after a couple of generations anyway.  If there are plenty  
of women left then having plenty of men around will take care of  
itself.  If there aren't, then the population will remain small.

In short: males are expendable.

Adam

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net