Wow. See I've tried not to insult you personally, even though you have constantly insulted me personally in your replies.

Well ,I didn't until you accused me of ad-hom. I figured I may as well earn tha accusation. Besides in that I'm insulting your awful arguments.

This stuff is evolution 101.

Oh god. The trouble with any 101 course is that it is necessarily a massive simplification of what's going on. If all you're relying on is evolution 101, you're going to be making all sorts of mistakes.

Look, it's simple. You claimed as a universal truth that males can breed more or less without limit. I've given you a number of counter examples where this is not true. I can give you more if you like. Counterexamples prove 100% that your claim is not, in fact a universal truth.

If it's not a nuiversal truth then the logic of "it's a universal truth so it impies this about humans" is flawed.

variation does not invalidate a trend.

But you weren't talking about a trend. You were referring to it as a universal truth and deducing form that how it must necessarily affect humans. If it's only a trend, the the most you can say about humans is that "in the absence of any other information it's more likely they fit the trend than not".

That is a vastly weaker argument than the one you were making. Let me remind you that you were dismissing all of feminism because of evoloutionary biology (o your 101 level understanding of it).

If the males purpose is not to spread genes, why do males exist? If that is not their purpose, why has this system where only half the population are capable of producing offspring evolved?

You think I'm claiming that the purpose of the male is to not spread genes? My gosh you are going up the wrong alley. The purpose of the male, in as much as purpose exists at all---which it doesn't, is on a very coarse level exactly the same as the female. That is, to spread genes.

The reason you're barking up the wrong tree is that you believe that this is a trivial first order effect where naturally the male needs t ohave as many offspring in a given generation as possible. Which is clearly not the case.

The species that survive continue to successfully propagate over many, many generations. There are many adaptations to this. Quite a few involve the males not behaving as you insist they must. Else, how would it have evolved?

You're confusing "evidence" and "data" with "anecdotes". They are not the same thing.

Ah, so evidence to the contrary of your claims, i.e. species which don't fit your narritive are just anecdotes? To say you are blinkered is a quite astonishing underststement. You are intent on ignoring/dismissing/discounting every bit of evidence that doesn't fit how you believe the world works.

Geese are real things.
Anglerfish are real things.
Praying mantises are real things.
Snails are real things.
Plants are real things.
Albatrosses are real things.
Bees are real.
Wasps are real.
Ants are real.
Termites are real.
Huge varieties of fish are real things.

If you igore all the scientific evidence which doesn't fit your theory, the your theory is nothing more than a flawed notion.

From the context it is very clear that by "always" i mean all societies showed these trends.

lolno. If you hadn't spouted ignorant crap about evolution and sexual reproduction I might have given you the benefit of the doubt. I mean you claimed that "evoloutionary biology" must mean that mens and womens brains are different "because of sexual selction". You actually managed to ignore possily the majority of species which reproduce sexually to come to that conclusion.

You clearly are ignorant about a great many things so it would be illogical narrte in correct meanings for your ramblings.

I love this:

we can in fact observe these differences as patterns that occur across all human societies.

followed by this:

Women always invest more in offspring.

This really takes the cake. You asserted "always". That means you are denying the existence of situations where the mother buggered off leaving the father to bring up the kids. You are denying the existence of plainly observable facts.

Even relative non contraversial points you manage to get wrong:

Males always take more risks.

Nope. Men on average take more risks. If what you said was true, then if you chose a man and woman at random from the population the male would ALWAYS (your choice of word) would take more risks than the female.

You really are a moron.

I wouldn't doubt that there are evolutionary biology studies that support it, and some that oppose it. The layman-level stuff I've seen has always looked like somebody making up a neat story to explain something. Humans are far better at making up neat stories to support what they already think than weeding through them.

Well indeed. I suspect there are some subtle differences of some sort, and that they must have evolved. But those glib reasons based on misunderstood versions of massively simplified takes on biology are not the reasons.

it looks pretty likely that intelligence cannot be created by matter+energy alone

Says who?

The male is optimized for spreading genes, the female for producing offspring.

So Anglerfish don't exist? Geese don't exist? Seahorses don't exist? Snails don't exist? Albatrosses don't exist? Bees don't exist? None of those fit your cute little narritive. If you're going to make wild claims please don't make ones that fly so flagrantly in the face of facts.

Let's say you as a male have a beneficial mutation. If you are a a male you could spread that to an almost infinite number of offspring.

Unless you're one of the cases where you can't.

That doesn't work if the male is as choosy as a female,

Then why on earth do so many sepecies mate for life? Ah yes. Every case which doesn't fit your world view is an "edge case" so you can ignore it and pretent it doesn't exist.

In the vast majority of sexually reproducing mammals,

You're limiting yourself to mammals now? This is new. You earlier claimed that evoloutonary biology as a whole supported your absurd points. I guess you've finally accepted that plants don't have brains. That took you an astonishingly large number of posts to do that!

There is no reason, and no evidence, that humans are any different, in spite of your anecdotes from Essex.

Oh so apart from the cases where it's not the case and apart from the cases where humans don't exihibit the behaviour you want them to and apart from the cases where the closest relatives to humans don't exhibit those cases there's no evidence.

Well, yes, I agree. If you ignore all the evidence then there is no evidence. Convenient!

Out of interest are you also a young earth creationist?

Yeah, I don't know who that is.

Then hand in your nerd card at the door on the way out.

If you don't believe me, then fine, but next time someone is showing you statistics of how men make more than women, think about what I said.

So next time someone shows that I should think about how you believe that "gender is a social construct" is a core belief of feminism?

Sense! This makes none!

Ah-hom how? I think Inigo Montoya would like a word with you.

As for the rest, no, I simply don't believe you that it's a core belief. This is you just making shit up. That's no to say that many aspects of gender aren't purely social (pink for girls is a classic example).

But almost certainly more of gender is a social construct than you realise. AgAin the sad thing is your mindless taking against feminism hurts men because by pretending there are more differences than there really are ends up pushing many men into roles they're not happy with.

Ok, let's cook the delicious red herrings, put them on toast, east them and get back to it.

You claimed that sexual reproduction means that men and women's brains must be different. I pointed out that there are both dimorphic and hematopoietic sexually reproducing organisms with no brains at all. Do you now recant your position that sexual reproduction must involve mental differences?

Second you claimed that male reproductive success is uncapped. I pointed our many examples where that is not in fact the case. Do you now retract that point?

I'd like to point out at this juncture that you're the one that brought all these other organisms into the debate by claiming generalities about evolutionary biology and how those generalities must affect the brain.

Next (forgive improper quoting, I'm on my phone), why should I accept that bonobis are an edge case? There is an astonishing variety in the three domains of life, far, far more than most people expect. Secondly, bonobos also share some very important sexual features work us and not chimps, such as oxytocin receptors.

And finally if you think we are a species where males compete for females exclusively, then I invite you to wander the streets of Essex late on a Friday night.

Honestly, my conclusion is that you're almost as ignorant about human behavior as you are about evolutionary biology. What's interesting is you're using your cod evolution bad science arguments while accusing others if exactly the same.

Gender as a social construct

I think you're confusing post modernism with feminism. Or possibly some loopy old, far out whackjob branch of feminism. To re-use your analogy, that would be like defining Christians by the acts of the Heaven's Gate sect.

I hope the irony of you ( erroneously ) accusing me of an ad hominem argument,

m8, u need to lurn to reed.

Reverse ad-hom was you pre-emptively accusing me of making ad-hom attacks before I actually made any.

yet again

Well, it can't be "yet again" if it's the first time, now, can it?

Anyway, you seem actually not understand what ad-hom is. Me making observations about your likely motivations is not ad-hom. Me calling you a moron is ad-hom.

Male and female plants still have to act differently.

You know that most angiosperms are hemaphoraditic, right?

The fact that hemaphoriditic organisms exist and reproduce sexually indicates strongly that they do not in fact need to behave differently. And tell me, for plants whihc are not hemaphoriditic, how do they behave differently?

Look, females have a cap on their reproductive success, males do not.

Oh jeez. You seem to be presenting this as a "univeral truth" again. Go tell it to a sea-horse. Or a queen bee. Or an angler fish. Or a goose (they mate for life. did you know that?).

we expect sexes to behave differently because of this

By "we expect them to behave differently" you mean "I want to make a bunch of unwarranted assumptions about human sexuality based on cod-evolution and discounting the last 10,000 years of human society".

Males want more sex partners and are less choosy, because sex i cheaper for males. This imbalance is why sexual reproduction works Men compete for females, and females preference for good genes drives the species forward

How on earth does that explain the way that Bonobos (our closest relative) carry on?

I think you will find that feminism is surprisingly friendly to Islam, and how women are treated in these countries is not a major feminist issue, compared to say, violence and sexism in media. Feminism is concerned mainly with western culture.

OK, well, if you define feminism with your own private definition that no onw but you knows, then sure, you get to define it however you like and can tell everyone else they're wrong about it. On the other hand, words mean things and if you use private definitions known only to you then people will start to think you're very silly.

To make such statements shows an entertainingly high level of ignorance.

It's also entertaining that your biological-based explanations show an astounding level of ignorance about biology as well.

I strongly suspect that you hold these views because of blind adherence to ideology, rather than facts or logic.

That is an absurd definition.

It's a glib joke.

That's like saying "Christianity: the notion that there is one god".

That's quite a big part of it. There's whole passages in the bible about slaughering people who believe in other gods. It was quite a big thing back in the day, when Abrahamic religions got started. Possibly, that was THE defining thing about it in the beginning.

I reserve the right to criticize ideology based on the actions of it's followers regardless of what they offer as their own definition.

Well then would you actually get on and criticise? All you've done is whine all over the internet about the evils of feminism without actually saying why you feel they're evil.

You've also whined that it's bad science, and yet failed to provide a definition. I strongly suspect your definition of "feminism" is "things I hate on the internet".

Feminism has been spreading lies about sex and gender for decades.

Such as?

It has also been able to label all critics as misogynists, as clearly illustrated by your reaction.

That's a sort of reverse ad-hom attack. Interesting.

You do also seem to be one of those people who insists men and women are "just different", in some vague sort of hand-wavy evoloutionary-biology way that focusses on a small branch of lobe-finned fish while claiming to be a global truth. What this means is you're almost certainly drawing conclusions about people based on their genitalia rather than on what's in their head. This means you're almost certainly mistaken about many of the women and men that you know.

I have precisely the same problem with feminism as I have with creationism. Ideology posing as science and fact.

Feminism: the radical notion that women are people.

And you're ideologically opposed to that because it's posing as science and fact? U wot m8?

And thanks for the ad hominem. I always know I'm doing something right when people use it.

Or, it might just mean you're like that chap from the "lol i trol u" comic.

First you criticize me for using Steve Pinker as a reference.

Nope, I'm not criticising you for using him as a reference, I'm criticising you for breezily telling me he's written a few books by means of explanation. That's great, but I'm not going to spend 3 weeks reading to know what point you're trying to make.

So i tl;dr it for you, and now all of a sudden you're all "citation needed!"?

OK let me explain for you. The way you argue things is you first make a point. You then back up the point with arguments. The arguments and especially facts may then be supplemented by citations to make them more convinving.

You simply provided a citation (Steve Pinker) with no point and no argument/fact. How would I even use a citation like that?

In this case you came up with a fact (there ARE studies which support...) without providing any corroborating evidence.

We know for a fact that for sexual reproduction to work, males and females have to act differently.

I asked you to provide some facts. You are providing abstract (and very simplistic) reasoning. You are seriously ignorant of biology as well. So if "for sexual reproduction to work" "makes and females HAVE to act differently", then how on earth do you explain plants which are often but not exclusively hemaphoraditic and just kinda sit there and grow towards the light? No brain is required at all for sexual reproduction.

Seriously the evidence for that literally grows on trees.

So go on provide some evidence that evoloutionary biology means that men and women have different brains.

Go ahead. Name a major feminist cause that is not rooted in the notion that men and women are not different, that we are all blank slates.

Er how about that cause where are a bunch of people are trying to stop other people from mutilating young girls so they will be unable to get pleasure from sex when they are older?

Since you're convinced that men and women are different and that this somehow goes against all feminism, I'm going to say this: your brand of nutty antifeminism does as much damage to men as it does to women. Please stop.