Asian & American Social Contract: Family Versus Romance

November 15, 2025November 15, 2025 / gynocentrism

The following excerpt is from the book Marriage and love in England: Modes of reproduction 1300-1840, by Alan Macfarlane (1986).

See also: Family in Asia, versus family in the West – by Shu Ye

Several human populations show NO EVIDENCE of the classic ~2:1 reproductive skew

November 13, 2025 / gynocentrism

Several human populations show little to no evidence of the classic ~2:1 female-to-male reproductive skew (i.e., female Ne = 2× male Ne), and in a few cases, the pattern is reversed (male Ne > female Ne). These exceptions are crucial because they prove the skew is not a universal biological law of human mating (e.g., inevitable female hypergamy or male disposability), but a cultural and historical contingency.

Populations Where the ~2:1 Skew Did Not Occur

Population	Genetic Evidence	Key Finding	Implication
Matrilineal / Matrilocal Societies	High Y-chromosome diversity relative to mtDNA	Male Ne = Female Ne (or even male Ne > female Ne)	Skew is absent or reversed when descent and residence are traced through women
Khasi (Northeast India)	Batini et al. (2019), Zeng et al. (2018)	Y-diversity not reduced; male Ne = female Ne	Matrilineal inheritance prevents lineage pruning
Mosuo (China)	Similar pattern in regional studies	Near parity in effective population sizes	Matrilocal residence disperses male genes
Minangkabau (Indonesia)	High male genetic diversity	Minimal Y-bottleneck	Largest matrilineal society (~5M people)
Nair (South India)	Historical matriliny	Genetic studies show balanced Ne	Tradition of polyandry and female-centered kinship
Some African Forager Groups	Lippold et al. (2014), Karmin et al. (2015)	No Holocene Y-bottleneck in Khoisan, Hadza, Pygmy groups	Hunter-gatherer egalitarianism avoids lineage consolidation

Populations with Reversed Skew (More Men Reproduced Than Women)Yes — male Ne > female Ne in some groups:

Population	Ratio (Male:Female Ne)	Source
Some Papua New Guinea Highland Groups	~1.5:1 to 2:1 (male > female)	Genomic studies of language-specific bottlenecks
Certain Amazonian Tribes (e.g., Yanomami subgroups)	Male Ne slightly higher	Due to female infanticide or bride capture reducing female reproduction
Historical Polynesian Isolates	Occasional male bias	Small founder effects + cultural practices

Key Paper:
Lippold et al. (2014) – Human genetic diversity and the nonexistence of biological races; First to document reversed skew in some non-patrilineal populations.

Why the Skew Is Absent in These Groups

Mechanism	In Patrilineal Societies	In Matrilineal/Forager Societies
Lineage Pruning	Elite male clans dominate – most Y-lines die out	No male kin groups – Y-chromosomes stay diverse
Residence Pattern	Patrilocal: sons stay, daughters leave – male gene flow restricted	Matrilocal: men move – Y-chromosomes disperse
Inheritance	Wealth/power to sons – reproductive inequality	Often to daughters or shared – less male monopolization
Violence/Warfare	Organized between patrilines – low-status males killed/excluded	Rare or ritualized – less impact on reproduction

Quote from Batini et al. (2019):

“The strength of the bottleneck correlates with the prevalence of patrilineal kinship systems… Populations with matrilineal or bilateral descent show little or no reduction in Y diversity.”

Takeaway Argument

The 2:1 skew is not human nature — it’s a cultural artifact of patrilineal clan systems that emerged with agriculture ~5,000 years ago.

Where those systems never took hold (matrilineal societies, foragers), there is no skew.
Where female-centered kinship dominates, the genetic record is balanced or male-biased.
Therefore:
You cannot cite “2 women reproduced for every 1 man” as proof of female hypergamy or male disposability — because in many human societies, that never happened.

This destroys the evosimp/red-pill appeal to “genetic inevitability”. The data shows social structure, not female choice or male competition, is the primary driver.

The Human Reproductive Skew Is Not Evidence of Female Hypergamy

November 12, 2025November 12, 2025 / gynocentrism

The human reproductive skew is not evidence of female hypergamy. Nevertheless, it’s the favorite myth of red-pill influencers, feMRAs, and pop-evopsych evangelists who distort a genetic statistic to gaslight you into accepting and catering to gynocentrism.

The Claim You Keep Hearing

“Twice as many women as men reproduced in our evolutionary past. That proves women are hypergamous—choosy gold-diggers who only sleep with the top 20% of men.”

Wrong.

The reproductive skew—the fact that ~80% of ancestral females left descendants while only ~40% of males did—is real.
But it is not evidence of female mate choice.
It is not evidence of hypergamy.
It is not even evidence that women had any say in the matter.

What the Skew Actually Is

Genetic Fact	What It Means
Female effective population size = 2× male	Twice as many women as men contributed genes to the next generation.
~80% females reproduced	Almost every woman who reached adulthood had kids.
~40% males reproduced	Most men died genetic dead-ends.

That’s it.
That’s all the DNA tells us. It says nothing about why.

Two Ways to Get the Same Skew:

Scenario A – Female Choice (the Red-Pill fantasy)

Women freely pick the richest, tallest, most dominant men.
Top 20% of males get 80% of the sex.
Bottom 80% of males get zero.
Result: 2:1 female-to-male reproductive ratio.

Scenario B – Male Monopolization (historical reality)

Warlords, kings, and chiefs use power, violence, wealth, and law to hoard women.
Young girls are sold, captured, or assigned as brides.
Low-status men are banished, killed, or priced out.
Result: 2:1 female-to-male reproductive ratio.

Same genetic footprint. Totally different cause.

Historical Proof That Monopolization, Not Choice, Drove the Skew

Genghis Khan
- 1 man: ~16 million male descendants today.
- Not 16 million women choosing him.
- Conquest, tribute, rape, and forced concubinage.
Ottoman Harems
- One sultan, 1,000+ women.
- Zero female opt-in.
West African Chiefs
- Polygyny via bridewealth.
- Poor men couldn’t afford one wife.
- Women traded like livestock.
Modern Cults
- FLDS leaders exile teenage boys and assign wives.
- No female choice. Massive skew.

These are not edge cases.
They are the rule in 85% of documented societies (Murdock’s Ethnographic Atlas).

Why “Female Choice” Is The Weaker Explanation

Argument	Reality Check
“Women evolved to pick high-status men.”	Sure—if they had the power. Most didn’t.
“Modern surveys show women want rich guys.”	Modern women have options. Ancestral women often had none.
“Dating apps prove the 80/20 rule.”	Apps are opt-in, anonymous, urban, post-feminism. Not Paleolithic.

The Genetic Data Is Agnostic

Effective population size (Ne): Female Ne = 2× male Ne.
Translation: Twice as many unique mothers as fathers.

Possible causes:

- Women selecting alphas (low likelihood)
- Alphas taking women by force
- Arranged marriages
- War killing substantial numbers of men
- A mixture of the above

The relative influence of each of these factors varies across cultures, time periods, and ecological conditions.

David Buss Doesn’t Claim ‘The Skew’ is Evidence of Hypergamy

Buss’s work is about modern mate preferences, not ancestral monopolization.
He never says the skew “proves” hypergamy — that’s a post-hoc fan fiction by gynocentric ideologues.

The Bottom Line

Reproductive skew is evidence of asymmetric mating outcomes, not asymmetric agency. It shows some men monopolized sex—but reveals nothing indicating that women chose them freely. For this reason, we can stop letting evosimps weaponize a Y-chromosome statistic to guilt men into pandering to modern female narcissism under the false banner of “natural” hypergamy.

Gynocentrism and its Cultural Origins

Month: November 2025