Search This Blog

Monday, November 5, 2012

More Bullshit from Dienekes' Anthropology Blog

The following is my comment, which he/they were too candy-assed to publish:

"Peter Frost has offered the theory that "gentlemen prefer blondes" because during the Ice Age boreal hunters lived a harsh lifestyle that killed many of them, but the remainder could not adopt a polygynous lifestyle, because provisioning for a wife was expensive. As a result, women had to compete for the remaining men, and men could be picky, preferring those with a "rare color advantage."

Lol, what a fantasy.

"provisioning for a wife was expensive" -- as if women didn't work hard then as always.  Women did most of the ~dirty work, in fact (as always).

"...women had to compete for the remaining men, and men could be picky..."

LMAO.  Those men were indeed polygynous, but they did like unusual coloring and looks.  They also preferred submissive, dumb women -- then, as now.

UPDATE:  They finally got around to publishing my comment, after all.  I have every right to expect that they wouldn't, though, based on past experiences.  And the theory he promotes here is still BS.  Too bad men have always had their values skewed... just look at the results.


Waiting to see if this gets published (11/20/2012 10:00 AM):

"It also further supports my claim of Native American lineage through my mtDNA, the subclade of which is at least very, very closely related to X2a (the one "European" group documented to have be found among NA's). If Amerindian mtDNA of Mongoloid origin may be found in both ancient and modern Europe, then it follows that DNA of Caucasoid origin may also be found in ancient and modern North America, among certain lineages of some Native peoples (like, the Cherokee)."

(UPDATE: He posted my comment, yeah!)


  1. Oh my word! Have you even read Frost? It boils down to the sex ratio being skewed by climate, (another study shows sex ratio is seasonal too).
    BS? Biology is just BS? You can't be serious.

    1. In ~reality it is only Frost's "theory"; not as you say, "Biology". Frost's "theory" is only ~conjecture, since Frost was not an eyewitness to ancient history and he has no evidence to prove his "theory" -- don't have a cow over it. Random theories don't qualify as 'science'; never have, never will. And yes, I'm just as serious as Frost was, when he made those statements.

      Whether or not sex ratios become skewed by climate, and how or why that happens, is not the point anyway. The article is about sexual selection by men, based on their preference of female ~pigmentation, resulting in the phenomes now seen in parts of modern Europe.

      The point I made was that Frost assumes too much:

      1) that "gentlemen prefer blondes" purely because of ~physical traits like coloring alone, while not considering women's ~personality quirks (ie submissiveness, low intelligence, or even loose morals);

      2) and, that those ancient men were not polygynous because "provisioning for a wife was 'expensive'" during the Ice Age, while not considering the well-known fact that women have historically worked just as hard if not more so than men, to support themselves and their families.

    2.'re the one "assuming too much"

      1) Frost doesn't discuss "personality quirks", but you seemingly WANT to.
      2) A hard-working sub-arctic hunter MAY have been polygynous but very few of his offspring would have survived, BECAUSE he likely couldn't bring home enough bacon. And THAT is the point. Here in Africa where food grows freely (and the Miners are ALL male) the birthrate reaches 7 per mother, in Russia it's 2. Very little has changed.

      We separated from chimps several million years back, but your idiosyncratic views on evolution are so bizarre.. "I believe geneticists need to take a cold, hard look at the genes of Gorillas, Chimpanzees, Rhesus monkeys, and other similar lower primates, which might have hybridized with Humans in the past"
      ..that I realize you simply do not understand what makes a species distinct.
      Epic fail.
      Bye :-)

    3. An inane scolding by an argumentative and high-strung, anonymous troll pretending to know it all, somehow doesn't hurt that much. :)