If a mysogynist says "women never had the need to evolve interesting personalities or talents because evolution did not...

Evolution didn’t favor it, it was the favor of the society she was living in telling her expression of one’s self is negative. Not everything is stupid.

Thanks... I guess?

The whole "man is the one who puts all the effort into courting" idea is modern.

Genes don't work like that, women aren't a different species. You get half of your chromosomes from your mom, and half from your dad. If your dad had the 'personality genes' to have a super interesting personality and your mom didn't, you'd probably end up with some mix depending on how many of the genotypes are dominant or recessive. However, personality isn't wholly genetic, either.

The reason (slightly) more women have bland personalities than men is because society wrongly tells them they're special and thus they never feel the need to develop as an individual.

Fuck, my pc removed my name again.

Misogyny is hatred of women. If the person saying that didn't hate women, and was instead making an accurate statement, then it's not misogynistic. It might be completely fucking stupid, but that's besides the point.

wrong in the assumption that women "evolved" in such a hugely different way than men. the differences in women and men are degrees of expression of the same basic traits. and genitals. with the exception of knocking a girl up, women can do, and have done, everything a man does.

also wrong is the assumption that women do not have interesting personalities. Like, has this person never talked to a woman? And saying that women are not talented is so hilariously wrong that it ruins any chance of anything else coming out of the person having any value

science does not prove this. it is almost impossible to identify the genetic component of intelligence. without that, it is just statistical regression on a shitload of closely related circumstances.

an "intelligent" parent is likely to have more money. money tracks very closely with academic outcomes. and this is just one example

>interesting personalities or talents
You would have to define what these actually mean

>where's he wrong?
He's wrong because he inherently believes that because he personally perceives that women do not have interesting personalities that they don't have any. He is a man on an island who believes that because he has never seen something that it doesn't exist. He is also making a baseless claim about evolution, using his assumptions on the matter to validate his worldview. Unless he is a trained evolutionary biologist or can provide some kind of scientific backing to this claim then the sentiment is empty and illogical. Human beings are cursed with our inability to perceive things beyond our own experiences. We have an incredibly powerful tendency to land on conclusions we want to believe and work our way backwards through the evidence instead of the other way around. This is all, of course, ignoring the fact that "interesting personality" is nothing even resembling an objective measurement.

There isn't anything wrong. It's completely true.

There's a reason only 40% of human males reproduced in history while 80% of females did. Because nothing has ever been expected or required of women besides having a vagina. And women have adapted accordingly.

Picture a typical date between a man and a woman. Is the woman ever trying to show off her personality to the man? Is she ever trying to make him laugh? No, the man is the only one who does those things. The woman just sits there and judges the mans performance.