Androgyny and civilization

Is there a correlation between androgyny and civilization? I mean, could you tell how fit someone would be living in a civilized world just by looking at their face? 

At the moment, the West is experiencing an obvious decadence and Eastern Asia seems to be in some ways the most civilized place on earth. Also note how the West has experienced rises and falls many times, while Eastern Asia has had a somewhat continuous procession of culture and civilization.

But what kind of genetics is required from individuals in order to maintain a civilization?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

sc.edu wrote:

Previous studies suggest that Asian faces as a group, regardless of biological sex, were judged as more feminine than masculine relative to a prototypical face.
The researchers found that Asians were rated as the least masculine racial group and the most feminine racial group.

So it seems that civilization, docility and collaborative behavior requires a degree of "femininity" in a sense. 

I remember reading an issue of Illustreret Videnskab (a Nordic scientific publication) where it was said that according to a theory, the more humans develop tame and domesticated behavior, the more their faces will become childlike. Sadly I can't find that exact source, but I found something similar:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

sciencealert wrote:

In a series of in vitro lab tests, the researchers focused on a gene that plays a key role in a developmental disorder called Williams-Beuren syndrome. People with Williams-Beuren syndrome have more childlike faces, and tend to be friendly, garrulous and trusting, completely non-aggressive.

I would like to hear some more insights on this matter generally. Also I have wondered about a couple of issues around this. I share my wonders here.

Is "feminization" the correct term here? Could we also describe this as androgenization?
While I do agree that there are many pictures of cute feminine Asian girls on the internet, if you look at the average Asian girls, they do not strike me as "feminine" as they are often glorified. Look for example some school class pictures from China or Japan.

Other phenomena. The "tomboy" -trend seems to be strongest among Asian women. Most videos on YouTube and TikTok that are about these boyish girls include Asian women. Examples:



Also, all the Asian women I know (there are quite a few of them in university cities in Finland) are pretty "rationally oriented" compared to white women. This is evident even in the subject they study at university. Finnish and other Western European white women study a lot of social sciences, whereas all the Asian women I know study technical subjects and it almost seems that Asians don't consider such "sciences" as gender study a honorable or useful thing to waste time on. Asian women are generally way better at math and natural sciences than white women; at least in my experience.
Also, Asians don't take part in casual dating as much as Finnish and other Europeans do, as the last mentioned pretty much party through the whole studying career; having fun is an essential part of university life. So Asians even seem to show consideration of their sex life; they do not take it lightly. So, Asian women... are they so "feminine" after all?

In my opinion it wouldn't necessarily be false to say that Asians in general have a greater degree of androgynous features. In my opinion Asian females and males somewhat resemble each other.

Also, if we take Weininger's formula and consider that sexual attraction is complementary in a sense that "one full female and one full male must be formed" in mating in order for there to be sexual attraction between the two. If Asians would be feminine overall - so let's say the average male's M/F ratio is 60/40 but the average female's M/F ratio is 10/90 - then how could there be sexual attraction between an average Asian male and an average Asian female? Wouldn't this lead to aggressive race mixing? Sure, Asians tend to mix apparently quite often in US, but wouldn't the "perfect match" for an Asian male (which is considered "feminine" by some) be a black woman (which is considered "masculine" by some) and a "perfect match" for an Asian female (which is considered extremely feminine by some) would be a black male (which is considered extremely masculine by some). But these exact types of mixed couples are the rarest of all.

If this "genetic adaptability to civilization" holds true and there's differences between races, then surely there are differences inside the races as well. We all know that there is a such thing as a white nigger. 

One thing I also wonder, is a person who has higher genetic adaptability to civilization, more immune to jungle vibes and animalistic drives? So would a (relatively) civilized white female (meaning, genetically, if that can be measured) be more immune to exotic and masculine nigger than a white female who is not too civilized?
Does a civilized individual know subconsciously, that he/she is in fact adapted to live civilly, and therefore they know they wouldn't do well if the degree of civilization in a society would drastically drop? Are there a tendency in these individuals to maintain the degree of civilization, and is this apparent in mating as well? Though I suppose females are opportunistic and they will mate a nigger if they sense that being a white is not an advantage anymore; so they want to raise the odds of their children and make sure they are not white.

But then again: why Eastern Asian women mate with niggers way less than white women, even if these Eastern Asians live in a Western society? Eastern Asian women clearly either are not opportunistic, or they still see the hope for white and/or oriental future and are willing to invest in either or both of those, rather than a jungle future which is apparently where we are going at?

Feminine attitudes are more conducive to social, or cooperative survival strategies.
The degree determined by the size of the cooperative group.


Masculinization of women is the typical reaction to my feminization of man thesis.
It is based on confusions.
Feminization leaves a void which females then feel compelled to fill, mainly because masculinity has been institutionalized abstracted, allowing any sex/gender to represent it.
The product is usually superficial and exaggerated - hyper.
So, feminization of men has two consequences: emasculation of males, and the hypermasculine displays that try to fill in the void.

cRap lifestyles being a symptom of femininization, as is this androgynous trend that attempts to nullify sex as the underlying foundation of gender, proposing it as a social construct, a performance, based no clothing, jargon, attitude.
The result tends towards caricatures since the real thing is - paternal ideal - is missing so all that's left are cultural, fArt, cRap, movies etc., hyper-representaitons.
A factor in detecting pretence and leis is that the liar will tend to exaggerate the lie, relative to the truth.

In this case the absence of male ideals allows the mind to imagine, fantasize, what they would be like.
The stereotype of a woman boss is an example of exaggerations compensating so as to appear real.....exagerating what is not natural.
So, we get the body builders, the gangstas, the playas, and the liberated females who can afford to pretend to be masculine because they've got systemic backing - institutions and technologies.
Institutions and technologies reduce to nil the costs and risks of pretences.
Technologies eliminate natural limits to female promiscuity, multiplying a female's sexual powers; technologies compensate for biologically inherited deficiencies; institutions reduce the risks and costs for female promiscuity and sexual displays; institutions criminalize masculinity forcing males to adopt feminine sexual practices and alternate methods of signalling their worthiness to females.

Homosexuality ties into this, along with hypermasculinity and the masculinization of females.
The means are mistaken for the ends.

In nature homosexual behaviour is a display of dominance or a response to absent mating options - see penguins or human populations in incarceration.

Garland, Benjamin wrote:

The foundational text of what became known as ‘second-wave feminism’ was The Second Sex, which was written by the French woman Simone de Beauvoir in 1948 and published in English in 1953 (the ‘first wave’ of feminism had dissipated after the passage of the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote in 1920).

******

Beauvoir’s The Second Sex, and therefore all of second-wave feminism, are the Jewish ideologies of Marxism and Freudianism. Beauvoir was an egalitarian absolutist – a ‘blank slatist’ – meaning she denied human nature and gender differences in their entirety. According to her, all feminine personality traits have been imposed on women from the outside, by society, by the ‘patriarchy.’
‘One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman’ she famously asserted.
‘In my opinion,’ she goes on to say, ‘as long as the family and the myth of the family and the myth of maternity and the maternal instinct are not destroyed, women will still be oppressed.’

******

‘The Pill,’ as it came to be known, was a necessary prerequisite for second-wave feminism, as well as for the broader ‘sexual revolution’ which had been brewing under the surface of American life for some time, as it allowed women to engage in casual sex without the fear of pregnancy and/or pursue a career without having unwanted children to care for.
In 1963 Betty Friedan (née Goldstein), a closet Marxist, took the nation by storm when she published The Feminine Mystique, which quickly became a bestseller.

******

The publication of The Feminine Mystique is widely considered to be the official launch point of second-wave feminism, with Friedan becoming its de facto leader and spokeswoman.

******

The New York Radical Women splintered in 1969. Some of them, such as Morgan, went on to form the group WITCH, and others went on to form the Redstockings.
WITCH, which stood for the ‘Women’s International Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell,’ protested a Bridal Fair at Madison Square Garden.
Dressed in all black, they taunted the brides by singing ‘here comes the slaves/off to their graves’ and then released white mice into the stadium.
The other splinter group, the Redstockings, was founded by two Jewesses, Shulamith Firestone (born Shulamith Bath Shmuel Ben Ari Feuerstein) and Ellen Willis. Their Manifesto read, in part:
Women are an oppressed class. Our oppression is total, affecting every facet of our lives. We are exploited as sex objects, breeders, domestic servants, and cheap labor. We are considered inferior beings, whose only purpose is to enhance men’s lives. Our humanity is denied.
Our prescribed behavior is enforced by the threat of physical violence.
‘All men have oppressed women’ they concluded, categorically.
Later in that same year, 1969, the volatile Firestone split from the Redstockings and co-founded the New York Radical Feminists (NYRF) with Anne Koedt, author of the influential feminist screed ‘The Myth of the Vaginal Orgasm.’

******

The fundamentally Marxist nature of radical feminism is on full display in The Dialectic of Sex. Whereas in traditional Marxist theory inequality stems from economic class division – the exploitation of the worker by the
capitalist – Firestone (and others) argued that what inequality truly stems from, is sex class division.
Sex class division, she acknowledged, is born from biological realities: most of women’s energy has always had to go toward rearing children, making them dependent on males for survival.

******

After the feminist revolution “the tyranny of the biological family would be broken” and humankind would become entirely androgynous:

Firestone wrote:

[T]he end goal of feminist revolution must be . . . not just the elimination of male privilege but of the sex distinction itself: genital differences between human beings would no longer matter culturally.

******

Along with legalized abortion-on-demand and other insolent feminist demands, to them “gender equality” – in the spirit of Beavior – meant that women must be allowed to sleep with as many people as they please without facing any consequences. As such, they were 100% in favor of the sexual revolution from day one. Behaving like a degenerate slut was quite literally, in their minds, an act of “liberation.”

******

The book is filled with perverted, flowery language such as repeatedly letting you know she'd like to be “fucked through every hole” and suggesting to women that in their teens they “longed to be annihilated by love, to be swept off your feet, to be filled up by a giant prick spouting sperm, soapsuds, silks and satins . . .”
A rabid Freudian, she even muses over incest, writing:

Erica Jong, wrote:

But your shrink insists that it's Daddy you really want. So why is having him so unthinkable? Maybe you should blow Daddy and be done with it? Maybe that's the only way to overcome the fear?

******

In her writings, Dworkin psychoanalyzed sexual acts in the most disgusting and fecal-centric ways imaginable, of which the following is just a small sample:

Dworkin wrote:

In other words . . . the vagina, is dirty like the rectum. The penis evokes the turd in the rectum because the man has the experience of touching a membrane just like the rectal wall. The relationship of the
penis to the actual turd is evocative and symbolic, distant . . . For humans, the descent into the excremental is a descent into sadism and death. For women, being excremental is the dimension of inferiority that legitimates and makes appropriate sadistic sexual acts that pass as simple sex, a cruelty in sex, the brutal domination through sexual subjugation of a worthless, essentially scatological thing.

Dworkin, who called for the end of the “incest taboo” through “destruction of the nuclear family” (as did Shulamith Firestone before her), was not a fringe figure in the feminist movement, by any means. In fact, she was a broadly recognized leader and theorist.
In conclusion, I will let Dworkin herself spell out the true aims of feminism, so as to avoid any confusion. In her 1974 book Women-Hating – again, a classic and foundational feminist text, not an obscure or fringe one
– she wrote:

Dworkin wrote:

We want to destroy sexism, that is, polar role definitions of male and female, man and woman. We want to destroy patriarchal power at its source, the family; in its most hideous form, the nation-state. We want to destroy the structure of culture as we know it, its art, its churches, its laws: all of the images, institutions, and structural mental sets which define women as hot wet fuck tubes, hot slits.

We can think of the present Maoist revolution in America, i.e., Wokism, as part of the third wave feminism. Obliterating the traditional family and all biological identifiers. Men are now becoming women in an androgynous Tikkun Olam ‘healed world.’ Healed from all divisions, distinctions and ‘natural injustices,’ such as being born female – total uniformity. All distinctions becoming superficial, a.k.a., social constructs.
Frankfurt School Neo-Marxism – Americanism.
‘Patriarchal power’ meaning European males and European traditions, as the first and most decisive step towards emancipation from nature.
The obliteration of other forms of patriarchy will follow, as the easier phase, once the true ‘enemy’ is ‘obliterated.’[/quote]

Garland, Benjamin wrote:

Along with legalized abortion-on-demand and other insolent feminist demands, to them “gender equality” – in the spirit of Beavior – meant that women must be allowed to sleep with as many people as they please without facing any consequences. As such, they were 100% in favor of the sexual revolution from day one. Behaving like a degenerate slut was quite literally, in their minds, an act of “liberation.”

This "act of liberation" is clearly an effort towards some specific goal (harnessing more potential labor force, destroying nuclear family...) because why is "act of liberation" considered in this case freedom to do something? Why is it not freedom from doing something? Rejecting sexuality and suppressing it and rejecting all kinds of sex acts could be considered more of an "act of liberation" in my view.

Illiterate wrote:

This "act of liberation" is clearly an effort towards some specific goal (harnessing more potential labor force, destroying nuclear family...) because why is "act of liberation" considered in this case freedom to do something?

Every meme, i.e., ideology, dogma, world-view has its own self-afirming and self-propagating mechanisms.
Humans are means towards its end - selfish genes lead to selfish memes.

This Americanism is rooted in Abrahamism.
Females were god's mates, and her children were 'his', meaning the system's.
This is the underlying message of the Jesus narrative.
In Americanism this is secularized.
The institution, or the ideals it represents, replace the concept of a totalitarian, authoritarian messianic one-god.
Money, and all forms of human exchange/intercourse, replaces the Abrahamic messiah: mediator, synthesizing the physical and metaphysical, corresponding to body/mind. Mind is the divine that out to liberate itself from the body, the tangible, physical, biological, and all must become saved by becoming pure noumena, pure ideas, i.e., abstractions, with no gender, no race, no sex, no species, no biological identity....nothing to do with the body and the physical and tangible. This is the underlying myth of the Abrahamic narrative.
In essence they all worship nothingness, in the guise of an absolute somethingness....but I wont get into that.
Anything that challenges its monopoly is eliminated.

Traditional families, and natural identifiers, challenge the cohesion and the ideals of a secular genetically heterogenous money-based system using nihilism to erase everything that stands in the way of its total, absolute authority.

Illiterate wrote:

Why is it not freedom from doing something?

As I said....it is salvation, freedom, liberation from the tangible, the physical, the body, viz., the body is mortal, the idea is immortal; it lives as long as there are one, or more minds that believe in it, and can continuously re-call it to mind.
This is why collectives are part of its method - the more minds the more immortal it is.

Illiterate wrote:

Rejecting sexuality and suppressing it and rejecting all kinds of sex acts could be considered more of an "act of liberation" in my view.

Sex is necessary.
Being controlled by the passions is what is in question.

Degenerate sexuality is a symptom of nihilism.
Read the post where I quote the chosen feminist's beliefs.

Transexuality might be the fourth wave of feminism.

I place it within a broader picture and consider it the Feminization of Man as a symptom of nihilistic ideologies/dogmas, and of empire decline.
Degeneracy increases among the masses when the ideals they were raised on prove to be deceptive or imperfect.
Mediocrity is disillusioned by the previous myths it considered absolute and turns to hedonism to find relief.
Ideological uncertainties seek certainty in pain/pleasure, or seek it in rejecting the physical altogether, or by denying all ideologies as being equally flawed and deceptive.

"Cute" vs "Hot" Face.

Would you say that "cute" face is leaning more towards a "civilized" way of living? I think I would say so.

I associate "cute" face more with a woman's motherly features and a woman's tendency to nurture children, for example.

I know a few of cute-faced young women (in their early 20's). Interestingly, all of them either currently have or had a hobby, part-time job, or informal work (such as helping neighbors) related to childcare or pet care. Even though they don't have children of their own, these young women like to take care of children, even if they belong to other people. It's heartwarming that one of the women I'm referring to has on her Instagram profile: "I like to take care of children", despite not having any of her own. The rest of same-aged women typically have pictures that say more like: "I like to suck cock and swallow cum".

On the contrary, I know some young women who actually have children, but they ask for their own mother to take care of that child pretty much every weekend, so that they can go partying on weekends.

If you look at MMA or unofficial street fights where women are taking part in such action, we almost never see any "cute-faced" women there. Most of the women are very masculine, but there are couple of hot-faced women there:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
but almost never "cute-faced" women.

Sometimes, 'cute-faced' women become targets of physical attacks. I have on my other device a video from USA, where two black girls attack I think a Korean girl, who seems to be very sweet and cute-looking, and of course she is hopeless against those savage girls. She doesn't even attempt anything, just tries to protect her hair and face.

Many years ago, there was a video on YouTube (since then it is removed of course, like all the videos where the reality of multiculturalism in Europe is shown) in which a couple of Middle-Eastern people attacked a white Norwegian or Swedish girl, around 15 years old. I think many of you have seen the video. On the video there was "Mitt Lille Land" song playing. The white girl is very sweet-looking, and of course she is also hopeless against the sand niggers. You can immediately see that those sweet girls from good families are not used to protect themselves against any type of physical abuse, and like I said, it is painful to watch such a sweet girl trying.

So, perhaps these 'cute-looking' girls (and boys as well) are more suited to operate in highly civilized environments where aggression is rare. They focus on other things than to survive in the jungle, which is what Europe has become too.

I posted on the initial post:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

sciencealert wrote:

In a series of in vitro lab tests, the researchers focused on a gene that plays a key role in a developmental disorder called Williams-Beuren syndrome. People with Williams-Beuren syndrome have more childlike faces, and tend to be friendly, garrulous and trusting, completely non-aggressive.

That is very interesting. Now obviously it is not like every cute person has Williams-Beuren syndrome, but perhaps there is - again - a flow, instead of a gap?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Research the psychosomatic effects of domestication.
Females evolved more childlike appearances reflecting their reproductive roles, forcing them into long periods of dependence.

Infantile features trigger parental instincts.

Satyr wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Research the psychosomatic effects of domestication.
Females evolved more childlike appearances reflecting their reproductive roles, forcing them into long periods of dependence.

Infantile features trigger parental instincts.

Yes. Though I've read from some science magazine, that this domestication makes male's appearances more childlike too.

Hence this topic title, androgyny (male's and female's resemblance of each other) and civilization (domestication).

Regression to a state of perpetual adolescence.
Selecting for feminine traits....Feminization of Man.

Even masculinized females are not masculine. They are caricatures of masculinity, determined by social ideals.

Excellent...You see how men deal with feminization and with awakening to male expendability.

They seek power......and so Nietzsche is the idol of men-children who feel powerless.
Cynicism is the last resort, when disappointments accumulate to a breaking point.....sarcasm to conceal their inner capitulation.

Most accept it, adopting it as "progress", as the inevitable evolution of mankind.
Homosexuality and Transexuality are symptoms of psychosomatic submission, adopting femininity, because it is idolized, by the present western social system, and by romantics the world over - the sensitive types...a few presenting themselves as protectors of the weak, defenders of the different....to maintain their sense of purpose.
They've lost what is worth protecting - they have nothing to live and die for (un-invested) - so they protect what has yet to prove its worthiness - their own inner child.

Worship of the imminent future is more than a secular replacement of Lost Paradise, it is the idealization of what will never be, and by never being will never disappoint. Worthiness forever postponed as untapped potential.

Some go insane, unable to bear the reality of it...