Gender relations - another way of looking at them

Another analogy to prove my point:

Judeo-Christianity has long professed the "Sins of the Father" as the means by which evil deeds are 'passed', memetically or genetically, from father to son. The moral question is: "does the son inherit the evils and mistakes of his father"?





What about the mother??????????????????????????????????????????????

That nobody asks, or even thinks of it, indicates to me that something is seriously wrong. And it is, a double standard. Males are held to one standard of conduct (morality) while women, an entirely different standard (amorality).

Another quick question that I would pose to Moderns:

*IF* , and I mean BIG *IF* , women were somewhat responsible (20-80%) for the atrocities, evils, and bad deeds of the world and humanity, then wouldn't it make sense to at least investigate and pose the question? To Moderns, and their emotional reactions, I can predict however, that you would never even get a platform or chance to ask. You would be shut down as a "woman hater", "misogynist", "can't get laid" before ever getting close to ask such questions.

Feminine specialized reproductive type is a compromise.
She sacrificed her self-sufficiency in order to become more efficient in gestating, birthing and weening young.
Her lower muscle mass, wider hips, spammer frame are all the product of specialization.
This makes her more vulnerable and also more psychologically durable, and with a higher pain threshold.

The female places herself in a risky situation to carry out her reproductive role.
She must first tolerate a bigger, stronger, faster male to approach and to penetrate her.
This fact along explains her psychology and her sexual selectivity.
We;ll have to factor in the fact that rape is not against natural law, and is something she must endure and evade.
In social situations hiding her menstrual cycles means she has control over who fertilizes her ovum, freeing her to exploit males using sexual intercourse....at leas tin humans.
Other species have a more conspicuous cycle and is seasonal, unlike the year-long sexual practices of some primates, including homo sapiens.

Second, she must endure a long period of gestation, and even longer, in some cases, period of weening....which against taxes her energies and forces her into comprises, one of which is social dependence.
This explains why females are mostly socially liberal, or for whatever is the status quo, politically conservative...but mostly they are selectively superficial with their loyalties, easily switching sides and adapting to the new rulers ideologies.

Feminization of Mankind.

Feminine traits are becoming idealized in modernism, or promoted by Nihilistic idealism as desirable...as the standard of humanism.

Satyr wrote:

This makes her more vulnerable and also more psychologically durable, and with a higher pain threshold

Psychologically durable? Only in the same way nihilists are, in that they construct webs of lies to protect themselves from reality. One can consider this a type of durability, but another way to look at it is that it is hiding weakness. The pain one is wrong too, as women are known to be very physically sensitive, both in the sense of experiencing more pleasure, and more pain.

We all know where women's strengths truly lie, no need to make stuff up.

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

I saw a study showing that women are more able to cope with extreme heat and cold.
Their size and extra layer of fat.
Call it the psychological 'durability' of what is shallow.
Their sexual role makes them more dependent on others. This requires flexibility.
To not invest too much, commit too much, becoming weighted, rigid.
The pain threshold is so....they can endure higher levels of discomfort....helping them give birth.

Crying is a fast way of relieving internal stress.

They've become prissy - feminized, as well.
They cry as a way of manipulating.
They've evolved to manipulate others psychologically.
Pretending to be more vulnerable and helpless than you are, is a way of ensuring support at the slightest sign of discomfort.

Crying is, for the female, like the orgasm, in some ways.
The orgasm is her body approving of the male her mind may disapprove of, and the reverse - absence of orgasm may be her body, uanble tio lie, disaproving of a man her mind approves of.
Gene <> Meme dynamics.
It also releases stress energies in the form of convulsions.
She can have multiple orgasm, when man cannot.  

Crying is the female showing mental disapproval of what she cannot deal with physically.
It releases stress with convulsions.....and like orgasms producing lubricating secretions to facilitate intercourse, in one case, and to facilitate coping, in the other....both being ways of coping with a threatening experience.
Crying blurs vision, making what disturbs become less discernible.
It's the body wanting to wash away the phenomenon, while releasing stress at the same time.

Women can create supportive relationship, helping them endure. They are more social.
This is a form of durability.
Do not confuse crying for weakness....it s can be a psychological manipulation tool.....like her child-like appearance.
Showing vulnerability is a method.
It says do not try to hurt me further.
In males this usually takes the form of anger - rage.
Feamle roundness is supposed to exploit natural parental instincts in both males and females.
As a judge up here once said, and then got disbarred, 'the depths of depravity and heartless violence a woman can reach, no man can match'.....
A woman does not try to hit you, damaging you physically, she psychologically destroys you, and feels no remorse, no guilt. In her eyes, she being nature's agency, you deserve what she gives you.
Women compete by tearing each other's social reputations to shreds, condemning their victim to death, or social exorcising.

Women are more empathetic....males tend to be sympathetic, particularly with members of their own group.

Males are, on average more deep, and so more psychological vulnerable to reality the female cannot see, and cannot fully appreciate.  
He commits, takes a stand, making him rigid and breakable, when compared to the females flexible shallow commitments.

You cannot accuse women of being less intelligent, less physically strong, and then not allow for any advantage at all.  
Evolution decreased the potential for some traits, so as to increase others.
The female's reproductive specialization, is accommodating the males sexual specialization....each role with its own set of advantages and disadvantages.

On average (European) women are about as intelligent as men, at least measured with an IQ test.
But they have a much narrower distribution, so the very intelligent woman is rarer than the very intelligent man. On the flip-side male morons (low IQ) are also more common than moron females.

Yes....and the desire to think of the different as lacking all merit is a way of coping with one's own anxiety concerning its difference.
Two ways to cope with the alien other....make it intimate, same.....and theorize yourself as being a part of it....or make it strange, completely different, and theorize your way away from it.

Women evolved to sacrifice certain potentials and to gain an advantage in others...so twins, one boy and one girl will display this divergence of potentials, or divergence in proportions.
Usually explosive power is balanced out by a reduction in stamina....see lion.
A woman's strength is her stamina.
She is made to endure.

Satyr wrote:

The pain threshold is so....they can endure higher levels of discomfort....helping them give birth.

Yeah, during childbirth, when the body overloads a woman with painkilling chemicals.

Satyr wrote:

Women are more empathetic....males tend to be sympathetic, particularly with members of their own group.

Empathy would imply understanding. Can't say I've seen much of that from either men or women. Mostly it's just mindless projection without accounting for the differences between oneself and the person one is projecting themselves into.

Satyr wrote:

You cannot accuse women of being less intelligent, less physically strong, and then not allow for any advantage at all.

Now that's just dishonest, I specifically listed some advantages women have in my post. I just refuse to pretend their advantages are more than what they are.

Men are adapted for dealing with the objective world - production/extracting energy from nature (provision) and conflict/war (protection).

Women are adapted for extracting energy from men (using their sexuality) and redirecting it into a child - reproduction.

Hypothetically speaking, if humans could start reproducing with the artificial womb, there wouldn't be any reason to make female humans anymore because in everything else that is relevant (besides reproduction) they are inferior.

By that I mean, all other factors equal, if there were 2 such groups and one produced 100 men and the other produced 50 men and 50 women, the first group would have the advantage in conflict.

AutSider wrote:

Yeah, during childbirth, when the body overloads a woman with painkilling chemicals.

And males enjoy a higher testosterone level....what the body does, is part of what the body is.
The potential for producing these chemicals is part of what it means to be a female and a male.

AutSider wrote:

Empathy would imply understanding. Can't say I've seen much of that from either men or women. Mostly it's just mindless projection without accounting for the differences between oneself and the person one is projecting themselves into.

Relationships, interactions are mostly innate....subconscious...and so mindless......if you mean by that rational, or reasoned.
Each feels it, on a visceral level. They may know not what it is, but they understand it on an instinctive, physical level.
Lucidity is a more masculine trait...the bringing up to consciousness, to understand. women do not 'think' that way.
Their 'wisdom' is deeper....physical. They've judged before their mind has understood what and why.

AutSider wrote:

Now that's just dishonest, I specifically listed some advantages women have in my post. I just refuse to pretend their advantages are more than what they are.

your refusal can only be a part of your experiences. I've known women who raised 3-4 children and plowed the fields....strong women,....not what you've experienced as modern.
My mother, and grandmother were strong durable women. But I've met others.
These females are modern....feminized, if you can believe it.

AutSider wrote:

Men are adapted for dealing with the objective world - production/extracting energy from nature (provision) and conflict/war (protection).

soa re aomen...only they use different tactics, because of their reproductive role.
They are less obvious, direct, and yes honest.
Women are endurance, psychological stamina...men are power....explosive energy.
Like their orgasms...men have explosive orgasms and then need rest....women have multiple, longer lasting orgasms and can last longer.
Women preserve and persevere.

AutSider wrote:

Women are adapted for extracting energy from men (using their sexuality) and redirecting it into a child - reproduction.

Yes...and they are also foragers.
Shoppers, selective....taking their time....

AutSider wrote:

Hypothetically speaking, if humans could start reproducing with the artificial womb, there wouldn't be any reason to make female humans anymore because in everything else that is relevant (besides reproduction) they are inferior.

Then you haven't fully understood nor appreciated how much of the feminine participates in the making of a noble man.
You've associated everything noble and good with the masculine, not understanding how much femininity is present for control, balance, charm etc.
The fully masculine, with little or no femininity is autistic.....bland, brutish, inartistic, lacking charm, humourless.  
Even making another laugh is a submission to the other's needs.

AutSider wrote:

By that I mean, all other factors equal, if there were 2 such groups and one produced 100 men and the other produced 50 men and 50 women, the first group would have the advantage in conflict.

Such absolutist thinking....100% masculine and 100% feminine with no gradations.
Is physical violence the only form of conflict you recognize?

I guarantee you you are the 'victim' of subtle violence...on a daily basis.
The fact that you are still alive means you've given-in, submitted to it.
You sound like those men-children who want to appear macho and declare that they are fearless...when courage is not the absence of fear.....but its control - acting despite it.
Don't know the specifics that make you despise the feminine....in you....but it is becoming obvious.
So much anger.
What I know is that such passionate hatred, anger, is a symptom of anxiety before the alien, the unknown....the unpredictable and what one feels vulnerable to.

Don't hate a wolf for being what it is.....a snake, a worm.....for what it is.
If you truly understand it, there is nothing to fear.  
The feminine has its own motives, based on its own role.
How can it not lie and deceive?
And you....do you believe their words?
Have you no eyes to see the messages they send using their actions, their bodies?

Consider how much endurance it would take to risk submission, to 'stretch' physically and emotionally to accommodate another...to give birth to another....
Consider the psychology this would demand as a matter of survival.

Do I, personally, like it?
No.
I dislike hypocrisy and coyness and indirection.
I am Apollonian....I prefer order, clarity, honesty.
But I can empathize with the Dionysian....the feminine...as an agency of nature.
If I have failed to impress and/or seduce it, then it is my own fault.

It is, also, more possible that you have a pronounce feminine side and this makes you prefer a more masculine female - straightforward, honest, direct, aggressive...masculine minds in feminine bodies.
I know I am....which is a hazard in this feminized world.

Satyr wrote:

And males enjoy a higher testosterone level....what the body does, is part of what the body is.
The potential for producing these chemicals is part of what it means to be a female and a male.

Indeed.

This is why the idea that being proud only of accomplishments and not of things like heritage, is absurd. Our heritage determines which accomplishments are in our reach.

An 80 IQ retard could never accomplish what Tesla did.

A petite Asian woman could never run as fast as Bolt. etc.

My point was more along the lines of that it is something that lasts only for the duration of childbirth.

Satyr wrote:

soa re aomen...only they use different tactics, because of their reproductive role.
They are less obvious, direct, and yes honest.

Women are endurance...men are power....explosive energy.

No, they're not - at least not nearly to the same extent.

Technically, men are also needed for reproduction, but again, I give the realm of reproduction to the female because of how disposable men are, in that one man can fertilize thousands of women.

In the same way, women can be productive and engage in conflict, but not nearly as effectively as men, despite of what feminists would have you think.

The endurance and power analogy in this context is really bad, since in the ultimate endurance competition - the marathon - men outcompete women.

Satyr wrote:

Then you haven't fully understood nor appreciated how much of the feminine participated in the noble man.
You've associated everything noble and good with the masculine, not understanding how much femininity is present for control, balance, charm etc.

The fully masculine, with little or no femininity is autistic.....bland, brutish, inartistic, humourless.
Even making another laugh is a submission to the other's needs.

There's no reason men should strive to be feminine. That's the inversion of gender roles. Haven't perceived too much artistic creativity and humour in females. That sounds false.

"brutish" is what little girls will call whatever is outside of their comfort zone.

Balance isn't always ideal. I'd rather have a cake that is 100% not-shit, than a cake that is 50% shit, 50% non-shit, just for the sake of balance.

Satyr wrote:

Such absolutist thinking....100% masculine and 100% feminine with no gradations.
If violence the only form of conflict you recognize?

I admit gradations, but I don't idealize them. 100% masculine for a man and 100% feminine for a woman is the ideal. Balance here isn't good. I thought we've already ascertained that in the psychology thread. I'm honestly surprised you disagree about this - this seems like something that is very obvious to me.

That I accept that I have feminine in me doesn't mean I want to glorify it, or increase it. In a male, femininity is undesirable because it has to come at an expense of masculinity, and masculinity is the measure of a man's fitness. A man should aim to increase his masculinity and decrease his femininity.

Satyr wrote:

I guarantee you you are the 'victim' of subtle violence...on a daily basis.
The fact that you are still alive means you've given in, submitted to it.

Yeah, so has everybody here, including you. Submitting to the state enforcers is par of the course in the modern world. But I don't and won't pretend I've grown to like it.

I don't claim to be fearless, I fear other males... some of them.

The feminist idea that men are afraid of women is funny tho.

Easy to claim the other is afraid of you, when you are protected by those that the other really is afraid of.

A lion cub must think that when a hyena doesn't rip it to shreds, it is because it is afraid of it, and not its mommy and daddy lion.

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

It's cute.

Accusations of hatred and psychologizing aside, am I wrong in my description of reality, though?

How would producing females if one already has an artificial womb be a viable competitive strategy? What is it that females bring to the table in general that men don't, except reproduction? They don't produce as much, and they aren't as effective in conflict. This in itself is enough to disregard them.

The psychological effects they have on men would cancel each other out at best. To some men they may act as inspiration. On the other hand, they may tear apart the masculine bonds in a society, thus causing internal conflict which weakens the men before an external foe.

So overall I'd say that I'm definitely right in my assessment.

We forget how women were in the past.
Strong, durable, able to run a household on their own....while the man was away.
The holder of the keep. The living perpetuation of traditions.
Hestia was their goddess...the one who keeps the house fires burning - the spirit of the bloodline going.

In a feminized world women are also feminized, along with men.

All we have now are spoiled cunts, whores looking to earn a living spreading their legs, worthless infantile scumbags...and young men think this is how females are.

no, this is not how females are.
These rare not mothers....there's no maternal instinct left in them.
These are not the women who could claim that Spartan men are born of Spartan mothers. These are adolescent girls that do not want tog row up...that think being cute and acting helpless will get them their way.  
These are pretentious  sluts declaring themselves the equal to men, because Bid Daddy the state tells them it's okay to say so, and that nobody will call them out on it.
These are the types that think they are so intimidating that men are afraid of them....when it is only men-children they intimidate, in a world where institutions are behind them, making them feel invulnerable, deserving, powerful.
No these are not real women. thee are girls.

I've overemphasized the emasculation of men, and only focused on men-children....but there are prissy little princesses, with well manicured nails, and perfect hair, wearing immaculate dresses who are nothing more than girlish twats, living nude a protective bubble.

I think it was Napoleon who said, women are the most useful when they're making more men, or something like that. Makes sense, as he was a conqueror and war demands men being productive and engaging in conflict.

I think Hitler even gave out rewards in forms of medals to women for birthing children.

Even you will constantly emphasize how a woman is a means for a man's ends.

Admitting there is feminine in you, means you can admit there is masculine in the female.
This means that the females you presently associate with femininity, are feminized....and hyper-masculine, trying to fill in the void left when men are made illegal.
Psychologically, genetically, they need a man....but memetically, because they are feminine, they've adopted the idea(l) that is presently in fashion, and are convinced they want a more effete, Modern Dandy.

We'll have to factor in, on a case by case basis, how the Weininger formula applies.
Some females genetically need more masculine males, and others need more feminine ones...but the overall systemic idea(l) is that of the Modern idea(l) of masculinity - an emasculated man-child, with a big mouth and a small brain - a male version of a bitch.
A man who knows much and understand little.
A pretender...an actor, with regurgitated poetic language hiding an empty skull.

Look at ILP.

I think saying that women are "feminized" is not the best use of words. "Infantalized" might be better; they never grow up, never become adult, never grow into a woman and take on a woman's responsibilities. It's a perpetual adolescence.

Well, maybe this is true, but feminine refers to the attributes required to facilitate the female sexual role, and masculine the male sexual role....so saying woman are feminized means that those traits are promoted as ideal, and the others forced to be suppressed or made illegal, or demonized.

I guess it's like saying positive Nihilism....strikes some as absurd because they do not really understand what Nihilism is and so they cannot understand how someone can be positive and annulling, or native towards reality, nature, world.
The idea that a biological female can have both masculine and feminine traits, and would be defined as being dominated by the feminine, makes sense in relation to mutations that can make a biological female less feminine, a lesbian, in fact, and a man so feminine as to be attracted to other males...a mutation that contradicts his genetic, biological reproductive role.
Fitness can be judged in relation to how well you can fulfill your biological role, which is reproductive.

I've met women hat are more masculine, physically and mentally to many biological men.

Masculinity/Femininity refer to the physical and psychological, mental traits associated with the reproductive role of male/female.

We may differentiate the male from the female in realization to disgust - gag reflex to alien to our organic order toxins, or a reflex to the other.

Female would be more shallow but with a lower disgust reflex, because she has to permit an alien body into her body, and then gestate alien DNA....whereas a male's gag reflex would be deeper, broader, and more stringent, with clearly defined categories and preferences.
A biological female with a masculine disposition would be less likely to successful carry out her reproductive role.

A value-judgment is the subjective appreciation of a phenomenon and/or a noumenon, in relation to an idea(l), used as a standard.
The idea(l) may be a noumenon, an abstraction, or it may be based on phenomena used as precedent.

In the first case it is entirely theoretical, in the second it can be based on performance and the consequences this produced.

For example, sexual selection is based on the value judgment of females, concerning the quality of the males competing for her sexual acquiescence.
The outcome, the offspring, and its subsequent performance exposes the quality of the value judgment made.

In most cases the female's judgment is not necessary as male competition determines which one is more qualified to pass on his genes.
In this case the quality of the male's judgment, in relation to the actions of the challenging other male, determined winner from loser.
Physical conflict is the easiest and the most objective form of validating quality.
When it becomes noetic, the matter become less obvious, and more long-term.
When it comes to female judgment calls, nature imposes a secondary form of compensating for any wrong judgments by making the female promiscuous.
Her choice alters, sampling from multiple males to compensate for her mistakes in judgment but more importantly to compensate for changing environmental conditions.
Changing environmental conditions, reality's fluctuations, is what underlies the evolution of female and male promiscuity.

Males 'sell' their quality to females, or they compete with other males to determine them.
Females 'buy' what males are selling, or they sample from multiple males, in order to preempt any unforeseeable environmental shifts, making her judgment less important and therefore less stringent.

Cost/Benefit, in relation to an idea(l), and/or in relation to an expected outcome, is what determines the quality of the judgment - its evaluating precision, or its objectivity.
An unreal, or exaggerated projection of the expected, either overestimating or underestimating it, is an indication of the mind's quality of judgment, and its objectivity.
The mind's value-judgments are compared, juxtaposed, with the outcome produced by the world, if no mitigating force intervenes to corrupt, or determine, the outcome, such as that of a institutionalized environment.
Institutionalization is sheltering, and sheltering leads to a degradation of mental qualities because judgments are no longer exposed to the fullness of the consequences - the entire cost/benefit outcome.
This is a form of protectiveness that in domesticated species leads to physical and mental disease. where no culling is permitted the herds' genetic quality decreases.  
Man is now sheltering himself - domesticating himself first an foremost.
This gradually decreases the mental and physical qualities of the populations resulting in a natural connection.
Wars, epidemics, were such corrections.
The present identity crisis, concerning sexual identity, and the surge of homosexuality as a life-choice, is a psychological correction to rampant human reproduction.
Similar to females harmonizing their menstrual cycles when they spend enough time together, or how the birth of male children increases after a war that kills off many males.  

Presently man is trying to intervene upon this cycle of construction/destruction through the mitigation of technologies.

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

We need to completely desegregate sexes in sports. In all sports, women should compete with men.

Because why not? I am not even being sarcastic here. 100% serious.

We'll never see a female in the top ten, in any sport, until the meme begins having genetic effects.
Convergence of mind manifesting in physical convergence - hermaphrodites will be the future norm.

The "logic" of nihilism itself, if it remains self-consistent and does not lie, does not contradict its own principles, already hints at all of these normalizations.
It will follow through when the population is "mature" enough to accept it. They'll call it 'enlightened', 'progress'...they are good with linguistic propaganda because for them words are a means to manipulate human psychology.
After the masses have been primed, brainwashed, over generations, perhaps. They will give consent, through the normal democratic procedures to a shared delusion.
For them it's not a matter of integrity, but of time.
They are about social eugenics.

The process is subtle but consistent.
Look at how they introduced 'safe spaces', and the idea of being 'triggered' by words.

'Safe spaces' implies a fleeing from the threat of reality, seeking a quarantine, a manmade cubicle...society, in other words. The herd.
A noetic womb.
Triggering, implies a negative word producing a negative feeling, and assumes a positive in the binary system.
So, it implies that 'positive' words are to be used to 'trigger' positive feelings.
All negative words are to be censored.
This is Orwellian 1984 made real.
Inversion...not art imitating world, but world imitating fArt.
The ancient Greeks had predicted this.

I think MGTOW and aspects of that community offer modern solutions and play into the dissolution of monogamy/civilisation. That being said there are some funny moments. Like when some women he interviews tell him that you should judge them by what they say and not by their actions. Makes for a good study in reading faces.

Specialization is how nature selects traits that promote efficiency so as to increase effectiveness, i.e., probability for success.
This specialization is then integrated into manmade socioeconomic systems as gender roles.

When contradicted, as in the case of nihilistic ideologies/dogmas, the loss of efficiency manifests as a decrease in effectiveness which is what dysfunction is.

According to at least one BBC children's programme, there are over a hundred different genders.

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

When that came out I actually wrote to the BBC under the Freedom of Information Act (and not for the first time, either), requesting that they list all these hundred or more genders. They eventually replied with their standard response that journalism is an exempted category from the Act.

___

British Broadcasting Corporation
Room BC2 A4 Broadcast Centre White City Wood Lane London W12 7TP
Telephone 020 8008 2882 Email [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


22 February 2021

Freedom of Information request – RFI20210159

Thank you for your request to the BBC of 25th January 2021 seeking the following information
under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’):

Under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act, please list the hundred or more "gender identities" that
you claim exist in your children's sex education programme "Identity – Understanding Sexual and Gender
Identities".

The information you have requested is excluded from the Act because if held it would be held for
the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature.’ The BBC is therefore not obliged to provide this
information to you and will not be doing so on this occasion. Part VI of Schedule 1 to FOIA
provides that information held by the BBC and the other public service broadcasters is only
covered by the Act if it is held for ‘purposes other than those of journalism, art or literature”. The
BBC is not required to supply information held for the purposes of creating the BBC’s output or
information that supports and is closely associated with these creative activities.

The limited application of the Act to public service broadcasters was to protect freedom of
expression and the rights of the media under Article 10 European Convention on Human Rights
(“ECHR”). The BBC, as a media organisation, is under a duty to impart information and ideas on
all matters of public interest and the importance of this function has been recognised by the
European Court of Human Rights. Maintaining our editorial independence is a crucial factor in
enabling the media to fulfil this function. However, the BBC makes a huge range of information
available about our programmes and content on bbc.co.uk.

bump