Gender Differences

Philosophy Forums Psychology and Mind
21

My recent post about Gender Genetics ought to explain this divergence of terminology.

There is no such thing as women having “male minds” though. A daughter can be raised to copy the ideology of her father, memetically, but that doesn’t mean that she has a “male mind”. It means she has copied and emulated an ideology. Ideologies can be deemed “male or female” if people prefer. But that is inconsequential and open to opinion.

Instead what is “male or female behavior” is more important, and something that women/females cannot fake.

To reiterate the point, some behaviors and thoughts remain strictly and properly male/masculine.

I would insert here that males are producers of ideology and intellectualism. Females are the consumers and copiers of these ideologies. Females do not produce ideologies, nor advance the state of human intellect.

This is also why there have never been, and never will be “female philosophers”. Differences of the mind, of any individual (not just based on gender) are most accentuated and divergent than bodily differences.

The difference between two minds is exponentially compounded compared to differences of the body. Divergent thoughts between two genetically identical twins will best differentiate the pair apart, and demonstrate the obvious fact, that “perfect copies” of anything, is impossible.

Identical essence is impossible in nature and existence, because by the mere success of copying any organism or thing, it becomes displaced in space and time.

All things change with time. Time is change. Time is chaos.

22

If you want to see the truth of modernity then look at the actual children born from this age.

The genes don’t lie. Even though a modern woman pair-bonds with a feminine, faggoty man-child, doesn’t mean she will reproduce his inferior biology into a new generation.

23

I applaud your misogyny, but it’s just not true. It’s not just men who are gender bent, there are many tomboy women who aren’t airheads.
For example, some females are anti-social and have higher ideals. Kelly Jones is a misogynist who rebels against the global culture, but she has xx genes. Its not as simple as xx= no masculinity. Not all women are retards.

24

When I look around, all I see are emasculated hipster dads walking their babie carriage with their baby mommas, usually fat white and obese hipsters too. Inferior / superior is subjective, hipster fags may be afraid of standing up for themselves and rebelling, but their conformist, suck a dick, dont make a fuss, sit down and be polite attitude makes them go far in the modern realms.

25

Females do not challenge nor change the status quo.

Females are the status quo.

26

We call those women, or dumb broads. The majority of females are dumb broads, but every now and then you get a rarity, a rebel, an intellectual thinker.

27

Three E’s

Expendability

Naturally, (human) males are more expendable than females. This immediately creates a difference of Risk between the genders. Males live lives inherently at risk, while females do much less so. This explains why young teenage women and girls are more fascinated with Horror films depicting the death of women, than any other film genre. It is much rarer for women and young girls to die in advanced civilization (Globalization) than males. Men and boys are expected to die earlier and more often (observed in the gender mortality differential rate).

Evolution

Naturally, males are the means to evolution of an archetype. Males determine whether “humanity” ascends into greater heights in the future, or falters and descends into oblivion. This is an extension and result of male expendability. Since males are inherently valueless, without value, worthless, this then causes men to take greater risks in life than females do, can, or think up. Males are nature’s way of “gambling” with genes and biology. Males represent the “random mutation” of specie. Within the male genetic population, this is where the “evolutionary randomness” appears, and manifests as risk.

Engagement

Because males are both expendable, and evolutionary, there is one more ingredient to consider to complete the Male Archetype (Male Specie). This is war and competition. Males compete, usually physically and violently (sports), in order to get laid. Getting laid and reproducing is a form of survival. Males who don’t reproduce, go extinct. And so, males compete for the favor of women socially and institutionally. The winners get the women and sex (success and evolution). The losers die off, either suddenly in war or whither away childless. Males have a compulsion to compete. Males can, and routinely do, turn everything into a competition. Even moral goodness (“I’m more altruistic and selfless than you!”) can be, and is manipulated, from the underlying genetic, instinctive, reflexive, natural compulsion.

Conclusion

The Three E’s comprise the human male specie, not just in western culture, but around the world, in other mammals, and throughout the animal kingdom. These differences are genetic, and therefore hard wired (on the male ‘Y’ chromosome) and innately programmed within the blood of organisms. You cannot “Change” nature. You can only manipulate it, according to your personal preferences and benefit.

Male expendability is the first and most obvious factor. Male expendability explains why males are almost universally more selfless than females, and even why the popular Judæo-Christian god, “jesus christ” must be a male. Because Christianity wouldn’t make sense if jesus christ were a woman. Nobody would believe the myth. Christianity would be too unbelievable with a female christ figure! People are willing to accept walking on water, world great floods, talking snakes, etc. etc. but they will not believe in the idea of a selfless woman. Isn’t this interesting? It should not be. It should be common sense, and it is.

28

Nature and Artifice

If you accept the Three E’s above as naturally male, what then would be artificial except to invert them by gender? Imagine females as expendable. Imagine females as evolutionary. Imagine females as engaging. Imagine females competing violently and physically, sometimes killing each other, to have sex with a male? Ridiculous, no? Imagine females being creative and investing in the future, concerned for their children yet born. Imagine women being inventive and great scientists, philosophers, and thinkers. Ridiculous, no? Imagine females who are selfless and worthless, having no value by their sexuality. Imagine a woman who tries to prostitute herself on the streets, but no men are willing to buy her sex for $20. Imagine no man willing to buy an attractive, beautiful prostitute, even when she offers to pay men $20,000 to fuck her.

Ridiculous, no?

Then you agree with me.

29

Male = Objective, Female = Subjective

Consider the mind-body duality (split) for a moment. Is this more “male” or “female”? Can women be “objective”? Can women view life and existence “without themselves”? Can a woman look “outside” her own life and lifetime? Can women see the world without themselves in it? The answer is, obviously, No. Females are deeply integrated and entwined with their own Subjective being and value.

Re-quote from Karen Straugh (“girlwriteswhat”).

“Women are human beings. (subjects)
But men are human doings.” (objects)

It should become obvious that mind-body duality, the “split” between mind and matter, mind and body, is a male expression and thought. Males are more “divorced” and “distant” from nature, than females. The male-gender implies expendability (worthlessness), and so, forces males to comprehend a universe and existence “without oneself” included.

This forces males into a position, a choice, to either accept or reject inherent Solipsism. A man can “see beyond himself”, if he chooses, while a female never can, mentally. A man can view, understand, and explore “the objective universe”. While a woman cannot.

A woman stays in her home, safe and sound, raising children, and only looks through the window (to existence) from safety. Secluded. Women will never, and will never have the instinct to, explore reality.

Two thousand years, still no female philosophers, thinkers, geniuses, etc.

It’s in the genes, people, ‘YX’ ‘XX’ specifically.

30

If someone has recently called you ‘Aeon’, and Aeon is in fact Real Unoriginal from the ILO days, then holy old ILO members, batman!.. how the hell are ya?!

I haven’t talked to you in six years. Well I mean I talked to you but I didn’t know it was you. You do write something like him… like an older, toned down version of the hyperactive wordsmith with ass bergers that he/you used to be.

31

Some minds matures, others remain left behind. I’m very well, thanks for asking, and same to you.

32

In black neighborhoods, maybe not so…

Tough times.

33

YOU are Real Unorginal!!!

There are just no words… :laughing:

34

Well what are your thoughts of Kelly Jones…is her self-professed “male-mind” all hot gas?

35

No words, just thoughts.

36

Women are be-bes.
Men are do-dos

:-$

37

It is a schizophrenic modern thing. Modernity is about the appearance of cleanliness, the denial of the ugly and dirty parts that we are supposedly above and beyond. Psychologically this leads to a schism.

Women want the non-threatening male because he is easy to be around an involves little change on her part. He is a comfort, a reassurance, a warm feeling. He will go out of his way to justify her and her decisions falling in line with the modern habit of liberalism and social circle-jerking. The ideal has become the removal of all frictions and unpleasant experiences. This type of male, in my experience, often appears to have a more feminine mentality, demeanour and appearance (particularly as it relates to fashion and grooming). This type of male attracts women who are over-confident, career-oriented and/or flat-out childish and immature.

This is artificial in natural terms and produces a shadow-form. Women do not lust after the comforting, ever-justifying beta male. A girl matures to a woman through change, stress and friction. Modern women, who have been trained to look for a man who is their ‘equal’ find themselves physically turned on by the man who rejects this label, the man who makes her feel social and physical discomfort and revels in it, seeing it (and her) as his right. Many women secretly desire being totally used by someone who does not care for their social affects and the ubiquitous gender-equality narrative that denies so much of the human constitution. From this we see 50 shades of Grey and other phenomena emerge as by-products of social conditioning, which can never hope to fully erase what lurks beneath the surface. The ‘bad-boy’ provides a woman with the fear, the force and the smell that is associated with a biological male, but ends up attracting dependents and subordinates being that he rejects her feelings entirely.

The shadow-form of the bad-boy is equally unnatural, but more interesting being that it undermines what is held to be moral and beyond debate. A higher and more aware type of woman needs something in between, a friction combined with a reassurance, an overpowering combined with an uplifting, a rugged individualism that can be harnessed and recreated.

38

Female = Immortal, Permanent, Order, Nature
Male = Mortal, Temporal, Chaos, God

The female nature leans toward immortality. Out of any organic population, only a few males are required (Necessary) to seed and repopulate the female majority. 1 male of 1000 females will reproduce very quickly. 1 female of 1000 males will reproduce very slowly. This obvious, simple, absolute gender difference is not only seen, observed, and common sense in humanity, but every other sexually reproducing specie possible. There are no alternatives. Any alternative that could exist, ought to have been more efficient and therefore more evolutionary, sexually fit. But such alternatives were not produced, explained by the simplicity of sexual reproduction itself, as a biological mechanism. Asexual organisms reproduce without male-female division (simple-cell organisms). Sexually reproducing (complex) organisms evolve, and create further organic differences (Mutations).

Complexity in nature is the derivative of sexual reproduction, as a mechanism essentially devoted to creating organic differences (Species).

Consider for a moment that all life, in existence, were “All One and The Same”. All cells are equal. Therefore a human is no different than a fish than bird than an alien than a beetle than a mushroom. All life is the same (units of cells). Life cooperates by merely reproducing. The reproduction of cells, extends life into the “Non-living” aspects of space and time. Life invades and pervades all mass and material, from the surface and depths of earth, teaming with life. To the bottoms of the deep ocean. Including frozen bacteria on a flying asteroid, across the universe. Life pervades everywhere.

Life is immortal. Even if the human extension (specie/type) of life were wiped out, completely extinct, then cells floating on asteroids in space, would still persist. Therefore life is immortal as a basic cellular composition and function. The core compulsion of life, is to merely reproduce. This is achieved by chemical reactions, the most obvious and common being photosynthesis of plant life, to convert sunlight into energy, and then develop respiratory systems based on flows between oxygen and carbon dioxide. Plantlife produces oxygen. Mammals and “animals” produce carbon dioxide emissions. Thus plants and animals form a relationship of mutual symbiosis.

So too with gender, and cellular evolution toward complex entities: male and female.

The male-female division precedes most other evolved biological and organic functions. In other words, the split between “male” and “female” chromosomes (X and Y in humans) occurred far before the development of…eye balls. Ears. Noses. Mouths and taste. All these sensory organs and developed after, not before, sexual reproduction. In fact they would be impossible without sex/gender predating them.

Females represent Immortality, Permanence, Order, and Nature, because females represent the “All Life is One” function. From plant to ant to animal to manimal, females represent the underlying Archetype or “Blueprint” of a specie. If you want to destroy a colony of ants then what do you do? You target the queen. You kill the females. Same with plants and animals. To truly destroy a specie, you attack the females of that specie. Thus females are “Deserving” of more protection, and females are most protected throughout every biological specie of animal or organism in existence. This is universal. Travel around the universe, and you will see no exceptions, to any life form, anywhere, ever.

Because females represent the “core of life”. Nature.

Males represent Mortality, Temporality, Chaos, and Divinity, because males represent the Evolutionary function. Males are the means by which all life takes risk, based on survival. Males live or die, as a gamble of the underlying (female) specie. If a male “Succeeds” then, hypothetically, his type will reproduce and live onward. A male’s semen, genetic material will become “Redeposited” back into the gene pool. If a male does not reproduce then his particular, individual, truly unique expression of life (as a male) will die off. But just because males die, or if all males died, then life would still continue. Thus the male extension of life, the ‘Y’ chromosome, is biologically and organically unnecessary. Expendable.

Because that is its very designed role. To be expendable. To represent a gamble. To become 1 in a trillion-trillion-trillion. This is the function of Evolution.

39

I did not want to repeat the whole post. But I can say without s doubt that the whole thing is complete nonsense.

It’s sad that, with so much work that has been done to provide men and women with more choices since the 1960s, so that they can find their own potential free from the constraints of gender roles and stereotyping that this sot of bollocks still have to be challenged over 50 years later.

40

Take another look, male and female are BOTH.
Think about this - observing and judging from the past where females were at one time, the positions or non-positions where they were, where they were held down, where they felt non-persons - do you think that it is the male or the female who has more come into HER own :mrgreen: - ultimately becoming more the DOers or at least being “nose to nose” with the man?

Who has come further along in this race considering where they had to start from?
How does it further a man’s evolution trying to keep a woman in an apron in the home?
The misogynist is a sad creature - not calling you one, James unless you are one.