Masculinity and femininty is hard to define.

Based on the parameters, "testosterone’ and “estrogen” we can say that men have higher testosterone than estrogen, and women have higher estrogen than testosterone. A chemical analysis would report the following observations.

Estrogen = Heightened sensitivity (both physical and emotional). Tiredness/Lethargy (estrogen is commonly found in sleeping pills.) The following mechanism is thus…heighten sensitivity causes the specimen to worry about negative consequences of their actions. Due to awareness of potential negative consequences, the specimen lose incentive to act. A real life example of this could be a woman, who decides to be a creative scientist, or makes a movie, but worries that her invention, or movie, could “fall into the wrong hands” and so she decides to only make ‘peaceful things’, like arts and crafts for children. Older men have higher estrogen levels, sometimes equivalent to females, so this behavior may correspond to them as well.

The following mechanism also explains why women rarely make movies which are obnoxious, or boundary pushing, because they are afraid of potentially hurting someones feelings.

Testosterone = Increased bone density and muscle mass. Less sensitivity (both physical and emotional). Higher energy and drive.

The typical associations are femininity is silently looking out the window on a long car ride, and masculinity is the opposite, constantly talking about stuff during the ride. Textbook femininity is the girl who daintly sits in the shadows, absorbed in her own mind, hoping the boy or woman of her dreams will find her. Femininity gets endorphins from being sad.Masculinity is the dude who walks around with a boombox playing sports with the guys. Masculinity gets endorphins from exciting activities. The feminine woman gets endorphins from exciting activities as well, but she is very choosy about what activities she will choose to accept. Neither party actually enjoys negative outcomes. The human organism automatically undergoes a sex-change after negative outcomes. For example, a male, after being fired by his boss, will dwell in the feminine, cry and feel sorry for himself. A woman, who gets into a fight, will become more masculine, turning into a raging shedemon.

Women also have higher oxytocin levels. This hormone is secreted during breast feeding. It causes strange sexual feelings, love feelings, and thirsty feelings. So we can extrapolate and say that women have the potential to be more loving than men, but are not actually more loving.

Some mechanisms of masculinity and feminity, are unclear, but can be explained by the genderbread mechanism, where organisms are mix of male and female parts. For instance, why do feminine men, like Eliot Rogers, go on shooting sprees? And why do scientist phenotypes, on average seem more feminized than other males? It is said that “hell hath no fury than a woman scorned.” But aren’t women supposed to be introverted, and feed on their own sad feelings? If women are nurturing, why are they percieved as more manipulative and cruel in today’s society? Statistic shows that women are more likely to beat their own child, and four times less likely to act charitable than men. Another confusing observation is that animal species males tend to be more flamboyant, yet in human species there is a schism. Men are verbally louder and more aggressive, but they are not glamourous and flamboyant like most other animal species. Human males tend to be monotone, including in how they dress, and women tend to be more vain. Men are competitive in activities, but women are competitive in physical appearance. Masculinity is associated with more loudness and talking, so why is it that we have tropes that depict men as strong silent types and women as the endless talking boxes? This is contrary to the peacock and most animal species. So why is this exactly? I would like these things further clarified until we can actually define what “Masculinity” and “Femininity” is.

This is gonna be like “Of Sex and Character 2”, the sequel and English version. Plus Im gonna make this when I was 24, so how’s that??

I disagree about the silently looking out the window and talking bit;

Testosterone makes one more cold and insensitive, thus aloof, i.e., strong and silent type.

Women tend to more talky and chatty, constantly gossiping - chirping like little birdies.

Therefore, it would be more masculine to remain aloof, looking out the window silently, as opposed to running one’s mouth.

I get what you were aiming at, though;

Masculinity is more active than in-active, but not in this case.

The looking out the window thing is associated with looking at pastoral scenes, tranquility. It is passive by definition, it can only occur in the passengers seat or back seat passenger seat. It is characterized by elevated estrogen levels, and decreased testosterone levels.

Testosterone is active, hyperactive. Thus, ADD kids dwell in the masculine, ie. Pinkie Pie is masculine. Testosterone does not sit still and gaze at pastoral scenes. Testosterone impatiently waits for the action, asking "are we there yet"? Pyschopathy is when one rejects pleasant feelings such as estrogen, resorting to things like cutting when their estrogen levels rise. Only in disfunction does estrogen cause feelings of anxiousness and impatience.
Disfunction can arise in victims of abuse, or nihilism (mental numbness) where noone appreciates tranquil things anymore.

The strong silent type is associated with hunting, not combat. Therefore, Masterchief and Solid Snake are daemons, half feminine half masculine (Cortana is a metaphor for his inner anima), and Leonidas is masculine, yelling and talking in battle, making pep speeches, and always arguing with the kings about what needs to be done.

The relationship is still unclear, as female children in movies often are depicted as impatient and unappreciative of tranquility. However, in these instances, they are usually black, and black females are more masculine. Usually, in these movies, white female children tend to be introspective, and gaze out the scenery (ie. the victims of the nutcracker brat.)

The reason the My Little Pony show has a larger fanbase and an interesting dynamic is because many of the characters have masculine qualities. Generation 1 of the show had a balanced population of males and females, and thus it had an interesting dynamic. However, G3 is generally viewed as psh because all of the characters are female, and have no masculine qualities. G4 remedies this by still retaining a largely female cast, but giving approximately half of them masculine qualities, and turning the rest into Daemons (even Big Macintosh had a sex change in one episode.)

Women laugh more than than men, but men are better at making jokes (due to reasons listed in the OP.) Therefore Pinkie Pie is feminine for laughing at her own jokes, but masculine for making the jokes.

It is unclear whether telling someone to smile more is feminine or masculine. Grandmas and aunts seem to do it, but according to feminists, men walk up them on the streets and tell them to smile more (which I find hard to believe, actually, because that seems uncharacteristic of masculinity.) However, it is said that love and flirting is a feminine endeavor. For instance, many men, when approaching women on the street, unconsciously use female mannerisms and gait in their interactions, near the tomboy end of the female spectrum, ie. in the movies, a male mexican punk, has the same approach mannerisms as a female mexican punk.

Whether or not males are inherently more logical is unclear. Studies seem to be inconclusive whether males or females have more or less gray matter, respectively. We can draw from day to day observations though, that males are vastly more technologically adept, and they are more clever. However, women do seem to have a rudimentary capacity for logic, but it seems women have a poorly optimized memory mechanism. In most of my day to day interactions, women seem to be optimized for retaining trivia, most do not know important words, such as “sentient”, “enlightenment” “singularity” “conundrum” “vector” etc. However, you will inevitably encounter the “word warrior” who knows more words than you do. However, if you take a look at her speech patterns, the majority of words she says have no discernible function in relation to the conversation, they are usually completely unnecessary bloat and just add confusion. Where as the logical mind (the masculine mind’s) conversation is inherently complex, because reality (truth) is often complex. Words like “discernible” “sentient” “vector” etc. serve a specific function in the conversation, and are not filler meant to confuse, but the intent is to add clarity. So the intent of the female word warrior is to confuse, and the intent of male word warrior is to add clarity.
The comfort of the female seems to lie in “confusion”, and the male seems to find comfort in honesty. The reasons for this are unclear. To clarify, my assertion that women are inherently dishonest is based on real life experience. I do not have an actual scientific explanation as to the mechanism of it, and therefore I cannot conclusively say that dishonesty is inherently feminine.

If Otto was the Einstein of gender studies, I am the Tesla who tore Einstein apart. Otto had many good models, such as genderbread, but some of his models seem a bit dated. For instance, he claims that attraction is an inverse function - that masculine men are attracted to feminine women, and that androgenous people are attracted to other androgenes.

But we find that his model simply doesn’t stand up to real scrutiny. In his defense, he uses the genderbread concept to explain the lack of real life coherence to his model. For instance, he says that people with androgenous minds are mentally attracted to androgenes in one part of their mind, but in another part of their minds, they are attracted to other types, to explain the discrepancy.

But i don’t think this stands up to real life scrutiny. It is true that people have split personalities and mixed up attractions, and different parts of their minds attract to different things. But the mathematical equation he proved, is simply incoherent to real life. Androgynes are often sexually attracted to everyone. And masculine males are attracted to whatever is x degrees feminine than them. For instance, Spartacus (90 percent masculine archetype) is as likely to bang an 18 year old boy as he is another woman. And an androgyne is as likely to marry an 18 year old boy as another woman. A feminine woman (90 percent feminine archetype) is less likely to marry or date another woman, because they are passive around each other and more fearful of exploring their desires and/or violating rules, but she is still sexually compatible with other women. However, a 60 percent masculine man, will not have sex with other men, because he only has sex with people who are significantly more feminine than him!
So the equation is still an inversion, as it begins to invert when it approaches androgeny. Whether or not the equation should be symmetrical (equal on both positive and negative ends, masculine and feminine) is unclear. For now, the equation is symmetrical, and works for most scenarios, except unusual cases of homosexuality (jessica+jessica or leonidas+leonidas.)

M=the masculine person’s masculinity factor (0.9=Spartacus, 0=Androgyne, -0.8=Jessica Rabbit)
C=Compatibility probability (1=max 0=min)
M2=the feminine person’s masculinity factor (0.9=Spartacus, 0=Androgyne, -0.8=Jessica Rabbit)
S=Sexuality index. How sexual or romantic M is feeling (1=a horny rabbit 0.5=in heat 0.25=cold 0=asexual)
S2=Sexuality index. How sexual or romantic M2 is feeling (1=a horny rabbit 0.5=in heat 0.25=cold 0=asexual)
A=How attractive M is. (1=hot 0=not)
A2=How attractive M2 is. (1=hot 0=not)


Also, I’ve thought of a theory related to the women being of confusion. It seems that confusion may be a mating mechanism for the female, in order to create the illusion that she has complexity on par or better than the male, as to gain power over him and maintain his interest level.

there was a slight mistake in my original equation, I forgot to base the operation in relation to the bounds, rather than just M and M2. It has been edited since then, and should be functional. My apologies. The equation should be correct now.

What defines a man, more than anything else, at least in humans, is a strong will. Women, on the other hand, are purely instinctive.

Silence in a man makes sense when there is a lot of fear that has to be resisted. Too much activity isn’t a good thing for it betrays lack of will (uncontrolled fear.) Women tend to be chatty for this reason.

So women are animals? Women are apes, then. Define ape consciousness. Put an ape and a woman in the same room…Which has a higher quality of life?

If women are animals, then why do men do more sports? For now, I’ll roll with this, so just answer the question.