Special guest post by Jessie Nagy

The minimal excerpts used in this are from a source that was written in an appeasing , complimenting manner. ‘Brain Sex’ is a book regarding neuro-science & biology in general to establish basics of harder science. What is gathered in summation is that cognition of males as concentration, while females’ diffusive. If you state to the affect of the latter to females, they would generally react with diffusion, only proving the establishment further. I have referenced this source a few times not because it’s the greatest in the field, but because this book is just a good source as an introduction to those stuck on lower levels of social studies, as it tries to diplomatically bring the basics of complexities against the pressure of the influence of such diffusion.

Don’t try to defeat Feminism by addressing on its level. Defeat Feminism by overwhelming it with the technical. When a feminist or related tries to interject, just simply belittle with to the affect: “I don’t deal with that cultural type of stuff, I’m more concerned with science”, & remain as strict as possible with this non-argumentative argument. When the second retort comes back, use to the affect of: “Again, with all due respect, the way the debate is set would just limit the field I’m involved with/ the explanations would take too long & it can’t be explained in just one debate, it takes a process of many days, actually” – using the strategy of implying that they don’t provide well.

Both interpretations – complaining by feminists & the like or by sexual appeal – of the primal masculinity from the female are not progressive. I’m willing to accept a simplistic reduction for a preparation that, yes, historically males have been more aggressive & violent. We had to be because we were wired that way from attempting to provide for & organize societies that had it’s beginnings in chaos. This basic fact is what a vast amount of the even anti-feminists who are still sociologically & politically limited would call “anti-male”, but it’s really just a stern fact. In fact, it’s actually pro-male because it’s giving the blunt truth. Considering that I’m willing to accept this simplistic reduction because you need those basics to expand intricacies, in contrast, are females even willing to try to understand? Of course not. For one case, the ‘Blank Slate’ premise is highly influenced by feminine callousness.

This is an excerpt from that source (not the pictured one): “The brain biases persist & strengthen as children grow up, “seeing” life through that particular filter of the brain which they find easier, & more natural, to use. That bias in girls towards the personal, for instance, shows up in experiments. A group of children was given a rather special sort of sight test. They looked through a contraption raher like a pair of binocular, which showed the left & right eye two different images at the same time. One was of an object, the other of a person. The children had been shown exactly the same images. Boys saw more things, Girls saw more people……………….This male advantage in seeing patterns & abstract relationships – what could be called general strategic rather than detailed tactical thinking – perhaps explains the male dominance of chess, even in a country like the U.S.S.R., where the game is a national sport played by both sexes. An alternative explanation, more acceptable to those who would deny the biological basis of sex differences, is that “women have become so conditioned to the fact of male chess playing superiority that they subconsciously assign themselves lower expectations”; but this is a rather willful rejection of scientific evidence for the sake of maintaining a prejudice…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….Men sometimes become exasperated at a women’s reaction to what they say. They do not realize that women are probably “hearing” much more than what the man himself thinks he is “saying”. Older females have a better memory for names & faces, & a greater sensitivity to other people’s preferences.” Even this preparation of basic confirmations presented with ease & in a lessened way was received with scorn (Just some proof of one of these instances: Search for a recorded debate (more like deflecting by mob-rule than debate): ‘Sex In The Brain: Do Men And Women Think Differently’), therefore, proving that the attempt of civility of science, what females sometimes refer to in fem-speak/barbarism as “being too nice”, will be burdened by female-hood. Females are a burden to the advancement of scientific & philosophical progress, & feminism is just one of those influences of gynocentrism. When this book was initially published – a tool to help females, it was controversial because of the very facts itself that the book communicates that females are “emotionally intelligent” have the “social intuition”, but, really, it’s just that females are petty. Sarcasm: Yeah, females really know how to socialize, as if that’s even a hard skill to learn. They’ll insinuate males so thoughtful in abstractions don’t know how to socialize – “lost”, but what’s actually happening is that those males are already gathering abstract patterns that they already made the estimations & analyzed the results – sometimes wrongfully called “defense mechanisms”, which makes the others wrongfully believe that they are qualified to make a judgement just by that mistaken observation as reliable. Females know how to socialize on the childish level because they are like children themselves.
This tendency that females have to judge tone, body language, expression, etc., makes them better candidates for communicating with, for example, infants, sure, but this is double-sided because it also makes them prone to misinterpretations & making false predictions on the more abstract levels, such as often wrongly thinking that an introduction means there’s nothing more mysterious. I will not type with lessened ease & become victims as those poor scientists who constructed that book did, so I will just bluntly state: womens’ retarded n.l.p. manner of “thinking” combined with their collectivism makes them gullible enough to comprise the majority of voters, then voting for candidates on the basis of stamina, tone, body language, rhetoric, etc.. You can’t discern a leader’s level of testosterone for a nostalgic fetish by a casual observation, but that’s essentially the symbol of what female voters vote on the basis of. That would actually require the accuracy of science instead, science chosen to be explored by males who still have those high amounts of testosterone but would rather chose to be intellectual than actors, but, of course, such males are “sad “beta” males with low t..”