Special guest post by Jessie Nagy
SERVICING THE WORLD BY ATTEMPTING TO BUILD & ORGANIZE SOCIETIES IS A SACRIFICE. DUE TO THE EXPERIMENTAL NATURE OF THE HISTORY OF “ORDER OUT OF CHAOS”, IF YOU WILL, THERE WILL INEVITIBALLY BE SOME ACCIDENTS & SOME SHODDY STRATEGIZING, WHICH WILL VARY IN DEGREE FROM CULTURE TO CULTURE. OF COURSE, THERE WILL BE THOSE LESS CAPABLE TO ALWAYS SIT BACK & YELL “OPPRESSION”
FEMALES & FEMINISTS TEND TO FIXATE ON THE SECONDARY SIDE PRODUCT HORRORS OF WHAT MALE LEADERSHIP BRINGS, WHILE COMPLETELY DISREGARDING THE MUCH LARGER BENEFITS MALE SACRIFICE/SERVICE HAS BROUGHT.
THE NEARLY MYTHICAL, ANCIENT FEMALE FRONTED “AMAZONIAN” SOCIETY HAS BEEN REPORTED TO HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY VIOLENT, & THIS IS PROBABLY WHY IT WAS RELEGATED TO ITS OBSCURITY – PROBABLE SELF DESTRUCTION.
DEFINITIONS BY THE POPULAR ARE NOT ACCURATE. THIS IS THE PROBLEM WHEN LIVING IN AN ICONOGRAPHIC SOCIETY FULL OF TOO MUCH UNDESERVED EGO, WHICH IS THEN ONLY REINFORCED BY ITS OWN ASSERTED SELF AGGRANDIZEMENT, WHO IS CONCERNED SO MUCH WITH WHAT SEEMS TO BE. LET ME HIGHLIGHT & REPEA AGAIN: THIS IS THE PROBLEM OF LIVING IN AN ICONOGRAPHIC SOCIETY WHO IS CONCERNED SO MUCH WITH WHAT SEEMS TO BE, RATHER THAN INVESTIGATING FOR THEMSELVES WHAT ACTUALITY IS, & WHO PLACE TOO MUCH EMPHASIS ON APPEARANCE & WHAT FEELS TO BE ACCURATE.
WHAT I AM ABOUT TO SAY IS A BIT SHOCKING, & IT IS NOT JUST CLEVER WORD PLAY OR SOME CONSPIRACY THEORY, ETC. THERE ARE CITATIONS IN THIS. YOU CAN CONFIRM THIS FOR YOURSELF FROM SCIENTIFIC SOURCES.
THIS IS NOT WHAT MANY WOULD CLAIM AS STEMMING FROM AN “INFERIORITY COMPLEX”. THIS IS SOMETHING CALLED SCIENCE.
THIS IS MAINLY MEANT TO, FIRSTLY, REFUTE A CLAIM HELD BY THE MASS CULTURE WHO TEND TO MISTAKE PSYCHOLOGICAL TYPE FOR GENDER CHARACTERISTIC, & ,SECONDLY, REFUTE THE DEFINITION FROM HIJACKERS WHEN THEY LIKE TO BELIEVE THAT MINDLESS MACHISMO IS WHAT DEFINES MASCULINITY, WHEN, IN FACT, THAT DEFINITION HAS ONLY BEEN GIVEN TO THEM BY OTHER FEMALES. THEY ARE NOT BEING THEMSELVES. THEY ARE ACTING A CERTAIN WAY IN ORDER TO BE APPROVED BY FEMALES. KEEP IN MIND THAT FEMALES HAVE A NATURAL PROPENSITY TO COLLECTIVIZE.
THE LATTER IS DERIVED FROM PHENOTYPE, HOWEVER, THE FOLLOWING IS PURELY BIOLOGICAL.
NOW, BEAR IN MIND THAT WHEN SPEAKING OF A SUBJECT SUCH AS SEXUAL DIMORPHISM, OR ANY INTELLECTUAL SUBJECT FOR THAT MATTER, ON A MEDIUMS THAT IS FREQUENTED BY HORDES OF AVERAGE PEOPLE, IT IS GOING TO BE DIFFICULT TO ELUCIDATE.
THE PHENOMENA OF MASCULINE FEMALES, WHICH IN SLANG TERMS IS CALLED “TOM BOYS” – FEMALES WHO CARRY MORE MASCULINE TRAITS LIKE BEING MORE LOGICAL, BLUNT, & HAVING MORE MALE FRIENDS WITHOUT SEXUAL TENSION BECAUSE THEY WERE EXPOSED TO MORE TESTOSTERONE VIA PRE-BIRTH, WHILE IN SCIENTIFIC JARGON IS CALLED SEXUAL DIMORPHISM, THIS PHENOMENA ALSO APPLIES TO MALES. UNFORTUNATELY, BECAUSE WE DON’T LIVE IN A WORLD THAT GLORIFIES TRUE SCIENCE, THE CONCEPT OF “TOM GIRLS” IS NOT WELL KNOWN, NOR IS IT ABSOLUTELY ACCURATE.
I READ THIS STUFF FROM SCIENCE, SO I KNOW TO BE SURE OF MYSELF. I DON’T JUST RECEIVE SOURCES FROM RANDOM PEOPLE AT BUS STOPS OR ONLY “VLOGGERS” ETC..
IN THE BOOK: ‘THE ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE’ BY NEUROSCIENTIST SIMON BARON COHEN, WHICH IS WRITTEN FOR THE LAYMAN BECAUSE TECHNICAL SCIENTIFIC JARGON IS NOT SUITED FOR THE POPULACE, ALONG WITH THE PARALLELING: ‘BRAIN SEX’ BY GENETICIST ANNE MOIR, IT IS SANELY CONCLUDED THAT REPRESENTATIVES OF ULTIMATE MASCULINITY, WITHOUT THE “TOMGIRL” ASPECT, IS FOUND IN MUCH MORE CIRCUMSPECT, LOGICAL MALES WHO ARE MUCH MORE CONCERNED WITH OBJECTS, WHILE MALES WHO ARE MORE CONCERNED WITH RELATING/SOCIALIZING, ESPECIALLY ON AN EMOTIONAL LEVEL, WITH OTHERS ARE MORE REPRESENTATIVE OF “TOM GIRLS”. ‘BRAIN SEX’ IS EXCELLENT, HOWEVER, THESE DIPLOMATIC WORKS OF SCIENCE CONTAINS EXTRA COMMENTARY. I JUST TAKE THE ORGANIC SCIENCE.
THE IDEAL OF MASCULINITY IS CONFUSED IN SOCIETY BECAUSE THE NOTION OF THE ARCHETYPAL DARING, BARBARIC MAN HAS BEEN HABITUATED. THE LATTER NOTION IS GENERALLY ACCEPTED BECAUSE IT IS HABITUATED THAT JUST BECAUSE MANY FEMALES ARE RECEPTIVE TO SUCH MALES, THAN IT IS ASSUMED THAT IT IS THE TRUE REPRESENTATIVE. IT IS WRONG.
IT IS A PLAIN FACT THAT THOSE WHO HAVE BUILT & ORGANIZED ARE MALES, BUT THIS MASCULINE CHARACTERISTIC IS NOT RECOGNIZED BECAUSE, NOT ONLY IS THIS DETACHED MASCULINE CHARACTERISTIC FREE OF PRONOUNCED VANITY, BUT ALSO BECAUSE SOCIETY WOULD RATHER BE MUCH MORE CONCERNED WITH THE LATEST MOVIE THAN SHOW INTEREST IN WHO PUT THOSE ELECTRICAL CABLES AROUND.
SO, YOU CAN BELIEVE THAT THOSE “NERDY” MALES ARE “EFFEMINATE”, “FAGGY”, “WHIMPY” OR WHATEVER FROM THE INCULCATION OF THE POPULACE, BUT TRUTH REMAINS THAT ULTIMATE FORMS OF MASCULINITY IS GENERALLY ASSOCIATED WITH INTROVERSION & CLINICAL LOGIC OS SOME DEGREES.
NOW, IT IS TRUE THAT FEMALES’ BRAINS ARE WIRED IN A WAY THAT GIVES THEM MORE & QUICKER ACCESS TO VERBAL COMMUNICATION, HOWEVER, THAT JUST MEANS THAT FEMALES ARE MORE TALKATIVE. IT DOESN’T ENTAIL THAT THEY ARE MORE LOGICAL OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
FEMINISTS LIKE TO USE THIS THIS LITTLE FACTOID TO TRY TO STATE THAT FEMALES ARE AS SMART OR SMARTER THAN MALES, WHICH, INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, JUST PROVES THE ULTIMATE FINDING THAT THIS TALKATIVENESS IS OFTEN USED FOR MANIPULATION OR UNHARNESSED VERBOSITY, BUT THEY COMPLETELY DISREGARD THAT THIS FINDING MEANS NOTHING OF WHAT THEY ASSUME.
IN FACT, IN ‘THE ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE’ SIMON BARON COHEN REVEALS THAT FEMALES’ BRAINS ARE WIRED TO BE SYMPATHETIC, AT LEAST VAINLY SYMPATHETIC ANYWAY, & THIS “SYMPATHY”, IF YOU WANT TO CALL IT THAT, IN CONJUNCTION TO THEIR TALKATIVENESS IS EXEMPLIFIED IN CASES OF FEMALES PASSIVELY “AGREEING” BY DEFAULT WITH THE MALE APPROACH/COMMUNICATION.
SO MALES’ COMMUNICATION IS LESS FREQUENT BUT MORE MEANINGFUL & HONEST, WHICH IN ‘THE ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCES’ EXPLAINS THAT MALE RATIONAL IS DUE TO THE MALE BRAIN’S INNATE MEANS OF SYSTEMATIZING, WHILE FEMALES’ IS MORE FREQUENT BUT LESS MEANINGFUL & UNGENUINE.
AS THE OLD SAYING GOES: FACT IS MUCH STRANGER THAN FICTION.
♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂
IN CONJUNCTION TO THE FACT THAT FEMALES ARE GENERALLY COLLECTIVIST, THEIR OBVIOUS ANTI-SCIENCE MAKES THEM ANTI-MASCULINE
PHILOSOPHY GAVE BIRTH TO SCIENCE, SCIENCE GAVE BIRTH TO CIVILIZATION. SCIENCE WAS CREATED BY “BETA” MALES, IF WE WANT TO USE THOSE DEFINITIONS, WHICH I DON’T LIKE TO BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN HISTORICALLY CAST BY GYNOCENTRISM, OF “ALPHA” & “BETA”.
SOME LOVE TO INSINUATE THAT IT WAS OVER BOLDNESS THAT CREATED SOCIETY, BUT THIS WAS ONLY USED SECONDARILY FOR STRATEGIES OF WARFARE & RELATED, WHICH WAS OFTEN DONE TO MAINTAIN RANK TO IMPRESS DUE TO GREED. CONGRATULATIONS ON PROCLAIMING TO BE SO TOUGH, BUT WHO’S REALLY THE TOUGH ONE WHEN IT IS SURGEONS WHO HAVE TO REMAIN DETACHED WHEN OPERATING? DETACHMENT IS THE ULTIMATE FORM OF TOUGHNESS. OTHERS JUST INDULGE. THE MAIN THING THAT OTHERS HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO SOCIETY IS GENE REPLICATION & SUPPORTING ECONOMICS.
MASCULINITY IS NOT ONLY JUST SIMPLIFIED TO HORMONAL FACTORS; THERE ARE NEUROLOGICAL FACTORS AS WELL. HYPER RATIONALISM = HYPER-MASCULINITY.
IT IS OFTEN MISUNDERSTOOD THAT LOGICAL ONES ARE “SENSITIVE”, BUT, ACTUALLY, SUCH TYPES EXHIBIT EXTREME STRESS LEVELS THAT OTHERS CAN NOT PROCURE. THAT IS A MUCH BROADER MEANING OF “MALE DISPOSABILITY”; IT’S NOT JUST WHEN A WOMEN DESTROYS A MAN OR WASTES HIS TIME, IT’S THE FACT THAT WE AS A SOCIETY HAVE VERY LITTLE REGARD FOR THOSE WHO TRULY SUCCOR. I BELIEVE FEMALES HAVE MUCH MORE OF SHALLOW EMOTIONS, WHICH RESULTS IN SPOILING THEM DUE TO MISLEAD CONCEPTS OF THEM BEING “MORE IN TUNED WITH NATURE” ETC., BUT MALES HAVE LESS FREQUENT YET MUCH DEEPER EMOTIONS. THERE’S A DIFFERENCE. WHEN MEN HAVE THEIR OCCASIONAL EMOTIONAL OUTBURSTS OF CRYING OR WHATEVER, WE REGARD IT AS “PATHETIC” OR “EMBARRASSING”OR WHATEVER, BUT FEMALES’ MORE FREQUENT OUTBURSTS OVER TRIVIALITIES IS SEEN AS SOME SORT OF “FEMININE MYSTIQUE”.
WE NEED TO BE MORE ATTENTIVE TO MALE EXPERIENCE & THOUGHT PROCESSES RATHER THAN WASTING IT ON FEMALES.
Always look to science & true philosophy, especially to understand sex differences. What is generally required to understand the female mind is a masculine mind because the female mind is mostly shameless – generally not self aware. Females’ narcissism is often mistaken for being “more introspective”. Most that is true about females has been written by males. The mainstream culture’s falsehood is inculcated by females. Don’t look for deep truth there or any practical idiot telling you “what you need to do” to “understand” females.
What ultimately led man to achievement today was not being physically stronger or meaner than all other animals. It wasn’t the testosterone laced risk-taking behavior that cost many men their lives. It was intelligence. Physically, we are one of the weakest animals on this planet. But intelligence allowed us to side-step biology. We didn’t have to be the strongest animal, we just needed to know how to kill the strongest animal in the most proficient way from a safe distance. And it was not just risk taking that allowed us to advance as a species, it was calculated risk. Being intelligent enough to know when and when not to take on those often fatal liabilities.
The whole “Alpha male” facade is just a ploy to commercialize the desire other males have who want to be like them that has been molded by bad logic of females. Just as females have an inherent drive to see themselves as valuable and males as disposable in contrast, some males desire to see themselves as the one who is different – one of the few males who females actually value. It is as instinctive to men as gynocentrism is to both men and women together. This is where the brutal “alpha” aesthetic comes from that tries to compensate for their lesser intelligence & lesser achievement by pretending he is special with less merit & acting meaner to boast “worthy” of the prized vagina. Because a man dominating others historically attracted women, that is what appeals to these males, & many powerful males are going to capitalize on this desire men have to be the “Alpha”. The source of this “alpha” attitude to be mean, subtly or explicitly, comes from the females’ position to select the tools. One instance of a female being attracted to a perceived “intruder” will only cause these “alpha” primitives to react meanly or skeptically – the de-valueing of another innocent male for “getting out of line”, which females often do as well if such a male offends her. This is sometimes referred to as a “sigma” male – a male who appears “alpha” momentarily because his approach from the “zeta” position that does not fit pronounces his image. Intelligent males are realizing this stupidity & they don’t want play the “tool” game that is set by her judgement anymore. They don’t want to expend energy catering to the female while she passively places her demands.