Peter Paul Rubens, Venus and Mars, between 1632 and 1635
3,563 words
A key component of the ideology currently dominant in the West is the “equality” of the sexes and the consequent struggle to eliminate “discrimination” between them. If this doctrine seems plausible to many people, it is because it appeals to the basic principle of fairness that like cases ought to be treated alike. If women are no different from men, it cannot be fair to treat them differently. The whole issue, then, comes down to whether or not women and men are in fact like cases, whether or not there are important natural differences between the sexes that may justify different treatment in at least some situations.
A large part of feminist literature is, therefore, devoted to denying or minimizing natural differences between the sexes. Feminists differ in how far they are willing to go in this effort. To deny the existence of two distinct sexes outright, of course, would not only harm their credibility, but impugn their sanity. Most content themselves with attempting to demonstrate that women and men are functionally equivalent (“equal”) in particular kinds of situations: within the family, in the workplace, in sporting competitions, even in combat. Much antifeminist literature, accordingly, is devoted to observing and measuring differences in men and women, from cognitive abilities and personality differences to athletic performance and upper body strength. Many such differences can be shown to exist, and we shall discuss some of them below.
Sexual Differentiation: What It Is and Why It Exists
But before beginning this survey, let us go straight to the heart of the matter and give an account of what sexual differentiation is. As we know from high school biology, some primitive organisms are asexual, reproducing through binary fission, or budding, or by sending off spores, or in a number of other ways. Such simple organisms do not undergo evolution in the proper sense. They can change only through random mutation, often remaining essentially unchanged for millions of years.
Sexual reproduction makes evolution possible by allowing favorable mutations to spread quickly through a population. It requires the fusing of two special cells known as gametes, each of which contains half the genetic material of the parent organism, and transmits this half to the offspring during fertilization.
It is a logical possibility for all parent organisms to produce the same number of gametes. But some differences must have appeared early, if only by chance. And once such differences appeared, they had a tendency to become ever-greater, in a self-reinforcing process.
This is because there are strategic advantages both to producing more gametes and to producing fewer. More gametes mean, all other things being equal, greater odds that one of them will successfully fuse with another. And fewer gametes mean, all other things being equal, that each of one’s own is more valuable, with more gametes from other organisms competing to fuse with them (in reproduction, as in economics, scarcity raises the price). Over time, each strategy—success through numbers and success through scarcity—capitalizes on its own advantages by becoming, in the one case, ever more numerous, in the other, ever scarcer and more valuable.
These different strategies of gamete production are the origin of the two sexes. They also define the sexes: in any species, whichever sex produces more gametes is said to be “male,” while the sex which produces fewer is said to be “female.” This is how biologists distinguish the sexes when confronted with exotic creatures whose sexual identity is not intuitively obvious.
There are limits to how far the two sexual strategies can be taken: no male can produce an infinite number of sperm, and if a female were to produce no eggs at all, she would lose the advantages that come with scarcity. Still, in complex animals the differences can be enormous. In humans, the female produces about four hundred eggs over the course of a lifetime, while the male produces around twelve million sperm per hour.
The two sexes are equally important to reproduction in the sense that each instance of reproduction requires both a sperm and an egg. But considered individually, females are far more valuable than males. Think of it this way: a society of a thousand men and one woman would be doomed, unable to produce enough offspring from a single mother. But in a society of a thousand women and one man, while the fellow would have his work cut out for him, he might eventually produce enough offspring for life to go on. In other words, women are the limiting factor in reproduction. In the language of economics, they have greater marginal value than men.
This, by the way, explains why men are expected to risk their lives to defend women rather than the other way around, and why women rather than men filled the Titanic’s lifeboats. As writer Warren Farrell has put it, men are the expendable sex.
The function of evolution is the perpetuate and spread of favorable mutations, which are rare, and the elimination of harmful mutations, which are common. Because most mutations are harmful, experimenting with them is a dangerous business. Nature does not squander valuable females on such a task; they must be kept safe to perpetuate the species. With the less valuable males, however, nature can afford to experiment and lose a few—or even most of them.
Dangerous mutations are isolated from females in various ways. The most obvious is to put them directly on the male, or Y, chromosome; but this is uncommon because the Y chromosome is so small. Somewhat counterintuitively, mutations can also be isolated from females when they occur on the female (X) chromosome—as long as they are recessive. In that case, the mutation will be expressed in males but usually unexpressed in females. This is why sex-linked disorders such as Hemophilia and certain forms of Muscular Dystrophy overwhelmingly affect men rather than women.
Most mutations, of course, occur on one of the other 22 pairs of human chromosomes. What happens in this case is that such mutations are more exposed to the process of natural and sexual selection in males than in females. Through competition, men test their own limits in ways that reveal any weakness, or any unusual strengths, in their genetic makeup. In primitive societies, male competition may take the form of hunting and fighting, and as many as half of all males may not even reach adulthood. In the modern world, competition is more likely to be directed toward economic or social success, with unsuccessful males stuck watching porn rather than being killed. In either case, the underlying reality is the same. Success in intra-male competition is the basis of female mate choice. Women are sensitive to even slight differences in genetic fitness, which can translate into big differences in male reproductive success. This is especially obvious in a polygamous society, but the same effect occurs in a more muted way under a system of monogamy, with males perceived as fit tending to marry earlier with (on average) younger, healthier, more fertile females.
Equipped with just this very basic understanding of sex, we can begin to grasp the full insanity of feminist ideology. Consider only the demand that women be integrated into the armed forces. It might be possible for an ideological dictatorship to impose such a policy, backing it up with severe punishments for officers and enlisted men who “discriminate” between their male and female fellow-soldiers. But this would do nothing to diminish the higher reproductive value of women. No legislative or police action by the state is capable of making eggs as common as sperm. For this reason, it would be irrational for any society to employ women in combat—even if (contrary to fact) they could be proven as effective in combat as men.
Fetal Hormonalization and Inborn Sex Differences
But the greater marginal reproductive value of women is only the beginning of the story of sexual differentiation. A host of physical, behavioral and psychological differences between men and women have evolved around this original and fundamental difference. In general, women are stronger in areas where men are weaker and vice-versa; the sexes complement one another rather than being equivalent.
During the first six weeks of human gestation, there is little to distinguish a male from a female embryo. But at around six or seven weeks, male brains are subjected to a “testosterone bath” similar to the hormonal surge which occurs at puberty. Testosterone levels at this period are about four times what they are during infancy and childhood, and this changes the way the male’s neural networks are laid out. In the absence of such a testosterone bath, the brain develops according to the female pattern.
Fetal hormonalization is a complex process, and many things can go wrong. Experiments with laboratory animals suggest that departures from sexual norms such as homosexuality and tomboyism may be rooted in abnormal dosages of sex hormones at the fetal stage; the feminist movement may even represent in part an effort by exceptionally masculized women to optimize society in accordance with their interests. Unfortunately, irregularities in fetal hormonalization cannot usually be counteracted by hormone treatments at a later time.
Sex differences in behavior are observable almost from birth: newborn girls are more interested than boys in people and faces, while boys can be just as interested in inanimate objects. As they grow, boys reveal a disposition to explore the physical world around them. They enjoy taking things apart to find out how they work. Girls, however, learn to speak earlier than boys, their brains being more efficiently organized for language. Girls are interested mainly in the social world.
By age four, boys and girls usually prefer to play apart. Boys enjoy competitive rough-and-tumble play resulting in clearly defined winners and losers. Girls’ play is often cooperative; any competition tends to be indirect, involving turn-taking and methodically defined stages. Hopscotch, e.g., is a quintessential girls’ game.
During childhood, boys and girls have the same kinds and levels of hormones circulating in their bodies; behavioral differences are the result of earlier fetal hormonalization. At puberty, a second rush of hormones enhances sexual differences. Puberty can be thought of as switching on the male and female circuitry laid down at the fetal stage. Boys’ testosterone levels rise to twenty times those of girls, resulting in a growth spurt, more red blood cells, and a higher bodily protein-to-fat ration: 40% vs. 15% in boys, 23% vs. 25% in girls. A boy’s temperament becomes more assertive and self-confident, while a girl’s tends to become less so.
While hormone levels remain fairly constant in men, they fluctuate wildly in women, resulting in mood swings over the course of her ovulatory cycle. During the first half of the cycle, under the effects of estrogen, a woman experiences elevated, positive moods. She feels more alert and her brain is better able to process more new information. She is more sexually receptive at this stage.
Following ovulation, estrogen levels sink and progesterone levels increase. Less oxygen reaches the brain and the woman’s temperament becomes calm or even sluggish. She may grow tired or become depressed easily. Due to the calming effects of progesterone, however, she is not normally hostile or aggressive.
If the woman becomes pregnant, progesterone continues to be produced. But during the least four or five days of months in which no fertilization occurs, both estrogen and progesterone levels sink dramatically. Regardless of her environment, a woman can become highly irritable or tearful at this stage. In severe cases, she may experience uncontrollable anger and become physically violent.
An adult man is on average 7% taller than an adult woman, with about twice as much upper body strength. Women see better than men in the dark, have better peripheral vision and can more easily distinguish between colors at the red end of the spectrum. Men see better than women in bright light. Women have more sensitive senses of hearing, smell and touch. As regards taste, men are better at discerning salty flavors, where women are more sensitive to bitterness.
Among the most important sex differences are those in cognitive functioning. Adult men have a three-to-five-point advantage over women in average IQ. Male intelligence is also more variable, with more men at both the highest and lowest levels, and women tending to bunch in the middle. Female intelligence also relies more heavily on verbal ability than that of men, while men have greater mathematical ability and much greater visuospatial ability. Together, these differences explain the enormous overrepresentation of men among high achievers in scientific and technical fields.
Male brains on the whole are 8-10 percent larger than female brains, and controlling for body size does not eliminate the difference. One area, the inferior parietal lobe implicated in tool use, is 25 percent larger in males. Male brains have proportionally less grey matter than female, but significantly more white matter and about 15-16 percent more neurons. An exception to this pattern is the corpus callosum, which connects the two hemispheres of the cerebrum. Females have more white matter in this particular region than males, making for better communication between hemispheres.
Testosterone promotes interconnectivity between areas of the brain, but the lower connectivity between hemispheres in the male brain means that the effects of testosterone are largely limited to promoting interconnectivity within each hemisphere separately. So the overall pattern is more connectivity between hemispheres in women, and more within hemispheres in men.
Male brains are also more specialized by region, with particular functions often strongly associated with well-defined areas, usually within a single hemisphere; in female brains, a single function may involve multiple brain areas in both hemispheres, and a single area may be involved in several functions. These differences in brain pattern underlie an observable sexual polarization in what might be termed cognitive style, that between reasoning and perception. Women are equipped to receive a wider range of sensory information and can connect and relate that information more easily; men are better at not letting themselves be distracted by irrelevant information while trying to solve problems.
In our environment of evolutionary adaptation, men specialized in hunting and women in gathering. Gathering requires an ability to detect edible plants barely distinguishable from their surroundings. This requires perceptiveness, but little reasoning ability. Tending to the needs of small children unable to communicate verbally also requires an ability to interpret subtle cues which sometimes do not even reach the threshold of conscious perception. This ability has traditionally been described by men as “women’s intuition,” for men find it hard to understand how women can know certain things without going through any process of reasoning.
Hunting wild animals, on the other hand, is a problem which requires analysis and reasoning ability. Reasoning involves abstracting the essential elements of a problem from the various irrelevancies in which it is embedded in the real world—nearly the opposite of what is involved in perceiving subtle differences. Here again, the sexes can be seen as complementing one another.
Given everything that is now reliably known about inborn sex differences, the continued respectability of feminism within the academy is nothing short of scandalous.
Feminism Comes Home: The Failure of Androgynous Marriage and Parenting
The feminist program of equivalency between the sexes requires the equal sharing of housework and child care between both parents, if only to leave women free to pursue paid careers outside the home. Articles in the popular press sometimes make it appear that modern society is shifting in this direction, but Prof. Steven Rhoads of the University of Virginia has demonstrated that this is simply untrue. The following information comes from his book Taking Sex Differences Seriously.
Researchers have found that both men and women find marriage easier when the wife’s career is less successful than the husband’s. Husbands feel better about themselves as spouses when their earnings increase, but “the greater a wife’s earnings relative to her husband, the worse she feels about herself as a spouse.” Couples will go to great lengths to conceal a high-earning wife’s income to protect the husband’s status as primary provider, and there appears to be a sound reason for this: overt and prolonged role reversal can be fatal to marriage.
Feminist Liz Gallese came across what appeared to be a happy female-provider marriage: the wife’s career was more successful than the husband’s, so he began looking after their child to let her focus on work (the economically rational thing to do). The woman seemed proud of her accomplishments and happy with the arrangement. The truth came to light only when Gallese began speaking to the husband; it turns out that the couple had entirely ceased having sexual relations. Armed with this new information, Gallese probed more deeply into the wife’s sentiments. The woman eventually admitted she wanted another child, but — not by her husband. “I absolutely refuse to sleep with that man,” she declared; “I’ll never have sex with him again.” Instead, she was now flirting with other successful businessmen. She did not intend to divorce her husband, however; he was too useful as a nanny for the child.
Prof. Rhoads initiated a study of the parenting practices of 184 young academics of both sexes. Majorities of both sexes agreed with the statement that “Families usually do best if the husband and wife share equally in child care, household work, and paid work;” in short, they were on board with the feminist project. Yet their parenting practices did not reflect these beliefs. The investigators distinguished twenty-five childcare related tasks and found that the female academics performed all of them far more often than male academics. This is probably in part because they enjoy doing so: many mothers report enjoying even such unlikely aspects of the job as changing their babies’ diapers, a taste seldom shared by fathers.
One researcher did manage to find a father who was careful to spend the exact same amount of time as his wife looking after their infant son because of his ideological commitment to feminism. The researcher found that he came up with “tricks” for getting through extended contact with his son [such as] “toys and events which kept the baby distracted, and thus decreased the father’s level of attention.” The father told about trying “to get things done.” He couldn’t stand the crying and fussing. Sometimes he would “go pound his fist in the wall.”
The reality seems to be that families sometimes resort to androgyny or outright role reversal under conditions of stress (e.g., loss of the father’s job or the prolonged illness of the mother), or occasionally as a direct result of ideological commitment, but that they show a strong tendency to return to natural norms over time. One study of non-traditional families “found on follow-up, just two years later, that only one-quarter of [the families] were maintaining their nontraditional ways.”
Male provisioning seems to have evolved as a response to the harsher climates early humans encountered when they wandered out of Africa, and a couple generations of feminist influence have proven insufficient to drive it out of our nature—even in cases where women are equally capable of doing the jobs men have traditionally done. Both men and women are likely to be happier where law and custom take account of their evolved sex-specific preferences rather than warring against them.
Bibliography
Donovan, Jack, The Way of Men (2012) explains how the traditional masculine virtues are rooted in the human environment of evolutionary adaptation of small, competing hunter-gatherer bands.
Ellis, Lee et al., Sex Differences: Summarizing More Than a Century of Scientific Research (2008). A reference work which condenses the results of over 18,000 studies related to sex differences into 990 pages.
Goldberg, Steven, Why Men Rule: A Theory of Male Dominance (1993). Explains on the basis of neuro-endocrinological differences why the overwhelming number of upper positions in all human social hierarchies are held by men. An earlier version of this book, The Inevitability of Patriarchy (1973) held the world record for most rejected book manuscript in the history of publishing, having been rejected 69 times by 55 different publishers.
Kaine, Roderick, Smart and SeXy (2016) explains that genes expressed in the nervous system are overrepresented on the sex chromosomes by a factor of between three and seven, and offers a theory of why humans evolved this way. This sex linkage explains the many sex differences in cognitive functioning, including why males are overrepresented both among the retarded and among the very highest achievers in cognitively demanding fields.
Levin, Michael, Feminism and Freedom (1988) demonstrates that feminism is incompatible with free institutions.
Moir, Anne and Jessel, David, Brain Sex: The Real Difference between Men and Women (1989) is, despite its age, still the best one-volume introduction to the subject of sex differences in behavior, sense and cognition. For fuller and more up to date information, see Brizendine, Louann, The Female Brain (2007) and The Male Brain (2011).
Moxon, Steve, The Woman Racket (2008), explains why we, unlike moray eels and other exotic creatures, evolved to be unisexual, i.e., why we are assigned to one sex at conception and retain that sexual identity all our lives. Also explains why lower-status men, rather than women, are the most socially disfavored group.
Rhoads, Steven, Taking Sex Differences Seriously (2004), focuses on sex differences in sexual behavior, nurturing and competitiveness. Demonstrates that contemporary Western society is not progressing toward a more androgynous model of marriage and parenting.
Source: https://aussienationalistblog.com/2018/10/03/the-sexes-complementary-not-equal/
21 comments
It’s nice to see secular science and sociology (and racial nationalists) catching up to traditional Christian moral and sexual theology. Christians have always understood the sexes to be complimentary rather than fungible. They have also emphasized the rightness of patriarchy (male “headship” of families).
Of course, that egalitarian feminism is false doesn’t mean that inegalitarian feminism is necessarily valueless. Men and women are psychologically differently constituted. Therefore, insofar as “feminism” simply refers to “the desire to give women a ‘voice’, or to see issues analyzed from female as well as male perspectives”, it is unexceptionable (though also far from especially important at this time in history).
In a WN Ethnostate, pre-menopausal women’s roles will be far more circumscribed and traditional (than they are today). But the net result should be greater overall happiness and life satisfaction for women and men, as well more collectively useful roles in society. Most women in ‘careers’ do not do much that is either useful or that men could not do as well, or more usually better: not only are the best STEM persons, mechanics, farmers, and soldiers men, so are most of the best hairstylists and clothing designers (why this should be so, I have no idea). And in large organizations, women tend to cluster in the least important or most non-‘core’ areas.
Anyway, in the first few generations of the Ethnostate, most women will have to be true “reproductive pioneers”, spending most of their lives bearing and raising children. Once the Ethnostate has become truly demographically and militarily secured, hyper-reproduction will become less urgent, and women can be granted greater leisure and career options (though of course, there must be no gender affirmative action and lowering of core competence standards).
Another short primer on these issues that Dr. Devlin did not mention is Glenn Wilson, The Great Sex Divide.
In a WN Ethnostate, pre-menopausal women’s roles will be far more circumscribed and traditional (than they are today).
If so, it helps to explain why there are so few women in the American WN movement.
While many women would like to have the choice of leading a more traditional life, very few want to have their roles far more circumscribed by others.
Well, it doesnt matter much in this area of discussion, the patriarchy will win either way. Liberal leftists dont reproduce enough to compete with patriarchal societies (90% of the planet) and a feminist society with weak men and open borders wont be able to defend itself.
Fortunately, we Europeans don’t have to choose between a misogynic patriarchy and what you call a “feminist” society with weak men and open borders. The fastest growing political movement is national populism, which fights against open borders and often favor pro-natal policies. The parties of this movement are neither patriarchal nor matriarchal, but meritocratic, which allows for strong men as well as strong women.
In the near future(with sufficient funding) mankind can reproduce itself via cloning and artificial wombs. Then we can have a world with only the male sex. Sexual urges can be removed with genetic modification. There is a condition called asexuality which pretty much means lack of sexual desire. We should just find out which genes are responsible for this and then use them in our clones.
Sounds likes science fiction? Mammals have been cloned successfully, genetic modification of animals is routine already and the development of artificial womb is underway. A few decades and this will be possible. A few decades more and the process will be efficient and ready for mass production.
If that is where Western Civilization is leading we should just let it go.
What you are saying appears to be heading towards a completely meaningless existence. To simply exist without any existential, emotional or intellectual depth, without anything to fill the empty landscape of merely being doesn’t have an appeal.
@M. Porcius
Other than the part about the male sex becoming the only one left, this vision of the future is totally worth embracing. To the two nay-sayers: Western Civilization as we once knew it is never coming back, and I don’t think people would be nihilistic in such a future, because nihilism implies unhappiness, and people would be objectively happier in such a society, particularly men.
Women would be happier as well once they realize they can remove their unwanted desires as well. Instead of crying every night in a bathtub with a bottle of wine listening to Adele, they can wake up every morning with a sense of hope for their future and go to work making the world a better place without the burden of waiting for a Big Strong Man to save them.
Embrace the future boys.
The Sexes: Complementary, Not “Equal”
Devlin seems to neglect that “equal” has two different definitions. The first is “same,” the second is “having equal rights.” People that adhere to the notion that men and women are equal, use the word in the second sense. Thus, men and women are often regarded as biologically complementary AND equal:
https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/equal
In a similar way we can say that different kinds of people are complementary, but still equal. Male cooks, firefighters, and philosophy professors often have different personalities, skills, and talents. They are not equal according the first, but to the second, definition.
A key component of the ideology currently dominant in the West is the “equality” of the sexes … If women are no different from men, it cannot be fair to treat them differently.
But “equality” refers to “same rights” – not “same nature.”
https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/equality
And “feminism,” in the basic sense, is “the belief that women should have the same rights and opportunities as men.” How similar or different the sexes are on average is another question, to which feminists, as well as not-feminists, have different answers.
https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/feminism
Most [feminists] content themselves with attempting to demonstrate that women and men are functionally equivalent (“equal”) in particular kinds of situations: within the family, in the workplace, in sporting competitions, even in combat.
If that was the case most feminists would be against sex-segregation in sporting competitions. But very few are. On the contrary there is a growing resistance against trans-“women” in these competitions, since they are genetically male.
Among the most important sex differences are those in cognitive functioning. Adult men have a three-to-five-point advantage over women in average IQ.
Different kinds of IQ-tests give different results. Some of them favor men, others favor women. But overall the average sex differences are very small:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_intelligence
If we are looking for “the most important sex differences” we should rather check the crime statistics.
Both men and women are likely to be happier where law and custom take account of their evolved sex-specific preferences rather than warring against them.
Afghanistan, Saudi-Arabia, and other Muslim countries already have such laws, but for some reason many women aren’t very happy with them.
“If that was the case most feminists would be against sex-segregation in sporting competitions. But very few are. On the contrary there is a growing resistance against trans-“women” in these competitions, since they are genetically male.”
Devin clearly says “most [feminists]” when he mentions their attempts to show functional equality within the family, workplace, ahtletics, and the military. Your example regarding feminists’ opposition to trans-women athletes competing against natural women does not gainsay Devin’s point, but rather highlights feminist pretention and hypocrisy.
IMO Devin’s critique is too kind. From my personal experience and first-hand observations, most young and middle-age women, even those who are not strident feminists, not only believe they are funcationally equal, but have been successfully indoctrinated to believe that anything a man can do, they can do better. Their forcible insertion into the military combat arms, field engineering, construction, air traffic control, fire-fighting, accounting, trial law, and other professions which require high degrees of teamwork, physical strength, stamina, emotional restraint, and analytical thinking, has been disastrous.
From my personal experience and first-hand observations, most young and middle-age women, even those who are not strident feminists, not only believe they are funcationally equal, but have been successfully indoctrinated to believe that anything a man can do, they can do better.
Women’s career choices suggest otherwise. I’d be willing to bet that you don’t know a single woman who is a police officer, soldier, or computer programmer (unless of course you are in one of these fields).
For the most part, women continue to pursue relatively traditional occupations that play to our strengths. Even women doctors are likely to remain content with a general family practice where they can enjoy a nurturing relationship with families and a relatively slower pace of life, albeit with less income.
Women doctors dominate pediatrics; men dominate orthopedic surgery.
https://www.ama-assn.org/residents-students/specialty-profiles/how-medical-specialties-vary-gender
“I’d be willing to bet that you don’t know a single woman who is a police officer, soldier, or computer programmer (unless of course you are in one of these fields).”
Lexi, thanks for the response. Let me toss in my 2 bits.
I served on active duty for 6 years as a commissioned officer in the Army Signal Corps ( telecommunications ) and 17 years as a reserve officer in the Army Corps of Engineers ( civil and environmental ). My close friend and former roomate at the service academy from which I graduated decades ago spent his career in the Military Police.
My civilian engineering career was spent mostly in federal agencies such as NOAA and the FAA where my many projects here and abroad necessitated working for long periods with air traffic controllers, meteorologists, astrophysicists, electronic engineers, computer programers, real estate lawyers, and archeologists.
My brother-in-law and close friend of 30 years was a career fireman ( though the term “fireman” is now verboten ). Both my mother and father were Marine Corps WW2 veterans and practiced law together in their own small town firm for 45 years.
After retiring from my military and government careers, I taught English and math at our nearby high school. Over the years in all of the aforementioned fields, I directly knew or worked with hundreds of women in subordinate, co-equal, or supervisory roles.
Anyway, I’m not especially smart or fast on the uptake, but have always been a curious guy who observes and asks lots of questions. My strong sentiments about the soul-deadening harm to men, women, children, White society in general casued by the jewish subversions of coerced feminism and racial diversity is not personal. I like and love women, and my 97 year old Mom approves of my message.
Devin clearly says “most [feminists]” when he mentions their attempts to show functional equality within the family, workplace, ahtletics, and the military. Your example regarding feminists’ opposition to trans-women athletes competing against natural women does not gainsay Devin’s point, but rather highlights feminist pretention and hypocrisy.
I pointed out that Devlin was wrong about that most feminists claim that the sexes are functionally equivalent in sporting competitions. Most people, including feminists, support sex-segregated competitions, since women, on average, have much less muscular strength and lower testosterone levels than men. The same goes for different weight classes in combat sports like boxing and wrestling. There is nothing pretentious or hypocritical in admitting that.
[Women’s] forcible insertion into the military combat arms, field engineering, construction, air traffic control, fire-fighting, accounting, trial law, and other professions which require high degrees of teamwork, physical strength, stamina, emotional restraint, and analytical thinking, has been disastrous.
All professions require certain qualities of its performers. And employers shall of course demand that their employees have these qualities – regardless of their sex.
Here is an account of a study of about thirty years ago:
http://www.heretical.com/miscella/frcombat.html
The whole issue, then, comes down to whether or not women and men are in fact like cases, whether or not there are important natural differences between the sexes that may justify different treatment in at least some situations.
The common-sense norm of equal treatment in no way relies on the claim of male-female fungibility.
If anything, the fact that men and women are different suggests that coercion is unnecessary, as most people will settle into traditional gender roles, anyway.
This is perhaps the creepiest thing I have ever read in WN literature, and that’s saying something:
“Unfortunately, irregularities in fetal hormonalization cannot usually be counteracted by hormone treatments at a later time.”
And this is a desperate load of nonsense:
In our environment of evolutionary adaptation, men specialized in hunting and women in gathering. Gathering requires an ability to detect edible plants barely distinguishable from their surroundings. This requires perceptiveness, but little reasoning ability. Tending to the needs of small children unable to communicate verbally also requires an ability to interpret subtle cues which sometimes do not even reach the threshold of conscious perception. This ability has traditionally been described by men as “women’s intuition,” for men find it hard to understand how women can know certain things without going through any process of reasoning.
Figuring out what is edible and what is not and how to treat wounds and illnesses in children and domesticated animals is scientific reasoning. Unsurprisingly, women’s are surpassing men in in medical school and long ago surpassed men in veterinary school.
I can tell when my kids are sick by observing their symptoms and demeanor. An irrational “intuition” has literally nothing to do with it.
Fine.
You’ve had many thousands of years to dig out the science behind or even disprove the nonsense of the idea of female intuition.
Noe results so far.
I suggest you get to it instead of whining that the male scientists have not provided it. That’s just relying on an old pattern.
And Dr Edward Dutton may have a hunch as to why, as his research proves that there is a correlation between female intelligence and lack of offspring. They become too intelligent to be bothered with children.
The idea off the equality of the sexes and it’s stepchild feminism screams of one thing: Impotence.
You’ve had many thousands of years to dig out the science behind or even disprove the nonsense of the idea of female intuition.
I don’t need to disprove the idea of female intuition. You need to prove your implicit claim that intelligence has not conferred any survival advantage on women over the ages, and anything we are good at has nothing to do with analytical reasoning abilities.
Do you think “female intuition” helps women with the MCAT? Do the research and you’ll find that the gender gap in MCAT scores among admitted medical students has dwindled to virtually nothing.
And Dr Edward Dutton may have a hunch as to why, as his research proves that there is a correlation between female intelligence and lack of offspring. They become too intelligent to be bothered with children.
Typical baseless speculation. How do you know intelligent women don’t want to be bothered with children? As far as I know, desired fertility has no significant relationship with educational attainment. What is different about them is not that they want fewer children, but rather that they are capable of consistently using birth control. You also ignore the fact that intelligent women prefer intelligent men. What is their desired fertility?
If anything, the there is evidence that more educated women want more children. This makes sense when you think about it. The unexamined life is more likely to be selfish and decadent.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040260813000464
“Typical baseless speculation.” But of course.
From your link:
“However, there remain significant educational differences in achieved fertility with highly educated women on average having smaller mean actual family size.”
In Devlin’s rather interesting article here he also states the overrepresentation of males in the lower IQ range. Funny enough I have never encountered a woman arguing against that fact.
“However, there remain significant educational differences in achieved fertility with highly educated women on average having smaller mean actual family size.”
I wasn’t disputing the fact of lower fertility, but your claim as to the cause of it, as I suspect was obvious to everyone but you.
In Devlin’s rather interesting article here he also states the overrepresentation of males in the lower IQ range. Funny enough I have never encountered a woman arguing against that fact.
And I have never heard any woman anywhere attempt to use this fact to justify prescribing men’s right to equal treatment.
In any event, has anyone here denied that men are overrepresented at the extreme right tail of the bell curve? I certainly haven’t.
‘Men’ and ‘women’ are cleverly created linguistic abstractions. Fathers, sons, brothers, husbands, mothers, daughters, sisters, and wives are concrete categorizations and any discourse must be carried out within their confine.
Both sexes have multiple roles in civilized societies which are defined by the ties of blood.
We have faced opprobrium from our ‘modernists’ for strictly observing these divisions but I am glad that for all our faults the majority of us has never been cavalier about our womenfolk and will never be. Over our dead bodies.
When I was a girl, I did office work for an organization that did aptitude and psychological testing. Here’s the gen: men are better at spatial, numerical and mechanical reasoning. Within all categories of aptitudes there is greater or lesser intelligence in the IQ sense. Females were herded toward office/admin jobs and the men toward everything else. Mind you, this was more than 35 years ago.
I would say that biology is actually changing to some degree, i.e., brain structure, and maybe that’s why women supposedly can fly all kinds of airplanes as well as men do. But somehow, there are precious few women in aircraft maintenance, just for an example, in spite of women being pushed toward such careers. Maybe this is simple minded, but men still seem to have to do the heavy lifting (in the broad sense) that underlies the kinds of nontraditional jobs women are praised for pursuing.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.