2,644 words
Introduction
Some people think that the sexes only differ because of discrimination, “society,” or “the environment.” Were it not for the way they are treated, their upbringing, or the advertisements they see, women would be just like men. In case you ever meet someone such as this who is teetering on the brink of enlightenment, here are 12 things you can say to him that might push him over — after you have explained that it is only women who bear children, of course, which explains most other innate sex differences.
1. A narrower range of interests
Women have a narrower range of interests than do men, as seen in the businesses they start up. On Dragons’ Den, the original Shark Tank, where entrepreneurs pitch their ideas to the “dragon” investors, men might have started businesses in anything from aviation, construction, computing, or electricals to soup, strollers, perfumes, or labor-saving devices for the home. By contrast, almost every woman has started a business to do with babies or children, fashion and cosmetics, or baking. Skin cream for the under-threes, hair extensions, dresses that keep women cool, coffee bags, and muffins are the sort of things they offer. No one has told them to limit their interests to women, children, and the kitchen. Quite the opposite: for 50 years unstinting efforts have been made to attract women to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. But they still have their characteristic interests.
2. Happy in supporting roles
Despite a parallel campaign to get women to aspire to be leaders, they more often choose supporting roles. Whereas a man might devote himself to trying to climb the corporate ladder, many women are content to be dental assistants, personal assistants, and the like. Also, women’s attitude to work and their reasons for working are not the same as men’s. A former finance director saw no humiliation in switching to the role of dinner lady so that she could see more of her family. Many so-called career women only aspire to go part-time. The reason two women I know work at the local pub is that it is the only way they can see their busy friend: the landlady.
It is true that there were always headmistresses and matrons, showing that no one ever tried to stop women taking charge of quite large numbers of people, but few aspired to lead big companies. When we see a woman in a leadership position today, we can be fairly sure she got it not on merit but so that we might conclude that the only reason few women were in such positions before her is that men were keeping them out. Nor is it surprising that such diversity hires don’t always perform very well. Not long after Dany Cotton was put in charge of the London Fire Brigade in 2017, despite not being qualified to drive a fire engine, an apartment block caught fire. When she should have been supervising the response, she kept having to go into a nearby house to use the bathroom.[1]
3. More coordinating, less competitive
Girls are more interested in social coordination and less in competition than are boys. No one tells girls to focus their playground games on being in step with each other and synchronizing their hand-patting, yet this is what their games are all about, and they are remarkably good at them. Meanwhile, the boys run round all over the place trying to get the better of each other in various ways.
Women’s lesser interest in competition could help explain the fact that they are poor at sports compared to men. When the Australian national women’s soccer team played a regional side of 15-year-old boys, they lost seven-nil.[2] It is for this sort of reason that the film Gregory’s Girl (1981) had to be made, where Dorothy was a better soccer player than Gregory. Women’s small interest in competition could also help explain the fact that they are comparatively poor at chess, there having been just 37 women among the world’s top 1,600 grandmasters in 2020. This is why the Netflix series Queen’s Gambit, about a female chess prodigy, won so many awards. The more obviously false an idea is, the more it must be celebrated as the truth. Fortunately, most women are too sensible to mind admitting that they do not excel at soccer or chess. They lack the envy and resentment of feminists. Besides, what do they care about soccer or chess?
4. More egocentric and less rational
Women tend to be more egocentric and less rational than men. Complaining about an advertisement, a woman once said: “They shouldn’t be allowed to make ads showing new-born babies when there are women about who have just lost theirs.” If she had just lost her baby, that was terrible for her, but it didn’t mean that pictures of babies had to be banned, any more than pictures of holiday destinations had to be banned for the sake of people who had had to cancel their holidays.
5. A less prehistoric self-image
Women are less inclined than men to compare themselves to early humans. When word got round that geneticists at the Max Planck Institute in Leipzig were researching the Neanderthal contribution to human DNA, several people approached them saying that they thought they might be Neanderthals. All were men. Some women approached them, however, to say they thought they might be married to Neanderthals.[3] This sex difference is unlikely to result solely from women being raised to foster the feminine ideal rather than to think of themselves as ape-like hulks. They foster it by nature, having found over the millennia that the closer they get to it, the better their chance of attracting a decent mate.
6. A different use of language
Women use language differently from men, often attenuating their statements as though not to upset a child. A woman assisting at a supermarket self-checkout who intends to put something down won’t say that she is going to put it down, but that she’ll just pop it over here. A female receptionist about to look something up will say, “I’ll have a little look.” A female forensic expert said that sheets are placed over the deceased at murder scenes because it “allows us to control the area a little bit better.” A man would not have added the last four words.
You Can buy F. Roger Devlin’s Sexual Utopia in Power here.
Women seek concord. Even as journalists, who might be expected to be in a position to make authoritative reports, they seek the agreement of their interviewers. When asked why the Duke of Edinburgh’s grandsons would not be walking together behind his coffin, a female journalist said, “Well, I think the Queen has put her foot down, really, hasn’t she, with regard to the uniforms?” What this meant no one knew, but it sounded like something everyone could agree with. When a reporter put a question to three young women walking down the street, they didn’t answer independently but looked at each other before the first one spoke, after which the other two said the same.
When writing, young women use exclamation marks liberally, as though in a permanent state of excitement. Their handwriting tends to be rounder and loopier than men’s. Many find it cute to put a little circle over an “i” rather than a dot. They also find it cute to give themselves short names ending with this letter. Whereas a boy named Robert or Gerald might call himself Robbie or Gerry, a Patricia or a Catherine will call herself Patti or Cathi. No one knows why they do this, but it is not because they have been told to do so by the patriarchy.
7. Happy to be subject to a higher authority
Women have a greater need than men to believe that they are being looked over and looked after by a higher authority, which is why any church congregation contains four or five times as many women as men, at least in Britain. When a 45-year-old mother-of-two went missing here in 2023, women commenting on videos about the case often said things such as “God bless her and take care of her wherever she is”; “May a miracle happen, may she return back safely soon, Amen”; and “My prayers will be for those little girls.” Men rarely appealed to the divine authority.
Women are more likely than men to appeal to any kind of higher authority. It is in their nature to demand that someone do something, like the one who was upset by the advertisement. During the 2020 lockdown, a woman told on local social media how she had been “having a nose to see how many non-locals are about,” reporting that in one minute she’d seen about ten. “It’s only gonna get busier if someone with authority doesn’t sort it,” she concluded.
Women with husbands who take responsibility appear happier than those whose husbands only want to please them. Women seem to take more pleasure in submitting to a man who will take care of things than in finding that they are supposed to take care of things themselves. Of course, feminists say the opposite and make a point of defying men rather than deferring to them, but what do they know of women’s nature? When they’re not trying to defeat it, they deny that it exists.
8. Not made to be daredevils
A woman who had been raised under feminism to believe that a woman could do anything a man could do was given the chance to perform a “doughnut” — a wheel-spinning stunt in a car.[4] When she said she didn’t know how to, her instructor told her she was going to learn. She was afraid she’d wreck the car — but it was already wrecked, he said. He told her what to do.[5] She told him to guide her as she did it. It didn’t work. After trying three more times without success, she said, “I don’t think I have it in me.” He explained, “You’ve got to get the tires spinning.” She tried and failed again before giving up. “She made it longer than I thought she would,” he said, before doing the stunt with her in the passenger seat. “That’s what you’ve got to do.” “I can’t do that,” she replied.
Women’s risk-aversion was also seen in a husband-and-wife human cannonball team, where he was the cannonball while she made the bookings and did the paperwork. In a small fishing business, it is the husband who goes out in the boat while his wife stays at home and keeps the books. These sex differences do not result from social conditioning. With or without social conditioning, what woman would want to be blasted out of a canon or go out alone in a boat in all weathers trying to catch fish?
9. Not anglers
Speaking of fishing, it is the most popular sport in Britain, yet one rarely sees a woman with a fishing rod. Do men conspire to stop women fishing or does it just not appeal to women? Perhaps the sexes evolved so that the men went off to catch the food while the women looked after the children and involved themselves in the life of the community. It would have been no more in the interests of ancient woman to go fishing than it would be in the interests of a female bird to look for food when she should be sitting on her eggs. But feminists think that women should do the equivalent at no matter what cost to their children. They want to show that they can emulate their mates, by whom they claim to be oppressed when they do not succeed.
10. Poorer spatial awareness
Women notoriously have poorer spatial awareness than do men. This can be confirmed by noting the sex of anyone who blocks your way in a supermarket, who, had they been more aware of what was going on around them, might have moved their trolley to the side, got out of the middle of an aisle while having a chat with someone, or refrained from stopping dead in front of you as you walked behind them. 19 times out of 20 it will be a woman, and there are not 19 times as many women as men in supermarkets. Women are also comparatively poor at reversing. I was once in a group where three of the five women freely admitted that they didn’t like having to reverse a car. One said that she would go out of her way when parking to make sure she never had to. But of course, many women can reverse a car perfectly well. They faithfully do as their driving instructors told them, as obeying instructions to the letter is another female trait.
11. Preoccupied with the personal and particular
Women take more interest in the personal and particular than in the abstract or the general. In the 1960s the journalist Michael Frayn commented on his paper’s new women’s page, noting the contrast between its preoccupation with individuals and the impersonal character of the rest of the paper. He was a little taken aback by some of the more extreme female journalism, as when a woman wrote about her mother-in-law, whom she said drove her crazy. She found the older woman’s mannerisms irritating, her conversation infuriating, and her feet silly-looking. Frayn could only hope that members of his family wouldn’t start writing this sort of thing about him in a national newspaper.
Women are more interested in what is near at hand than in what is far away, both in time and place. They take more interest in yesterday or tomorrow than in the distant past or distant future, and more in the state of the children’s bedroom than in the state of Mars. So do men, but to a lesser degree. Explorers, futurologists, and astronomers are rarely women.
12. More inclined to cry
Women are not just more inclined than men to cry — or to “get emotional”, as they put it — they like being that way. When a woman started crying during a choir practice for the funeral of a member, no one noticed until she drew attention to the fact by saying, “I’ve started crying!” The other women laughed delightedly and with understanding, as though to say, “Yes, I was almost crying, too!”
If something like a speech or concert makes a woman cry, she rarely fails to mention the fact when reporting on the event later. Not only does she imagine that her emotional comings and goings will be of general interest; for her the fact that it made her cry proves that the event had quality.
When women cry to attract help or pity, this is related to their comparative lack of adventurousness and independence, as seen in experiments where babies are separated from their mothers by a barrier. Baby boys try to crawl round the barrier, whereas baby girls stay where they are and cry.[6] This is not unlike the way in which a woman with a blowout stands by her car looking helpless until a man changes the wheel, whereas a man with a flat tire changes it himself.[7]
Conclusion
If when you have made these points, your friend accuses you of putting women down, you must retire. There is nothing you can do for him.
* * *
Like all journals of dissident ideas, Counter-Currents depends on the support of readers like you. Help us compete with the censors of the Left and the violent accelerationists of the Right with a donation today. (The easiest way to help is with an e-check donation. All you need is your checkbook.)
For other ways to donate, click here.
Notes
[1] “Statement of: COTTON, DANY,” February 21, 2018 (Dany Cotton’s statement to the Grenfell Tower inquiry).
[2] Evening Standard, May 26, 2016, “Australian women’s national team lose 7-0 to team of 15-year-old boys.”
[3] See a talk by Dr. Svante Pääbo, University of California Television, Oct. 10, 2014, “A Neanderthal Perspective on Human Origins – 2014.”
[4] vehcor, July 23, 2021, “A 2012 Camaro SS auction car with a valuable surprise under the seat.”
[5] Namely step on the brake, hold it down, press on the accelerator, and when the back wheels start spinning, let off the brake and turn the steering wheel.
[6] Glenn Wilson, The Great Sex Divide (Washington, DC: Scott-Townsend, 1992), 110.
[7] This was pointed out by Esther Vilar in The Manipulated Man (London: Pinter and Martin, 1971/1998), 15.
30 comments
Due to a lack of competitiveness most women should not be involved in computer gaming or the more competitive and complex table top games such as Warhammer 40k. The invasion of female streamers, commentators etc into these spheres has been a disaster. Men naturally pour intense intellectual power into these things (usually with a lot of math) to either directly compete against each other (PvP) or indirectly by competing against an environment (PvE) and then comparing how well they did. This is similar to how ancients used chess, hunting etc to train princes. Women usually push for these games to be dumbed down and turned into a mere social activities like Uno, and then complain when true enjoyers of the game want to enjoy it in its proper form.
Numbers 1 and 4-11 also apply to black males.
This is a good post, but it would be better if these claims were all backed by evidence that the differences are “due to nature”, or at least by a plausible just-so story. Otherwise people can simply claim, as you said in your introduction, that these differences are primarily due to the way they’re treated, advertising, or their upbringing.
May I second this. Your generalizations seem quite accurate to me but much of your evidence is pretty threadbare. It also reads like you’re trying to take women down a peg or two, which is somewhat understandable in the present day, but our women really are, or should be, delightful and wonderful creatures, who are better than men in ways which relate to the traditional role of women in human society. One example is significantly more acute hearing. Fine motor co-ordination is also somewhat better in women.
The point number nine is unconvincing too. Many peoples are not fishers, both men and women, simply because they do not eat fish, or do not live near lakes, rivers and seas. Or they simply prefer meat, horse meat, for example, but not fish. This is not sexual difference, but much more difference in national traditions and customs.
Yes, this, except I don’t agree it is a good article at all. A lot of the anecdotes he uses are unconvincing as anecdotes as well.
“three out of five women don’t like driving in reverse” Are there men who like to drive in reverse and don’t go out of their way to avoid it? It would be an epiphany for me if a significant proportion of men would answer in the affirmative.
His anecdote about Neanderthals makes a better argument for the opposite position.
Parts of it are just thick, like when he compares miscarriage or losing a baby with having to cancel a vacation.
I could go on…
Of course, you write about women as a group. There have always been and will be outliers—i.e. women like Leni Riefenstahl.
There were and are many exceptions, there were and are women scientists, women pilots, women explorers, even women warriors. But anyway there are much more men in those professions.
This is a marvelous post that indeed points out many of the differences unique to women.
As a female, I flunked Geometry in High School; I had no idea from day 1 what in the world they were talking about, though the teacher graciously gave me a ‘D’ rather than ‘F’ in order not to ruin my chances at entering college. And I hardly had passed Algebra either. However I mad nearly all A’s in everything else, especially in Literature and History. On the “Iowa Tests” (which were really camouflaged I.Q. tests), I scored 91 (percentile) overall, after being pulled down by my math score of 52.
I hated sports like basketball, baseball (softball for us girls) or tennis, but loved horseback riding (on weekends) and ice skating with speed skates. I didn’t compete in races, just loved going fast and smooth over the ice on my own.
I took Art History in College at UCLA and loved it, then took Librarianship in grad school, but when I applied to libraries, they asked if I had any management skills or experience in libraries on each interview. I felt like saying: “Hell no, I want to work with books, not manage people and office nonsense!”
Thankfully, I had always been able to get a temp job in office settings, so when I graduated, I spent years in office jobs which paid the bills and got me good pensions.
While working at a university in Seattle for several years, I was able to attend their classes, one class at a time, for free, so I chose Russian History because I wondered what the Cold War we were living through was all about. I got straight “A”s and met up with Marxism, Communism and the Gulags. To this day, I am a blatant enemy of Marxism in all its modern guises, and that is how I ended up here at White Nationalism.
And thank heavens I worked 53 years at drudge jobs — which females are better at than males — to get decent pensions from 3 sources, which float me now, and give me a few stray shekels to send to CC. Having a safe and secure source of money is central to women — I think you missed that aspect of women: SECURITY is #1.
How many Alexandra O’s are out there? I don’t see too many women on websites like this one? Sadly you’re an anomaly. We need more like you.
I don’t think it’s fair to say that women are necessarily better at drudge jobs than men, each sex does different drudgeries. Security guards, garbagemen, underground coal-miners…….Men don’t relish being office boys or the like long-term and this is probably a status issue. It’s not a masculine role and is unlikely to impress the young ladies.
You’re totally right as to ‘drudge jobs’, for both men or women — they are what keep the planet running. Garbagemen, as I learned once, make upwards of 60 to 80 thousand yearly or more. But, so far, I haven’t seen any women on those big noisy trucks on our streets, though I can guess those ‘glass ceilings’ are being broken somewhere.
Some of this stuff is just not true. Everybody cries. The difference is men have to hide when we do it and then pretend like we haven’t in decades. Most of the medical field is now women, which is a disaster, yet disproves that women seek subordination. Women certainly love being nitpicking middle-managers. They love being credentialed with degrees and titles, and will publicly remind men on Capitol Hill to address them as ‘senator’ or ‘doctor’ because they earned that respect. Married women are not happier. If that were true it would still be the natural default, but it isn’t because most women seek independence from men, even within marriage. It’s funny how the Cuckservatives and even Alt-Rightists still thread the needle describing gender differences aside from physical strength. Neither will touch the intelligence quotient, which also skews towards men. Instead they rely on the politically-correct Bell Curve that states ‘it balances out.’ Lol no it doesn’t. There would be more female inventors by now, but there isn’t and not from a lack of interest but ability.
Regarding crying, Mr Knight stated that women are more inclined to do it, which seems unarguably true. He made no claim that men never cried. Men crying has traditionally been deeply frowned upon, at least in Anglo-Saxon culture, but I would say is much more acceptable than it was sixty years ago; another symptom of the decline of the masculine archetype.
There are no ‘gender’ differences, only sex differences but there does seem to be a marked difference between men and women in the possession of the combination of qualities required to innovate. I think it’s quite possible that a fair bit does relate to inclination and interest rather than ability per se, allowing that extraordinary intelligence is more common in men but is only one factor in innovation.
Thank you Mr. Stickler, but your half-measures are precisely the threading of the needle I am talking about. Where are the scientific breakthroughs being made by women today? They make up most of the field now and yet still no improvement. Also, the crying has been said to be done by men more than women these days and no, it is not accepted by society, which is why the suicide rate is higher than ever and more men are single than ever. I notice you’re the same reply-guy on every video not adding much but contrarianism.
Encouraging men to whimper is not the solution to our problems and it’s not going to reduce the suicide rate, like a sense of higher purpose would. Real women are not interested in men crying, which they correctly view as their job. As for ‘gender’ it’s a weasel word which has insinuated itself into most places formerly occupied by sex. No-one quite knows what it is, so the termites can keep on redefining it and using it to delude the young.
If you don’t want anyone to challenge what you write, don’t write, at least not here. Pace
‘Real women’
Now it makes sense. You’re a woman. That’s called No True Scotsman fallacy. You don’t challenge anything. It’s bordering on trolling. My points stand. I didn’t encourage anything. Women are ruthless and destructive, which is why patriarchy is the only way.
You’re the one one who starts each riposte with an insult.
Sure, some women are ‘ruthless and destructive’ but most are not. Same goes for men. Sex roles are a good thing and if properly recognised by society would probably leave more people happy and raising children. Men are generally better suited to leadership and strategy, especially with regards to racial matters. So we need enough ‘patriarchy’ to make all that happen.
You are a woman though. You need to state that because men argue differently with each other. You basically agree with me now besides from the exact caveat I’m talking about. You’re leaving room for the liberal monster to come back. We cannot have ‘sex roles’ without patriarchy entirely. There are no half-measures. Why is this so difficult to understand? No leaks. No exceptions. We have tried every strategy and it always leads to liberalism. It has to be snuffed out and annihilated once and for all any time it shows up. It isn’t that bad if you truly believe men are leaders. You just won’t have promiscuity, which the majority of women cannot live without.
You are now banned for being an obnoxious sperg.
I have been afflicted with severe schadenfreude ever since male sexual deviants pretending to be women have begun invading women’s sports. On the one hand, I would never allow anyone with a Y-chromosome to compete in women’s sports, but since they can, the wailing and keening of feminists at the unfairness of it all is delicious to savor.
Same here. It brings me to giddiness.
I’ve come to consider myself a male feminist; if women want equality, especially where usurping male roles, let them choke on it.
The more obviously false an idea is, the more it must be celebrated as the truth.
The ruling axiom of our Empire of Lies.
Funny picture for me, because in my situation, it’s my sis who teaches me how to deal with all this it-stuff, not vice versa.
… but otherwise my interests are very “manly”, her very “feminine”. I’m interested in war & politics, she (my older sis) and my younger sis are not interested in typically feminine nonsenses like fashion or dances.
I have wanted to say: my sisters are interested in nonsenses like dances or fashion, idk why I have written the word ‘not’, sorry for my mistake.
You’re a better man than I am, Gunga Din!
Well, another little helper would be for older men to let the young guys know that women don’t like porn! They are not visual creatures like men are, guys used to show off their fancy cars, etc. to attract women. But I remember hearing on the Tom Leykis syndicated AM radio show during the 2000s a caller note how all these young guys who think women think the same way as they do were looking for girlfriends on craigslist by simply posting a picture of their junk. Seriously? Only homos would go for that? In my town now we have a Big 10 University and I see on the local news station website’s crime blotter all these college guys filing police reports aftexr getting extorted online by some gangsters overseas out of a few hundred dollars. Evidently they get approached by a fake social media account that appears to be a hot chick asking for dic pics etc. After sending them the blackmail demands come in or they will show them to their friends and family. Buddy, don’t you know women would never do this? Only a homo or a blackmailer would ask for this kind of disgusting imagery?
Prowhites need to be at the forefront of convincing women that traditionalist sex roles as they had evolved in the West by the late 19th century were what make women happiest (as well as men and children). Feminism does not lead to greater happiness for the modal female (even if a few oddwads like Hillary Clinton militantly embrace it).
7. “Happy to be subject to a higher authority” Especially to pastors and politicians. However, in the present age, the use of anthropomorphic religious words is higher relative to abstract religious words than in the past, in keeping with more women going to church than in the past. Men are more likely to be atheists these days, but the difference was probably less big in the past, and the language reflected it.
2. “a man might devote himself to trying to climb the corporate ladder” I would argue that men who climb the corporate ladder often suck up more, want to be subject to a higher authority, and as such combine feminine energies of wanting to be subject to authority with masculine energies of status-seeking. High status jobs often have a more androgynous gender balance perhaps because they select for suck ups channeling masculine and feminine energies.
7. “what do they [feminists] know of women’s nature?”
I would be interested in a hormonal assay of feminist women versus non feminist women.
8. “in a husband-and-wife human cannonball team, where he was the cannonball while she made the bookings and did the paperwork.” The job market increasingly has women doing “paper work” in data entry, etc, and men being the proverbial cannonballs in blue collar jobs.
11. “Women take more interest in the personal and particular than in the abstract or the general.”
Political correctness punishes general statements and rewards limiting speech to the particular. Don’t mention the race of the suspect.
12. “More inclined to cry”
Jordan Peterson is an exception albeit a kermitoid one. By the way, never challenge a woman’s cry signaling. Spontaneously coordinated truth-bending character assassination will ensue. There is one exception. Norman Finkelstein challenged a woman’s “crocodile tears” during one of his speeches by stating that he had family in the camps, so the Jewish and/or Holocaust card trumps the cry-card, but of course white gentiles can’t use it. I’m not sure how challenging a man’s cry-signaling sells amongst the masses. Hope Peterson’s fans don’t come after me now.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber 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.