Passages From The Above Book Coming Soon Concerning The Dynamics Of Female-Female Relationships (How They Differ From Male-Male Relationships In Size, Basis (What They're Based On), Duration, Etc.). I'm Going To Work On These This Week. You're Really Gonna Like Them When I Post Them. (I Haven't Gotten Around To Writing These Passages Because I've Been LAZY! I'll Try To Work On Them This Week (04/01/22)!)
Two, men fight for dominant status, women are eliminationist. As I alluded to in a previous post about credentialism being inherently feminine and hierarchy inherently masculine, research shows men follow a “compete then cooperate” model and women follow a “compete and cast out” model. The two strategies exist because men and women have differing reproductive goals and sex roles. Men must gain status and then use that status to acquire fertile women and resources and to protect those resources from rape and pillage by competing tribes (which requires intratribal cooperation with other men).
Women don’t have the role of protecting the tribe from invading tribes or of accumulating resources to win the love of high value men, so their intrasexual strategy doesn’t require cooperativeness, but since men are attracted to young nubile women and are thus a persistent abandonment threat to women, the female intrasexual strategy does require competing against other women to retain a male provider. Ominously, because other younger women are a continual poaching threat, women will seek to eliminate them from competition rather than dominate them. Intrasexual female domination is useless from a Darwinian perspective because men aren’t attracted to dominant women (they’re attracted to sexy fertile women).
Article highlights women are better than men at something = science;
Article highlights men are better than women at something = sexism
- sex differences have biological origins? who knew? https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sexual-personalities/201605/sex-and-gender-are-dials-not-switches …
Feminist evolutionary psychologists are (barely) tolerable. But pesky male evolutionary psychologists, well they're wrong-headed Nazis.
https://www.amazon.com/Biohistory-Decline-Fall-Jim-Penman/dp/1443871303
https://www.amazon.com/Human-Sin-Social-Evolutionary-Psychology/dp/1530322693https://www.twitter.com/spidervesre/status/1084965926640979975
This Type Of Message And Its Underlying Ethos Is Slowly Decaying And Destroying Western Society! Men Can't Be Men (Assert Their Masculinity As Evolution Has Designed Them To) Because Of The Current Cultural Milieu. So They're Resigned To Be More Sensitive, Sympathetic, And Effeminate Or Else Be Left Out Of The Dating And Mating Pool.
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1095567884414201856
https://twitter.com/CoachPCong/status/1099022179717521410
https://twitter.com/jarodlucash/status/1095574963279384576
https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/02/03/only-on-2-esperanza-investigating-racial-slurs-hurled-at-foothill-athlete/
For Instance, My Niggas, Because Females Can Exert More Power And Influence In Society NOWADAYS Their Psychology And Ideology Can Have Greater Impact Leading To The Softening, Sensitizing, And Feminizing Of Society As Indicated In The Links Above. (Kids Don't Have To Develop Thick Skin No Mo (The Thick Skin That'll Help Them Cope With The Racism, Classism, Sexism, Ageism And Any Other Ism That They'll Inevitably Experience In Life)! Why? because They MaMa Is Coddling And Sheltering Them From All Of That!)
*Gery Coming From Ohio And Never Having Lived In California Had To Ax Our Parents What The Word BEANER Meant. He'd Never Heard The Word Until Kids At Opposing Schools Began Calling Him That.
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2010/12/27/feminism-responsible-for-the-fall-of-rome/
- ~5 century BC: Roman civilization is a a strong patriarchy, fathers are liable for the actions of their wife and children, and have absolute authority over the family (including the power* of life and death)
*POWER OF ATTORNEY!
As for the mother, she could count on spending most of her life nursing or pregnant, from her first fertile period, in her late teens, until her last, some time around age forty. Menstruation was not the more or less constant year round common in the West but a relatively infrequent event, suppressed by nursing for nearly two years after each birth and then once again by the almost inevitable ensuing pregnancy. After adolescence a woman's breasts were no longer primarily objects of sexual attention; they would be freely accessible to a succession of insatiable little creatures - a situation made tolerable only by great forbearance and, presumably, quantities of love. (Why the Reckless Survive and Other Secrets of Human Nature)
As for the mother, she could count on spending most of her life nursing or pregnant, from her first fertile period, in her late teens, until her last, some time around age forty. Menstruation was not the more or less constant year round common in the West but a relatively infrequent event, suppressed by nursing for nearly two years after each birth and then once again by the almost inevitable ensuing pregnancy. After adolescence a woman's breasts were no longer primarily objects of sexual attention; they would be freely accessible to a succession of insatiable little creatures - a situation made tolerable only by great forbearance and, presumably, quantities of love. (Why the Reckless Survive and Other Secrets of Human Nature)
CONSTANTLY PREGNANT
("The women are the...manufacturing centers. Every 9 months they lay down on their backs and reinforcement rolls out from between their legs!" - The Honorable Khalid Sheikh Muhammad)
Do You Females Understand That? The Way You Live Now (Today) Is Completely Unlike The Way Evolution Designed You To Live! Why? because Cultural Evolution Has Accelerated And Not Given Biological Evolution Enough Time To Catch Up! You're Genetically Mismatched To This Current Environment!
The White Girl* Reads "Constantly Pregnant" And Thinks, "Oh, They're Referring To Mexicans!" No, Cracca, All Females Throughout Their Evolutionary History (Especially Prior To The Industrial Revolution) Irrespective Of Race** Were Typically Continually Pregnant During Their Reproductive Years (From Menarche To Menopause). Why? Because There Was Never Any Societal Pressure For Females To Be Providers (Workers). The Environment Didn't Demand That (Females Intuitively Knew Their Role In Society And Their Role Was To Be A Mother And NOTHING Else). Nor Was There A Feminist Movement Demanding That Females Be Given The Same Rights As Men And Be Treated Equally To Men (i.e. Be Able To Work And Do The Same Work As Men).
*Or The White Girl Thinks, "This Guy's A Mexican! He Just Wants Women To Constantly Be Barefoot And Pregnant In The Kitchen Cooking Beans, RICE, And Tortillas!" LOL! Little Do They NO!
**That Includes Your Cave Dwelling Cracca Ancestors As Well, Cracca!
Young women of my daughters' generation take for granted a historically unique situation. They regard birth control, precautions against sexually transmitted diseases, women's education and athletic teams, as well as open-ended professional opportunities for women, as innovations here to stay. They view the antiabortion movement in the United States, along with the emergence of powerful political lobbies seeking to substitute "abstinence only" for practical knowledge about human sexuality and reproduction, as too irrational to take seriously. Reports from far-off places like Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, where Islamic fundamentalists seek to deny women personal autonomy (forcing them to stay sequestered in their homes, keep their faces and bodies veiled, and marry as instructed) seem exotic and remote.
https://twitter.com/ChickenColeman/status/1015689197376626688
T-Go Retweeted
The WNBA’s attendance peaked at almost 11,000 fans per game in 1998, its 2nd season. The league's current average is 6,800, a drop of close to 40%.
Yeyo Retweeted
The WNBA's Problem Is Sex Differences In Sports Interest, Not Sex Discrimination http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2019/09/the-wnbas-probl.html#.XXEzA0glkJ4.twitter …
via @RealYeyoZahttps://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-wnbas-biggest-problem_b_9437480
"If men and women competed together, top women athletes might find themselves no longer in the top ranks...the fastest time for the 400-meter run for women was beaten by more than 4,000 different men and nearly 300 different boys (males under age 18)" wiley.com/en-gb/Perspect
Geoffrey Miller Retweeted
there are almost 2,000 males in the US alone who are faster than the fastest woman in the world. This includes boys as young as 13 or 14. The fact that such stats even need to be compiled shows how bonkers the world has gone on the issue of biological sex
Karsten Braasch, a name no one will ever know, played against Serena Williams, the best female tennis player of all time and beat her 6-1.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/tennis/aus/2017/01/21/serena-williams-nicole-gibbs-australian-open/96876832/
https://sports.yahoo.coms/olympics-fourth-place-medal/u-women-hockey-team-scrimmaging-against-high-school/170704740--oly.html
Replying to
The lesbians who dominate the WNBA sure care a lot about keeping the WNBA as lesbian as possible:
It is hard for my daughters and their generation to believe that such forces could ever intrude upon their own lives. Even when the sequestering of women is shown to have measurable costs to the health and well-being of wives and children (as has recently been documented for Afghanistan), they are saddened, but not apprehensive for themselves. They see no connection between innate male desires to control women in earlier times and the attitudes toward women and family that inspire sermons to all-male audiences of "Promise Keepers," or that motivate elected officials to debate endlessly over who has the right to choose whether and when a woman gives birth. Few Westerners take seriously the possibility that old tensions between maternal and paternal interests could explode one day in their own country and transform a world they take for granted. I am not nearly so confident. If age-old pressures are allowed to erode hard-won laws and protections, it is far from certain that the unique experiment we have embarked upon can persist.
Man Oh Man These Hoes Cuz Nguyen U Ain't Lookin' They Fuck Onna Ya Bros. These Hoes Ain't Got No Control...That's All They G00D Foe [Makin' Bbaies]" - Ralo Tha PiiiiiimP!
"Better Check Them Hoes" - Suga Buga #Bitch
"Check The One With The Fast Mouth, Getcha Money If You Have To Knock Her Ass Out!" - Mr. Free
Females Participating In Sports, Females Getting An Education, Females In The Workforce, Females Participating In Politics (Female Voters And Politicians) And Females Attaining High Status In Society Are All Evolutionarily Novel! For Nearly All Of Human Evolution Females Have Been Subjugated By Dominant Males And Thus Been Relegated To More Subservient Roles In Society, So The Opportunity To Play Sports Or Get An Education Or Get A Job Or Be Involved In Politics Weren't Afforded To Them. They Weren't Afforded To Them Until The Past 50 Or So Years (Since The Sexual Revolution Of The 1960s). Hence, They're Not Evolved (Genetically Wired) To Overwhelmingly Succeed In Many Of These Fields!
MOST FEMALE ATHLETES, ESPECIALLY ELITE FEMALE ATHLETES HAVE THE PSYCHOLOGICAL AND BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF MEN. AS A RESULT, MOST OF THEM HAVE HOMOSEXUAL PROCLIVITIES (LESBIAN LEANINGS). (IF THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE PSYCHOLOGICAL AND BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF MEN THEY WOULDN'T BE INTERESTED IN SPORTS OR OTHER WOMEN. DUUUUUUH!)
Bo Winegard Retweeted
Just read an article at NBC that said something like "since about 30% of women's world cup players are openly lesbian we should expect the same number of gay players in the men's world cup, yet there were none"
The debate on why there are so many lesbians in professional sports but so few gay men is a prime example of mainstream media dancing around the obvious truth that no one dares to mention.
Lesbians are on average more masculine, gay men are on average more effeminate.
Lesbians are on average more masculine, gay men are on average more effeminate.
4 – Why Men Have Nipples
A pattern that holds across species with high male-male competition is that physical abilities essential to combat are bolstered, exclusively in males, via puberty. Up until the age of 10, both boys and girls have similar bodies with most athletic traits nearly indistinguishable.
While girls mature early and quickly, boys go through a puberty that is both late and long, giving more time for growth, during which their athleticism explodes. They develop stronger arms and wider shoulders, and can throw much further (by 18, 3x that of girls). Interestingly, the boys also develop facial features that make it easier to withstand blows.
The testesterone surge of male puberty also stimulates the production of more RBC, such that men are able to use more oxygen than women, and it also makes men less susceptible to pain than women. In some cases, women fare worse after puberty, as increased oestrogen leads to fat accumulation on hips, leading to a plateau or decline in the vertical jump.
Female athletes have traits that are more typical of men, such as low body fat and narrower hips. In certain cases these are the result of an XY gene (male gene). Sometimes the XY gene is paired with androgen insensitivity (which makes it impossible for the body to absorb the increased testesterone produced by the body), as in the case of female athlete Maria Jose MartinezPatino.
While girls mature early and quickly, boys go through a puberty that is both late and long, giving more time for growth, during which their athleticism explodes. They develop stronger arms and wider shoulders, and can throw much further (by 18, 3x that of girls). Interestingly, the boys also develop facial features that make it easier to withstand blows.
The testesterone surge of male puberty also stimulates the production of more RBC, such that men are able to use more oxygen than women, and it also makes men less susceptible to pain than women. In some cases, women fare worse after puberty, as increased oestrogen leads to fat accumulation on hips, leading to a plateau or decline in the vertical jump.
Female athletes have traits that are more typical of men, such as low body fat and narrower hips. In certain cases these are the result of an XY gene (male gene). Sometimes the XY gene is paired with androgen insensitivity (which makes it impossible for the body to absorb the increased testesterone produced by the body), as in the case of female athlete Maria Jose MartinezPatino.
The increased height of XY women, may result from an extended growth period, because their bodies don’t heed hormonal stop messages, or from genes on the Y chromosome influencing height (men who have an extra Y chromosome – XYY – tend to be very tall).
…
An interesting factoid about women athletes is that the elites have testesterone levels that have consistently remained more than twice as high as that of the non-elites. A typical woman makes less than 75 nanogms of testesterone per decilitre of blood. For men the range is between 240-1,200.
Aytug is right. It’s NECESSARILY true that women must conform more to the male physique ideal in order to compete successfully in sports, and particularly elite sports, because women’s natural bodies are not evolutionarily designed to run, throw, fight or lift optimally like men’s bodies are designed to do. Women’s bodies are — and I know this will get under the skin of the right sort of losers — shaped by the relentless laws of nature to fulfill TWO PRIME DIRECTIVES:
Visually please men.
And bear children.
Everything else women do is commentary.
If you are a woman who wants to long jump, or throw a discus, or box, or run the 100 meter race, you will perform better the FURTHER your body gets from the archetypal female physique and the closer it gets to the archetypal male physique. Hips and boobs and upper body weakness undermine all that Olympian kickassery.
DO MOST WOMEN GENUINELY ENJOY WATCHING FOOTBALL? I DON'T THINK SO. I THINK THE MAIN REASON WOMEN WATCH SPORTING EVENTS IS TO COMPETE WITH OTHER WOMEN FOR THE ATTENTION AND AFFECTION OF MEN WHO TRULY DO ENJOY WATCHING SPORTS. THAT IS, SPORTS VIEWERSHIP BY FEMALES IS PRIMARILY DRIVEN BY THEIR DESIRE TO ATTRACT MALE MATES AND/OR DEVELOP AND MAINTAIN RELATIONSHIPS WITH MALE MATES.
THIS IS THE ONLY REASON WOMEN WATCH FOOTBALL! THEY WATCH IT JUST TO GET SUM DICC OR KEEP THE DICC THEY ALREADY HAVE! THE HAVES AND THE HAVENOTS!
Women in the study favored sports that were more traditionally feminine rather than masculine. Participants generally saw little value in following women’s sports and were especially uninterested in watching or following women in sports such as basketball, which showcase athletic displays that challenge traditional gender roles. Rather, they expressed a passing interest in sports such as gymnastics, tennis, and figure skating.”
"Prior to puberty, no sex diff in testosterone or athletic performance, from puberty onward clear sex difference in athletic performance...testosterone concentrations rise in men because testes produce 30x times more testosterone than before puberty" academic.oup.com/edrv/article/3
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-nature-nurture-nietzsche-blog/201402/the-sticking-point-why-men-still-outnumber-women-in
The suggestion was that men are naturally more variable than women in cognitive ability, and thus that there are more men than women at the top levels of cognitive ability (as well as more men at the bottom). This, he suggested, might help explain the preponderance of males in the top tiers of the STEM hierarchy.
The suggestion was that men are naturally more variable than women in cognitive ability, and thus that there are more men than women at the top levels of cognitive ability (as well as more men at the bottom). This, he suggested, might help explain the preponderance of males in the top tiers of the STEM hierarchy.
Nearly half of US female scientists leave full-time science after first child
Women are happiest with part-time jobs that allow them to combine work and family life. Men were happier working full time. 44 per cent of men and 10% of women work part time in the UK. 3,800 interviews over an eight-year period.
https://twitter.com/TriversRobert/status/1215406304996593664
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-nature-nurture-nietzsche-blog/201311/sex-differences-proof-sexism-or-sign-social-health
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-nature-nurture-nietzsche-blog/201311/sex-differences-proof-sexism-or-sign-social-health
That’s right—greater gender equity was associated with larger sex differences in personality.
Why might this be? According to Schmitt and co., it's because people in wealthier, more egalitarian nations have more freedom to choose their paths through life. They're more able to express and explore their individuality. As such, natural differences emerge unrestrainedly and sex differences tend to be larger. In less wealthy, less equitable nations, on the other hand, people have less freedom and sex differences are often muted.
As fewer women are in status positions, Ireland introduces female-only professorships.
Imagine if they announced the same for men 
Women are not at the top because they raise children, prefer part-time jobs, focused on people, not theories (papers).
Imagine if they announced the same for men
Women are not at the top because they raise children, prefer part-time jobs, focused on people, not theories (papers).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oB__2K4jAY
Bobbi Low 2005 lecture: Evolution of Human Sex Differences
A LOT OF INFORMATION PACKED IN THIS TALK. LISTEN TO IT LADIES.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/lynn-margulis-leading-evolutionary-biologist-dies-at-73/2011/11/26/gIQAQ5dezN_story.html?noredirect=on
“I quit my job as a wife twice,” she once said about the difficulties of balancing science and domestic life. “It’s not humanly possible to be a good wife, a good mother and a first-class scientist. No one can do it — something has to go.”
In China and India, the world's two most populous nations, the changes that typically accompany industrialization are not yet complete. The modernization of these two giant nations and their economies, and the transformation of the lives of their citizens is probably the most important thing happening in the world right now.
Bobbi Low 2005 lecture: Evolution of Human Sex Differences
A LOT OF INFORMATION PACKED IN THIS TALK. LISTEN TO IT LADIES.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/lynn-margulis-leading-evolutionary-biologist-dies-at-73/2011/11/26/gIQAQ5dezN_story.html?noredirect=on
“I quit my job as a wife twice,” she once said about the difficulties of balancing science and domestic life. “It’s not humanly possible to be a good wife, a good mother and a first-class scientist. No one can do it — something has to go.”
In China and India, the world's two most populous nations, the changes that typically accompany industrialization are not yet complete. The modernization of these two giant nations and their economies, and the transformation of the lives of their citizens is probably the most important thing happening in the world right now.
Industrialization induces many changes: children stop contributing to household income; the costs of raising and educating each child escalate; childhood mortality abates; women enjoy more education, economic opportunities and political power; and modern contraception technology and abortion become available. Every one of these developments can reduce birth rate. Every society experiences some or all of these changes as it industrializes, usually far more rapidly than the British and Europeans experienced them during the Industrial Revolution.
(Sex, Genes, Rock 'N' Roll)
More Posts To Come From This Book About The Declining Birthrate In Industrialized Nations (Why Females Are Having Fewer Children In Technologically And Socially Advance Nations)!
Warfare, Politics, And Social Activism Were All The Domain Of Men Until About The 1960s (Well, You Could Go Back To The Woman's Suffrage Movement And Say That That Was The Starting Point For Women's Liberation, But Female Involvement In Politics Didn't Have Much Of An Impact Until The 60s). This Is Because Defense Of One's Land, The Conquering Of Another's Land, The Maintaining Of One's Resources And The Gaining Of Access To Another's Resources (All An Impetus For Warfare, Politics, And Social Activism) Were All Means In Our Evolutionary Past By Which Males Impressed And Attracted The More Docile, More Passive, More Temperamental, More Choosy Sex (Females)! So Female Sexual Selection Drove Males To Be Better Adapted To Handle These Affairs (Males Evolved Cognitive And Anatomical Ability To Better Perform These Activities Than Females).
What Happens When You Have A Gay Girl Running Your City? She Ends Up Ruining Your City! I'll Tell You Why Later. (G00D RIDDANCE!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOMkl3ApTK0
How Women Dismantle NATIONS * / & other UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTHS
Ladies, Listen From The 6:28 Mark To The 7:41 Mark!
The Situation With Women Is That They're Highly Inclined To Conform To Social Norms...Women End Up Adopting These Views In Order To Receive Their Peers Acceptance...Women Dread Being Seen As Social Pariahs...
I HAVE NO FRIENDS AND I DON'T FOLLOW CULTURAL TRENDS. ADDITIONALLY, I WRITE RACIST AND CLASSIST AND BIZARRE SHIT TO NO END! NO WONDER NO FEMALE WANTS TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH A SHUNNED MEN.
Shit Happens, Rick! Happenstance!
What Happens When You Have A Gay Girl Running Your City? She Ends Up Ruining Your City! I'll Tell You Why Later. (G00D RIDDANCE!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOMkl3ApTK0
How Women Dismantle NATIONS * / & other UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTHS
Ladies, Listen From The 6:28 Mark To The 7:41 Mark!
The Situation With Women Is That They're Highly Inclined To Conform To Social Norms...Women End Up Adopting These Views In Order To Receive Their Peers Acceptance...Women Dread Being Seen As Social Pariahs...
I HAVE NO FRIENDS AND I DON'T FOLLOW CULTURAL TRENDS. ADDITIONALLY, I WRITE RACIST AND CLASSIST AND BIZARRE SHIT TO NO END! NO WONDER NO FEMALE WANTS TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH A SHUNNED MEN.
Liberal governments r coming to an abrupt end as Right wing zealots r surging to power! Don't think Nazi Germany can't happen again!
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/women-are-less-principled-than-men/
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/decivilizing-human-nature-unleashed/
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/decivilizing-human-nature-unleashed/
“The battered woman syndrome” is just another way of politely saying “generic female sexual nature”, because all women, to lesser or greater degree, desire their submission to a powerful and dominant alpha male. And the dominant alpha male needn’t be manifest through the individual man; the strict orthodoxies of patriarchal religions like Islam also fill the role of authority that people, but particularly women, deeply and profoundly crave, beyond even conscious apprehension.
Ronnie Lott Cuzzin'!
The promiscuous bedrock of our per-agricultural history is still visible in contemporary horticultural and hunter-gatherer societies, especially those in tropical ecologies where living is relatively easy. In many of these societies...marriages typically don't last long, dissolve easily, and there is plenty of extra-marital hanky-panky...polygyny is most common in cultures where men are laziest of all...In the tropics, where men don't contribute nearly as much as women to feeding the family, polygyny is common. Men, with spare time on their hands, turn their attention to competition with other men, including warfare with other villages and establishing positions of high status and dominance within their village. The polygynists are usually the individuals who have risen to dominant positions like chief, shaman or witch doctor.
...
The more widespread polygynous marriage is within a society, the more likely it is that the society will go to war with neighboring groups or tribes, and the higher the levels of assault and homicide within the society.
...
...
The more widespread polygynous marriage is within a society, the more likely it is that the society will go to war with neighboring groups or tribes, and the higher the levels of assault and homicide within the society.
...
Warfare is also a disturbingly direct way of accumulating wives. Much ancient warfare involved the raiding of other villages to capture fertile women as brides. The most warlike groups of men with many strong warriors can defend their own villages and women, raid other villages and capture brides. The fiercest groups quickly become the most polygynous, and the fiercest warriors take the most wives.
In men the drive for conspicuous status, wealth and dominance over other men co-evolved with the male appetite for polygynous marriage and for plenty of extramarital sex...."the greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, drive him before you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and daughters."...Khan and his male descendants conquered an area from the Sea of Japan to the Mediterranean, never wasting an opportunity to impregnate the women and girls of the vanquished villages. They also raped, married or sexually enslaved a phenomenal number of women. Genghis' grandson Kublai Khan, the emperor who welcomed Marco Polo to China, presided by day over the Mongol Empire at its greatest extent. By night he serviced a harem that housed 7000 women, methodically rotated through his bedroom at the time of their greatest fertility.
Immense wealth and power, passed on to male descendants, laid the foundation for the greatest genetic dynasty our species has ever produced...Men who waged war and sought conquest have long enjoyed high fitness. Men went to war with rape and pillage on top of the agenda, returning with some combination of wives, slaves and treasure...Violence is a consequence of polygamy, as well as a cause.
(Sex, Genes, and Rock 'N' Roll)
https://quillette.com/2019/05/09/a-girls-place-in-the-world/
https://areomagazine.com/2018/11/06/how-coercive-is-polygyny/
Immense wealth and power, passed on to male descendants, laid the foundation for the greatest genetic dynasty our species has ever produced...Men who waged war and sought conquest have long enjoyed high fitness. Men went to war with rape and pillage on top of the agenda, returning with some combination of wives, slaves and treasure...Violence is a consequence of polygamy, as well as a cause.
(Sex, Genes, and Rock 'N' Roll)
https://quillette.com/2019/05/09/a-girls-place-in-the-world/
https://areomagazine.com/2018/11/06/how-coercive-is-polygyny/
As The Population In A Horticultural Based Society Grows, Inequality Increases And Males Vie For Power Through Warfare And Other Conspicuous Displays Of Dominance.
http://www.melvinkonner.com/
http://www.melvinkonner.com/
http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-better-world-run-by-women-1425657910
http://www.wsj.com/articles/book-review-women-after-all-by-melvin-konner-1427483355
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/08/us/marjorie-shostak-51-author-who-wrote-of-tribal-woman.html
http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Time-Power-Sexuality-Evolution-ebook/dp/B00121SIEQ
Men like sex and woman just want to make babies
https://www.amazon.com/Women-After-All-Evolution-Supremacy/dp/0393239969
http://www.wsj.com/articles/book-review-women-after-all-by-melvin-konner-1427483355
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/08/us/marjorie-shostak-51-author-who-wrote-of-tribal-woman.html
http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Time-Power-Sexuality-Evolution-ebook/dp/B00121SIEQ
Men like sex and woman just want to make babies
https://www.amazon.com/Women-After-All-Evolution-Supremacy/dp/0393239969
http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Time-Power-Sexuality-Evolution-ebook/dp/B00121SIEQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dT6t39MDGhA
Sex, Time, and Power Lecture by Dr. Leonard Shlain
Start Listening At 16:40
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/primate-diaries/raising-darwins-consciousness-an-interview-with-sarah-blaffer-hrdy-on-mother-nature/
http://www.ksl.com/?sid=26351022
Having A High IQ And Being Educated Are Not The Same, Nor Are They Mutually Inclusive.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/05/07/more-highly-educated-women-are-having-a-child-or-three/?mod=WSJBlog
There Are Many People Who Are Educated (i.e. Have A Degree From A 4-Year University Or Even Hold Multiple Degrees) Who Have An Average IQ. So These Highly Educated Women May Not Be As Smart As Their College Degree Would Imply.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dT6t39MDGhA
Sex, Time, and Power Lecture by Dr. Leonard Shlain
Start Listening At 16:40
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/primate-diaries/raising-darwins-consciousness-an-interview-with-sarah-blaffer-hrdy-on-mother-nature/
http://www.ksl.com/?sid=26351022
Having A High IQ And Being Educated Are Not The Same, Nor Are They Mutually Inclusive.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/05/07/more-highly-educated-women-are-having-a-child-or-three/?mod=WSJBlog
There Are Many People Who Are Educated (i.e. Have A Degree From A 4-Year University Or Even Hold Multiple Degrees) Who Have An Average IQ. So These Highly Educated Women May Not Be As Smart As Their College Degree Would Imply.
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2017/05/02/tingles-and-treason-the-decline-and-debasement-of-western-white-woman/
Here Is An Example Of A Woman With 2 College Degrees, But A LOW IQ. There Are Many Of Them Out There.
The Impatient Woman's Guide to Getting Pregnant
GOOD POST COMING FROM THIS BOOK CONCERNING CAREER ORIENTED WOMEN (THE BUSINESS PROFESSIONAL TYPE) AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP/REPRODUCTION WOES (THEIR PRIORITIES AND LIFESTYLE ARE IN CONFLICT (AT ODDS) WITH WHAT EVOLUTION DESIGNED THEM FOR (MAKING BABIES).
READ THE WHITE HIGHLIGHTED WRITING BELOW, IN PARTICULAR.
"there are 5.5 million college-educated women between the ages of 22 and 29, versus only 4.1 million college-educated men in the same age bracket. In other words, the dating pool for college graduates has 33% more women than men—or 4 women for every 3 men."
Sex is not the only area where cultural feminism has run ahead of evolutionary biology. This tangled web has invaded our pocketbooks as well as our bedrooms. Remember that according to evolutionary psychologists women look both for good genes and good resources when selecting a mate. In our postfeminist world, though, more and more women are successfully pursuing high-powered careers and achieving economic success. Given this development, you would expect that these women would place much less emphasis on a man's resources and much more on his genetic quality. But culture changes much more rapidly than evolution. Nowhere is this more evident than in a successful woman's attitude toward how successful her future husband needs to be. It turns out that successful women don't place less importance on a man's financial success - they place even more emphasis on it. They still want the man to earn more than they do. In fact, injecting female success into relationships has added a new layer of instability. According to one study, when women earn more than their husbands, they are 50 percent more likely to get divorced than a couple in which the wife earns less, and divorce itself is closely linked with women's economic independence.
This is a problem that is only likely to worsen with time. One examination of the 2005 census data has revealed that women in their twenties earn higher salaries in several major cities than their male counterparts. The reason for this is largely due to education . Fifty-three percent of these women are college graduates versus only 38 percent of men - a double whammy for women from a dating perspective since, on average, men and women prefer for the man to have an equal or greater amount of education. According to a recent New York Times article, the salary differential has become a source of hostility between men and women, and many women now downplay their success, even as they still find themselves struggling to overcome their own expectations about men being the primary breadwinners.
Though more women are now marrying down educationally, couples still avoid a "status reversal" with regard to income
https://etd.ohiolink.edu/pg_10?0::NO:10:P10_ETD_SUBID:113754 …
...
While men are hesitant to say that they are turned off by female success, most admit that it does play a role in their dating. All of the men I interviewed said that they did not like "hard-core feminists." Most also expressed doubts about a relationship in which the woman was more successful. Only a few men would say that they were actually threatened. Most preferred to couch their concern in a more oblique way by saying that it was a sign that the woman "didn't share my values" or "wouldn't be a good mother."
All of this reveals a gap that has opened up between the environment we were shaped for and the culture in which we now find ourselves. Common sense suggests that a successful working woman should be interested in a man's genes, not his salary. Not only does she not need the money, it could be argued that going after a very successful man is counterproductive for the relationship. At the very least, such a man is probably committed to his work in a way that will force the woman to make sacrifices in her own career and that two high-powered careers could very well place additional strains on the marriage. Despite that, nearly every woman I interviewed said that she would not go out with someone less successful than she was.
While women in Western countries no longer tend to marry up in terms of education, they continue to marry up in terms of earnings.
https://lirias.kuleuven.be/bitstream/123456789/611965/1/Van+Bavel+Schwartz+Esteve+-+Reversal+of+gender+gap+-+ARS+-+Accepted.pdf …
...
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2018/03/14/the-industrial-revolution-and-its-consequences-have-been-a-disaster-for-overeducated-women/
In the modren West, overeducated, careerist women are DARWINIAN LOSERS. They now join the lonesome ranks of fat women, ugly women, and old spinsters. Lean in? Try barren quim.
In the modren West, overeducated, careerist women are DARWINIAN LOSERS. They now join the lonesome ranks of fat women, ugly women, and old spinsters. Lean in? Try barren quim.
I can’t believe Taylor Swift is about to turn 30 - she still looks so young!
It’s strange to think that 90% of her eggs are already gone - 97% by the time she turns 40- so I hope she thinks about
having kids before it’s too late!
Most of us would be better off in our relationships if money played a smaller role in our decisions about which people we should date. Successful women, if they can overcome their natural prejudice, would especially benefit from looking for relationships with men who are less successful financially, and there are occasional glimmers of this, such as articles about white-collar women dating blue-collar men. The competition is less fierce for those men, and there is very good chance that the man will devote more time and energy to the relationship than a high-powered careerist - if both partners can overcome their innate prejudices about who should bring home the bacon.
Steve Sailer Higher IQ career women often delay childbearing, then run into fertility problems. Adoption is one response.
Across the developed world, a woman’s probability to remain childless increases with increasing own income. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsoc.2018.00037/abstract …
"One SD increase in childhood general intelligence (15 IQ points) decreases women’s odds of parenthood by 21–25%." http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X14001276 …
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X14001276
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X14001276
High IQ and very low IQ teens less likely to have sex; average and below average more likely http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1054139X99000610 …
Education for women has also been a mixed blessing when it comes to dating. I realize that one of the fundamental pillars of feminism is opening wide the doors of academia for women, and I support that. But it comes with a definite cost. In the first place, the more education a woman has, the older she is when she marries. On average, American women marry when they are twenty-five. If they have a college degree, that average rises to twenty-seven. A master's or professional degree lift's that to thirty. The reason this matters is because age is a crucial component of a woman's prospects. Men tend to marry younger women, so the older a woman gets, the smaller her dating pool becomes. In addition, education shrinks a woman's dating pool because men also tend to marry women with less education than they themselves have. Finally, intelligence itself appears to be a hindrance for women looking to marry. According to one study, women who had never married were much more intelligent than average - of course, feminists can claim that more intelligent women are too smart to fall for a patriarchal trap like marriage.
Education for women has also been a mixed blessing when it comes to dating. I realize that one of the fundamental pillars of feminism is opening wide the doors of academia for women, and I support that. But it comes with a definite cost. In the first place, the more education a woman has, the older she is when she marries. On average, American women marry when they are twenty-five. If they have a college degree, that average rises to twenty-seven. A master's or professional degree lift's that to thirty. The reason this matters is because age is a crucial component of a woman's prospects. Men tend to marry younger women, so the older a woman gets, the smaller her dating pool becomes. In addition, education shrinks a woman's dating pool because men also tend to marry women with less education than they themselves have. Finally, intelligence itself appears to be a hindrance for women looking to marry. According to one study, women who had never married were much more intelligent than average - of course, feminists can claim that more intelligent women are too smart to fall for a patriarchal trap like marriage.
https://twitter.com/RealYeyoZa/status/1178287684172812289
The fact that the majority of women prefer men who make more money than themselves explains both why we have a wage gap and why eliminating the wage gap won't make women any happier.
Unless women's preferences change which seems very unlikely to happen.
If you have any doubts about the larger cultural anxieties currently surrounding the dating scene for successful women, you only need to look at recent movies, which have offered a never-ending stream of stories about confident, capable women and the feckless men they are trying to shoehorn into marriage: High Fidelity, About a Boy (virtually the entire Nick Hornby oeuvre, in fact), Old School, Failure to Launch, Knocked Up, and Wedding Crashers just to name a few. Although the overt message of Sex and the City was that single, professional, successful women in New York City had sustaining friendships and exciting lives in which men were more accessory than essential, the implicit message was the opposite - that they desperately needed a man in their lives.
...
...the first generation of women to grow up after the feminist revolution...were the proud inheritors of the right to work, and many of them pursued careers. But those careers came with a price. And that price was a shrinking dating pool.
"there are 5.5 million college-educated women between the ages of 22 and 29, versus only 4.1 million college-educated men in the same age bracket. In other words, the dating pool for college graduates has 33% more women than men—or 4 women for every 3 men."
…
https://www.heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/03/06/dont-marry-overeducated-women/
https://etd.ohiolink.edu/pg_10?0::NO:10:P10_ETD_SUBID:113754#abstract-files
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/girls-on-top/
https://www.heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/03/06/dont-marry-overeducated-women/
In terms of social and economic status, men date across and down, women date across and up. Industrialized societies filled with overeducated careerist shrikes make it more difficult for both men and women to find long-term reproductive partners. What the West has done is weaponize female hypergamy, so that the only winner in this zero sum mating game are the HSMV alpha males who can serially date and marry increasingly younger women.
In the modren West, overeducated, careerist women are DARWINIAN LOSERS. They now join the lonesome ranks of fat women, ugly women, and old spinsters. Lean in? Try barren quim.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/girls-on-top/
http://smashcm.blogspot.com/2013/01/feminism-and-cultural-marxism-plot-to.html
https://migchels.wordpress.com/category/feminism/
https://migchels.wordpress.com/category/feminism/
But the feminist revolution of the 1960s and 1970s accelerated certain demographic trends that significantly worsened the problem. With women pursuing careers, they were also marrying later, and this had profound repercussions because it ran into another trend that probably goes all the way back to our days on the grassy savannas - men tend to marry women younger than they are. According to studies, women look for men who are three and a half years older on average, while men prefer women roughly two and a half years younger. As we saw in the chapter on evolution, there is a fairly obvious reason for these preferences: men want access to women who can successfully reproduce, and so they seek out younger women. Women want men who can provide for them, so they seek out men who are older and more established. This is largely unconscious but no less potent because of that. And marriages do generally conform to these desires. In 1996, first-time brides were on average 24.8 years old, and first-time grooms were 27.1 years old.
...Because women prefer to marry someone older, their dating pool naturally shrinks with each passing year, while the dating pool of men expands with each passing year. In other words, men find their stock rising as dating prospects at precisely the moment that women find their stock falling...
And age is not the only criteria that feminism has influenced. As I've discussed, men and women also pay attention to things like education, income, and professional status. So, men tend to marry women who are younger, make less money, have less education, and are lower on the corporate ladder (there are many stories of male bosses marrying their secretaries, but I have yet to hear one about the female boss who married a male secretary). This is why the dating scene is not necessarily the friendliest place for the successful, single women in their thirties or forties - ...
An added twist worsens this demographic trend for older women - age preferences do not remain stable. As men grow older, they are no longer satisfied with a woman only two to three years younger. They want a woman even younger. According to statistics taken from personal ads in newspapers, men in their thirties want a woman roughly five years younger, while men in their fifties want a woman ten to twenty years younger. Marriage statistics bear this out. For first marriages, American grooms are roughly three years older. By their second marriage, that number climbs to five years, and by third marriages men are on average eight years older.
What all this means is that the gains of feminism in the workplace are a double-edged sword. Although women are rising to ever-greater positions of power in corporations around the country, they are often putting their romantic lives on hold to do so.
Feminism has empowered women, but it has left them with a stark choice: improve their career prospects or improve their marriage prospects. If women really want the best partner, they should look for him when their stock is highest, while they are in their twenties. If enough women do this, there will also be fewer single women in their thirties, which would improve the dating situation for those women as well... (Decoding Love)
The Female Mind Is Wired For Mothering! This Is Reflected In The Personality Traits They Possess And The Type Of Work They Prefer To Do!
http://www.susanpinker.com/the-sexual-paradox/
After decades of women’s educational coups and rising through the ranks, men still outnumber women in business, physical science, law, engineering and politics. In explaining this ratio, Pinker’s controversial stance is that discrimination plays just a bit part. If the majority of children with school and behavioral problems are boys, then why do so many overcome early obstacles, while rafts of high achieving women choose jobs that pay less or opt out at pivotal moments in their careers?
http://www.susanpinker.com/the-sexual-paradox/
After decades of women’s educational coups and rising through the ranks, men still outnumber women in business, physical science, law, engineering and politics. In explaining this ratio, Pinker’s controversial stance is that discrimination plays just a bit part. If the majority of children with school and behavioral problems are boys, then why do so many overcome early obstacles, while rafts of high achieving women choose jobs that pay less or opt out at pivotal moments in their careers?
When Men and Women Think Differently
Men and women behave differently, but do they actually think differently? There is a growing consensus that they do, at least in subtle ways. Here is a recantation by psychologist Diane Halpern, who once disparaged the notion of intellectual differences between men and women. In the preface to her book Sex Differences in Cognitive Abilities, Halpern describes her experiences in teaching classes on the psychology of women:
Men and women behave differently, but do they actually think differently? There is a growing consensus that they do, at least in subtle ways. Here is a recantation by psychologist Diane Halpern, who once disparaged the notion of intellectual differences between men and women. In the preface to her book Sex Differences in Cognitive Abilities, Halpern describes her experiences in teaching classes on the psychology of women:
At the time it seemed to me clear that between-sex differences in thinking abilities were due to socialization practices, artifacts and mistakes in research, and bias and prejudice. After reviewing a pile of journal articles that stood several feet high and numerous books and book chapters that dwarfed the stack of journal articles, I changed my mind...The data collected within the last few years provide a convincing case for the importance of biological variables.
Even Alfred Binet, French inventor of intelligence testing, had to grapple with the different cognitive abilities of boys and girls when he found that boys were scoring lower than girls on his IQ test. But rather than accept the results at face value, he simply changed the test, removing some of the questions at which girls scored, on average, higher than boys and adding a few that boys found easier. His assumption was that boys and girls must be the same in overall intellectual functioning, so that in order to make an accurate test, it was necessary to design one in which boys and girls were, in fact, equal!
"growing evidence that there are inherent differences in how men’s & women’s brains are wired & how they work" http://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.html …
Even so, like the proverbial cat that is thrown out the door but keeps climbing back in the window, sex differences keep reappearing. Males consistently do better than females on tests of spatial and mathematical ability, and in map-reading. Girls are superior in verbal ability and responsiveness to stimuli, especially sounds. Of course, these are generalizations; some girls are better than most boys at math, and some boys are better than most girls at verbal skills. But the fact remains that in general, boys and girls display different aptitudes.
Nonetheless, scientists have been reluctant to inquire into male-female differences, especially when it comes to cognitive function or IQ, possibly for fear of being labeled sexist. Whereas few would contest that men have greater upper-body strength than women of that women lactate, many would protest efforts to identify differences in intellectual ability. Nonetheless, a few courageous scientists have recently bucked this trend and begun to look at male-female differences in cognition, often with special reference to differences in brain function.
Christina Sommers
Oxford, concerned women don’t do as well on tests as men, to let students take it at home http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/33459/
https://twitter.com/CHSommers/status/874357063673053186
Oxford, concerned women don’t do as well on tests as men, to let students take it at home http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/33459/ via@collegefix
Oxford, concerned women don’t do as well on tests as men, to let students take it at home http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/33459/ via
Test Scores
In a groundbreaking study, psychologists Camilla Bendow and Julian Stanley of Johns Hopkins University examined the performance of 10,000 children in the Baltimore area on the mathematics part of the SAT exam. The results: boys do better than girls - the higher the scores, the greater the gap. These findings generated a firestorm of protest, including criticism that the sample size was too small to be statistically valid. Benhow and Stanley accordingly expanded their sample to 40,000, and got the same results. Twice as many boys as girls scored above 500; four times as many boys as girls scored above 600; and above 700, there were, on average, thirteen boys for every girl.
Some critics claim these findings reflect the fact that boys take more mathematics classes than girls. But the differences appeared as early as the seventh grade, when boys and girls are still taking the same courses.
Of course, social influences cannot be denied. Recall, for example, the infamous Teen Talk Barbie, launched in 1994, which uttered such memorable sound bites as "Math class is tough." Even though Mattel, Inc., quickly withdrew this offensive phrase from Barbie's prerecorded repertoire, the message Barbie was sending reinforced a classic stereotype. If girls are told that math class is tough - and by no less an authority than Barbie herself - some may take it seriously, so that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Barbie's predisposition against mathematics is, of course, symptomatic of society's deeper and more widespread prejudices about what boys and girls should be like. No toy company, for example, will ever manufacture a G.I. Joe programmed to announce, "I don't want to hurt your feelings," or a Barbie who growls, "Take that, you scum."
It turns out that average mathematics scores of boys and girls are not all that different, because even though boys are substantially more likely to be at the upper end of the curve, they also hold down the lower extremes. In other words, when it comes to math, boys are more likely to be dunces as well as geniuses; girls are more likely to be, well, average. If the number of high-scoring boys reflects social pressures encouraging them to be good at math, then why should there be more boys at the lower end as well? It isn't just the graduate seminars in advanced calculus that are full of boys; so are remedial classes. We don't have an answer to this puzzle, except to note that it may reflect the general tendency of males to be more risk-taking and extreme.
https://x.com/Scientific_Bird/status/1806736830240366781
https://inquisitivebird.xyz/p/understanding-greater-male-variability
https://inquisitivebird.xyz/p/understanding-greater-male-variability
https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2023/08/can-the-x-chromosome-explain-greater-male-variability-seems-not/
Meta-analysis: All around the world, males display greater variability in reading, mathematics and science than females, making them more prone to land in the upper and lower extremes. …https://largescaleassessmentsineducation.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40536-019-0070-9 …
I'm sure this has nothing to do with which sex is both more likely to win nobel prizes and end up homeless
"greater male variability hypothesis is largely an empirical finding. Males are overrepresented at the bottom end and top end in height, weight, physical aggression, tendency to cooperate...as well as cognitive abilities and IQ test performance." a.co/d/fb2TEYW
"You may have heard people complaining about the overrepresentation of men in status positions, you will hear less about the overrepresentation of men incarcerated, homeless, addicts, school dropouts." Tanya Reynolds studies this bias.
Another question arises concerning mental differences between men and women. Why, if women are superior to men in verbal ability and responsiveness to stimuli, are they so poorly represented in the historical panorama of intellectual achievement? The answer that immediately comes to mind is that women simply haven't had the opportunities men have had, for a number of reasons, including male dominance and suppression of women's talent, the rarity of role models, and the primal demands of motherhood.
Author Tillie Olsen - herself a Depression-era high school dropout whose writing career was sacrificed while she raised four children and worked at various menial jobs - has argued that motherhood makes sustained intellectual creativity exceedingly difficult. She notes that prior to the twentieth century, there are few examples of creative women who were not single, lesbian, cloistered, wealthy, or, at the very least, childless.
Mothers who pursue an intellectual passion too intently have often been criticized for not being sufficiently devoted to their children. Richard Wagner could spend thirty-four years completing his Ring Cycle but if Cosima Wagner, herself artistically inclined, had devoted equal time to her own creative intellectual project, she would have been an oddity, almost certainly derided as having abandoned her station in life. When Herr Wagner did just this, he was applauded as being focused and hardworking. Frau Wagner's "ring cycle" was her wedding band.
In virtually every field, the argument goes, there have been numerous great masters but precious few great mistresses. No female artist compares with da Vinci, Rembrandt, Michelangelo, Goya, Matisse, or Picasso. No female composer occupies the same rank as Vivaldi, Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Wagner, Tchaikovsky, or Rachmaninoff. Where are the female writers who rival Shakespeare, Moliere, Tolstoy, or Goethe? Or female scientists who stand beside Newton, Copernicus, Harvey, Kelvin, Darwin, Einstein, or Pasteur?
Of all the arguments for male-female differences, this one strikes us as particularly weak. Until social systems grant equal access to women and provide equal encouragement of their talents and inclinations, we cannot conclude that women would not be as successful in the upper ranks of creativity as men. It is said, for example, that Mozart's sister, who died very young, showed as much talent as her brother. We suspect that for every identified male genius, there are many females whose talents have been redirected or squelched by society. Marie Curie, for instance, despite winning two Nobel prizes, was never admitted into the Paris Academy of Sciences (the first woman didn't get in until 1980). And it wasn't until 1997, faced with international outrage and the threat of boycotts, that the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra agreed to hire its first female musician, having previously claimed that admitting women to its august ranks would alter its unique sound!
There may be some truth to the adage that women have to be twice as good as men to obtain comparable recognition. Indeed, the fact that even small numbers of women have achieved renown in traditionally male-dominated fields - writers such as Jane Austen, Virginia Woolf, and Emily Dickinson; anthropologists such as Margaret Thatcher; artists like Georgia O'Keeffe - might suggest a certain superiority.
Honest open-mindedness nonetheless leads us to ask whether there might be genuine male-female differences in thinking, ones that manifest themselves in different male-female accomplishments. Might there be, for example, a spatial component to the theory of relativity, to Copernicus's and Ptolemy's conceptions of the solar system, and even to the structure of music composition, that gives males a slight advantage? In addition, might not male aggressiveness, which stems from male strategies for sexual access, help propel men to greater prominence? Most accomplishments require a kind of pushy, persistent determination in addition to raw ability. Nice guys, we are told, finish last.
Another factor is men's desire to impress women, an offshoot of sexual selection in which males must compete among themselves for access to choosy females. Is it architectural genius that induces the male bowerbird to create his magnificent structure during courtship? Is it musical genius that contributes to a warbler's song or an elk's bugling? Certainly, the male bowerbird relies more on genetic instructions to construct his bower than Frank Lloyd Wright ever did to design the Guggenheim Museum, and the male warbler shows far less creativity and originality than Beethoven. Nonetheless, there may be an unrecognized sexual component - in short, a penchant for competition and showing off that is particularly male - underlying many of the accomplishments for which some men have achieved so much renown.
The irritating matter of "women's intuition" carries with it the condescending implication that women, being somehow more intuitive, are also less cognitive. But there may be something to the concept after all. Sociologists have long known that subordinate individuals tend to be highly sensitive to the nuances in behavior and mood of their social superiors. Such sensitivity makes evolutionary as well as social sense because the success - even, on occasion, the survival - of subordinates may depend on their reading the dominant individual's moods and inclinations correctly. Like blind people who develop an acute ability to interpret sounds, social subordinates may develop an acute ability to interpret the intentions of others, especially those of their social superiors. By contrast, dominant individuals can be relatively oblivious to what is going on beneath the surface. Office employees may fret over a casual remark made by the boss or worry about whether he or she is in a good mood, but the boss rarely thinks much about the moods and nonverbal attitudes of those down the ladder.
Admittedly an odd question, but why are so many male 'psychic mediums' gay?
Explained in part because upper class people have less empathy for the suffering of others
People w/ Higher Socioeconomic Status have Lower Emotional Intelligence, esp. at High Levels of Inequality. Just as expected. Less self-deception and closer to the foundation
To some degree, women's sensitivity to others may also stem from their role as caregivers for infants, who must make themselves understood without words. Women who respond quickly to the needs and desires of their children almost certainly increase the likelihood that those children will survive. We suspect that if roles were reversed so that men did most of the child care, they would be the ones with intuition. But our suspicions can never be tested, since there is no society in which the child-care roles of men and women are reversed.
"A Gook Pushin' A Shoppin' Cart Thru A Rice Paddie!"- Paddigton Bear!
...
...
As social barriers to women in science continue to fall, the number of female scientists is rising proportionately. It will be interesting to see whether the nature of scientific inquiry changes as a result; that is, will a more womanly style of science emerge, less interested in penetrating and more concerned with the subtle unraveling of relationships?
https://twitter.com/yeyoza/status/782117844137959424
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201510/women-in-science-what-explains-gaps-part-i
If we want more women with potential to succeed in the sciences, we need to acknowledge that human females are evolved to be mothers
https://twitter.com/yeyoza/status/782117844137959424
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201510/women-in-science-what-explains-gaps-part-i
If we want more women with potential to succeed in the sciences, we need to acknowledge that human females are evolved to be mothers
"Gotta Be On Your Feet If You Want To Compete!" - Ralo Da Piiiiiimp!
http://www.unz.com/jthompson/sex-differences-in-intelligence-in-nigeria/
Suggestions that such a shift may occur come from the field studies of nonhuman primates, a research area that has been revolutionized by the work of three pioneering female scientists in particular: Jane Goodall, studying chimpanzees; Birtue Galdikas, studying orangutans; and Dian Fossey, studying gorillas. In all three cases, the hallmark of their work was patient, nonintrusive watching and waiting, combined with unflagging attention to the details of the private lives of each of their subjects. In their early stages, the efforts of these scientists were derided - often, by male colleagues - as "soap opera science," too gossipy and personal in focus and insufficiently concerned with accumulating a large, statistically significant sample.
Making Sense of Sex: How Genes and Gender Influence Our Relationships. Barash, Lipton, p. 185-192
Making Sense of Sex: How Genes and Gender Influence Our Relationships. Barash, Lipton, p. 185-192
This is a man's world. But it wouldn't be nothing, Nothing without a woman or a girl
Tell ME About It Evan! A Poor Boi (Po' Boy) Like ME Has No Chance Of Making In It This World Of Mens. That's Why I Plan On Becoming A Girl, My Nigga! I Think I'll Have A Better Chance Of Making It If I Become A Girl!
Everyone has heard the term maternal instincts, but how many have heard of paternal instincts? And although the term working mother has become a part of our everyday vocabulary, the term working father doesn't exist. Most of us simply assume that fathers work outside the home. Moreover, working mother refers specifically to women who work outside the home; caring for children full-time is generally not accorded the status of work, though it most assuredly is work, and difficult and demanding work at that.
If we are told that a woman mothered a child, we assume that she fed, clothed, cared for, hugged, loved, and consoled that youngster. But if we are told that a man fathered a child, we typically make no assumption beyond the fact that he inseminated the child's mother. A man can beget and forget; a woman typically cannot. Of course, it is undisputed that some fathers remain devoted even when forcibly kept at a distance and some mothers are indifferent to their children.
Thanks to all the women and young women who bring everyday joy and love to this world. wouldn't be here w out our women!!! #IntlWomensDay
Joy And Pain Nigga!
Although most fathers can change diapers, prepare bottles of milk or formula, and keep a watchful eye on their children as well as any mother can, study after study shows that fathers spend far less time with their children than mothers do. In the United States, employed married men interact directly with children for an average of twelve minutes per day during workdays and for an average of twenty-seven minutes on their days off. Employed married women, by contrast, average about fifty minutes of direct interaction on workdays, and, interestingly, less time (thirty-eight minutes) on weekends. Perhaps both the mothers and the children feel the need to bond after a long workday; it may also be that on weekends the fathers help out somewhat more.
...
Is it nature or culture that has created such an imbalance in the provision of child care? Most assuredly, men are every bit as capable as women of parenting in a modern society. If mothers and fathers have the same biological interest in their offspring, why do they not also have equal interest in rearing them? Why, on balance, are men less paternal than women are maternal?
One theory posits that differing roles for men and women go back to the early days of human history. Men, being larger and stronger than women, carved out their niche as hunters and leaders, leaving the less physically taxing chore of child care to women. Under such an arrangement, men would be socially, politically, and economically dominant over women, who in turn would be relatively powerless and oppressed. We suspect that there is some validity to this scenario; certainly women who devote themselves entirely to hearth and family are generally not the movers and shakers of the world. Full-time parenting unquestionably deprives women of powerful roles outside the home. Such powerlessness can be especially frustrating for women who find themselves unhappily married yet economically dependent on their husbands. The following true story is typical of this predicament.
Greg and Becky met at college, where both were good students. After graduating from college, they dated for several years while Greg went to business school and Becky earned her teaching certificate. After they married, Becky quit work to become a full-time mother to their two children. Although she had been trained as a teacher, she never appeared in front of a classroom.
In fact, Becky took on the role women had always filled in her family: she did all the domestic chores, chauffeured her children to their activities, and provided the support that enabled her husband to devote his full attention to work. During all those years Greg never cleared a table, ran a load of wash, or swept a floor. In short, Becky single-handedly met all the domestic needs of her family.
Partly as a result of Becky's devotion to the homefront, Greg rose rapidly in his profession, moving into management and then into upper management. He worked as hard at business as Becky worked at home. As her husband became more successful and more powerful, Becky felt increasingly isolated and became anxious and depressed. She found solace in food; in fact, she gained 120 pounds.
After twenty-seven years of marriage and numerous extramarital affairs, which Becky half-consciously acknowledged, Greg announced that he wanted to divorce Becky in order to marry a vivacious career woman twenty years younger than himself. In the divorce negotiations, Greg resisted paying alimony, pointing out that he and Becky had the same level of education. Becky's attorney was quick to counter that she hadn't worked outside the home in twenty-six years, her credentials were outdated, and her earning capacity was a small fraction of Greg's. The emotional issue - Becky's dependence on Greg - was almost an afterthought. Abandoned by her husband, and with her children grown and gone, Becky's personal identity - that of homemaker - had disintegrated.
As Becky's case reveals, parenting can generate a vicious cycle, with each step reinforcing the other: the more women do the child rearing, the more socially and economically powerless they become. And with generally less education, fewer career options, and less money, women eventually become mired in their powerlessness: their lack of options makes them less able to do anything but child rearing, which makes them yet more dependent on their husbands.
Radical feminist Shulamith Firestone may have been right when she observed that "the heart of woman's oppression is her childbearing and childbearing roles." Where Firestone erred, in our opinion, was in her assumption - widely shared - that these roles are determined by social forces alone and that women are simply strong-armed into childbearing and child rearing by churlish men.
THE WORKING WOMAN'S DILEMMA
Many women, of course, aspire to being more than just mothers, so they divide their time and energy between children and careers. But as nearly every one of these women can attest, it is devilishly difficult to care for children and at the same time pursue a successful career. Even when husbands share the chores of homemaking and parenting, working mothers often feel terrible frustration, continual fatigue, and a gnawing sense of dissatisfaction.
Judith sees many professional women in her practice, and the story is nearly always the same. They are bright, energetic, competent women who want it all: career, money, and children. But they seek therapy because they are exhausted, often depressed, and confused. Even with full-time nannies and housekeepers, they feel unsupported. Even with devoted husbands who are good fathers, they are angry. It is simply painful and frustrating to be a mother at a distance, knowing that someone else is going to the school plays, the teacher conferences, the orthodontist appointments. Something inside whispers that good mothering means cuddling and baking cookies, not being the breadwinner.
Homemaking mothers were happier than those working full time - PARTICULARLY those who left higher quality employment for childcare
A study by Norma Radin, a sociologist at the University of Michigan, supports the assertion that at some level many women want to be the primary caretakers of their children. Radin examined middle-class families in Michigan, all of whom were committed to egalitarian child rearing, that is, child care in which the fathers played a substantial role. Among these couples, mothers complained that they didn't have enough closeness and involvement with their children, whereas fathers groused about being hampered in their careers. It is possible that these findings reflect society's different expectations for men and women. For her part, Radin concludes that "even when parents choose to violate sex role expectations, there are still internal pressures to fulfill the tasks for which they were socialized." We suggest, however, that prior socialization is not the entire answer and that the "internal pressures" are internal indeed.
Judith spent several years helping a patient work through her turmoil over mothering. When Jessica, a systems analyst, first met Roger, a professor, she was delighted by Roger's parenting style. Roger had sole custody of two young daughters from a previous marriage. It was not uncommon for Jessica to enter Roger's home and find him at the typewriter writing a grant while his children watched Sesame Street on the television and dinner bubbled on the stove. Jessica was attracted by Roger's ability to diaper a two-year-old and write part of a research article in the same ten minutes. Roger was very comfortable with his style of parenting, which he referred to as benign neglect: he attended to his children's basic needs but otherwise focused on his academic pursuits.
Jessica and Roger eventually married and had a child together. Ironically, the very behaviors that pleased Jessica while they were dating infuriated her once they had a baby. Roger was quite content to stay at home, baby in the Snugli, writing articles. He cooked every night, made sure his older children got to and from school, and occasionally ran a load of laundry. But Jessica soon became critical of Roger's laissez-faire style and chastised him for his work habits. What especially bothered her was not Roger's behavior but the fact that her mothering role had been usurped. When Roger walked into the room, the baby's eyes would light up; when they baby bumped herself, it was Roger's comforting arms she went; not Jessica's. Jessica eflt unneeded and didn't like it.
Although most career women who become mothers do not face the same issues as did Jessica, they are troubled in many ways. Many are simply exhausted at the end of the day, when the demands of part-time parenting and a full-time job add up to an impossible schedule. Says one friend of ours, "I'd love it if my husband would put the kids to bed, but they won't have any part of it. I can't say that I blame them...Jack is so task oriented: get the kids in bed, read a story, turn out the light, and that's it. They want me because I linger, cuddling and giggling with them until they fall asleep." But she's quick to acknowledge that the bedtime ritual exhausts her, and she knows life would be easier if she didn't also have to get up at dawn and go to the office.
Barbara epitomizes the angst of a young working mother. She wants to nurse her daughter, Abby, until she is two, but she also hopes to climb the corporate ladder at the law firm where she works. Barbara rises at 5:30 a.m. to nurse Abby and then hands Abby over to her nanny so she can be at work by 7:00. Every three hours, Barbara secludes herself in the rest room to pump her breasts, a task that keeps her away from her desk for fifteen minutes at a time. At 5:00 p.m. Barbara leaves the office, arriving home around 6:00 with full breasts as well as bottles of milk for the next day. She then spends the evening feeding, playing with, and bathing her daughter. Barbara notes that whereas Abby seems glad to see her in the evening, she is equally happy to see the nanny each morning. Although Barbara is thankful that Abby is well cared for, she envies the nanny and is considering work part-time, though doing so would scuttle her chances for promotion. (The Hand That Rocks The Cradle!)
Few men agonize over such matters; in fact, many rejoice in the opportunity to go to work and escape the daily grind of child care.
Making Sense of Sex: How Genes and Gender Influence Our Relationships. Barash, Lipton, p. 110, 112-115.
Librarian of Hate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-srGrHsZ2t0
Do People, Particularly Males Genuinely Like To Watch Females Fight*? because I'm Actually Repulsed By Female Fighting And I Think There's An Evolutionary Reason For This. And The Evolutionary Reason Is This. Females Were Selected To Be More Compassionate, More Nurturing, More Sympathetic, More Passive, Less Aggressive, And Less Violent Than Males. Why? because Females Who Weren't Compassionate, Nurturing, Sympathetic, Passive And Less Aggressive And Less Violent Typically Tended To Be BAD MOTHERS And Thus Had Lesser Reproductive Success Than Their More Gentle And Caring Female Counterparts. So Over Evolutionary Time These More Tender And Comforting Females Won Out (Their Genes Spread At The Expense Of The Genes Of Violent, Aggressive, Status Driven Women), Ultimately Leading Males To Evolve A Psychological Preference For Them (A Preference For The Non-Combative, Non-Overly Status Driven Females).
SEE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMPQVvEOEcQ
Potentially Poor Parents (Mothers) Because They Have Male Personality And Behavioral Traits!
*If It Weren't For Rhonda Rousey I Think Very Few People Would Be Interested In Watching Females Fight. She Draws Viewers Because She's A Rarity. She's Attractive (Has Feminine Physical Features), Carriers And Conducts Herself In A Feminine Manner, But Can Fight Like A Male (Dominate Her Unattractive Female Opponents Like She Were A Man And They Were Girls).
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40806-015-0018-4
The Evolution of Sports: Exploring Parental Interest in Watching Sports
http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1042&context=psy_articles
Sex Differences in Sports Across 50 Societies
It's often observed that men strive for control and domination, while women strive for consensus and equality. One likely reason is because women are not motivated by a testosterone-fueled drive for social dominance. Though Miss Marple prefers her partners to be dominant, most women do not feel the burning ambition to outcompete other women on the way to becoming alpha female.
Of course, many women are driven to succeed - political opposites Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin demonstrate that women of all persuasions have the inner fire to strive for the highest positions of executive authority. But generally speaking, women avoid physical competition and personal clashes in favor of what psychologists call "tending and befriending" - establishing strong interpersonal bonds.
This changes if you give women testosterone. They become more aggressive, perform more rough and tumble play, initiate more fights, and become more prone to risk-taking, just like men. It also increases their sex drive. (A Billion Wicked Thoughts)
Why do so few females aspire to be known as "Toughwomen"? To fully answer the question "Why do men fight?" we must also ask "Why don't women?"
People usually leap to the wrong conclusion: it must be because women are smaller and weaker than men. But this explains only why (CONTINUE READING ON THE PAGE BELOW)
BITCH! SLAP!
...Sports have emerged as a strangely important battlefield in the movement for women's equality. Many activists seem to feel that recognizing any intrinsic sex differences in sports motivation would be a major setback. This position has always puzzled me. How can the notion that women are less motivated to play sweaty games threaten the feminist project? Why would the world be a nicer place if women were just as stupidly obsessed with sports as men? I can't say for sure, but I've developed a theory. Men have ruled the world...because they have been more likely to live life as an endless string of competitive monkey dances. High-achieving men - politicians, CEOs, Wall Street wolves - experience life as an open-ended dominance contest, with all its bluster and high blood pressure and sawed-off life expectancy. Far fewer women understand how to monkey dance or are interested in learning. Far fewer women feel that a life of endless, often silly, striving represents a good model of a life well lived. For many feminists conceding that men care more about sports by nature would be too much like conceding that the average man is more competitive across the board. And if this is the case, if worldly success comes down to a fanatic willingness to live in monkey dances, then the dream of a society in which power is fairly shared between the sexes may be exactly that - a dream. (A Pipe Dream!)
No one can read the future, but I think this concern is probably misplaced. Stunning advances in women's lives and roles over the last century show that biology is not destiny. And while skillful monkey dancing has historically been a reliable route to male power, it may not be as effective in times to come. In fact, some commentators argue that a new era is already dawning, one where traditionally feminine virtues - the ability to cooperate, to reach consensus, to steer around conflict - will allow women to outcompete men, and to bring a close to the "age of testosterone".
Look at it this way: what we find in women's sports is exactly consistent with what we find in girls' forms of play. Girls use play to establish intimate friendships and have less interest in competitive games than boys do. Given that most girls especially dislike physically rough, dominance-oriented forms of play, it's no wonder that, as girls mature, they remain less keen on the exuberant dominance contests of sports. Given that girls and women put a higher value on cooperation and cohesion than male do, it is not surprising that they are not as attracted to the sports men have invented to show off their prowess and thrash out bragging rights.
But it is also obvious that many women play sports with great avidity and fierceness. That women are motivated to play sports at all is one of the truly fascinating things about our species, because in most animal species females don't participate in ritual combat at all.
What's going on here? My explanation for men's sports applies to women as well, only more weakly. Most female animals don't compete very hard for mates, because high-quality sperm being in abundant supply, there's no point. In humans, sperm is also cheap, but a father's investment in his offspring is not. So women must compete for quality mates who are able, and willing, to share the uniquely heavy burden of rearing human young. In sports, women, like men, make a gaudy display of health and physical quality. This should be attractive to men, because a women's athleticism - and the quality genes underlying it - are likely to be passed down to her children. But women don't invest as much in sports because, in the end, men only care so much. Women value kindness and intelligence in mates, but they also gravitate to dominance cues - including the cues exhibited by successful athletes. As the psychologist Ann Campbell argues, the attributes that allow a man to successfully compete with other men - physically, economically, socially - pretty much sum up what turns women on. But while there's something undeniably sexy about the sheer physical excellence of Jena Baldwin, studies reliably show that men don't care a whit whether a prospective mate can dominate other women, physically or otherwise. For most men, power in women is simply not an aphrodisiac. If anything, men's preference for women who are young and delicate in appearance - whose looks signal lots of estrogen, not lots of testosterone - means that men are most attracted to women who would likely lose fights and other physical forms of contest. I don't think this is mainly because - as many would argue - men find female power threatening (though they well may; men certainly find male power threatening). I think it's simple biology: men seek out fertility cues; women seek out strength cues.
MY NIGGAS ARE ATTRACTED TO ME!
The Professor in the Cage: Why Men Fight and Why We Like to Watch. Gottschall, p. 153-155.
 |
| The Charles Krauthhammer Of Fictional Detectives! Rapunzel Rapunzel |
Kinsey is able to jump into her car and travel to distant places in search of clues; I can't do that. I'm not entirely confined to my home - I do get out occasionally - but my physical stamina is so limited that I seldom venture farther than the local library or office supply store. When I go to the hospital for tests, my husband pushes me around in a wheelchair.
But there are fictional detectives more handicapped than I...
...
It was a random event of a much less memorable sort that changed the course of my life and led me to become a writer of books and articles about psychology. I had a friend who had a dog she needed to find a home for, and I helped her write an ad for the classified section of her local newspaper. A few months later she needed help rewriting an article that had been turned down by a psychology journal - my friend was an assistant professor of psychology at Rutgers University - and she thought of me. "You have a way with words," she told me. Her opinion was based on the ad I had helped her write, a classified ad about a dog. The shortest writing job I've ever had. It started me on the path that ended up here.
On second thought, perhaps I would have become a writer anyway. At any rate, writing the classified ad was only one link - one zig where I might have zagged - in a long chain of thorns and flowers that may or may not have been random. I probably wouldn't have become a writer if I hadn't been rejected by my peers for a crucial four years of my childhood. Those years as a social outcast turned me into an introvert; previously I had been a boisterous, outgoing child. If my parents had decided to buy a house in some other community, perhaps my schoolmates wouldn't have rejected me. When, after four years, my family moved to a different part of the country, I stopped being an outcast. But by then the link had been forged; my personality had changed.
Personality can change; evidence from large numbers of subjects shows that it can change, to some extent, even in adulthood, if one's circumstances change. But it is considerably more plastic, more flexible, in childhood. Children are adaptable. They adapt to their society, their culture - they become socialized. And they also adapt to their individual circumstances, as I adapted to being a social outcast. (No Two Alike)
Now, How Does This Apply To ME? Well, I Didn't Like To Read And I Didn't Read When I Was In Elementary, Junior High, High School, And College Because I Didn't Know How To Read When I Was In Elementary, Junior High, High School, And College. But Now I've Created Blogs That Are Solely Based On The Passages I've Taken From The Books I've Read. When, Why, And How Did This Transformation Occur? I Think It May Have Begun Around 2003-2004 When I'd Gotten My 2nd DUI And Had My Driving Privileges (License) Revoked, Which Led To My Social Life Taking A Dive, While The Amount Of Alone Time And Reading I Did Increased (I No Longer Had The Freedom And Independence To Go Wherever I Liked, Whenever I Liked, So I Was Home Bound For Large Amounts Of Time, Isolated From Friends, And Turned To Books, Newspapers, And Magazines For Pleasure). This Transformation Accelerated Once I Got My 3rd DUI In 2006 And Was Forced To Do 3 Months In Jail* Where I SPENT The Majority Of Time Reading Whatever I Could Get My Hands On, Including Whatever Was Sent To ME!
*I Enjoy Jail Now That I've Become A Reader (Reeder). I Look Forward To Going There (Jail) Because It Gives ME The Peace And Quiet As Well As The Isolation And Seclusion I Need To Do A Lot Of Reading (To Read All Of The Books I'd Like To Read Without Having The Distractions Of The Outside World, The Distractions Of The Outside World That Would Take ME Away From My Readings!) TAKE ME AWAY!
I NEVER BELONGED IN JAIL. I COME FROM A DIFFERENT BACKGROUND AND WORLD THAN THE PEOPLE THAT GO TO JAIL. READ THE NUMEROUS POSTS ON MY BLOGS ABOUT THE BACKGROUND THAT I COME FROM AND HOW I NEVER BELONGED IN JAIL! IF YOU DON'T WANT TO FIND AND READ THOSE I'LL EXPLAIN TO YOU THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ME AND INMATES WRITE HERE. HERE GOES. I WAS RAISED IN A HOUSEHOLD WITH 2 PARENTS WHO LAVISHED PRAISE, AFFECTION, AND ATTENTION ON ME (MOST INMATES WERE NOT). I WAS RAISED IN UPPER MIDDLE CLASS COMMUNITIES AND SURROUNDED BY WHITES AND EAST ASIANS WHO CAME FROM A SIMILAR SOCIOECONOMIC BACKGROUND AS ME (THEY HAD PARENTS WITH COLLEGE DEGREES WHO HELD WHITE COLLAR JOBS AND BROUGHT IN ABOVE AVERAGE INCOMES). (MOST INMATES WERE NOT.) I WAS A STANDOUT ATHLETE GROWING UP WHO GOT GOOD GRADES (FAIRLY GOOD GRADES IN HIGH SCHOOL WITH A FAIRLY HIGH SAT SCORE), AND WAS ADMIRED BY PARENTS, TEACHERS, FRIENDS, AND FOES ALIKE. MOST INMATES WERE NOT. ALTHOUGH I FOUGHT A NUMBER OF TIMES THROUGHOUT ELEMENTARY, JUNIOR HIGH, AND HIGH SCHOOL, I WAS NEVER CONSIDERED A DEVIANT WITH BEHAVIORAL PROBLEMS BY TEACHERS AND FACULTY AND NONE OF THEM WOULD HAVE EVER EXPECTED ME TO GO TO JAIL AS MANY TIMES AS I HAVE. (MOST INMATES AS CHILDREN, TEENAGERS, AND ADULTS WE'RE NEGLECTED, SOCIALLY/ECONOMICALLY DEPRIVED PIECES OF SHIT GROWING UP AND WERE EXPECTED TO GO TO JAIL BY THEIR PARENTS, PEERS, AND PRINCIPLES!) I WENT TO A 4-YEAR UNIVERSITY RIGHT AFTER HIGH SCHOOL (MOST INMATES DID NOT). I WAS IN ANTHROPOLOGY PROGRAMS AT PRESTIGIOUS 4-YEAR UNIVERSITIES (THE INMATES WERE NOT). I HAVE A Ph.D. (THE INMATES DO NOT!) I'M BETTER THAN YOU ALL AND NEVER BELONGED IN JAIL (MOST INMATES BELONG RIGHT WHERE THEY ARE; IN JAIL/PRISON OR THE GHETTO CUZ THEY'RE LOWER CLASS GHETTO TRASH). THE END!
TAKE IT ON THE CHIN, TIA!
(KNOW WHY SHE HAS HER HAND ON HER CHIN? BECAUSE ONE OF THE EARLIEST USERNAMES THAT MY STALKER CREATED ON THE SICCNESS IN 2004 WAS OF AN X MARK ON THE CHIN. I DON'T KNOW HOW HE CREATED THAT USERNAME BECAUSE HE'S A COMPUTER HACKER, BUT I IMMEDIATELY THOUGHT OF THE BIRTHMARK ON MY BROTHER GERY'S CHIN AND I BELIEVE THAT THAT WAS WHAT MY STALKER WANTED TO TRIGGER IN MY MIND. EITHER THAT OR HE WAS SAYING TAKE IT ON THE CHIN OR CHIN CHECK! OR MAYBE IT WAS A REFERENCE TO THIS 3:26 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRCCGWEE0JQ I DON'T KNOW!)
http://www.amazon.com/Man-Disconnected-technology-sabotaged-means-ebook/dp/B00RWKNB5W
Gwirly Mahn
Gavin McInnes
You're a fact checker who speaks with authority about books he hasn't read.
GAVIN, I HAVEN'T READ NOT ONE OF THE BOOKS THAT I REFERENCE ON MY BLOGS AND YOUTUBE PAGES BECAUSE I CAN'T READ. I JUST COPY PASSAGES FROM THEM. I SIT AT COMPUTERS ALL DAY LONG TYPING LETTERS THAT FORM WORDS AND SENTENCES THAT I CAN'T READ. ALL I CAN DO IS SEE AND TYPE, GAVIN. I OPEN THESE BOOKS UP TO RANDOM PAIGES (BLINDLY OPEN THEM) AND BEGIN TYPING AWAY!
Richard Dawkins
“I seriously doubt that Trump has ever read a book straight through in his adult life” (Trump’s ghostwriter, Tony Schwartz, in New Yorker)
Brenna*opens apush book* thats enough for today
HEY, ARE ANY OF YOUR READING THIS SHIT? HOW ABOUT THE PAGES THAT I'M SCANNING? ARE YOU READING THAT SHIT? GIVE ME SOME FEEDBACK.
I'VE GOT SO MUCH GOING ON ON THESE BLOGS THAT IT'S OVERKILL. THERE'S SO MUCH TO READ AND SO MANY VIDEOS TO WATCH THAT YOU'RE NOT READING ANY OF IT OR WATCHING ANY OF THEM. AT LEAST YOU'RE NOT READING OR WATCHING THESE PASSAGES AND VIDEOS IN THEIR ENTIRETY.
