Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science

A THOROUGH EXPLANATION OF OUR GENDER DIFFERENCES AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF A PARTICIPATORY GOVERNMENT.

(argumentative weaponry for your use) (important)

Women have an absurdly difficult time managing impulsive emotions – especially those related to being left behind, ostracization, loss of redistributive parity, and loss of consumption, and even the most subtle loss of status.

This is the price they pay for the ‘relatedness’ of their minds, versus the compartmentalization of the male mind.

And their general-purpose, multiple-processing, impulsivity, and hypersensitivity is necessary for child care just as male specialization, mono-processing, restraint, and insensitivity are for warriors and predators. If for no other reason than an adult male can sustain damage over time that a child cannot. We function as a gradient for damage-tolerance, from the child to the woman to the man, wherein men are expendable women are maintainable, teens are durable, and children are fragile. And we have evolved to divide up tasks such that we absorb the universe’s wear and tear upon us with men taking the brunt of the damage, women doing most of the maintenance, youth taking most of the risk, and children hopefully surviving long enough through enough investment, to become youth. This hierarchy is why men tend to think of the tribe, women of herself and her offspring, and children of themselves alone. That’s because of our responsibility for damage-absorbtion: wear and tear. And as a consequence, why men think politically, women think familially, and children think selfishly. And men, women, and children, thinking of tribe, family, and self, tend to project their mode of thinking into the other realms – foolishly.

We all have frustration budgets, and a woman’s emotional impulsivity is far more difficult to manage as male aggressive impulsivity – albeit men tend to cause physical damage and women’s damage is less visible.

And we might argue that domestication is reducible to the process by which we increase our frustration budgets in order to increase the length of our cooperative production cycles. In fact, that’s what paedomorphic evolution does for us. It limits our sexual maturity, and therefore prolongs the ‘childhood and youth’ stage of our lives so that we place greater emphasis on observation and learning like we do as youth, than we place upon aggression and reproduction as mature adults.

But it’s not rational to ask the majority of women to function as rationally as the majority of men, because the distribution of compartmentalization that makes men objective and rational favors men who must not worry about the fragile children, but must estimate and manage the long-term wear and tear on the tribe. Whereas women often project their hypersensitivity upon men, and ask that men also bear the same costs as women do for her children – a consequence of the single-generation absolute nuclear family. (Of which I have come to disapprove.).

So while men live in a world in which they appear ‘fearful’ because they do not intuitively want to create long term conditions under which they will fight from a position of disadvantage, women live in a world in which they appear fearful because they do not intuitively want to create near-term conditions under which they must scramble for resources to satisfy their needs for nesting.

I’ve usually argued that conservative capital-preserving men, libertarian production-oriented men, and almost universally consumption-oriented women, function as an intertemporal division of perception, cognition, knowledge, specialization, labor, and advocacy.

But the converse perspective is that we form a corresponding distribution of damage absorption, and risk absorption due to the differences in sturdiness and disposability of the child, youth, woman, and man.

So it is not so much that men must lament the irrationality of women in modernity, since they were riders on the evolutionary journey to modernity, not creators of it.

Our error was in not granting women a separate house, treating them as a separate class, with very separate interests and abilities, just as the houses of the church, commons, lords, and monarchy represented different classes with different interests and abilities. Because by using houses, we can force trades between our genetic predispositions to perception, cognition, knowledge and advocacy. Rather than rely on majority rule that circumvents the information system that voluntary cooperation provides us with in order to make use of all of our perceptions.

Thankfully this mistake in our otherwise impressive history is correctable. There is no reason we do not either give women their own house of government and restore the houses of commons, senate, lords, and monarchy – at the ongoing price of the destruction of the family; or remove them, and unmarried, unpropertied men from the voting process, so that the interests of the family rather than the interests of the individual are restored to the central object of policy.

Parsimoniously descriptive truth is a powerful weapon in the construction of interpersonal legal, familial political, and tribal(national) military policy.

Thus armed with it, the problems and their solutions are clear.

We just have to make a choice between the individual as the central object of policy in which we continue to use government to exacerbate the cognitive differences between the genders, or the family as the central object of policy, in which the family is the institution in which we resolve those cognitive differences as compromises, and limit government to the functions that provide interests to the corporal unit of reproductive persistence.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine