RT @Outsideness: “… males love ranking.” https://www.takimag.com/article/ranking-ruth/ …
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-26 14:59:12 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232681527416324096
Theme: Sex Differences
-
(Humor.) “Mansplaining and Womansplaining”
(Humor.) “Mansplaining and Womansplaining” https://propertarianism.com/2020/02/25/humor-mansplaining-and-womansplaining/
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-25 21:37:59 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232419496603930624
-
(Humor.) “Mansplaining and Womansplaining”
(Humor.) Re: “Mansplaining and Womansplaining” Yeah. I’m a little done with womansplaining as well. Mansplaining is merely useless – it won’t accomplish anything even if it should. Womansplaining is useless and false – but often succeeds even though it shouldn’t. 😉 Let’s compare them: Womansplaining: “There is no bell curve. Everyone is equal. Everyone has equal potential. And everyone that’s unsuccessful is inhibited by others’ bias or malice.” In other words, “I want my dead weight offspring to have a chance at achieving devolutionary and undeserving equality with his or her genetic superiors.” Short term, female, empathetic, feels. Mansplaining:“There is always a bell curve – and a third of people are dead weight, and its genetic, and women decide who they mate with – so it’s their fault.” In other words, “I want my tribe to be free of dead weight offspring so we have a chance at achieving at defeating competing tribes who seek to defeat our genes.” Long term, male, analytic, reals. That’s the net of it. Understand the speaker’s bias, and you understand his brain structure and you understand his reproductive strategy – and that none of that is under his cognitive control and everything he (or she) says is just the persona-puppet following instructions of one’s genes. Really. That’s the entirety of the left (Female cognitive bias) right (male cognitive bias)
-
(Humor.) “Mansplaining and Womansplaining”
(Humor.) Re: “Mansplaining and Womansplaining” Yeah. I’m a little done with womansplaining as well. Mansplaining is merely useless – it won’t accomplish anything even if it should. Womansplaining is useless and false – but often succeeds even though it shouldn’t. 😉 Let’s compare them: Womansplaining: “There is no bell curve. Everyone is equal. Everyone has equal potential. And everyone that’s unsuccessful is inhibited by others’ bias or malice.” In other words, “I want my dead weight offspring to have a chance at achieving devolutionary and undeserving equality with his or her genetic superiors.” Short term, female, empathetic, feels. Mansplaining:“There is always a bell curve – and a third of people are dead weight, and its genetic, and women decide who they mate with – so it’s their fault.” In other words, “I want my tribe to be free of dead weight offspring so we have a chance at achieving at defeating competing tribes who seek to defeat our genes.” Long term, male, analytic, reals. That’s the net of it. Understand the speaker’s bias, and you understand his brain structure and you understand his reproductive strategy – and that none of that is under his cognitive control and everything he (or she) says is just the persona-puppet following instructions of one’s genes. Really. That’s the entirety of the left (Female cognitive bias) right (male cognitive bias)
-
P Logic in Relationships
[Y]ou don’t use P-logic to argue with your wife, girlfriend – even if you probably should use it with your daughters. You use P to UNDERSTAND your wife or girlfriend, so that you can ask the right questions and give the right answers.
—“I can only imagine the fallout from telling a significant other during a heated discussion that her emotions were simply a response to a perceived change in property.”—Michael Churchill
The most important of which isn’t to tell her her feelings are wrong, or her desires are wrong, but whether they are possible or not, and whether they would achieve desired ends or not. Women need you to listen while they work through suppressing the emotion and impulse. They need you to support them as they work through those thoughts impulses and emotions so that you relieve them of the burden of doing it alone. And they need you to help them come to a conclusion on their own – just as they help you through your male anger or frustration when it clouds your vision. And they need you to say ‘no’ when it’s your fking job to say ‘these are the limits’ beyond which you are not willing to go – and not apologize for it. Be a man. Give her room to exercise emotional frustration by emotional expression like you exercise emotional frustration by physical expression.
-
P Logic in Relationships
[Y]ou don’t use P-logic to argue with your wife, girlfriend – even if you probably should use it with your daughters. You use P to UNDERSTAND your wife or girlfriend, so that you can ask the right questions and give the right answers.
—“I can only imagine the fallout from telling a significant other during a heated discussion that her emotions were simply a response to a perceived change in property.”—Michael Churchill
The most important of which isn’t to tell her her feelings are wrong, or her desires are wrong, but whether they are possible or not, and whether they would achieve desired ends or not. Women need you to listen while they work through suppressing the emotion and impulse. They need you to support them as they work through those thoughts impulses and emotions so that you relieve them of the burden of doing it alone. And they need you to help them come to a conclusion on their own – just as they help you through your male anger or frustration when it clouds your vision. And they need you to say ‘no’ when it’s your fking job to say ‘these are the limits’ beyond which you are not willing to go – and not apologize for it. Be a man. Give her room to exercise emotional frustration by emotional expression like you exercise emotional frustration by physical expression.
-
“Shrilling” (vs Shrill, Shrew, Scold)
“Shrilling” (vs Shrill, Shrew, Scold) https://propertarianism.com/2020/02/25/shrilling-vs-shrill-shrew-scold/
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-25 16:31:52 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232342458593415169
-
“Shrilling” (vs Shrill, Shrew, Scold)
|Shrilling| Counter-Signaling -> Outraging -> Shrilling -> ShriekingShrilling : hbd science-denialism, feminism, postmodernism, marxism, inappropriate theism. shrill (n.) 1a: having or emitting a sharp high-pitched tone or sound 1b: accompanied by sharp high-pitched sounds or cries 2: having a sharp or vivid effect on the senses 3: PIERCING, STRIDENT, INTEMPERATE shrew, shrewish (adj.) “peevish, malignant, clamorous, spiteful, vexatious, turbulent woman” [Johnson] is late 14c., from earlier sense of “spiteful person” (male or female), mid-13c.,late 14c., “wicked, malignant,” from shrew + -ish. Of women, “malignant and scolding,” from 1560s. Related: Shrewishly; shrewishness. scold (n.) mid-12c., “person of ribald speech,” later “person fond of abusive language” (c. 1300), especially a shrewish woman [Johnson defines it as “A clamourous, rude, mean, low, foul-mouthed woman”], from Old Norse skald “poet” (see skald). The sense evolution might reflect the fact that Germanic poets (like their Celtic counterparts) were famously feared for their ability to lampoon and mock (as in skaldskapr “poetry,” also, in Icelandic law books, “libel in verse”).
-
“Shrilling” (vs Shrill, Shrew, Scold)
|Shrilling| Counter-Signaling -> Outraging -> Shrilling -> ShriekingShrilling : hbd science-denialism, feminism, postmodernism, marxism, inappropriate theism. shrill (n.) 1a: having or emitting a sharp high-pitched tone or sound 1b: accompanied by sharp high-pitched sounds or cries 2: having a sharp or vivid effect on the senses 3: PIERCING, STRIDENT, INTEMPERATE shrew, shrewish (adj.) “peevish, malignant, clamorous, spiteful, vexatious, turbulent woman” [Johnson] is late 14c., from earlier sense of “spiteful person” (male or female), mid-13c.,late 14c., “wicked, malignant,” from shrew + -ish. Of women, “malignant and scolding,” from 1560s. Related: Shrewishly; shrewishness. scold (n.) mid-12c., “person of ribald speech,” later “person fond of abusive language” (c. 1300), especially a shrewish woman [Johnson defines it as “A clamourous, rude, mean, low, foul-mouthed woman”], from Old Norse skald “poet” (see skald). The sense evolution might reflect the fact that Germanic poets (like their Celtic counterparts) were famously feared for their ability to lampoon and mock (as in skaldskapr “poetry,” also, in Icelandic law books, “libel in verse”).
-
Why Women Defect
[I]n simple terms, men find greater persistence, consumptive, productive, and reproductive advantage in loyalty in pursuit of advantage despite conflict whereas women find greater persistence, consumptive, and reproductive advantage in disloyalty and avoidance of conflict. This is why women defect and why all cultures that survive prevent women from defection by limiting political participation.