Gender roles are good

I’ll bang this drum around both types of sexist controlling pig until I die.

Nobody’s gender role is to oppress anybody else, those people are either insecure and projecting (cough certain religions) or straight up predators. Men and women negotiate and if a man in a couple wants to cook, that’s literally none of my business.

I don’t get the American busybodies judging a marriage they aren’t in – it works, for them, so who cares?

In a couple, they negotiate. That’s it. Don’t like it? Leave. This isn’t hard. It’s the purpose of courtship. MGTOW, MRAs, SJWs make it sound hard because they’re all scared of “getting hurt”. Okay, don’t date. That’s okay. If you shouldn’t be dating, stop.

There is no ‘boss’. It isn’t work. It isn’t a master-slave situation (at least… outside of the bedroom).

Why don’t more Americans get this? Did sitcoms brainwash you that hard? No spouse is on top. They are ONE. Made one flesh. They are a unit. Don’t misquote the Bible at me.

Demur on the topic of other people’s personal lives. I’ve seen ostensibly mens blog after mens forum turn into a huge gossipfest. Huuuuge. Men gossip way more than women now. It’s ugly. It’s also a sin but w/e.

Anybody trying to claim (including virtue signalling of how Their Marriage would be so magically superior) that one Group is superior, by existing, is appealing to Communism. Sorry. Marxists aren’t superior. It’s false consciousness to claim otherwise. This is communistic thinking in the extreme, dissolving your identity into the group (ego death but bad – groupthink, hivemind, the mob) and thereby being proven Worthy and magically Superior, 5eva. You are born and what that is, isn’t an accomplishment. Men aren’t superior. Women aren’t superior. It’s apples and oranges. Nobody is superior. The concept doesn’t apply to human beings, we’re individuals (or organisms). The Gender War construct is Anti-Natal psyops from Cultural Marxism, they openly admitted they wanted to destroy the nuclear family. Considering a man and woman are required, willing it, they triangulated the genders and their willingness to cooperate with their own race (in every race). The entire world is not a tribe, there is no Best Ever Man and Best Ever Woman in the Whole World. Even if there were, they’re still gonna die. Stoicism explained this thousands of years ago. It’s futile, an ego trip. Say you reached this Peak. So what? Or more scary, now what? How lonely would that be? Nietzsche’s concept of Ubermensch is an abstraction, it isn’t an instruction manual. Americans misunderstand a 19th century philosophy book as 20th century, direct self-help (which is Freudian in origin). He was heavily, heavily sarcastic in his writings, a fact many 7/8th grade reading level Americans cannot perceive, due to the age and translation of the text.

http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/10323/ddg#10331

At the fine-grained level, teasing and a kind of snorting sarcasm are among Nietzsche’s most common modes of expression. His writing is riddled with jokes and snarky comments. Unfortunately for readers, understanding the humor — or indeed recognizing when he’s having a laugh — often requires a pretty good familiarity with the history of philosophy, intellectual history, and arts in Europe up to his time. Nietzsche trained as a philologist, or what we would now call a “classicist,” and he assumes his reader is familiar with his classical references….

He was mocking the very guys who follow him dumbly, like Marx.

Poe’s law applies to old text too.

Context for:

‘It is not a lack of love, but a lack of friendship that makes unhappy marriages.’

‘That which does not kill us makes us stronger.’

‘There are two different types of people in the world, those who want to know, and those who want to believe.’

‘Sometimes people don’t want to hear the truth because they don’t want their illusions destroyed.’

‘I was in darkness, but I took three steps and found myself in paradise. The first step was a good thought, the second, a good word; and the third, a good deed.’

true joke joke true true, respectively

The second is very morbid because have you seen some injuries men returning from battle had back then? Lame, crippled, half their face missing.

The last is the Law of Attraction, if you wanna go there. Basic stoic thought control.

‘And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music.’

A hopeful skeptic.

‘You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.’

Oh but that one isn’t edgy enough, bro!

‘Enjoy life. This is not a dress rehearsal.’

Don’t die for gains in the gym.

‘To predict the behavior of ordinary people in advance, you only have to assume that they will always try to escape a disagreeable situation with the smallest possible expenditure of intelligence.’

Normies but Victorian. Cuz we’re so smart, with our internet access. Our ancestors didn’t understand shit, man. Where is our Shakespeare? We don’t have one. Carry on.

Relative to the gender role thing:

‘Nobody is more inferior than those who insist on being equal.’

‘No price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.’ Don’t be a lemming, especially chasing after something that can never be real. It seems like a secular attempt at theosis.

Then again:

I have found strength where one does not look for it: in simple, mild, and pleasant people, without the least desire to rule — and, conversely, the desire to rule has often appeared to me a sign of inward weakness: they fear their own slave soul and shroud it in a royal cloak (in the end, they still become the slaves of their followers, their fame, etc.)

Oh, the irony.

Commitment phobia in men

Came across this by chance.

https://www.elsaelsa.com/astrology/men-dont-want-to-partner-because-women-are-toxic/

You shouldn’t be blaming women for the decisions of men. This applies to homosexuals too.

Men are responsible for their own f-ups and they’re failing society by refusing to commit. Boo hoo child of divorce, grow up! Blaming your parents, seriously? How old are they?

Men are meant to lead, including in establishing families. They are lazy. That is why society rots, weak men.

Just Be Yourself is terrible advice. They expect to be held to no external standard they wouldn’t pass. Trophies, get ya trophies! Hold them to a classic standard they can’t pass? You’re a cunt, at least a bitch. No, really, that’s the level they sink to. Children with male lusts. I want a reality show where we send these Nice Guys on dates and watch them being rude, let a studio audience vote on how they truly behave. They’ll deny, deny, deny. The audience is biased. They’re never wrong, like a toddler.

They claim to treat women with respect…. only to make a sex joke, call a girl who wasn’t interested ‘a whore’ (???), fornicate and lie about it, cheat…. they think we’re stupid. Especially considering this thing called Internet.

It’s the ghetto model of courtship which is to say: trash. No fathers. R-types claiming to be reliable, successful and responsible….we can see you’re not.

There’s a serious attitude problem where they think they’re perfect ‘just the way they are’. OK, if you’re a Disney Princess…

Do you want to date an emotional toddler? Complete with tantrums and gaslighting (I never said that text you are showing me). They’re insane.

That’s why even their girlfriends run. Narcissism has a mask that lasts 6-18 months. Under it, they’re ugly.

Commitment phobia is a classic of men and culture reinforces this.

That men can’t afford to keep a wife (they expect she’ll provide for him but also stay at home, be Madonna and Whore, mother and porn star, have at least 4/5 jobs at once – cook, cleaner, hostess, bar friend, primary caregiver, insanity!) and economically, they can’t afford a family.

They refuse to admit this poverty has anything to do with the Gen Y/Z work ethic.

Sure.

They are anti-traditional but want the safety net of it.

It’s now common to hear from perma-single men;

“Why should I buy a woman dinner?”

  1. it’s a choice?

Literally, that’s the point of a date, the man proves he is worthy, as suitor. That’s all, 100%, what a date is. When you ask a woman on a date, you are offering to do exactly that, no more or less. Everyone sniggers at these idiots behind their backs, it’s retarded to the point of humiliation. Every woman hearing that, our eyes widen and we cringe. It’s like hearing a feminazi. They want without giving. Reciprocity is found in birds, FFS.

They refute that fact. Like feminists questioning gender norms (that’s what it is). They deny a male gender role but claim to be masculine? ….. no. Certainly, it puts off anyone traditional in a hundred-mile radius like sexual mustard gas.

But all the issues addressed herein are blatant and disrespectful (almost disdainful) of women in that implication. Women will never want to breed with a misogynist, that would be crazy-stupid. Automatically, any wife material woman will think ‘cad’ if a man doesn’t think she’s worthy a minor social ritual. He won’t ever provide,that is a Bad Man, to shirk his end of the equation, and we don’t wanna be welfare queens. Then with age, wrinkles and losing hair, they still go after the teenage women who always ignored them. …Losers.

Love isn’t a numbers game by age or approaches.

They bring a pornographic misogyny to the table. You’ve seen them rant, right? Women are higher EQ, we understand their psyche from their speeches. Yeah, we hear you. Wish we didn’t. That’s why none of us wanna date you. Cooties metaphors should be left at school. Mixed social settings are a rehearsal for coupled life and 21st century man is far more rude than the average feminist. They just don’t know it and we quietly avoid them.

They complain there are no ladies…..

There are. But you’re not a gentleman. Hence, Nice Guy memes. .,,They aren’t nice, they’re users. They think we’re stupid, while knowing about the EQ thing. Dissonance.

For a flipped example of the above question.

They have become like feminists – the worst kind: “why do I need to look pretty on a date?”

That’s the kind of dumb where they dunno social conventions aren’t a choice. Do it or not, no customizing. It’s like something a five year-old would say. “Why do I need to open the door for her? She should open it for me!*” children are meant to be inconsiderate, though, you grow out of it. *Those are not the values of a traditional man.

The psychology is interesting – they get everything they want from ‘girlfriends’ aka the idea of a GF makes a wife redundant. Legally, men are shirking their duty and there is a widespread maturity problem in all ages and both sexes today. It’s simply apparent in men because young men are failing to thrive on purpose, preferring porn and video games.

Disloyalty is on the rise, thanks to gay culture infiltrating straights (Grindr, Tindr).

Cheating is supposed to get you divorced. 10 commandments.

Peter Pans are a known issue, look at the men over 21 who care as much about the future as a 13yo girl (psychopathic high time pref) and act like teenagers (OMG the slang, so wrong).

They’re trying to demand impossible things of women (look like a supermodel, don’t be vain, be wise, don’t age, have expensive taste but pay for yourself because we love you). Women are leaving (most of) them on the shelf because the effete modern male is NOT a man and has NOTHING to offer. Look at them sometime.

Talk to them, ask them what they’ve got going for them, what gets women.

…It’ll get awkward.

If you were a woman, honestly, would you marry any of them? Give up all potential…. for that?

Worst part?

They blame women for their incompetence at being men.

That’s why they’re alone. As a man in all traditional metrics, how do they do?

Not fake muscles like breast implants, fake masculinity looks vain and gay (cos it is).

Professional reputation, any savings, desire for children, will to parent and be a good father, impulse control, no temper, no resentment of women. Things historically considered basic.

Most can’t even speak to women without insulting them (to later ask with truly autistic self-awareness ‘why do they avoid me?’) , creep around, lech, openly deride what is feminine and good and expect a 10 to plop out the Heavens just for them.

Negging attracts the damaged ones. They’re totally insecure together at least.

If no woman is good enough, their masculinity will never be tested.

If they never marry, they can’t fail as a husband.

Cowards. 9/10. Cowards.

Petty, childish, nauseatingly evasive from an adult.

Women are waiting for them to self-correct.

They want the best of both worlds in all cases or they check out. Swallowed equality propaganda, but men must prove themselves to women to breed. They try to get women to qualify then wonder why only the masculine ones apply?? They don’t want to provide anything, so they receive nothing. They are spoiled and entitled, whiny and bitchy like other women, the worst ones.. the ones we avoid even for friendship. I said the opposite here once, it applies vice versa; if women wanted someone whiny, bitchy, effeminate, we’d be lesbians!

We don’t want another woman, even if he has a penis. Also porn isn’t real and no woman will ever worship it. Don’t put pussy on a pedestal, inverted. No Mighty Phallus expectations.

Your body doesn’t make you masculine, gender is MENTAL.

They are mentally deficient in this. How many can hang a picture? Change oil? Take a punch?

Men, 101. Their grandfathers would be disgusted and ashamed.

This is common sense.

They do not know this. Women resent needing to teach a male age-peer the fundamentals, we’re not Mom. That is creepy.

They aren’t worth the effort. Part of the male fitness test is initiative. They don’t want to do some male duties? They’re broken, like society.

TLDR: They’re wholly selfish but can’t even take care of themselves. A woman wants a husband, not a moaning child.

They are not husband material, they deny such a thing exists (very progressive) because they’d fail any fair test; they’re not even men. They’re male children that survived to 18 without maturing. I hated typing this, makes me fear for the West.

It’s so bitter and narcissistic raging, they’re seriously talking about cloning. …. they couldn’t afford.

Love/hate “drama” and the romance lovemap

I’m in a pub mood. Story time.

Disclaimer: This is about bringing together a lot of ideas in a correct way, instead of the misconceptions from multiple angles that wear blinkers and assume the tip of the iceberg is the whole thing. It’s difficult for me to put into words because I’ve never had to explain it before, so bear with me.

Common observations;

  • Why do women love “drama”? (Not a modern thing).
  • Why do women prefer so-called love-hate relationships to just… love?
  • Why aren’t they happy in an easy relationship? (n.b. This is often called hypergamy by the manosphere. This is wrong. The man isn’t actually anywhere near the centre of that problem, let alone a conveyor belt of them).
  • Finally, why do feminists and other moody women choose inferior status men only to blame the men for their later irritation?

There is a connection.

The concept of a lovemap was invented by a paedophile sexologist but it’s somewhat accurate, he simply gave it a name. A better way to think of it is as a set collection of impressions and beliefs regarding sex and the courting of the sexes similar to a schema. Everything from fairytales, to comic books, to the Bible, to family stories, urban legends, town gossip and so on. A big puddle of information related to the topic, from a genetic perspective this is priority #1, hence the strength of this lovemap/template/schemata.

The most valuable resource on this topic is the written projection of the Female Lovemap General onto paper, billions of times over. I’m referring, of course, to romance novels. Consider the almost monomythic similiarity between these stories. That’s the Romance Lovemap of Women. There is no choice, all women are aware and affected by it to some extent. There is a probably a parallel for men too. I dunno about that.

What does this schema call for?

In essence, a submissive beautiful woman clashes with dominant noble man.
(n.b. This is not “tingles” or other infantile descriptions of lust by the manosphere that make women cringe in disgust, it would be like calling male lust the Flow for the blood movement; this is a purely psychological phenomena of attraction which is sexual, but only to the extent that it requires both the sexes, one man and one woman, it has nothing to do with sexual congress per se).
The course of true love and all that jazz (Shakespeare merely noticed this).

By being submissive, the woman conquers the strong man in a way even other men cannot. This is how women win. Feminine wiles and control from the King’s ear. Various stories aimed at men are based on warning them about the potential for this, it’s likely part of their Lovemap and the moral of the story is in choosing a (non-crazy, good) woman who will at least guide you in a prosperous direction for you both (behind every good man…).
It isn’t twisted logic that you may be strong by being ostensibly weak when you realize the sexes are unequal but complimentary. It reminds me of a passage of Taoism, by Laozi naturally;

In the world there is nothing more submissive and weak than water. Yet for attacking that which is hard and strong nothing can surpass it. This is because there is nothing that can take its place.

The manosphere, and MGTOW especially, would do well to meditate on this symbol on a daily basis.

Women are not the enemy. Modernity is.
No man would exist without a woman to birth him.

I digress.

What explains the above examples of seemingly irrational behaviour? (Irrational if you are a simple man who prefers to look for the easiest possible solution to feel better about himself instead of the correct one).
Their lovemap is being damaged. Something has gone wrong. Just like women nag a man to do a DIY project they’ve left for weeks with increasing irritation, as the man isn’t pulling his weight on the gender scales, this becomes a central issue in their mind long-term.

[Also yes, that’s why. Women keep the nest and men guard it in one piece. When pieces start breaking it becomes their job but happens to be on our primary territory.]

How does this hypothesis match up, case by case?

well doctor

*deep intake of breath*

  • In romance novels, there is always an external social conflict in the plot i.e. “I want to be with you! -We can’t!” *swoon* This is usually family, protective fathers and clucky mothers, but may be as generic as a disparity in social class or later on, an occupational hierarchy. This introduces an element of taboo common to most relationships however innocent between the sexes before there was even a word for social mobility. Hence you get the same pattern repeating in literally all the bloody stories: humble girl/aristocrat, good girl/rebel (n.b. not for his damaging behaviours or Dark Triad psyche, but the taboo of socialization with him whatsoever), Teacher/Student and recently, Rich Man/Secretary Underling. The difference in social power adds a certain spice. When the gap is broached, and they overcome the difference, the attraction fizzles like a firework in April.
  • Love/hate relationships are tricky because it’s often a synonym for entirely different emotions and women certainly feel multiple emotions simultaneously in love (it isn’t crazy, it’s processing) so we give it the first relevant-ish word that pops into our head. Essentially we’re discussing the balance between positive and negative emotions. Every healthy relationship, platonic to sexual, has both, because needs are being met or unmet and desires exchanged and negotiated. A woman expects to play the role of woman deep in the subconscious, and this is largely Second in Command barring Special Conditions. It isn’t a bad thing, it’s like sitting with the popular kids at school, a kind of halo effect making you feel wanted and crucially, needed, which means you are worthy to be in the social proximity to this person, who needs and wants your company in turn. (Women compete socially, men compete sexually). A man who solely inspires lovey-dovies is going to make us pause and think Is he gay or something? [another topic of concern] Since we all know men like the chase more than the actual capture. If it’s too easy, there must be a bad reason, and we aren’t going to like it. He’s cheating behind your back and being sweet to keep the guilt at bay is among the most common, we’re totally out of his league and he tricked us into undervaluing ourselves is the runner-up. Others includes He’s totally fake and I fell for it, He doesn’t have a personality what am I doing and the ever-reliable He wants something I don’t care to give and he’s buttering me up as emotional blackmail. I believe this sense of “everything is easy, too easy” is part of supposed Woman’s Intuition. Since when did the course of true love run smooth? Therefore, it’s highly logical on our part to deduce that – It’s going smoothly – with, -It’s going to go wrong – or, – Something is wrong here. That’s totally rational.
  • The “easy” question somewhat relates to the point above with a difference. Few relationships today are marriages, and the only true relationship statuses, as men secretly know in their hearts, are single and married. That’s all folks. Marriages bring in clear responsibilities and duties which many modern nancyboys are allergic to (inc. the DIY). Replace easy with lazy and it’s obvious the problem resides in the unmet needs of a woman who may not be able to vocalize the problem or be heard on the issue, who also senses the man is phoning it in i.e. he communicates she is no longer worthy and the path to commitment she believed she had been building up is revealed to be yet another cruel trick. It’s like the female experience of a pricktease, it’s hard not to hate the entire sex for a while after it occurs. Every relationship has exchange requirements to be met, needs to be fulfilled and simply, both parties need to pull their weight or there is no relationship. Notice how the manosphere never mentions lazy husbands? Yet the mystery of female-instigated divorce goes unsolved…
    Obligations don’t end at the altar, they begin there. 
  • The last example is a basic transgression of the lovemap. The type of boy who will allow himself to be browbeaten by such a useless harpy is essentially the double negative image and type of the Lovemap template. In any other society in history he’d die without touching a boob, he isn’t a fit mate to any woman. You see, they, the feminist, consciously believed they could switch out the roles and take the (apparently) bigger and “better” one, because men and women are the same, right? /sarc Eventually, this schema truth from the lovemap rises and stirs from the slumber of the subconscious, shaking the woman out of the temporary thrill of being “boss”. It grows with each demonstration of the reverse expectation in the male chosen, from his behaviour, to his manner and his dress. She knows deep down she bought a lemon. She begins to doubt him because naturally, feminists never correct themselves on anything. This spirals into a deep resentment until the relationship fails or she checks out mentally to preserve her ego. The ‘men’ go along with this because they know it’s the only way they’ll get laid, subconsciously they know they are an unfit male, probably in total contradiction to any male Lovemap, and that’s how male feminists are born.

A simple introduction but I hope you will permit me to end it there for now.
I’m sure you can apply these concepts to your own observations.

friendly happy nice smile relaxed pretty

Millennial women rejecting feminism, long for hearth and home

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/07/03/the-futures-bright-young-people-more-conservative-than-parents-generation-and-the-trend-is-increasing/

…The increasing conservatism of the younger generation is not something that has gone unnoticed by the left and right-wing alike. Guardian columnist John Harris reacted with utter horror after meeting real young people all across Britain as part of the Guardian’sAnywhere But Westminster exercise in trying to find “real politics”, and finding them to be remarkably conservative – even if they didn’t self-identify as ‘big-C’ Conservatives. He said:

“I was reminded of another very modern syndrome: the fact that as you progress down the age range, opinions about the job market and welfare state tend to harden, to the point that droves of twentysomethings sound like devout Thatcherites… this has become almost a given. Quiz people under 30, in short, and you’re more than likely to hear echoes of the kind of on-yer-bike, sink-or-swim values that decisively embedded themselves in British life when they were mere toddlers”….

Like I said in Best Post, we aren’t falling for it. We’re women, not workhorses.

We’ve seen all the divorced, the spinsters and the bitter and gone –

Yet the Left don’t see these people weren’t brainwashed, they grew up in a time of Leftist dominance. They know they’ll be on the target list eventually, useful pawns for their ideology. They refuse to be further used. What has the Left done for us? Replaced our jobs with immigrants, shut down our lolz on social media, nixed our hobbies for imaginary offences, crashed our parties with people who refuse to grow up and we can’t get a decent savings account, let alone a car (insurance, all those safety regulations) or a house.

Sex differences in the structural connectome of the human brain

Page at: http://www.pnas.org/content/111/2/823

PDF at: http://www.pnas.org/content/111/2/823.full.pdf

The connectome is important. There are blood flow differences, electrical signalling differences and these are now proof of pathway differences. Literally, observable (spatial) differences in the neural network.

Under significance;

Sex differences are of high scientific and societal interest because of their prominence in behavior of humans and nonhuman species. [DS: worth reminding] This work is highly significant because it studies a very large population of 949 youths (8–22 y, 428 males and 521 females) using the diffusion-based structural connectome of the brain, identifying novel sex differences. The results establish that male brains are optimized for intrahemispheric and female brains for interhemispheric communication. The developmental trajectories of males and females separate at a young age, demonstrating wide differences during adolescence and adulthood. The observations suggest that male brains are structured to facilitate connectivity between perception and coordinated action, whereas female brains are designed to facilitate communication between analytical and intuitive processing modes.

This supports the ideas of the masculine and feminine brains as separate evolved developments a la Baron-Cohen. I doubt the people selling “we’re the same” would like these results, and it explains why they haven’t got better publicity because Narrative sells.
claudia boleyn baby impression crying
Biological proof of gender (psyche) differences too (the “gender binary” is based in biology!). And since the connectome informs function and behaviour, gender roles too!

Want to see the best proof in this study?

Tell a feminist today. Smugly.

THAR SHE BLOWS!

 

Paper: The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness

Click to access w14969.pdf

The more feminist policies and lifestyles introduced, the more unhappy the women.

Both men and women in the U.S. have faced some other challenging societal trends in the past 30 years as well. While the male-female wage gap converged over this period, income inequality rose sharply through the 1980s and has continued to rise, albeit more slowly, in recent decades. Moreover, the real wages of many men fell during much of this period. In particular, real wages for men with less than a college degree fell from 1979-1995 (Autor, Katz, & Kearney, 2008). Many households experienced only moderate growth in household income, with those in the bottom half of the income distribution experiencing real growth of less than 0.5% a year from 1973 to 2005 (Goldin and Katz, 2007) and much of this increase was due to the additional earnings of wives. Along with this rise in income inequality has come concerns about increasing income volatility, and a more general concern about households bearing more health and retirement risk (Hacker, 2007). While these trends have impacted both men and women, it is possible that the effect of these trends on happiness has differed by gender.

Even if women were made unambiguously better off throughout this period, a richer consideration of the psychology behind happiness might suggest that greater gender equality may lead to a fall in measured well-being. For example, if happiness is assessed relative to outcomes for one’s reference group, then greater equality may have led more women to compare their outcomes to those of the men around them. In turn, women might find their relative position lower than when their reference group included only women. This change in the reference group may make women worse off or it may simply represent a change in their reporting behavior. An alternative form of reference dependent preferences relates well-being to whether or not expectations are met. If the women’s movement raised women’s expectations faster than society was able to meet them, they would be more likely to be disappointed by their actual experienced lives. As women’s expectations move into alignment with their experiences this decline in happiness may reverse. A further alternative suggests that happiness may be driven by good news about lifetime utility (Kimball & Willis, 2006) . Under this view, the salience of the women’s movement fuelled elation in the 1970s that has dissipated in the ensuing years. …

Our contribution in this paper is to carefully document trends over several decades in subjective well-being by gender in the United States and other industrialized countries, collecting evidence across a wide array of datasets covering various demographic groups, time periods, countries, and measures of subjective well-being. …

However, the relative declines found for Europe and the US lie within a 95% confidence interval of 125 of the 147 we countries we examine.

 

Men prefer nice women to bitches, hold the presses

study

Femininity and Attractiveness

Take a moment to bask in that title.

Researchers from the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya, the University of Rochester, and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, collaborated on three studies to observe people’s perceptions of responsiveness. People often say that they seek a partner that is “responsive to their needs,” and that such a partner would arouse their sexual interest. A responsive person is one that is supportive of another’s needs and goals. “Sexual desire thrives on rising intimacy and being responsive is one of the best ways to instill this elusive sensation over time,” lead researcher Gurit Birnbaum explains. “Our findings show that this does not necessarily hold true in an initial encounter, because a responsive potential partner may convey opposite meanings to different people.”

In the first study, the researchers examined whether responsiveness is perceived as feminine or masculine, and whether men or women perceived a responsive person of the opposite sex as sexually desirable. Men who perceived female partners as more responsive also perceived them as more feminine, and more attractive. However, the association between responsiveness and male partner’s masculinity was not significant for women. Women’s perceptions of partner responsiveness were marginally and negatively associated with perceptions of partner attractiveness. [Breaking beta]

….

Women’s Perceptions of Responsiveness

The findings of the study imply that whether a responsive partner will be seen as sexually desirable or not depends on the context and meaning assign to responsiveness. In early dating, the meaning of responsiveness is likely shaped by gender-specific expectations. Women did not perceive a responsive man as less masculine, but even so, women did not find a responsive man as more attractive. [admiring boldness?] The study helps to explain why men find responsive women sexually attractive, but does not reveal the mechanism that underlies women’s desire for new acquaintanceships.

“We still do not know why women are less sexually attracted to responsive strangers; it may not necessarily have to do with ‘being nice.’ Women may perceive a responsive stranger as less desirable for different reasons,” Prof. Birnbaum cautions. “Women may perceive this person as inappropriately nice and manipulative (i.e., trying to obtain sexual favors) or eager to please, perhaps even as desperate, and therefore less sexually appealing. Alternatively, women may perceive a responsive man as vulnerable and less dominant. Regardless of the reasons, perhaps men should slow down if their goal is to instill sexual desire.”

A mother’s love confers measurable brain benefits

This is why so many kids are screwed up.

study

“According to senior study investigator and neurobiologist Regina Sullivan, PhD, whose previous research in animals showed how maternal interactions influenced gene activity in the infant brain, the latest study offers an even more profound perspective on maternal caregiving.

“Our research shows how in mammals the mother’s sensory stimulation helps sculpt and mold the infant’s growing brain and helps define the role played by ‘nurturing’ in healthy brain development, and offers overall greater insight into what constitutes good mothering,” says Sullivan, a professor at the NYU School of Medicine and its affiliated Nathan S. Kline Institute for Psychiatric Research. “The study also helps explain how differences in the way mothers nurture their young could account, in part, for the wide variation in infant behavior among animals, including people, with similar backgrounds, or in uniform, tightly knit cultures.”

“There are so many factors that go into rearing children,” says lead study investigator Emma Sarro, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at NYU Langone. “Our findings will help scientists and clinicians better understand the whole-brain implications of quality interactions and bonding between mothers and infants so closely after birth, and how these biological attachment behaviors frame the brain’s hard wiring.””

Mouse Utopia, Social Decay and Cultural Collapse

link here

I wish they did more articles like this.

“Calhoun and his researchers found that in a space-limited/resource unlimited environment, the population of mice would explode; peak-out and then collapse to extinction. This test was replicated several times and it was found that these led to the same outcome each time. The reason for this phenomenon was found to derived from social decay which worsened with each generation. The social decay led to unrest in the environment, which in turn led to sub replacement fertility. It was concluded that nature has a limit in which social animals can interact.”

The UK population rate is paltry and far beneath replacement level, propped up by parasitic immigrants (there is no N cap on child benefit). Feminism is literally a societal suicide note. Death is the great equalizer.

Here’s the experiment referenced.