/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10842457]

Why are men objectively better at writing?

[Anonymous No.10842467]

>>10842457
They been doing it longer and lived in a patriarchal society that encouraged them to strive for intelligence and discouraged women from doing so.

[Anonymous No.10842478]

Because throughout most of history, men have been the ones educated in reading, writing, and studying the classics. Any time period where women are given the same education, or any time one woman stands as an exception, that rule is broken.

Examples: Sappho, Dickinson, Woolf, Austin, Shelley, etc.

[Anonymous No.10842480]

>>10842457
Their simpli inferior to us as white men

[Anonymous No.10842489]

>>10842457
Men are objectively better in most areas, although a number of my top 5 books are written by women, the other 45 out of 50 are almost entirely men which just proves the rule.

[Anonymous No.10842510]

>>10842489
The only book I can think of by a woman that I thought was legitimately masterful was And Then There Were None

[Anonymous No.10842518]

>>10842510
Try Agota Kristof's Trilogy of Lies. Heavy shit. Maybe some Le Guinn, I liked Earthsea and her other books stand tall against others in that range where you can't directly compare them, but ymmv.

[Anonymous No.10842529]

>>10842510

>masterful

That's the word that comes to mind when I read the short stories of Alice Munro.

[Anonymous No.10842531]

>>10842529
patrician

[Anonymous No.10842552]

>>10842478
>uses the "women didn't have education!1!1" argument
>uses women before the half of 20th century as examples
At least try to make your point good with new examples

[Anonymous No.10842558]

>>10842552
I was talking about people who've defied the rule when given an education outside the system

[Anonymous No.10842588]

>>10842467
Christ, leave.

There's an evolutionary advantage for men as a way to increase status, and the creative element fits with European man's nature, so white males developed the craft and are naturally the best at it. There is no such advantage for women, for whom intellectual pursuits hold no evolutionary value or benefit.

[Anonymous No.10842591]

/lit/, what are some good female writers?

[Anonymous No.10842599]

>>10842591
Evelyn Waugh

[Anonymous No.10842635]

>>10842457
They're better at everything, because they have no life*, so they nerd out on things.

*or, to be exact: they have less social life

[Anonymous No.10842642]

>>10842467
This. To be a writer it's best to be financially independent which is something that most of women haven't been able to do until recently.

[Anonymous No.10842650]

>>10842588
>Evolutionary psychology
Pseudoscience

[Anonymous No.10842661]

>>10842650
>t. social scientist

[Anonymous No.10842668]

>>10842635
very poor attempt at an explanation

[Anonymous No.10842673]

>>10842599

She's great. Same with Sidney Sheldon.

[Anonymous No.10842694]

>>10842591
Flannery O'Connor
Carson Mccullers
Virginia Woolf
Dorothy Richardson
Clarice Lispector
Emily Dickinson

>female authors who are not good
Sylvia Plath

[Anonymous No.10842696]

>>10842650
May I inquire where retarded people like yourself obtain these opinions that encourage you to disregard obvious realities about human nature and difference? Is this a Sam Harris platform or something else like that, or have the public institutions of white/western society really decayed this much under the post 60s egalitarian delusion?

[Anonymous No.10842704]

The most ancient psychological novel (Tale of Genji) was written by a woman

[Anonymous No.10842714]

>>10842457
men are objectively better at everything

[Anonymous No.10842727]

>>10842661
What do you think evopsych is lol?>>10842696
>May I inquire where retarded people like yourself obtain these opinions that encourage you to disregard obvious realities about human nature and difference?
It comes from not being an internet educated retard.

[Anonymous No.10842745]

>>10842727
the anger at evopsych is entirely, and I mean entirely, politically motivated. There isn't a shred of intellectual integrity in the criticisms of it.

This becomes enormously obvious when the same arguments that apply without controversy to animals become hugely contentious when applied to humans, even if the caveat that these tendencies will be mediated by culture is given.

[Anonymous No.10842757]

>>10842457
Maybe not objectively better writers. Historically men have fought wars, hunted, traveled, led politics, and developed tech, which just means they had more interesting stories to tell. To where women on the other hand tended to be house wives or live comfortable sedentary lives.

>>10842478
This anon's point is a big factor as well. If look at the female authors he samples they all had backgrounds of education/wealth. We're already seeing much more female writing, I just wish it wasn't primarily YA fiction or memoirs, but women tend to lean towards small character driven dramas over large arcing narratives.

[Anonymous No.10842769]

>>10842745
Nah, A good portion of evopsych is bullshit. Some of it is dead accurate, but there's a lot of bullshit to sift through.

[Anonymous No.10842785]

>>10842769
I don't deny that but the same is true of many fields, which don't incur anything like the hostility evopsych does, the anger is very obviously ideological in origin.

I don't even care that much about sociobiology, I find it interesting, and think it can probably help explain human behavior, but the lunacy coming from its critics is just another level, they refuse to even consider the ideas. Their idea of the self has had every trace of Darwin religiously scrubbed out.

[Anonymous No.10842786]

>>10842694
>>10842599
thanks kind anons

[Anonymous No.10842793]

>>10842745
They are the new zealots of the post-Christian, neo-communist equality doctrine. One cannot accept that people or groups are different and better or worse than other people or groups, but must believe that nature can be shunned or overcome and that everyone can by force be brought to equal plane. This is the social virus whites are currently infected with.

[Anonymous No.10842795]

>>10842785
I ride the evopsych train, I'm just careful about what I push. I too enjoy fucking with progressives.

[Anonymous No.10842805]

>>10842745
>the anger at evopsych is entirely, and I mean entirely, politically motivated.
I don't give two shits about wemen or politics, evopsych's method and epistemological foundations are fucking ridiculous. It's the contemporary version of psychoanalysis and I honestly can't wait for this meme field to die. Steven Pinker in particular should be nailed on a cross.

[Anonymous No.10842811]

>>10842805
Evopsych's 'foundation' is that evolution will have had an impact on the behavior and psychology of animals, following the normal logic of natural selection.

Comparing it with the garbage Freud cooked up is absurd

[Anonymous No.10842824]

>>10842457
Because the bell curves for men are much wider and flatter relative to the curves for women. What does this mean exactly and why is it so? Well it means that in any given distribution, let's say IQ for example, there will be more men with very low and very high IQs compared to women. The women will by comparison have a much larger degree of near-average IQs, with fewer on the tail ends of being very dumb or very smart. Now I would posit that to be a 'great' writer one must be a genius, something I think most people would agree with, and geniuses tend to have very high IQs in general, regardless of their specialised field. There are other traits but this is certainly one of them. So when we are dealing with billions and billions of humans, across thousands of years, we see that the ones who write the greatest novels (the geniuses) are predominantly men. This bell-curve distribution dynamic is true across any given metric, and thus results in men being the top players at the very pinnacles of all fields. Just think about it; writing, cooking, architecture, sport, art, science, mathematics - the best of the best are always overwhelmingly men.

This leaves the question of how this phenomenon arises. Well to put it simply men are expendable. It is the female of the species that is required to produce children, with men being mostly superfluous. A single man can impregnate many women. Thus there is a pressure for the genomes of women to 'play it safe'. They conserve genes that are proven to be stable, reliable and able to withstand environmental pressures, always returning to a close mean of proven outcomes. Conversely men have no such pressure forcing them to remain mostly within a stable 'no-frills' region of characteristics. Men can thus vary more wildly with the genetic components that account for the biological half of all the gene-environment interactions that govern what a person is, can do and who they are.

Imagine a 10x10 checkerboard with numbers in the squares. You are told to throw a pebble onto the grid. With 100 numbers there's a chance that you'll get a very low number and a chance you could get a very high number. This is the 'male' grid. Now imagine that fences are placed on the grid to lock off the outer rims and the remaining board is 8x8. Sure you're not going to get any very low numbers, but equally you're not going to get high numbers. One is good for consistently getting middling numbers, and one is good for getting the very highest numbers (while also getting the low numbers as a trade off). Obviously genetics is never this black and white - you do get a lot of middling and low end males, and you can get some very high end females, but generally this is a good way to think of it.

[Anonymous No.10842856]

>>10842824
Only correct answer

Genius is mostly a male attribute

[Anonymous No.10842858]

>>10842457
men experience more suffering, which is the genesis of all worthwhile writing. Women are too coddled and protected.

[Anonymous No.10842887]

>>10842529
>>10842531
Is this a bait? I heard she only writes comfy housewife fiction that's very repetitive. Redpill me if I'm mistaken. Which stories should I check out (I just checked and there's a lot).

[Anonymous No.10842894]

>>10842457
Most men can not write, you're thinking of smart men (like me)

[Anonymous No.10842905]

Yawn!
As a reader & hobbyist writer I've pondered this question some.
To all the SJWs out there, differences between males & females can be empirically proven.

Women tend to be more creative in the creating life department, y'know on account of the whole birth thing.
Whereas men tend to be more creative in the arts/construction/engineering/sciences, based on the fact that well...the overwhelming majority of everything materially created/invented was by men.

Also the publishing industry has been Dominated by females the last few years, eg females are the majority of agents/editors/proofreaders, y'know the staff of the industry.
I believe this imbalance has contributed significantly to the decline in male readership, which is generally attributed to other media, but this can be countered by the male migration to comics/graphic novels.
The reality is, because the industry is predominantly female, material that is appealing to males is often not perceived by said agents/editors

[Anonymous No.10842915]

>>10842905
>Also the publishing industry has been Dominated by females the last few years, eg females are the majority of agents/editors/proofreaders, y'know the staff of the industry.

There's no problem with this. Its basically just cleaning up and playing Mommy for men. Its when they start thinking they can do the heavy lifting just as well that things get annoying

[Anonymous No.10842933]

>>10842457
That's not true, just look at J.K. Rowling!

[Anonymous No.10842940]

>>10842915
Speak for yourself, I don't like having the best writing being in the past.

I want material that I can relate to, so no sorry it is a problem.

[Anonymous No.10842948]

>>10842940
Good writing is universally good. You just want a load of faggot Hemingways. Women can edit just fine and infact its good to have someone with less personal ego in charge of that process. The problem is women not respecting men who deserve respect, once that happens the order is restored

[Anonymous No.10842954]

>>10842824
going to tell my daughter this ever night before bed

[Anonymous No.10842961]

>>10842668
Dude, that's generous of you. I think that's a pleb-tier 13-yo kind of explanation. Not even logical.
>>10842457
This applies only historically because generally writers of today are awful and even if you were to find few exceptions they would probably be pretty indiscriminate w.r.t. sex.
Simple answer: historically, socio-biological conditions favoured men in pursuing creative work, notably literature, music, technology. Saying more than that would be divination. This holds less true today, there are simply no good writers and men and women reached parity of powerlevel in writing.

[Anonymous No.10842977]

>>10842905
Your assessment is mostly correct, but it seems you make female representation in the publishing industry out to be some sort of natural process. It has been in fact pushed in that direction intentionally by the overwhelmingly jewish arbiters now running the industry. They view white men as their enemy and main competition, so they've had an interest in padding themselves with more docile female functionaries and promoting reading material of less interest to white men.

[Anonymous No.10842982]

>>10842948
Faggot Hemingways?
You're an absolute tosser...suppose you shit on Shakespeare as well?
Go pick up your fifty shades of grey man...

[Anonymous No.10842984]

>>10842977
Based counter-semite Anon. This aspect is very significant must always be reinforced

[Anonymous No.10842987]

>>10842588
That may have been somewhat true in the past, but the way women fit into society is changing due to the feminist movement and the increase in equality in the workplace. Men now compete with women for status. I know you're bitter about that, but it's true.

Inb4 "girls only have to rely on their looks." Ugly girls have high-paying jobs now too (although I'll grant that many women do get ahead by virtue of their physical appearance/charm).

[Anonymous No.10842996]

The more beautiful you are the less motivated you are to improve your intelligence, knowledge, skills, and personality in general by 50% of the population. If you are beautiful, you get plenty of attention anyway, and for most people "attention" is a main driver of personality development. You are in demand all the time, regardless.
Worse: it is very likely that men pretend to be impressed by whatever she says and does, a fact that may further diminish her motivation to self-improvement, and may further increase the reason that women don't find her interesting.
The risk is that a big component of her cognitive development stops at 16. She doesn't need to inform herself on current events, read books, watch intellectual movies, go to lectures, etc because she is invited by so many males to so many events. Cute girls don't need to come up with topics of conversation. It is their male suitors who desperately try to find a topic of conversation that interests them. She doesn't need to have a personality to attract attention, and the risk is that she won't form one. She is not genetically dumb, but the risk is that she will get progressively "dumb".

[Anonymous No.10843013]

>>10842987
>Men now compete with women for status.

Not really. You could be the most successful, wittiest, smartest woman on Earth and I would still find a 14 year old girl with sub-100 IQ way more attractive than her. The same is quire the reverse for men. This is the source of bitterness

[Anonymous No.10843021]

>>10842987
That's no set new reality, it's a historical aberration that will decline as feminism becomes less appealing and childless cat lady genes are selected against among women. Feminism has been bad for women and was never meant to last, and the natural order will re-correct itself naturally over time or by force if the jews using feminism to manipulate white women cannot be outmaneuvered politically and removed from power.

[Anonymous No.10843025]

>>10842977

I'm not saying it's natural, on the contrary I believe a lot (not all) of women are jealous of male creativity.
Possibly could be organized for the publishing industry to become feminized.
All I know for sure is, women tend to want
to try their hand imitating the male greats & when they don't have the kind of success they want, they adopt Marxist philosophies to "even the playing field."

[Anonymous No.10843040]

>>10843021
I can see it now. When I turn forty and all the old feminist women, after a life of living like worthless entitled whores start being forced into lonely, childless, single retirements. A new generation of hyper feminine beauties reach legal age raised by the women who chose to have wholesome traditional lifestyles
It will be like Christ come again rising with the Eastern Sun

[Anonymous No.10843044]

>>10842954
There are worse things you could do. Honestly if you make it into a lullaby it'll probably be one of the most constructive things you could do.

[Anonymous No.10843047]

>>10843044
>There are smart boys, stupid boys, boys who play on rocks... and standard deviation girls...

[Anonymous No.10843064]

>>10843025
Perhaps, but white women are being instructed to believe such things are in their interests when they aren't. Women are followers who enforce status quos and will believe whatever the dominant male or social power tells them to. The problem is that many white women no longer receive these social cues from their own men, but from publications, media, and other agents controlled primarily for jews who don't have their best interests in heart and are instructing them to oppose their own men. They blow with the wind and would do a 180 tomorrow if the social order did.

[Anonymous No.10843090]

>>10843040
This is to an extent already happening. The most rabid feminists are women who grew up in the 70s and there is a very unappealing bent to feminism now, even though it is enshrined in our culture. It's still a major problem but it seems fewer young white girls are drawn to it these days and behave more in line with what 'femininity' has always been defined by.

The point I'm trying to make though is that women themselves aren't the problem, but those in charge of our culture, who tell white women to act in ways that are bad for them, and bad for us.

[Anonymous No.10843108]

>>10843064
No part of the problem is women as part of their nurturing instinct are simply more sensitive to suffering in the world than men. While women reinforce the status quo its ironically men that are more keen to follow new orders and new ways
It used to be a well known stereotype that it was women who voted conservative and in the first half of the twentieth century while clownish revolutionary socialist men were outraged at them being the obstacle to progress and the grand society
Your characterization of women doesn't lend them the credit they deserve as the firmest safeguard of order, when there is order

[Anonymous No.10843111]

>>10842887

No, not bait. I'm just sharing my experience with her work. I read Dance of the Happy Shades over about a week and loved it. I soon after bought Lives of Girls and Women and am enjoying it even more.

Her writing is honest and insightful, and the way she tells the story is so evocative for me. The characters are memorable and funny and some of them are so like people I know, that I sometimes tear up because in certain instances, the actions of a character (specifically, her mother) makes me understand my parents so much more.

If I have to recommend a story or two, I would say:

Heirs of the Living Body
and
An Ounce of Cure
and
Boys and Girls

[Anonymous No.10843123]

>>10843064

Evidently.
We can see this is demonstrably true by French females dating German officers during the occupation in WW2 (among other ethnicities).
Also anecdotally during the start of troubles in Northern Ireland, when British soldiers first arrived in the province Irish Catholic girls began to frequent the night clubs/bars to date them, there was a term coined for them "soldier girls". First Graffiti began to appear throughout the Provence condemning the practice, when that had no effect the IRA began entering homes of practitioners at night & dragging them out to the front garden & knee capping them in front of the whole community, needless to say the practice ceased.
Women do not for the most part have in group loyalty, but, we can't hold this against them because as we know from evolutionary psychology, this is a survival/coping mechanism that is due to humanities violent conquering history...they would often be subject to their husband, brothers, fathers, son's being murdered by the conquerers & having to lay in bed with the men who did it so they developed this mechanism

[Anonymous No.10843137]

>>10842591
George Eliot could mop the floor with Evelyn Waugh. Patriarchy will always crush

[Anonymous No.10843152]

>>10843137
Based George, I love that guy

[Anonymous No.10843171]

>>10843108
I never said women are "the firmest safeguard to order." I said they behave however they're told is acceptable to behave, and that they're behaving badly now because the jews running our institutions are their new daddy and telling them it's okay to behave that way.

>>10843123
I agree. And white women probably deserve more credit than they often get going by recent voting patterns and rates of miscegenation/giving birth to non-white babies given their nature and the degree of propaganda.

[Anonymous No.10843189]

>>10843171
>I said they behave however they're told is acceptable to behave

Again I totally disagree. Its men who are the ones who are the most willing to be "just following orders", who are willing abandon all morality because some autistic true believer tells them to do so.
Women have a far better connection to what is good in the world and what makes life worth living
They may date Nazi's but they rarely become them

[Anonymous No.10843193]

>>10843137
>>10842599
>>10842673
>Evelyn Waugh

Is this a lit meme?

[Anonymous No.10843197]

>>10842588
>There's an evolutionary advantage
Idk about you but I prefer my women to not be stupid so they too might have an evolutionary advantage if they start writing eh

[Anonymous No.10843201]

>>10843197
I don't, I actively prefer stupid women

[Anonymous No.10843210]

>>10843189
>Women have a far better connection with what is good in the world.

That's a statement, now qualify it.

[Anonymous No.10843224]

>>10843210
Just look up statistics on the gender balance between sadists, serial killers, child molestors. Anyone can hurt animals for no reason but its only men that do

[Anonymous No.10843241]

>>10843189
Maybe women do have a better connection to what is good in the world and what makes life worth living, but they will still adopt the dominant belief system of the culture or that of their mate. If that happens to be jewish egalitarian liberalism, they will reinforce those ideas; if it happens to be more traditional ways of social order, they will reinforce those instead. But they will flip between them or adopt something else if that's what their mate or potential mate believes in. Women are fungible, men are far more staunch in their idealism and beliefs.

[Anonymous No.10843270]

>>10843224

No you made the assertion you should prove it.

But let me help you in your research, Erin
Pizzey a staunch uk feminist who founded not only the first ever battered wives refuge in the UK but a string of them was banished from her own organization for stating that from her experience with the women they were frequently abusive to their children while in the refuges, & declaring domestic violence to be reciprocal...we can see this confirmed that in lesbian relationships domestic violence still proliferates.

[Anonymous No.10843276]

>>10842478

Can't say I've read all of them, but I've read Frankenstein and a bit of Dickinson and neither struck me as particularly profound.

[Anonymous No.10843279]

>>10843241
Staunch in their current beliefs but not over the course of their lives. I think the two aspects go hand in hand really, when you have a commitment to something deeper than the arbitrary ideology of the day you don't feel as much about abandoning it.
A man meanwhile can switch ideology every two years and be willing to die for it each time
Entrepid but quite silly

[Anonymous No.10843292]

>>10843270
>you should prove it.

The fuck you on? I just referenced quantifiable data that supports what I was saying
In this type of topic thats all one can do, take it or leave it

[Anonymous No.10843298]

>>10843292
Can you repost the link to the data then I'll post mine.

[Anonymous No.10843317]

>>10843298
You can keep it, I don't care in the least. If I care to see data I can find it on my own and so can you. The fact that men make up the vast majority of violent criminals is common knowledge
Women may make up a large portion of abusive parents is just a testament to the fact in poor communities men often don't care enough to even raise their own children which can be worse than some forms of abuse

[Anonymous No.10843344]

>>10843279
If only it were that clear cut. White women are strong reinforcers of the current jewish-led liberal paradigm because it's sold to their nurturing instincts and is conveyed in a socially benevolent, moral light. But it's white men who have been the first to realize the negative long-term consequences being created because men have a better sense of what is good and bad for our societies, not women. Because women are enforcers, it's never been their duty to determine the proper course for a society, so their faculties for making such assessments are not as developed. There are virtues and downfalls in both, but the current problem is that white men and white women aren't on the same page because there's a third party dividing us and manipulating us into furthering their interests instead of our own.

[Anonymous No.10843354]

>>10843317

But you're just proven the above point with regard the bell curve.
Yes we know that members of the male gender make up the most violent & idiots, but also the most genius/inventive/ creative but you'd moved away from that point on to some inherent"goodness" in women, which we can prove is not true.

Look the standing point is, women tend, not exclusively, but tend to be followers of what is the majority view, even if it is destructive to their own family/community.
Whereas men, tend again not exclusively (no offense but think you're a bit of a example of this) but tend to be more likely to fight to preserve their family/community.

[Anonymous No.10843358]

>>10842824
This too is actually a myth. The wider bellcurve of men is taken from the age group of 6 to 16. Adult males just have a higher average iq in general.

[Anonymous No.10843363]

>>10843358
The adult graph.

[Anonymous No.10843386]

>>10843344
> because men have a better sense of what is good and bad for our societies, not women.

Not quite, men just simply get hit harder by what goes wrong. For every guy that has become redpilled there's another guy that listens to Chapo Traphouse and unironically calls for Muslims to destroy the West.
Men are quicker to look for change, I agree, but I simply wish to emphasize this is a double edged sword

Really we're much in agreement I just think we should always see that women are truly lovely beings and their spiritual virtues should not be overlooked.

[Anonymous No.10843397]

>>10843363
My theory is just that we tend to notice the stupid males more. For example a 80 iq man is likely to be very aggressive and show obvious signs of being stupid just due to him being confrontational. Contrast that with a female who is more docile and quiet and you don’t notice they’re stupid until you actually talk to them. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve talked to a girl who looked smart and then realized she had no abstract thinking skills whatsoever. Being men we also tend to not realize the flaws of women as much as we would other men because we are attracted to them.

[Anonymous No.10843401]

>>10843358
Who is to say the adolescent data isn't more reflective of actual cognitive ability rather than later encultured thought patterns

[Anonymous No.10843402]

>>10842457
I am the Globglogabgalab, I am the yeast of thoughts and minds and I bless only men with my powers of knowledge and literature SCHWABBLE DABBLE GLIBBLE GLAB CLAP

[Anonymous No.10843406]

>>10843137
>George Eliot could mop the floor with Evelyn Waugh. Patriarchy will always crush
Almost fell for that bait

[Anonymous No.10843412]

>>10843401
the absolute state

[Anonymous No.10843418]

>>10843412
I'm just saying one has to be open to the possibility. What reason would there be for a large proportion of young boys to be less intelligent than girls until a later age?

[Anonymous No.10843427]

>>10843386
>Their spiritual values
Again not to rain on your parade, but I feel like you're white knighting a bit, go to the majority of religious/spiritual/philosophy texts are primarily composed by men.

Look at the practice of monasticism/ ascetics to further spiritual development, practice's predominantly by males.

Look, if women are so spiritual, why are so many perfectly fine with killing their own unborns as a form of birth control?

I'm afraid you've put women up on a pedestal that the majority simply can't live up to... ultimately will only disappoint yourself.

[Anonymous No.10843455]

>>10843427
>Again not to rain on your parade, but I feel like you're white knighting a bit, go to the majority of religious/spiritual/philosophy texts are primarily composed by men

Of course but yet most religious congregations are women. Not that I was talking about spiritual qualities in quite a specific sense. This is another case of exceptional men serving exceptional roles. Women may not be prophets and evangelists but it is well understood that in the early days of Christianity it was thanks to women that converted the Roman Empire, not because they were forced to or because they submitted to some new conquered but because their sensitivity compelled them to hear the new message of Christ and hand it on to their children

[Anonymous No.10843466]

>>10843418
There are some good hypothesis for this . The best being the fact that women tend to develop (puberty) at an earlier age and finish at an earlier age. This is where the idea of teenage girls being more mature comes from and I would agree. A lot of men don’t even hit puberty until 15 and don’t finish until much later therefore in this age group would be much for veritable. All the earlier 6 to 16 year old graph concludes is that males in that age group are more variable in iq than women (they still have a higher average iq). I think it says something when you are so desperate to put women on a pedestal to take the lower age group where people are obviously developing at different rates than the adult one which would be more constant.

[Anonymous No.10843481]

>>10843386
It's more nuanced than that though. Men and women respond to incentives and every incentive is in place for the chapo traphouse guy, while the redpilled guy would have his life destroyed if he made his views public, that's how disincentivized those ideas presently are. That so many white men regardless of these social dynamics still hold strong to such heretical beliefs does point to men's, or white men's, willingness to be more staunchly ideological, but it also indicates a long-term awareness women lack.

[Anonymous No.10843507]

>>10843455

I agree with much in that post, but, unfortunately in this modern age, so few of them seem to have the sensitivity you speak of.
It is undeniable that in my experience, the Christian women I've met have made strong impressions on me, but ultimately they are a minority.

Here's what I predict will happen to women in 50 yrs or less (it's avoidable, but not probable I think).
One way or another their rights will be rescinded.
Either by Islam or neo masculinity.

If Islam or basically the 3rd world takes over the west, Women are in the worst of trouble.

WHEN a tipping point is reached & the majority of western males decide they are not going extinct without a fight (which will happen) IF we win when the dust settles the very first thing men will ask themselves is, "how did this happen?"
& The answers they'll come with are; first we gave women the vote, then we allowed them a fair chance of sharing power, then they decided they wanted less babies, then they decided they wanted less of us & more of ((them)) that last part will particularly hurt man's heart, the fact that he is replaceable is a bitter pill to swallow. Then it'll be a case of, well guess for our own preservation it behooves us to curtail women's power (which ultimately they only have as much as we decide to give)

[Anonymous No.10843532]

>>10843276
I heard a fly buzz when I died didn't impress you? For shame.

[Anonymous No.10843535]

You know how men are naturally physically superior? Well same thing for mentally
Why do you think all the top chess players ever have all been males

[Anonymous No.10843576]

>>10842996
Couldn't you move the principles of this to millennials and Gen Zers who've spent most of their lives online?

[Anonymous No.10843608]

>>10843507
I am an idealist to the grave. While men will be fighting and trying to find answers it is my hope that something new can be made if it is possible for women to forgive us
Not in a "white guilt" way but that through all the horror of history and all that we've done that women can look on mans work and still see something beautiful and hopeful in us that I am not even sure of myself

[Anonymous No.10843638]

>>10843608
That sounds very borderline like white guilt, though.

[Anonymous No.10843652]

>>10843608

I don't mean this in a bad way but there's no real way to say it nice.

You personally are destined for Extinction. Your personal belief system demands it.

I don't wish it on you but I nor no one else can save you from yourself

[Anonymous No.10843662]

>>10843638
It does but only because white guilt is a half truth. Its a matter of universal guilt. The heart of darkness. Its not as if I think the slaving Congoloids or lechering Semite moguls are any less excempt

[Anonymous No.10843672]

>>10843608
>I am an idealist to the grave
Well, I'm a pragmatist and the idea that women will "forgive us" is ridiculous. It is shown that when given the options women tend to push men in any way possible. This makes sense evolutionarily since women would want to push the men for resources. The idea that women will just drop everything and "forgive" men will really just result in women trying to push us even more. Women will keep pushing until they destroy the given society.

[Anonymous No.10843680]

>>10843652
I know, and I struggle well enough not straight up killing myself, not to say that with any energy. I don't care about just surviving I need to have faith in my life as worth living both around and as myself
Otherwise so long to it all

[Anonymous No.10843685]

>>10843201
>intentionally diluting your gene pool

[Anonymous No.10843699]

>>10843680

Calm down man.
Somewhere along the line you ingested red pill...Red pill kills...your going through the five stages of grief because you dying to the world...
Just keep on keeping on till you're reborn.

[Anonymous No.10843703]

>>10843672
In a sense its in a contradicting logic seeking forgiveness for the very fact of me/us being pushed. That's the original sin isn't it, Eve offering the fruit to Adam. And yet we have to wholly take on the burden of both because that is what a man does and is.

[Anonymous No.10843713]

>>10843672
The idea of seeing women as a parasite both as a natural endpoint for evolution and as something to find against seems somewhat contradictory, don't you think?

[Anonymous No.10843720]

>>10843193
what are you talking about

[Anonymous No.10843725]

>>10842805
>>10842811
>Psychoanalysis is bullshit
>Freud is garbage
/lit/ is truly dead. I can't fucking believe the state of what used to be an excellent platform for the discussion of literature and philosophy

I guess we're just going to be reddit from now on

[Anonymous No.10843771]

>>10843725
Maybe make some fucking arguments and it might improve things to your taste bitchtits

[Anonymous No.10843808]

>>10842457
men are better are everything, except at giving birth and raising children. that's how our race is. women can excel at things too, just not at top levels, but at very high levels. top levels aren't accessible because of things like smaller brains, and less blood to the extremities due to estrogen keeping it all around the womb ("i've got cold hands and feet"), worse coordination, worse at maths and spatial tasks, lower strength, etc. it works though. women are good enough. they sexually select men, who are the ones who have to be extremely good at things because they compete with other men.

[Anonymous No.10843810]

[Anonymous No.10843826]

>>10843808
Men have proven themselves more than capable of raising children into ideal adults.

[Anonymous No.10843843]

>>10842811
psyche can never be true biology or neuroscience it will be swallowed whole by comp sci, bio and genomics. you have nothing to do with reality, no one who relies on verbal intelligence will survive selection machine

[Anonymous No.10843846]

>>10843713
I guess my post came off as a bit harsh. I don't really see women as a "parasite". It's just that women will tend to push men to gain more. This does not mean that women are in any way useless parasites. The point is they will always push for more and trying to find an equilibrium is useless. I don't think we can fight against it due to the fact there will always be men who will give women what they want.

>>10843703
I agree, at the end of the day men have to take on the burden and we can't expect to be apologized to.

[Anonymous No.10843849]

Fuck off, Platonist idiots
>>10842478
>muh classics
All shit

[Anonymous No.10843850]

>>10843354
Oh look, a dumbfuck Platonist.
>>10843358
IQ is a spook

[Anonymous No.10843879]

>>10843771
>>>/r/science/

[Anonymous No.10843905]

>>10843850
>IQ is a spook
Ya possibly my response was mainly just to debunk the myth of the male bell curve being flatter (because it's not). Even though IQ may not be perfect it is highly predictive of certain aspects of life like what job you will have, when you will lose your virginity etc. I do find it useless to brag about having a high iq if you haven't done anything with it though. So in that sense, it is indeed a spook.

[Anonymous No.10843939]

>>10843905
>when you will lose your virginity etc
If I don't get laid it's because I am smart, right? haha

[Anonymous No.10843964]

>>10843939
I think posting on 4chan eliminates people from getting laid and being smart.

[Anonymous No.10844065]

>>10843964
I get laid, am smart, and just posted on 4chan. Don't project.

[Anonymous No.10844095]

>>10843507
>first we gave women the vote, then we allowed them a fair chance of sharing power
Why should women not get the vote and be treated as equal to us before the law?
That's my issue here. I agree that the traditional family and division of labor between man and woman is the way to go, but I believe it should be imposed socially, not by the State.

[Anonymous No.10844151]

>>10844095
If I were in his shoes, it would be because of the current ties that are in place between society and the decisions of the state; thus women getting the vote and being treated as equal before either inevitably leads to or has lead from seeing either the division of labor or the traditional family as less essential.

[Anonymous No.10844158]

>>10842457
because were smarterer than women

[None !woXYIQX//I No.10844169]

>>10843843
>psyche
>comp sci

Is this bait?

[Anonymous No.10844177]

>>10843725
There is no soul and there is no mind. Psychobabble is bullshit.

[Anonymous No.10844208]

>>10842457
>Men are better writers.
>Chooses Dostoy
When you join humanity in about five years you'll know it was mostly because women haven't been allowed to do anything for most of forever.

[Anonymous No.10844218]

Wouldn't women in theory have better personalities for writing? Because I think while iq is pretty much the same between men/women the main difference is in the personality traits like agreeableness/openness etc. Since women are more emotional and verbal wouldn't that make them better writers on average?

[Anonymous No.10844240]

>>10842478

Dickinson reads like a girl in middle school writing poetry for the first time. To say she is on the same level as genius men poets like Eliot or Yeats is just laughably absurd.

Also, Jane Austen is chick lit garbage.

[Anonymous No.10844254]

>>10844169
did I summon a demon? listen devil, I was just shitposting. I think all science is retarded fake knowledge about statistical projections. I have no quarrel with you, i'll open up the wound on my little finger onto a pentagram or a slave burial site or some other hallowed ground later this weekend if you leave me alone

[Anonymous No.10844273]

>>10842467
fpbp

[Anonymous No.10844281]

>ask someone to provide top-order literature written by a woman
>they give you Bronte Austen chick lit
The reason why women can't reach the heights of male authors is because they cannot achieve the same great physical experiences which men can. Perhaps I'll read a book by a woman when she successfully leads men in war or some other worthy venture

[Anonymous No.10844309]

men have a higher variance in IQ. women are more clustered around the average. in other words, there are more male geniuses and retards.

[Anonymous No.10844359]

>>10844309
no shit, that's why trends are shifting with more female empowerment

[Anonymous No.10844372]

>>10844359
Try to read the threads you post in. "Female empowerment" is not a real thing. Women are being manipulated by jews and promoted to pad their power since women are more servile.

[Anonymous No.10844376]

>>10844372
oh ok

[Anonymous No.10844387]

>>10844372
this
it's merely a convenient method of control and capital propagation

[Anonymous No.10844392]

>>10844372
Oh that's a good point anon, the jews do control everything. Including women.

>>kill yourself
>fortunately you won't have the ability to procreate.

[Anonymous No.10844528]

>>10844281
>war
>worthy
I hope you realize that your favorite author probably never fought in a war. Fucking manchild.

[Anonymous No.10844540]

>>10843725
Read Popper and Grünbaum you ignoramus. By retreating into hermeneutics psychoanalysists implicitly admits that it's not a science and it's bullshit.

[Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 No.10844601]

>>10842467
You don't think that it's inherent? A lot of it has to do with the differences between men and women when it comes to procreation. A single man can impregnate an entire continent (look at Genghis Khan), while a woman can only be impregnated by a single man at a time, and that pregnancy costs her 9 months of her limited fertility span. So given the cheapness of sperm compared to ovum, men have to compete in order to get good mating opportunities. Part of the way they competed was through culture.

A poor, destitute woman who's a 3/10 or above can get pregnant whenever she wants. A man in a similar situation is dying along with his genetic legacy.

[Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 No.10844609]

>>10842642
This is such nonsense. A housewife is in a much better position to write than a man who works for a living.

[Anonymous No.10844655]

Most men have no inherent sexual value to women. Their only value comes from what they’re able to accomplish, which is why they’re forced to compete in the cultural realm. For example, i’m too ugly to get a girlfriend, so I make good money to compensate for that in the hopes of not dying alone. This is a burden for men, not a privilege.

[Anonymous No.10844686]

>>10844528
we got us a conscientious objector here boys

[Anonymous No.10844728]

It’s because mating opportunities for men are determined by status, while mating opportunities for women aren't. Why is this so difficult to get? Men who don't create and contribute don't pass on their genes, so men are forced to do those things. The only motivation a woman has to create something great is her ego. A man has his billion year genetic linage ending as a motivation.

[Anonymous No.10844816]

>>10842467

Shut the fuck up

[Anonymous No.10844823]

The best writers are typically those who have experienced hardship. The best writers in history have been men who fought in wars and seen all their friends die. This combined with the fact men lie at the extremes of intelligence while women reside in the middle would obviously mean that certain men who lie at the upper echelons of intelligence, who've also seen and experienced situations that muster visceral emotional responses can convey those sensations in linguistic form.

[Anonymous No.10844830]

>>10844655
if this were actually true why do women constantly gush about how gorgeous i am, it aint my bank account coz nigga im broke

[Anonymous No.10844837]

>>10844823
>The best writers are typically those who have experienced hardship.
I hate this fucking dumb meme. Proust was a neet who spent his days masturbating. Emily Dickinson was a neet as well. Boccaccio was a spoiled guy who spent his days studying literature thanks to papa's money

[Anonymous No.10844861]

>>10844837
uh none of those "authors" are "good" bro...

[Anonymous No.10844863]

>>10844861
lol bro...

[Anonymous No.10845007]

>>10842961
>13-yo kind of explanation

That's the intelligence of a "mature" woman, everybody.

[Anonymous No.10845166]

>>10842457
Men are objectively better at everything except giving birth

[Anonymous No.10845172]

>>10842467
>strive for
>intelligence

I've got bad news for ya buddy

[Anonymous No.10845178]

>>10842467
fpbp
/thread

[Anonymous No.10845329]

I had never met women that read nothing much but YA. All of the women that I've ever met that read, read YA.

[Anonymous No.10845370]

>>10844208
>haven't been allowed to

when will this cringey meme die? women have always been "allowed to," they just haven't been very good at it. same with music composition. women have ABSOLUTELY always been "allowed to," same with chess. people act like women were literal slaves before 1900. historically, women have always been put on a pedestal and given the easiest possible lives because men (at least european - the ones constantly under attack) have always found women attractive physically worth defending.

[Anonymous No.10845381]

>>10844540
>By retreating into hermeneutics psychoanalysists implicitly admits that it's not a science
True
>and it's bullshit.
Does not follow

[Anonymous No.10845437]

>>10845381
>Does not follow
It does because even if psychoanalysist retread into hermeneutics because they couldn't face the attacks from the neopositivsts and Popper they still acted as if psychoanalysis had empirical and scientific predicted power while at the same time acting as if the discipline could exist only on an hermeneutical level and not as a natural science. Read Grünbaum, he says that psychoanalysis COULD be a science and a serious discipline but it would require psychoanalysists to test their hypotheses scientifically, which:
-They still haven't done
-Necessarely entails that the Freudian paradagim is surpassed
>>10842811
>Evopsych's 'foundation' is that evolution will have had an impact on the behavior and psychology of animals
First off you can't reduce human behaviour to that of other animals
Secondly, this is bullshit epistemologically speaking because we don't fucking know which traits are shaped by the evolutionary process, which traits are a "genetic noise", the vast majority of the time we don't know in what enviroment this supposed selection took place, what is the influence of culture and how organisms whose selections also operates on an higher level (that of cultural transmission) actually work since we only have one example (ourselves).
>normal logic of natural selection
Nothing but assumptions.

[Anonymous No.10845447]

[Anonymous No.10845452]

>>10845437
>It does
Everything you said there could be true and yet psychoanalysis can still be an accurate and valuable intellectual tradition for understanding the human mind which may simply be to complex and inaccessible for the blunt mechanisms of the natural sciences. That a discursive tradition like Philosophy is therefore the only way to reach truthful conclusions

[Anonymous No.10845456]

>>10842552
Learn to read.

[Anonymous No.10845457]

>>10845447
>psychological realism
kill your self

[Anonymous No.10845514]

>>10845457

Hehehe.

I applaud the brave iconoclasm with which you write "yourself", sir.

It's equalled only by the brave iconoclasm of your views on literature in general.

[Anonymous No.10845528]

>>10845447
>the male writer the author of the picture wants to present as profound thinks about rhetorics 101
this bait would work better if it was not made by a middlebrow cretin

[Anonymous No.10845546]

>>10845452
Reread my posts, psychoanalysis IS (or could be) a natural science, only one that pretends not to be one because it isn't scientifically sound.
What I said is true, by the way. Seriously read Grümbaum.

[Anonymous No.10845566]

>>10842457
Women werent allowed to read or write for a very long time. Their discipline was not as refined as men's in a time where the arts where held in high esteem and entire communities studied and worked towards becoming artists, writers and craftsmen. I think, given enough time and encouragement, women would have leveled the playing field. That isnt to say there aren extraordinary female writers, and if you think that then this board might not be for you.

[Anonymous No.10845573]

>>10845546
Maybe in 1920, you won't find many practitioners trying to argue that its a science today. I fully agree with you and Popper as far as we consider it in terms of natural sciences but my point is that a hermeneutic tradition can be a perfectly legitimate path to truth

[Anonymous No.10845578]

>>10845573
Read
Grümbaum

[Anonymous No.10845584]

>>10842552
>stands as an exception

I guess you're retarded.

[Anonymous No.10845824]

>>10845437
>First off you can't reduce human behaviour to that of other animals
You can't dismiss an entire domain of study (such as biological anthropology) without actually studying it in-depth. I feel like a lot of people who haven't bothered studying the foundational axioms of evolutionary psychology have no problem dismissing the entire field because of their ideological opposition to it, not because of any epistemological concern.

[Anonymous No.10845829]

>>10845578
Not an argument

[Anonymous No.10845838]

>>10845824
The exact same could be accused of you in reverse. The epistemological objections remain

[Anonymous No.10845858]

>>10845838
>The exact same could be accused of you in reverse.
Except that i'm not claiming that an entire field of research, which I haven't bothered to study in-depth, is bunk. Also, there are plenty of fields that take it as axiomatic that the distinction between groups of people are primarily culturally instantiated, rather than biologically influenced. Those fields don't get 1/10th of the shit that evolutionary psychology does, which makes me think that the concerns are primarily ideological.

[Anonymous No.10845864]

>>10845829
>Not an argument
Not an argument

[Anonymous No.10845885]

>>10845824
>You can't dismiss an entire domain of study (such as biological anthropology) without actually studying it in-depth
How the fuck do you know what I do or don't study? Nigger.
>>10845858
>Those fields don't get 1/10th of the shit that evolutionary psychology does, which makes me think that the concerns are primarily ideological.
Absolutely untrue, evospych has been preached everywhere as the second coming of Galileo while other social sciences, economics aside, are demead and basically irrelevant. The fact that you keep repeating "they be attackin it bcuz of muh politics" is suspect and reeks of projection, especially since I've already told you that I don't give a shit about politics or wemen.

[Anonymous No.10845905]

>>10845885
That's not the fucking case in either academia or in pop culture. Fucking Guns, Germs, and Steel is taken to be a serious work by the public, and has influenced the thinking of God knows how many people. The same can't be said for any popular work of evolutionary psychology. We live in world that's culturally dominated the social sciences; it's the basis of HR culture, which seems to have the final say in most major American corporations.

[Anonymous No.10845907]

>>10845864
Of course its not an argument, how can you argue when there's nothing to argue against?

[Anonymous No.10845914]

>>10845858
>B-b-but Mom the other kids are doing it!

The epistemological objections remain

[Anonymous No.10845923]

>>10845914
There's an epistemological concern for any claim more specific than cogito ergo sum

[Anonymous No.10845924]

>>10845905
>The same can't be said for any popular work of evolutionary psychology.
Nigger, I wish I lived in the same world as you because I have to read evopsych garbage presented as gospel on a daily basis. Like, Steven Pinker? The thousands and thousands of pop science articles that claim some stupid shit likr "Babies Actually Pick Their Noses Because of Evolution"? The constant spouting of evopsych soundbites by uniformed laymen in every corner of the internet? And Guns, Memes and Steel has long been disproved and everybody knows that.
>We live in world that's culturally dominated the social sciences
Once again, evopsych is a social science as well.

[Anonymous No.10845927]

>>10845907
Read Grümbaum

[Anonymous No.10845930]

>>10845907
>>10845927
READ IT

[Anonymous No.10845947]

>>10845924
>Like, Steven Pinker?
Isn't he mostly just a linguist?

>The thousands and thousands of pop science articles that claim some stupid shit likr
Here's the operative difference: those people read those article, and then immediately forget about them. Those articles don't influence policy, either public or private. They're not like those pop feminist social science articles in major publications, which actually do much more to determine hiring policy than any "here's why we evolved to find X sexy" article.

[Anonymous No.10845952]

>>10845927
>>10845930
Dude doesn't even have a wikipedia article.
If your arguments so far were any good I may have been interested but all you've done is make me write off that name

[Anonymous No.10845981]

>>10845952
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Grünbaum
Wut
>>10845947
I don't deny that stuff like sociology has a strong influence but I think you're underestimating the influence of evopsych. Just a couple of days ago I read a document detailing how business employment cicles should be structured based on evopsych. The thesis was something like this: wemen are evolutionary predisposed to settling down while men are evolutionary predisposed to do more risk-taking behaviour hence wemen thrive in an unchanging, static environment hence the first hiring cicle should focus on men and then wemen should be introduced in the workplace in a second since doing the opposite would have negative effects. Now I don't know how much this shit is spread in HR departments (these retards believe everything) but it's there. You're also underestimating the effect of pop culture and public discourse.

[Anonymous No.10845985]

>>10845981
in a second moment*

[Anonymous No.10845993]

>>10845981
>Wut

Oh, you were spelling his name wrong until now, I was searching Grümbaum

[Anonymous No.10845996]

>>10845993
My bad

[Anonymous No.10846098]

>>10845981
A single example of the contrary occurring doesn't suggest a trend. I don't have any actual numbers to back this up (and neither do you), but basing this on my own anecdotal experiences I think that it's pretty clear that the social sciences have a larger hold over both public and private institutions than evolutionary psychology does. Most people in HR flat-out have social science degrees. And even in popular culture, many of the ideas put forward by evolutionary psychology are becoming increasingly taboo (especially in regards to gender differences).

[Anonymous No.10846107]

>>10845923
cogito ergo sum is false and is dualist nonsense.

[Anonymous No.10846113]

>>10846098
>A single example of the contrary occurring doesn't suggest a trend.
I know, but it's not the first time I see this kind of stuff.
>And even in popular culture, many of the ideas put forward by evolutionary psychology are becoming increasingly taboo
And thank God for that! The next time I hear someone claim that "farting is evolutionary disadvantageous" or other similiar nonsense I'm going to straight up kill him.

[Anonymous No.10846127]

Anyone who hasn't written anything better than Dickinson is not a man.

[Anonymous No.10846129]

>>10845452
Psychoanalysis is jewish quackery.

[Anonymous No.10846138]

>>10846113
>The next time I hear someone claim that "farting is evolutionary disadvantageous" or other similiar nonsense I'm going to straight up kill him.
You know what the process of making those ideas taboo is going to entail. It's not just going to affect quacky ideas, it's going to determine how we're allowed to talk about gender and sexuality. It's a constraining of the domain of acceptable opinion.

[Anonymous No.10846142]

>>10846129
>Psychoanalysis is Jewish quackery
>It was saved first by a German student of Heidegger and then continued by a mad Frenchmen
What did Kevin B MacDonald mean by this?

[Anonymous No.10846145]

>>10842457
Some men are objectively better than other men and women. Some women are objectively better at it than other women and men.

[Anonymous No.10846149]

>>10846129
I don't know if you realized this but Jews are highly intelligent and have come up with a lot of solid ideas over the years

[Anonymous No.10846168]

>>10846149
Clearly you don't know anything about jews lol.

[Anonymous No.10846174]

Why do beta males always like to claim the achievements of superior men as their own?

[Anonymous No.10846183]

>>10842588
You do realise men and woman are the same species right? Or are you actually retarded enough to conceive the whole of genetic precursors for creative writting lie on the Y chromosome?

[Anonymous No.10846185]

>>10842457
I'm retarded lads. Could you highlight interesting grammar elements of pic related? Such as simple or cumulative sentences, repetition and alliteration.

[Anonymous No.10846205]

>>10842824
Your fucking retarded if you think men and woman have fundamentally different genes.

There is but one type of chromosome that is fundamentally different between the sexes. The 47 are interchangeable between sexes. How you can be so profuse in your writting and yet so dense, is probably because you get most of your education and diction from listening to Jordan Petterson podcasts while your in the tub.

[Anonymous No.10846227]

>>10842457
Because writing is a penetrative act. The author's temperament is one born to wrestle with the world and force it to submit answers. When you read a book, you are literally being impregnated by the author.

[Anonymous No.10846238]

>>10846183
>>10846205
You show a very poor grasp of nature, especially on a basic, intuitive level.

[Anonymous No.10846252]

>>10846142
>be Wilhelm Reich
>masturbate

[Anonymous No.10846259]

>>10846205
There's always one retard who feels the need to point out this platitude, as if man and woman being more alike than different was something groundbreaking.
We also share about 95% of DNA with chimps, does that mean that the difference between them and us are so irrelevant as not to be talked about? Don't be an idiot.

[Anonymous No.10846289]

Maybe women just didn't feel like it. I followed an averagely attractive woman around for a day and they are constantly being distracted by minutiae

Most of them probably don't have the attention span for such an endeavor

[Anonymous No.10846310]

>>10846289
But to elevate and appreciate minutiae is the very essence of great writing. Attention to detail is needed to craft exquisite scenes.

[Anonymous No.10846316]

>>10846205
It's not that men and women have a wildly different genetic makeup, it's that our distinct hormonal profiles affect our interests, which ends up accounting for some (although not all) of the behavioral differences between men and women. Men and women are not literally the same

[Anonymous No.10846321]

>>10846259
Thats a retarded comparrison with my claim. Chimps can't breed with humans. The different sexes can. Which means they exchange genetic traits. My god, as I type this I'm just amazed at your retardedness. How can you actually think your point about chimps has merit?

It's retarded to claim that they're are fundamentally male genetic traits that male offspring inherit and females don't. Certain genes express themselves, while others don't due to enviromental factors. There's no plauisible biological mechanism that would explain intelligence to be male exclusive on a genetic level. The social role of woman explains it better, but that is something that can be improved upon by improving their social position through emancipation.

This is different from you carrying the genes for your mom's fat tits. We'd have to activate those with hormone treatment. Intelligence, is more thoroughly cultivated by enviromental stimulants, then uniquely sexual biology.

[Anonymous No.10846324]

>>10846205
>I don't understand genetics but here's what the story is

Genes don't act alone retard. One chromosone is the difference between a normal person and a literal downey

[Anonymous No.10846325]

>>10846316
>in the present year this post states a controversial position
We live in a clown world

[Anonymous No.10846326]

>>10846310
I don't know a better word, maybe trivialities.

Basically this woman gets like two hundred texts and messages a day from men and other women and on top of that goes to work in an office. Obviously women in the past didn't have this but they had a lot of chores to do as well and back then social media was just town gossip

[Anonymous No.10846329]

>>10846316
Do tell how hormones affect interests. Because the actual consensus is that social conditioning through gender roles account for this difference. But I'm sure you have some cutting edge remarks about this.

[Anonymous No.10846337]

>>10846321
>The social role of woman explains it better,
The hormonal makeup of men explains it best. Success and a need for domination go hand in hand, and a man's egotistical (and often destructive) need for domination is part and parcel with male hormones. It has nothing to do with intelligence or ability. Men and women have the same average IQ, and girls do better than boys in school.

[Anonymous No.10846341]

>>10846329
>Because the actual consensus
There is no 'consensus', there is a bunch of data showing men and women are not the same, and then there is a huge effort to paint all this data as being somehow invalid.

If you actually think men and women have the exact same psychology and behavior and everything is socially conditioned you are dangerously close to religious lunacy in the extent of your denial of reality. Literally everything of relevance is smacking you in the face and telling you it's the opposite.

[Anonymous No.10846342]

>>10846324
That has nothing to do with the genes on that particular chromosome. Nor does it justify the claim that their's something on the Y chromosome that explains it carrying the genes for intellegence instead of the myriad of other chromosones.

[Anonymous No.10846359]

>>10846341
The sociology of gender does not claim men and women are fundamentally the same. They explain the difference in behaviour through social processes instead of biological ones.

This has nothing to do with politics but with methodology. You can't reduce behaviour through genetics. Thats ignorant.

[Anonymous No.10846365]

>>10846326
If I had a few hundred text messages a day from a variety of connections I would be harvesting those as much as possible for character ideas and anecdotal snippets to weave into stories.

[Anonymous No.10846366]

>>10846329
There's a fuckton of research about this. Google in your friend. One example is that prenatal testosterone (regardless of the gender of the infant) affects whether or not the infant is more likely to look at the face of someone dangling a shiny object, or the shiny object itself. Stereotypically male infants are more likely to be concerned with objects, while female infants are more likely to be concerned with faces, and this is just merely days after being born, before socialization can construct gender differences.

[Anonymous No.10846374]

>>10846342
>That has nothing to do with the genes on that particular chromosome.

Which is the entire point, the fact that the 46 other chromosones are the same doesn't mean men and women are 46/47 the same. The products of genes are synthethic structures which can't be thought of in a "lego brick" fashion

[Anonymous No.10846375]

>>10846337
What need for domination and succes? I Know PLENTY of fertile reproductive men who have no ambition or dominance. And plenty of woman who do. The enviroment, and when it comes to behaviour the social enviroment accounts for these differences better.

[Anonymous No.10846381]

>>10846359
>hey explain the difference in behaviour through social processes instead of biological ones.
It is very obviously both at play, interacting with each other in a complicated causal web.

Reducing everything to socialization is just as ignorant, there are some very obvious differences that are biological that the sociology of gender just ignores.

[Anonymous No.10846383]

>>10846359
>They explain the difference in behaviour through social processes instead of biological ones.
Even making that distinction is retarded. It's not that biology literally forces one into a specific mold, it's that how each gender relates to one another in our culture and how that culture evolved is highly influenced by hormonal differences. You can force yourself to ignore your inherent biology, but that creates alienation, which is part of the reason why depression rates for girls are at an all time high.

[Anonymous No.10846385]

>>10846321
Are you stupid? You missed my very obvious point and developed a whole post on that. I simply said that just because we are mostly the same doesn't mean we can ignore the differences.
And I never denied the role that environment plays. Both that and biology are hugely influential, and we should study how much so for each different aspect of our personality.

[Anonymous No.10846398]

Men are better at every activity that can be obsessive, because they have a natural tendency to become obsessed by what they like doing, IMO.
This is true for everything, btw.
It's just the way our brain works.

[Anonymous No.10846401]

>>10846329
>Because the actual consensus is that social conditioning through gender roles account for this difference
Source? If anything look up the Scandinavian Equality Paradox. Nordic countries are the most "equal" in terms of opportunities for men and women, and the difference in career chosen is quite big. Which makes sense unless to subscribe to the idea that only social conditioning affects such choices.

[Anonymous No.10846402]

>>10844609
Wrong. A housewife has nothing to write about besides what laundry detergent feels like on her clitoris. A critical part of writing is experience, which is limited when you have to spend your life babysitting little goblins.

[Anonymous No.10846403]

>>10846374
What's your point? The genetic conditions for intelligence are not discovered. Yet your absolutely adament that the sexual chromosomes are key.

Even though they're no indication of this. In fact they're plenty of intelligent woman, which is an indication that its not exclusive to the sexual hormones.

In fact they're so many intelligent women in emancipated society that they'res an indication that it doesn't have anything to do with sexual hormones. Your claim is ludicrous.

[Anonymous No.10846408]

>>10846381
We're just talking about intelligence. Not the gamut of differences between gender.

[Anonymous No.10846415]

>>10846408
Isn't intelligence part of the broader umbrella of psychology and behavior

[Anonymous No.10846417]

>>10846375
>What need for domination and succes?
The one that men evolved. We have twice as many female as male ancestors because how how mating works (a single successful man can get an entire village of women pregnant), so male cultural success has been selected for historically because those ambitious, successful men are the ones who passed on their genes.

>I Know PLENTY of fertile reproductive men who have no ambition or dominance.
Yeah, exceptions exist for everything. No one is saying that men have a specific quality that all women are incapable of. We're saying that these differences exist in degrees. Hyper-ambitious dominance (both destructive and creative) is more likely to occur in men than in women, but that doesn't then suggest that it never occurs in women.

[Anonymous No.10846419]

>>10846403
I haven't claimed any of those things, if anyone did it was a different poster. I'm just correcting your misunderstanding of genetics which is that its perfectly possible that the Y chromosone significantly affects neurological development

[Anonymous No.10846427]

>>10846402
Proust and Dickinson were sheltered NEETs who were perfectly capable of writing great literature. Literature requiring exceptional experiences is a romantic myth.

[Anonymous No.10846431]

>>10846403
The fact that women are underrepresented in highest tiers of science and math is an indication that there are fewer women of that level of intellect.

It's definitely not sufficient, but it is an indication.

[Anonymous No.10846432]

>>10842457
My personal opinion is that men often internalize their feelings, emotions, and deepest thoughts. Various factors have contributed to this, but the most basic is the biological role men have played since the dawn of time. Men are the workers. They spend hours concentrating on various tasks--often physical labor intensive--surrounded by other men with a single focused goal. When working, the man's mind is consumed with the task at hand, while his mind often drifts into thoughts and emotions which he forces to minimize in favor of work. When finished with work, he has to put on a smiling face and return to his wife and kids and resume work as a father--a laborious task in its own right. This lifestyle of constant work often forces him to internalize his thoughts. This internalization often leads to artistic expression and all of those emotions, thoughts, and ideas explode into a cohesive and intriguing narrative.

A woman's life is often more social than a man's, as they have traditionally been assigned the role of homekeeper. The homekeeper's job is equally important and labor intensive, but her social interactions are not constrained to the labor itself. A woman typically socializes with other homekeepers--hosting parties, taking kids to the playground/sports, etc. This puts her in direct social contact with many other women who's social interaction and conversations are more free. Women are thus environmentally permitted and programmed to express their emotions, feelings, and thoughts far more often, thus reducing the need and drive to release these things in a work of art.

tl:dr--women can gossip and men can't/don't.

[Anonymous No.10846435]

>>10846427
> Literature requiring exceptional experiences is a romantic myth.

I'd even go as far to say that literature creates exceptional experience not the other way around
Any great experience can seem mundane if told poorly

[Anonymous No.10846438]

>>10846431
Men have better spatial intelligence, while women have better verbal intelligence.

[Anonymous No.10846442]

>>10846431
Just couple that with the already posted difference in IQ variance between men and women and you have an explanation. I agree that it isn't sufficient, but we have to be open to the idea so that further research can continue, otherwise we can't know for sure (or with a much higher degree of certainty, at least).

[Anonymous No.10846448]

>>10846402
somebody was not loved enough by their mom

[Anonymous No.10846451]

>>10846438
Empirically untrue

[Anonymous No.10846459]

>>10846451
Source? I always read that it was so.

[Anonymous No.10846547]

>>10846427
>Proust and Dickinson were sheltered NEETs who were perfectly capable of writing great literature.
When will this "Proust was a good writer" meme die?

Proust was a mediocre writer, you are just a poorly read pleb who's been memed by jewish publishers promoting their own.

[Anonymous No.10846551]

>>10846459
men have higher intelligence in general women simply develop earlier and are better at studying because they have no sense of abstract self

[Anonymous No.10846552]

>>10846547
I'm all for criticizing the eternal Jew but Proust is one of the better writers of his entire era

[Anonymous No.10846555]

>>10846547
best prose stylist of all time. prove me wrong

[Anonymous No.10846556]

>>10846551
>because they have no sense of abstract self
What do you mean by this?

[Anonymous No.10846568]

>>10846556
he means absolutely fuck all. People gain a sense of their self at like age 7

[Anonymous No.10846571]

>>10846552
>>10846555
Up your standards, boys, you're justifying wasted time or can't yet see you've been the target of a long campaign by kikery.

[Anonymous No.10846598]

>>10846571
I came upon Proust without knowing who he was(I just took my parents' copy of Du Cote off their shelf at random, which was how I read a lot of stuff back then) and the way he wrote, and more specifically the way he expresses association of sense and thought completely changed how I thought about writing. No other early 20th century French literature had anything like the same impact, even if I might have liked it better for other reasons.

He is the only one of the big Modernist writers who I think actually succeeded in his ambitions, but the point is you don't have to know anything about him to be immediately struck by his style.

[Anonymous No.10846612]

Western society and culture is going to self-correct just like it always does eventually right?

The last 5 or 6 decades is a blip on the timeline, I don't want to believe that the most successful and dominant culture will simply end after letting women work and vote, or after letting in a couple foreigners.
Its got to take more than that. i think

[Anonymous No.10846622]

>>10846612
>a couple foreigners.
It's over for everywhere except Eastern Europe. The Mediterranean used to be full of actual white people you know.

It's not really hard to understand, the native white population does not have children, they keep importing people who do have children. Even if those immigrants start having fewer children, the trends are clearly set.

[Anonymous No.10846644]

>>10846622
N.A. is importing immigrants from all over the globe, not just the middle east, and usually is picky about their marital status and education. Most of them integrate fine.
The US has it's own bag of problems and whatever else, but for the most part Canada moves along ok. It's not comparable at all to London, Paris, Germany, etc.

[Anonymous No.10846654]

>>10846644
It's not even about integration, there are way more non-whites than whites in the world, and they all seem to want to move to white countries. White people don't have children, anywhere, unless you count Israel as white, which is dubious.

This means that white countries will stop being white. Now most people seem fine with this, but it should at least be said out loud.

Obviously you are correct that Chinese immigrants are not equivalent to Somali immigrants, but either way the same thing is going to happen, the only difference is how the country will be once it is no longer white.

[Anonymous No.10846668]

>>10846622
Stop being a defeatist faggot. Not only is it not over, it just fucking started. Whites controlled the entire globe with a fraction of the population we have now too, so nothing is out of the realm of possibility. The only thing lacking is awareness and will to remove the jews perpetuating our replacement, so either do something to expand those things or shut the fuck up, because post's like this don't help.

>>10846644
>Most of them integrate fine.
Uh, no. These foreigners have destroyed our communities and have to be sent back to their homes. White countries are not everyone's countries.

[Anonymous No.10846676]

>>10846668
You're in complete denial. There are gangs of Muslims in all the major British cities running mass rape of white children that the police refuse to prosecute.

If you bring this up to a white British person he will take their side and get mad at you for being a racist. That is not a people who are going to survive dude.

[Anonymous No.10846681]

>>10846668
He's obviously talking about other white people who are able to identify with the people their host country and not hold other loyalties for generations

[Anonymous No.10846682]

>>10846654
>>10846668
Unless everyone agrees to destroy our massive network of inter-national travel and communication, I don't see how the future will ever not be a mix of everything. The earth is tiny now.
I wouldn't mind that desu, but Im pretty sure it would never happen.

[Anonymous No.10846690]

>>10846676
Its true, only Americans and Eastern Europe is likely to survive. If they tried that shit in Texas they'd be pulled out of their homes and shot

[Anonymous No.10846694]

>>10846676
Those are boomers who have been brainwashed their entire lives to think racism is their original sin. Plenty of white British people are having babies and most of these towns are over 90% white still; the Muslim population of both Rotherham and Telford were less than 3%. You are ignorant of what you speak off and are doing more harm than good by stupidly claiming the end is already here. You are doing the enemy's work and should be ashamed of that.

[Anonymous No.10846701]

>>10846694
>he thinks the new soy generations aren't even worse than boomers

[Anonymous No.10846705]

>>10842457
Most men are not. The best writers are male though due to this.

[Anonymous No.10846707]

>>10846682
You pull a handful of pins in the jewish power structure and stop allowing them to perpetuate their global ponzi scheme and the shit comes crashing down. Not saying that will happen but it is fragile. This scam is in most aspects less than 50 years old and it's already starting to crumble.

[Anonymous No.10846714]

This probably isn't a popular opinion, but the only way to advance western values and preserve western civilization is to educate and elevate 2nd world countries in Asia and S.A. They're the only populace who has shown to have the propensity for intelligence, industry, and government in line with Western Values. If white's are going to go extinct (which they are) then the only solution is to pass the legacy on to races who can at least carry the torch. That exists in places like Argentina, Chile, Japan, S. Korea, etc.

This anon >>10846622 is also right. Eastern Europe may be the last bastion of pure Western Civilization left.

Canada is too far gone and is ultra-cucked at this point and unless a major civil war or cultural shift happens in the U.S.A. it too will decline into oblivion. Europe will be dead in 100 years. It's art, culture, history, and advancements will be trampled out of history. The ONLY thing that could possibly reverse this trend is massive populism spearheaded by a direct assault on the Vatican. Attack the heart of the united Western World and you awaken the beast. At that point, it won't matter who is in power. The people will take it back.

[Anonymous No.10846716]

>>10846694
>Those are boomers who have been brainwashed their entire lives to think racism is their original sin
This guy >>10846701 is right. People today and in this generation have been taught from children that a preference for white partners has racist overtones, for example. That kind of shit.

[Anonymous No.10846718]

>>10843725
>not realizing this over a year ago

[Anonymous No.10846719]

>>10846701
Thinning the herd makes the core stronger. Whites who breed out, don't breed, or are too easily swayed by jewish narratives are people we can afford to lose and will be better off in the long run for them having removed themselves from our gene pool.

[Anonymous No.10846724]

>>10846676
retarded fucking faggot Britain is well over 80% white it would take 100 years to push that below 50%. fucking stupid nigger your Tory parliament was raping kids all throughout the 70’s up to today and you did nothing. you have cameras on every street corner and do nothing, your royalty does nothing but steal and make deals with evil people, your pig prime minister David Cameron had to resign. fucking goblins the lot of you, you deserve muzzie rape gangs for what you did in India and Africa. you deserve them for appeasing Hitler and allowing the Holocaust to happen without batting an eye, you deserve them for fucking with America twice, you deserve them for banning guns and you deserve them for being disgusting chav scum

[Anonymous No.10846725]

>>10846719
All well and good on a global scale but some areas will simply be whipped out. Britain is likely to be one of them

[Anonymous No.10846726]

>>10846716
Yeah, and the jews pushing that propaganda must be dealt with and removed first. But a very small percentage of whites are breeding out and the vast, vast majority stick to and mate with their own instinctually.

[Anonymous No.10846728]

It's the same reason why men are funny: biology. Men are the story-tellers, artists, and musicians, according to anthropologist scholars, and they use these feats to impress women, like the maratus volans, or like any animal really. The better man wins. Women are too busy either gathering plants or rearing offspring, and those tasks require little of the brain used when writing literature.

[Anonymous No.10846730]

>>10843725
Freud is not only garbage he's a piece of fucking shit authoritarian cult leader that needed his teeth kicked in

[Anonymous No.10846732]

Alt-righters get very uppity in front of a monitor but at the end of the day they accomplish nothing, even the incel jihadists have more ambition and integrity than browsing 4chan all day and shouting 'redpills'.

[Anonymous No.10846736]

>>10846725
No, it's not. That shit is concentrated in a few areas, most English cities are overwhelmingly white, most over 95%. So to claim what you are is just silly at best and harmful at worst. The fight hasn't even begun.

[Anonymous No.10846740]

>>10846555
Blocks your path.

[Anonymous No.10846744]

>>10845437
your argument against evopsych is nothing but a)humans are magic and therefore not animals and b)we simply cannot know nuffin, too hard to isolate variables

eat a dick

[Anonymous No.10846745]

>>10846736
>most English cities are overwhelmingly white, most over 95%

Only if you're using the literal medieval definition of a city

[Anonymous No.10846749]

>>10846707
I don't know, man. I sometimes feel it too, but I fear we may be encouraged by reading these sort of threads and deluding ourselves, like leftists who think that the revolution is around the corner for their whole lives.

[Anonymous No.10846759]

>>10842650
>but OUR BRAINS DIDN'T EVOLVE!!!1
people literally only say this because it leads to conclusions they don't like

[Anonymous No.10846761]

>>10846707
I still don't understand the theory that Jews are secretly pulling all the strings.
If I was the head-honcho Jew sitting at a conference table with all the other big-cheese Jews, thinking about how to control the world, destroying some of the most rich and military-strong nations from the inside with insidious morals and values and mass immigration doesnt seem very bright.
Wouldn't you want to control those cultures, not destroy them?
What could the state of Israel, or the religion of Judaism, have to gain buy this?

A handful of opportunistic globalists looking to make a bunch of money of the misery of others makes more sense.

[Anonymous No.10846769]

>>10846749
You may be new to this but I'm not and have seen awareness of these issues grow exponentially among whites the last few years. This is literally just starting. The enemy of whites are a tiny population of jews. If they are purged as they've always been, and there are many indications that this process is beginning now, this ship gets righted real fast. But this is a long game, if you get defeatist easily and are prone to cry on public forums that it's already over, you make yourself the enemy.

[Anonymous No.10846774]

>>10846761
>I still don't understand the theory that Jews are secretly pulling all the strings

There's nothing secret it about it, they openly hold a hugely disproportionate share of high positions, dominating certain areas like media, journalism and academia
They don't need to plot, its simply in their nature to always propel themselves forward and undermine those different to them even if it will inevitably result in their own suffering in one way or another

[Anonymous No.10846777]

>>10846759
evo-psyche is pseudscience, all x+psyche is psuedoscience. only evo-bio and behavioral genomics have even vague truth value, even then they suffer from the biology effect

[Anonymous No.10846778]

>>10846714
>Argentina
We've been having leftist policies for decades, which explains our constant economic crises and rampant crime, and now we're being poisoned by feminism.
Overall the population (including and especially poor but hard-working people) is against immigration and welfare, but the sectors in favor of those are, while a minority, very big and very loud, and the different governments pander to them, not to mention it of course benefits the government itself.

[Anonymous No.10846788]

>>10846774
To what end though?
If anything the absolute insane current state of the hyper politically-correct, modern feminism, and white guilt is a run away accident. Like they hit America with the goy-be-good stick a little too hard and a young white generation started going way overboard.

I can't imagine the current state of affairs is somehow a positive result.

[Anonymous No.10846791]

>>10846761
You don't understand how jews think, which is understandable, but there's no reason why you can't learn. You are thinking of them using your own thought processes, but jews don't think like you. They are parasitic, which is why they have to live among other people. This is because they can't build things on their own, they can only destroy things by eating away at their host from the inside. They do conspire but they don't have to, because they are at the end of the day pursuing their group interests and acting and reacting on an instinctual level, which usually just involves weakening the people they live among so those people are less of a threat to jews.

[Anonymous No.10846793]

>>10842457
Same reason women aren’t funny. Women don’t need to be or do anything except pregnant, everything else is outcome of idle time.

[Anonymous No.10846795]

>>10846778
To be fair though most people openly deride feminism here, no matter how much the media wants to make it palatable.

[Anonymous No.10846796]

>>10846791
I get that there is some kernel of truth to what you're saying about Jews but it is blown way the fuck out of proportion. Civilizations collapse, it has happened many times without any Jews being present.

[Anonymous No.10846798]

>>10846788
>To what end though?

Whats anybodies end? Its simply how we live, our pathology, our id to use the good doctors term. This is the Jews
You should read Philip Roth to understand the Jewish spirit

[Anonymous No.10846799]

>>10846788
It is because all of those things weaken white people and nations, and that's the main interest jews have here. The weaker the host, the easier it is for the parasite to exploit.

[Anonymous No.10846802]

>>10846796
Which ones? Jews have always been present, from Sumer to Egypt to Rome to today.

[Anonymous No.10846804]

Men are better at most things, because if they aren't at least better than women, or at least better than most men, no women will have sex with them nor have their children.

It's not a coincidence that men seek status and power, when this is demonstrably what women are attracted to in men.

[Anonymous No.10846805]

>>10846791
Jews did live on their own until
their homeland was taken from them and they were exiled for thousands of years. Jews also lived in autonomous communities in the outskirts of Israel for thousands of years. Jews weren’t allowed to farm anywhere in europe or the muslim world but they did own plantations at various periods in history. finally there are Jewish farmers in israel now and Israel besides the $3 billion in defense subsidies they get from the US are basically autonomous and have a self sustaining economy. Jews also independently developed theoretical physics in conjunction with Germans. What the fuck are you talking about you fucking ressentiment filled retard? Jews can easily survive on their own, its only when they’re totally overwhelmed with enemies that they submit. Babylon, Persia, Assyria were all massive empires that spanned the whole region. How the fuck were any ethnic groups as small as Jews supposed to repel them? The romans conquered the fucking Celts and Gaulsnyou dumb pleb and the entire Spanish-French history is just them getting help from and being conquered by other empires. What a fucking joke. Slavic states, Hispanic states get conquered constantly or entirely depend on the West for machinery

[Anonymous No.10846807]

>>10846802
If they can truly keep getting away with it, maybe they deserve to

[Anonymous No.10846809]

>>10842745
>politically motivated

It really is not. Social scientists just don't understand evolution at all. I've had multiple occasions where I was talking about the concept of selfish genes and the aforementioned social scientists thought I was talking about a moral justification for selfish behavior arising from genetics. In general everyone seems to view evolution and natural selection as these teleological "invisible hand" - forces( this is the case even for vast majority of STEM), so whatever they lead to be can in their smooth brains perceived as the only culmination of the laws of the universe and hence a source of all kinds of weird moral principles bringing the destruction of civilization if they are ever unearthed.

Evo-psych is mostly complete shit methodologically and practiced by hacks who couldn't cut it in real science. It's good for coming up with hypotheses that are not at odds with evolution, but most research sadly does not go any further than that.

t. computational evolutionary ecologist

[Anonymous No.10846810]

>>10846807
t. Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.10846813]

>>10846807
They don't get away with it though, they end up being chased out and exterminated, often when its too late for their host nation to recover
Its a situation where nobody wins

[Anonymous No.10846822]

>>10846802
First I've heard of Sumer falling to jews, but what about the Indus river valley civilization, or the pre-Colombian American ones

[Anonymous No.10846823]

>>10846761
I'd wager that people in high positions are benefited by mass immigration. If the immigrants work, they are very cheap labor for companies. If they don't, they can be controlled through welfare and used as an excuse to empower the State.
I don't think "Jews" as a homogeneous group is responsible for this though, there are other reasons for Jews being in prominent positions, but in any case it's irrelevant. Just say "the elite", it's easier.

[Anonymous No.10846825]

>>10846822
Bad farming techniques

[Anonymous No.10846828]

>>10846822
>pre-Colombian American ones
Read the book of Mormon.

[Anonymous No.10846831]

>>10846822
>pre-Colombian
meant Columbian

[Anonymous No.10846836]

>>10846831
No he's correct. The Mayan civilization fell long before Colombus reached America. Historians say due to over-exploitation of cropland

[Anonymous No.10846841]

>>10846805
Very little of this post is true. You are also quite transparently jewish and repeating fictional tropes about your people that paint them in a false light and ignore their entire past as an urban parasite or general interloping band of gypsies.

>>10846807
People like you were born slaves.

[Anonymous No.10846842]

>>10846836
i was just correcting my spelling lol

[Anonymous No.10846850]

>>10846822
Read about the Akkadians coming in, doing many of the same things jews are now, and the place collapsing in a few decades.

I don't think you're ready for my opinions on the others though, in South America especially. The flood 10,000 years ago also muddies things so best to stick to Sumer and Egypt up to today, where jews were present and in the case of Egypt directly blamed for the poor conditions, which is where Exodus begins.

[Anonymous No.10846852]

>>10846841
>People like you were born slaves.
>says the man who is oppressed every day by jews

[Anonymous No.10846860]

>>10846852
I never said I was oppressed. I said jews are negatively effecting my society and need to be expelled. That's the opposite of the slave mentality you exude.

[Anonymous No.10846872]

>>10846860
You waste your days with a useless therapeutic revolt against the jews on 4chan, and you think that other people are the slaves?

[Anonymous No.10846874]

>>10846417
We have twice as many male ancestors as female? Haha, thats ridiculous.

You as a person have the exact same amount. As for a man having more sexual partners with whom he reproduces so that in the general population fewer man reproduce then females: This doesn't imply dominance or ambition at all. This could be achieved by an underachiever who spends his days hitting on girls in coffeeshops, think a PUA or something.

Besides, this all this still doesn't imply that men and woman have different genes. Which is the most retarded thing I've ever read on 4chan. I think the rampant anti semitism on this thread basicly shows you just how retarded the mayority of channers is becoming.

[Anonymous No.10846880]

>>10846238
not either of them, but its worth noting that men dont evolve faster or separately than women. im speaking crudely, but lets say men do evolve intellectually. well, when they have a child, whether male or female, the child will inherit those evolved genes. so hypothetically women would benefit equally from any evolutionary benefits.

[Anonymous No.10846887]

>>10846874
men and women literally have an entire chromosome of genes that are different you absolute memer

[Anonymous No.10846892]

>>10846872
Huh? There is no more of a slavish mentality personified than the post that was responded to: >>10846807
I represent the opposite.

[Anonymous No.10846903]

>>10846892
You might think that, but what really is the difference. Neither of you actually have any power to do anything. At least he recognizes this, you still think you can make a difference. Your convictions, this panacea of yours stops any progress towards actual power, that might influence things.

[Anonymous No.10846908]

>>10846805
>America gives them 3 billion in gibs per year because 'muh gods chosen' and 'muh homeland'
>autonomous

[Anonymous No.10846920]

>>10846903
Nope. What I'm saying is inevitable. Your people will be removed as you've always eventually been. It is you who is engaging in a futile pursuit.

[Anonymous No.10847216]

>>10846205

Go back to reading philosophy, the adults are talking facts now

[Anonymous No.10847627]

>>10846874
>We have twice as many male ancestors as female?
It's a widely known fact.

>This doesn't imply dominance or ambition at all.
Historically it does. It's not the farmer who impregnated the village. Genghis Khan impregnated an entire continent through ambitious domination, not through pick up techniques.

>this all this still doesn't imply that men and woman have different genes.
What would account for our differences if not prenatal hormonal differences that arise out of distinct genes? If we were genetically the same we'd look the same.

[Anonymous No.10847723]

>>10842467
kys /leftypol/

[Anonymous No.10848383]

>>10845514
>under(You)'d post crosses your field of vison
Figaro Figaro

[Anonymous No.10848518]

>>10842457
Men on average have the highest and lowest IQs, simply put, while women average out in the middle.

[Anonymous No.10848553]

>>10846732
show your breasts