What I Learned Here  

sfvppl818 51M/51F
486 posts
6/2/2006 7:00 pm

Last Read:
6/15/2006 2:36 pm

What I Learned Here

Women and the Art of Menstrual Cycle Maintenance

The philosophy of women is one that men are unqualified to discuss much less write. Therefore what follows is the philosophy of women as viewed through the eyes of a member of the unfair-er sex. (Yours truly).

Recently there is a trend, probably driven by laws of "equal opportunities", to assume that the sexes are equally capable of various tasks. This is, of course, utter nonsense (although I agree that equal opportunities still applies for many jobs, but not all. An efficient military force of muscle-bound killers, for example, is not a place for women).

Biology: There are obvious contrasts to be found between the sexes here: hormones. Women have oestrogen. Men have testosterone. Oestrogen gets in the eyes whilst driving. Testosterone makes you forget birthdays, anniversaries and lets you waste time watching sports on TV. Women are superior at tasks that require pin-point accuracy - dexterity at subtle tasks. Dudes are superior where strength and accuracy of throwing/hitting things counts (e.g. football).

Men have a Y chromosome, women do not. This is a cause of differentiation in the genetic diseases that affect the sexes. Then there is "the curse". Women have menstrual cycles; men have mother-in-laws.

Brain scans: Women and men think in fundamentally different ways. We know this because, during brain scans, women's brains light up differently to men's. The lust cortex of the male brain lights up like a supernova every ten minutes. The pain centres inside the female head fire up in exact synchronicity. Men tend to rely on spatial cues to navigate, whereas women use landmarks and visual clues. Brain scans show that the sexes actually use different parts of the brain when navigating. It is thought that this divergence is caused by the influence of the sex hormones on the developing brain. The evolutionary explanation for this difference in navigation is that during the hunter-gatherer days of our ancient ancestors the men hunted afar and women gathered food close to the home. The two tasks require distinct navigational skills. These days these evolved specialized navigation skills help males find bars - and stagger back home even when too drunk for this to be humanly possible. Women have a less evolved navigational prowess, but it gives them the special ability to miraculously locate, in seconds, the car keys that the resident male lost and can't find to save his life.

Magazines: Observe just how wildly different men's and women's magazines are. This is absolute proof of the vast chasm that separates the sexes. Women adore fashion, relationships and shoes. Men seek anything that isn't fashion, relationships and shoes. If you were to stack women's and men's magazines together in a big pile they would annihilate in a massive magazine-antimagazine explosion.

Evolution explains many differences between the sexes in terms of prehistoric life styles. Males needed to be strong; good leaders; accurate throwers of objects; and natural navigators. It's not easy to to kill a woolly mammoth (especially now that men have made them extinct). On the other hand, women evolved craft, home management, empathy, conversational skills, child nurturing expertise, and can multitask up to six activities at once. Evolution made men and women physically and mentally distinct.

One branch of feminism states that these differences are redundant. Yet women, relative to men, are steering clear of computer science, the Web, the physical sciences and engineering. These domains are burgeoning. Unless women embrace these fields men will continue to invent the world for... men. The feminists cat fight with one another about how their longed-for equality might be achieved, with little consensus. Men will be men and invent and destroy everything: women will be women and make the world a more charming and humane place to live. This is simplistic of course, but generalisations are underrated.

Take computer programming: generally, women - not men - should be better at programming, because programming negates men's advantage in physical strength, which should cause more women to gravitate towards programming careers. Reality is very different. Instead, women tend to favor more sociable jobs such as nursing and teaching. In science, men usually go for the physics end of the spectrum, and women for the social sciences. Of course, there are copious exceptions, and rightly so! I'm not trying to paint a stereotype: but this phenomenon isn't even down to culture: broadly similar patterns occur all around the world, where female choice is permitted. (Unfortunately, allowed female occupations are formally restricted in societies where fundamentalist followers of religions, notoriously Islam, systematically limit women's opportunities. Such oppression is, of course, deeply immoral and destructive. Repression of women is also inherent in strictly hierarchical systems, such as found in Japanese culture). I conjecture that the matter of choice differences of occupation is generally (not always) down to genetic differences between men and women, and these differential genes influence the cultures of societies and religions that in turn influence choice. (Given that we evolved as tribal societies, this conclusion is not so surprising). I say more about such genetics later.

Someone in the comments/feedback section conjectures that the lack of women in computing is down to two things, firstly women are dismissive of a field created by men. This sounds plausible until you realize that this depends on circular logic. The idea that women are intimidated by computing because they didn't invent it can be countered with the observation that perhaps women didn't invent computing in the first place ... because they do not like it as much as men do.

The second point made is that women are oppressed by men, who are in power. This point is far more important. I see no problem with seeing this competitive disadvantage that women find themselves against is genetic. Indeed, testosterone, ultimately caused by Male genes, increases the aggression that contributes to such competition. Women, compared to men, generally prefer cooperation, and this is one of the reasons women prefer social roles that rely on empathy. They are better at such roles than men.

Conversely I suspect that men are more fascinated by, hence better at, less socially dependent activities such as computer programming: not always, but in general. Such a male bias towards computing, I suspect, would be true, even if the oppression of women by men was nil.

Another sign of the more sociable natures of women: when I compare how often men and women are on the phone at work - women win hands down. NO CONTEST. Women tell me they have the ability to talk on the phone *and* simultaneously listen in to the person's conversation next to them *and* simultaneously agonize over what pair of shoes to wear to the party tonight. This is an extraordinary multitasking feat utterly impossible for any male. Again, the best explanation is that the key differences in the natures of men and women stem from genetics - in exactly the same way that propensity to pee standing up stems from genetics. To pretend otherwise - that the differences are down to systematic oppression - is simply unhelpful and unscientific.

It is a misconception by those feminists that cling to such thoughts, that men and women differ due to the cultural effects of upbringing. Children as young as 14 months have a preference (shown by gaze behavior) for toys that are in accord with their own sex. Male babies tend to focus on pictures of spiky, rugged mechanical toys, where as female babies prefer soft clean toys. This research was conducted by Anne Campbell and independently other scientists.

As Campbell points out, this must be a genetic - not a cultural - effect at that early age. And it is not so surprising. After all, babies are born with all sorts of innate knowledge, such as likes of milk and dislikes of pain, which are undoubtedly genetic at the core. Given that gender is genetic, then it should not surprise us that innate knowledge and preferences can be innately affected by expression of these sexual genes. Here nature seems to win over nurture. Having said that, It is, of course, always true that both nature and nurture have a role to play later on in life. But it is easy to underestimate the effect of our genes on the masculine/feminine aspects of our behavior. We do not have, it seems, as much choice or freewill, with regards to how macho or feminine our behavior is, as we'd like to think.

However, trying to explain to the missus that washing up is preordained by nature to be work for her hands, and not yours, may backfire with an unladylike explosion of violence upon your person.

Campbell has researched sex differences, especially in the area of violence. She thinks that men are more violent than women (which is almost universally true) not because men are necessarily seeking trouble, but because they feel less fear when trouble finds them. An evolutionary perspective is that women feel more fear because they are far more important to the survival of her child than are men. In effect, women are more important than men, in evolutionary terms, and so they have evolved to avoid risk. Men have evolved a riskier lifestyle because they are, in a sense, more expendable, and need to compete for the important females. I find it deliciously ironic that the male sex is dominant, in terms of wielding power, partly because they are less critical when it comes to child rearing - which is the only thing that really matters.

Another researcher, the wonderfully monikered Sarah Blaffer Hardy, indicates that women and men have evolved different mating strategies and counter strategies. For example, in many primates species, such as chimps, infanticide by unrelated males is rife. Females in such species tend to have sex with many males so that those males will not kill her offspring, in case it is theirs. This strategy of unfaithful sex by females to confuse parental identity also prevails in various human societies, or within poor places, such as inner city areas, within otherwise non-promiscuous societies. Given that males and females have evolved different strategies for passing on their genes, it is natural to assume that many differences in men and women that are not explained by the physique or by culture. They are natural, and hence will never go away, regardless of what the feminists think.

SBH also points out that parental empathy, which is needed in the wild to raise offspring, will eventually die out, because it is no longer essential to have empathy to raise kids. Kids brought up in neglect can still survive on welfare and other artificial means of support, and in turn go on to reproduce, passing on the same empathy-challenged DNA. By being civilized, we will evolve the very thing that makes us civilized - compassion - out of our genetic makeup.

Then there is the physical: in their prime, women are Nature's curvaceous masterpieces. They possess the finest geometry in existence (well, apart from the skinny and the obese, obviously). A new field of mathematics will appear, "Erotic Geometry", which will explain the female form through the application of algebraic equations.

If, however, you solve the algebra that governs the female mind you will discover why women are always right; why "no" can mean "yes", and why the toilet seat should always be left down.

Another interesting question is to contrast how physical attractiveness affects the sexes. Handsome men may seldom master the art of deep thought, but will have all the fun. Pretty females ditto. So men and women aren't so different after all.

>disclaimer please read: I am joking all through here ... the blog was all done in fun and was never a serious attack on anyone!!!<

Such thin skins!!!!


sfvppl818 51M/51F

6/3/2006 2:09 am

Please slow down, most loquacious one. I have other things to do that
sit here reading your stupid blog. (insert smiley or winkey friggin
emoticon of your choice here)


My emoticon is a raised middle finger. Your response qualifies as either 1> a desperate need to get laid or 2> you have mistaken this stupid blog as the place you send in your resume and examples of work.

No dude tries to get this understanding unless he sees a nice crotch at the end of that "wanna fuck" pogo stick.

Like the effort tho!


Become a member to create a blog