NOTE:
A new and interesting subject for this blog !
However it does not explain why the wife, over age 70, likes to shovel snow off our 100 foot driveway for exercise, while I refuse to shovel snow, insisting that I would have a heart attack and die just from picking up a snow shovel. And besides, the snow will melt by Spring anyway.
If you are a husband, and your wife annoys you, just remember this:
Before criticizing your wife, remember that her faults may have prevented her from getting a better husband.
If you are a wife, and your husband annoys you, just remember this:
About the only time a woman really succeeds in changing a man, is when he's a baby, and still wearing diapers.
If you are a husband, or a wife, just remember this:
To have a successful marriage -- whenever you are wrong, admit it; whenever you are right, keep your mouth shut.
I learned the above wisdom in Psychology 101,
or maybe I heard it in a locker room.
Ye Editor
"For all of human history women have been sexually and romantically attracted to male power.
This is common sense from a female perspective.
Strong men provide resources and protect women and children.
A psychological consequence of this trait, which developed over evolutionary time, is that women mate across or upwards in dominance hierarchies.
(Human evolution would go backwards if women did not improve their lives by sexually selecting mates who signal evolutionary fitness).
That this process is mostly unconscious on the part of women does not make it any less real.
Men and women both evolved, when looked at from a fundamental level of philosophical analysis, to survive.
We do this in ways that are not better or worse than each other, but which are unique to our sex.
Men and women, then, are the same species but we are, unsurprisingly, different in multiple ways.
Advances in psychological statistical analysis have allowed us to understand these differences.
Big Five personality traits reveal that individual men and women are broadly the same, but paradoxically,
at the margins of our psychology, at the extremes, we have separate tastes, likes, and inclinations.
And while we share common traits, it’s at the group level and not as individuals that the difference between the sexes is most noticeable.
In other words, if we could create a generic man or woman, with psychological traits at the group level,
he or she would be a starkly different psychological creature to the other sex.
Women, for example, are more agreeable than men.
They’re nicer, in other words.
This makes evolutionary sense because being agreeable when you’re physically weaker in a world of potentially predatory males is strategically intelligent.
Small and smart ultimately defeats big and stupid everyday.
Women, though, are also more neurotic, which means, in the language of psychology, that women respond negatively to the everyday trauma of life more than men.
Again this is linked to survival.
If you’re scanning the horizon for danger and a man is defending you, who he is and what he is thinking is vitally important to your health.
At a risk of generalisation, it’s why women, in contrast to men, are more likely to forgive sexual infidelity but not emotional infidelity.
Love, for female survival, is more powerful than sex.
To put this another way, women were bound until recently in human history, both existentially and biologically, to the men in their lives.
It’s only with the advent of capitalism and the creation of the contraceptive pill, which have freed women from privation and biology respectively,
that women have been able to influence politics and culture in overt and consistent ways, simply because these were traditionally male spaces due to material and existential necessity.
Without men doing the hard and dangerous tasks in the past, women would die.
(This is still true, but decades of feminist activism have made the subject off limits in civilised debate).
A division of labour developed organically between the sexes across historical time and geographical region.
This benefited both sexes in the never-ending battle against privation and an indifferent natural world.
The aeons of evolutionary time in which women looked to men for their survival has left a psychological imprint on the female subconscious.
Women deem men responsible, because throughout history this was as universally true as the theory of gravity, for their material, sexual, and psychological wellbeing.
The subconscious impulse in women has not been erased by feminist propaganda.
Neither has it become diluted due to how successful liberal democracy and capitalism are in equalising the human world.
This feminine psychological impulse, though, in the modern world manifests in ways that are often not conducive to societal wellbeing.
Leopards, to say it in the vernacular, can’t change their spots, and, even if they could, it wouldn’t happen overnight.
Evolution, as the saying goes, is not just from the neck down.
For the first time in human history, a confluence of factors has led to a situation where men cannot, because it’s technologically and economically impossible, compete with the material conditions of life and, hence, with each other to attract a mate.
Life is too good, in other words, for our evolved psychology.
We’re still geared towards life on the savannah.
Women’s proclivity to mate upwards, allied with their subconscious belief that men are responsible for female wellbeing,
together with the material benefits of capitalism and the equalising effects of liberal democracy,
have led to a situation where a fateful confrontation between the sexes is inevitable.
Women, to put this in simple terms, are evaluating men in a way that was conducive to survival in a world that no longer exists.
An economic, cultural, and political endpoint has been reached and men are wedged, face-first and nose bent, against an immovable glass ceiling.
There’s nothing men can do anymore to prove their fitness to attract a mate.
The female proclivity to mate upwards has plateaued because of economic equality, but the female psychological impulse remains as potent as ever,
which manifests as female rage against men who women subconsciously, ironically and foolishly believe,
if you listen to feminist rhetoric, are responsible for their happiness and survival.
Heidegger, to put this in other terms, said that ‘language is the house of being’.
You don’t need to subscribe to his philosophy to see that he is onto something, even if it’s just a provisional truth,
but listen to how women casually talk about their expectations of men and you’ll see the subconscious become reality.
Ironically, one of the main claims of recent feminism is that because men are supposedly no longer needed to protect and provide for women ‘the future is female’.
THE paradox of female psychology meeting the modern world was on display recently when Brittany Higgins and Grace Tame spoke at the National Press Club.
What occurred was a manifestation of female neuroticism and entitled female expectation of men,
together with the genetic feminine desire for social affirmation and empathy (the sisterhood),
in a toxic combination that is fatal to the maintenance of rational politics.
Essentially it was peak feminism, the result of decades of privileging female virtues and the downgrading of female vices,
while holding men to the exact opposite standard.
It was also, more importantly, peak feminine herd psychology.
One result of this metaphysics, in full display and cheered on by the overwhelmingly female Press Club audience,
was the idea that women are never responsible for their own choices;
and that individual female agency is always, ultimately, the responsibility of men (by commission or omission),
even if females use their free will.
This can be seen and heard in the ‘Believe all Women’ mantra of modern feminism, which infantilises women and robs them of individual agency.
Both men and women are capable of bad behaviour.
At the extremes of male/female psychology, especially at the group level, the lowest-common-denominator rules.
With males, think Nuremberg-style rallies, bikie gangs, and soccer hooligans.
In other words, violence and hyper-masculine rationalism.
With women, think of mean girls, passive-aggressive virtue signalling and the privileging of feelings over logic:
in other words, mindless empathy or irrationalism.
Too much feminine love, to put this in context, leads to hate.
Both these extreme male and female psychological states, at a societal level, are toxic to notions of universal justice and individual dignity.
To put this bluntly, it is not men who need to change but women’s unrealistic expectations of men in the modern world.
This should be the generational task of the silent majority of women who do not share the extreme, hyper-ideological and unjust philosophy of a small band of feminists,
who, for all the reasons I’ve outlined above, have introduced a toxicity to relations between the sexes that is fatal to our shared humanity.
Men and women need each other.
We can’t live without each other.
In fact, the world would be a flat, barren, and ultimately an unliveable place if either of the sexes entirely dominated the other.
Neither extreme feminine vices nor extreme masculine ones should have any place in a civilised society.
The pendulum must swing back to the centre.
In other words, normal women need to take back control of both the narrative and our institutions to foil ongoing feminist overreach."
