Through out every human society, there is a defined difference between the roles of males and females. Even if they are not physically present, mentally they are.

Thoughts?

I'm one who thinks the differences are very few.

One way of looking at human society is to "steal" the tree of evolution. At the roots we have a single species and as time progresses we expand it to include more and more.

In the beginning of organized culture there was a single stereotype that was the norm, in 90% of the cases it was the strong heterosexual male with the skin color of the major ethnicity. As society has compexified and evolved more stereotypes has been added. In most cultures one of the first additions was that of minor religions/ethnicities, later on new cultures. Only in our lifetimes has sexuality and gender joined the tree of the influential and successful.

There are a few biological differances (apart from the obvious) between men and women. One of the largest is the, yet very unexplored, damage on the brain caused by testosteron in males. Another is the slightly higher ability of ambidexterity among women.
These differances however are so tiny that if one argues that men and women can't preform the same tasks then they should also prefer dark skinned people working outside and light skinned people inside, because dark skin is more resilient to sun and weather.

Just as with physical evolution there is no one that "decides" what is female and male per see. The evolution of social structure and society is a slow process, and that's why feminists who want everything to be equal at once are in over their heads.

The norms of society leads to socialization that follows a certain pattern. Things like that does not change over night. For every generation that passes our society heads down a road, which we do not know the end destination of. I'd say tho that at the rate masculine and femanine traits/skills etc are being erased we will see a more or less completely gender equal society within 2 or 3 generations.

the only difference is inies and outies, any perceived difference has been brought about by our social development as a species not in our hard wiring. (by and by hi I'm the new guy)

The Valkyrier

if you switch the primary hormone in either they display the exact characteristic of the opposite gender. both male and female are subject to the same psychological motivation so to say men and women are like apples and oranges is ludicrous. when really it''s this apple is more red than this one.

Uhm... Oranges and apples are different species in different families. Who could possibly be stupid enough to say that?

Females have a more sensitive sense of smell than males, both in the differentiation of odors, and in the detection of slight or faint odors.
Males have a more developed sense of spatial awareness.
Females have a higher sensitivity to pain than males.
Males have a more developed sense of direction.
The female brain contains less Serotonin than male brains, and as a result depression and chronic anxiety are much more common in women than in men.
Men have larger left inferior parietal lobes, while women have larger Wernicke's and Broca's areas.

These are all biological differances that we have proof of. There are most likely at least a dozen additional differances that we are yet to uncover.

To say that men have a penis and women a vagina is to simplify it. Evolution had a reason to create two different organisms in the same species, otherwise we would all have been betasexual.

The Valkyrier

Don't take analogies so literal.

your data is based on a inconceivably small cross section of the populace from a hand full of first world nations. second development an function of the brain is not written in stone it is subject to it's environment physical and sociological ie studies done on isolation subjects or even the fact that chronic alcoholism can cause the brain to shrink. humans both male and female are made from the same kit, use component A paint nursery pink component B paint nursery blue.

The Valkyrier

the data you mention would have to come from several studies no one can get the funding nor has to the time to correctly study all you've mentioned as to the rest don't read so hard your starting to read between the lines ie Tabula Rasa I never mention him. lastly i don't have the time

i revel in my ignorance, with out ignorance there is no enlightenment, take more care in the leveling of words like denial, ignorance. you appear to have your nose in a book and the book fiercely lodged up your .......i will take up no time of the others in what is becoming useless off topic banter.

Dude if you are going to idulge in a discuss you have to be prepared to fight. Right now you are just deflecting and trying to play some abused-abuser card.

hhahahahahahahahahahahaha, Jesus almost shit my pants on that one, believe what you wish but really i have no time for your bullshit tactics and selective reading is it now spelt out clearly for you.

Then stop trolling and go on-topic again. You are the one that went whiny about it.

Something that hasn't been mentioned:

Don't women and men differ in which mental states produce certain neurotransmitters/hormones? For example, oxytocin. It is supposedly responsible for feelings of social connection, bonding, love, infatuation, etc. Women experience an upsurge of oxytocin from different stimuli than men, such as during the birth of their child. Men receive upsurges of the same chemical in certain situations, most notably during orgasm.

The point is that the operations of similar hormones or neurotransmitters in the brain vary between the genders, causing feelings of well-being or anxiousness at different times and under different situations. Thus, it seems that nature has different roles in mind for men and women.

The differences between males and females are few but sufficient to create a differentiation...a necessary one.

The idea that all differences are superficial or illusions or too small to consider, hides a resentment towards the very essence of existence.

If one considers the differences between males and females only physical, aesthetic, then one is implying a dichotomy, even if they do not realize it, but also promoting the possibility that the differences between men and apes are no less superficial and physical.

How can we claim that biology matters in one instance but is only for decor the next?
How can we say, opening up a new can of worms, that color is relevant in determining the essence in one context but totally superficial in an other...or that form is no less superficial?


In order to distinguish what differences exists, apart from any hormonal imbalances or genetic mutations that pop up diverting the fate of all organisms, one must first explore the need for such a differentiation.

Why does sex evolve at all? To confuse us? To add one more element we must ignore as evidence of our enlightened state? To distract us?

Have the senses evolved to trick us rather than to aid us?


The only function of sex is procreation - how it then evolves to function as a social lubricant or glue is another issue.
The primary and original function of heterosexuality is procreation.
If homosexuality appears as a dysfunction of this primary function and then establishes itself in a secondary social role, is, again, another matter.


It's advantage, over the method of single-cell division, is its ability to speed up the replication of mutations that can then keep up with rapidly changing environmental conditions.
Survival of the fittest implies a differentiations which determines what "fittest" means within a particular environment.
Evolution works on divergence...not on this uniformity current cultural interventions market as a necessary aspect of systemic stability.
If all were the same, then there would be nothing to select and no reason to select it.

When environmental conditions remain relatively stable or the organism is not affected much by them, there is no evolution. The crocodile is a good example.
The only way mutations take hold and become relevant is when environmental conditions force a necessity, when they stress the species threatening it and forcing it into a do-or-die scenario.

This is where mutations prove to be important and this is how genetic multiplicity ensues.

In the case of heterosexual procreation, which then makes the evolution of larger brained organisms possible, it is a method of self-replication, with comr0pomises, which then necessitates a division of labor...a specialization.

We may say that species branching out from a common ancestor are specializing in a particular strategy of survival which differentiates one from another not only aesthetically but behaviorally - casting potentials and establishing essence.
A cheetah differs from a lion, even if they may come from a common ancestor, in the tactics it uses to survive and to replicate itself. This determines anatomy and mental functions since the brain is nothing other than anatomy.

The two sexual sub-types may belong to the same species but their necessity, as a reproductive role, forces specialized traits in both. These traits are not merely aesthetic, because mind and body are one and the same.
That is that the same traits are either enhanced or atrophied.
So a male in our species is more muscled and has a stronger skeleton....on average...than a female.

This means the sexual role of the male increases his potential of being stronger than the female of his own species.
Same goes for mental functions and predispositions and drives and behavior.

This biological function, resulting in specialized roles, is what sexual types are....this then becomes translated into gender roles within social contexts.
Gender roles are not invented out of thin air, as nothing is ever invented this way.
All innovations are based on preexisting knowledge and phenomena.

Gender roles, therefore, are the application of preexisting sexual roles within human social structures.
That these roles are becomnig obsolete is another issue and has more to do with altering social conditions and methods of population cotnrol.

it is the elimination of sexual differences that is the human construct, not their existence.


These differences are not trivial or too small to even consider, as a single gene mutation can cause cascading effects in time - Butterfly Effect.
The differences in finches between those on the mainland and those on the Galapagos island Darwin used to formulate his theory were a result of a slight differentiation taking hold, due to environmental conditions and then resulting in a large divergence, given the genetic isolation present.
This is how species come to be.

This is how human race comes to be, even if here the period of genetic isolation was not sufficient to cause a complete branching off into new species.

Now, in modern social systems where man intervened upon environments mutations multiply as they are not allowed to be weeded out through natural culling methods of disease or predation or violent competition within the group etc.

This multiplies the propagation of individuals organisms that would not, normally, have survived to even contemplate reproducing or would not have survived without the aid of technologies and the sheltering effects of institutions and of cultural codes of conduct.

This "benevolent" humanitarian protection is not without a cost or a purpose (necessity)...but here again, this is another matter.


This sheltering effect further blurs the distinction between males and females as sexual dysfunctions, if they do not threaten the social whole, are accepted as quirks or alternative lifestyles or as eccentric behavior or as evidence of individual uniqueness.

Truth is many of these sexual dysfunctions, even if they may find a place within a system in its service, as well as many other mutations, are genetic dead-ends, and they only multiply using parasitical methods (homosexuality replicating through heterosexual intercourse, for instance, is a good example of parasitical reproductive methods).

As reproduction becomes a secondary matter, such as with an omega male within a wolf pack where only the alpha-pair will breed, sex takes on a social context, such as relieving stress or reinforcing power balances.
The inferior pack members become supporting elements and the males are feminized to serve this function.

In my The Feminization of Mankind,I go into all this, somewhat.

From a metaphysical perspective difference is measured through comparison.
It is the very essence of consciousness....this discrimination using sensually perceived patterns.

An appearance, the apparent, is the sum of its past. It is the very essence of the phenomenon which is made apparent by exhibiting a divergence.
If all was the same, uniform, then nothing would be perceived. There would be no distinction to be perceived and no reason to perceive...and so no reason for the senses.

The fact that we have senses and a brain to use them proves that there is a divergence which is important to be observed by the organism observing - survival.
We distinguish differences and similarities so as to make value judgments which will facilitate our course though life and our continuance. We do NOT percive diversity to dismiss is as illusion or irrelevant or as a trick hiding uniformity.

Discrimination is the quintessential function of consciousness. The elimination of discrimination or the teaching that certain kinds of it are evil or undesirable or bad, is an attempt to make the mind unconscious to reality....it is a diminishing of consciousness for the sake of social convention and humanitarian feel-good idealism.

It is nihilism with a smile...just like the christian kind.

The modern ideals preaching that differences are only superficial, apart from being politically useful, display an underlying nihilistic trend of self-debasement.
It is a means of mind control.

What better way to cotnrol a mind than to make it self-censor its own consciousness and self-blind its own judgments?

Buddhism, itself, is very nihilistic, as it denies self and the world, implying an underlying thing-in-itself, an emptiness, and proposing the end of rebirth as its highest goal.

What more direct expression of hating life do you want?
The idea that you would not wish to be reborn again, infinitely, masks a deep hatred of self and of life.

From a sociological perspective the elimination of difference, or its diminishment as an important part of self-identification, is a useful political trend producing uniformity so as to stabilize heterogeneous social unities.
It is a method of husbandry....only here the domesticated beast is man himself.

The only distinction allowed is production or utility...just as the only distinction between one cow and the next one is the amount of milk she produces or how useful she is to the farmer.

The idea that men differ from women only physically is but one more example of this cultural trend towards uniformity - feminization.

There's a reason social systems in nature, such as ants, bees, termites, are exclusively female.


Claiming that the only difference between men and women is their sexual organs is like claiming that the only difference between man and ape is the fur and the form.

The cultural construct is NOT sexual roles that turn into social roles (gender roles) but their elimination and their slandering IS.

This is how social engineering occurs in real time and individuals like Valkyrie become instruments of uniforming social trends.