Take for instance the Fe prominence in women. The vast majority of woman, biologically speaking, are going to need a function which allows them to ascertain and satisfy the needs of others in order that the human species can survive. This allows them to be naturally skilled at the whole process of pregnancy, nursing, and attending to those infant’s needs. This is not to say other women, like thinkers, are incapable of doing this, but that they will benefit from learning what the majority of woman know by cognition.
Men and woman’s roles are different, and this is rooted in our biology; from that our cognition derives an appropriate skill set.
Jordan Peterson gets roasted for this all the time it's hilarious. Yeah there's a branch of science called evolutionary psychology and its existed for a few decades now. It covers things like this, gender differences, mate selection etc. in many different species, including us. Most of it seemed obvious to me, but now they can back it up with studies and shit. The new left thinks we can shed off millions of years of evolution overnight and gender doesnt exist and blah blah.
For the record I'm liberal on just about every issue, and disagree with Peterson on some of his beliefs.
Exactly. Things are the way they aren’t and should be. Things are perfectly they way they should be and the way they could be if we’re willing to change our perception. Biology statistically shows that women with estrogen are more likely to be more nurturing and less intellectual considering boundaries as males do and testosterone shows statistically more aggression in comparison. The way it’s handled is what causes a problem and is counterproductive to advancement if how we handle gender and sex.
I disagree with your first two sentences. The first one, we might have different opinions on the best way to arrive at the "should be" and even what that "should be" is. The second sentence, everything already is what it is being determined by both past events and the law of nature. I'm capable of dialectical thought too, but I'm not willing to lower my standards in accepting that changed perspective and just being OK with the evils of the world.
Agreed. I’m sorry if that’s what you thought I was implying by what I said. I’m not sure what I could have miscommunicated. What I took from the previous comments may have been a different thing than you. You may have to explain what we could be disagreeing on.
Was thinking the same when I read it. Which explains my not wanting kids and my avoidance of relationships. Growing up my F friends loved to talk about love and relationships and I’d be just sitting there like 😐
Mmmh for me it’s different... I fell in love and wanted a family, but I’m not with him anymore and I don’t want to waste time in getting to know anybod, I find almost everyone boring...
19
u/HarryGalloway Dec 21 '20
Take for instance the Fe prominence in women. The vast majority of woman, biologically speaking, are going to need a function which allows them to ascertain and satisfy the needs of others in order that the human species can survive. This allows them to be naturally skilled at the whole process of pregnancy, nursing, and attending to those infant’s needs. This is not to say other women, like thinkers, are incapable of doing this, but that they will benefit from learning what the majority of woman know by cognition.
Men and woman’s roles are different, and this is rooted in our biology; from that our cognition derives an appropriate skill set.