I know this is nothing groundbreaking, but isnt it an obvious reality that biological differences show that men and women are different. As obvious as it is, its just a reality that is ignored and left dormant in intellectual minds that are unable to preach it in fear of women (or misandrists).

there is this short but interesting article ive read which i cant provide a link for but i'll post most of it and comment on some parts

"Biological Differences Establish Gender Roles"
by Charley Reese

"In the following viewpoint, Charley Reese argues that, contrary to the belief of feminists, gender is determined by biology and not by environment. In cautioning against those who would ignore the biological differences that shape their gender, he cites the case of Shannon Faulkner. The first woman allowed to enroll in the Citadel--a South Carolina military college--Faulkner dropped out soon after her entrance, citing stress and exhaustion. According to Reese, Faulkner made the correct decision in leaving the Citadel because she heeded her inherent nature. Reese is a syndicated columnist."

"The point is that Faulkner was used as pawn by feminists to make an ideological Brownie point, but in the end, she listened to her inherent nature and quit an environment to which she is not suited. No one should blame her or find fault with her. In leaving, she did the right thing."

Heres a thought i had upon reading the last two passages: All our sacrificed sons from wars die for our protection. You would think women would have some sort of respectful deference (at least on this issue!) to the fact that it was men who protected them. Instead, they inqure: why couldnt we fight and die for our country, as well - as if we have taken a freedom from them! You wanna know why, because men loved you. And you know that natural disposition of aggressiveness you always complain about - well, men use it to protect you. Women complain about the rape and the wife beating but they never fairly acknowledge the blood men spill to protect their families! And so a woman tries this job of the man - not that its impossible - and of course has a lower rate of success.


"As much as an affront to our dignity as it may be, we are all at the mercy of genes and hormones to a much larger extent than social determinists are willing to admit, though by now, social determinism is pretty much a flat-earth theory held only by intellectual reactionaries."


heres a thought that i had on the last short paragraph. Is it hard to understand that mathematics underlies the sciences such as biology? I mean to get a greater understanding of a the physical world, you need to integrate the more intricate study that is math. And if the math is flawed, then the physical explanation must also be flawed. well then doesnt biology underly sociology and doesnt sociology depend on biology for a greater understanding? So if this social determinism theory - a study at the sociological level - is used in contradiction with biology, wouldnt you say the social determinism case is the one that is flawed?


"To head off those who always cite the exceptions, I will remind you that the characteristic of nature is profusion, not uniformity. There are certainly some women who can keep up with the boys--but they will have narrow pelvises and greater amounts of male hormones than the average.
Conversely, there are men with wider pelvises and more female hormones who tend to exhibit certain female characteristics, such as passiveness.
Actually, radical feminists are doing the same thing homophobes do: They beat up on and bully women for something they can't help--being women. Nature doesn't give a flea's hind leg for our social theories, fads, fashions, political ideologies and other nutty ideas with which people preoccupy themselves. Nature just is. And all of us are part of it whether we like it or not."


"Temperamentally, men are inclined toward dominance, rank-related aggression (competitiveness), independence, psychopathy and sensation-seeking. Women are inclined toward submission, defensive aggression, attachment and nurturance, anxiety and security-seeking."

^you would think thats enough to convince you that there are diffferences in what men and women are more inclined to do if you were a rational thinker....but most of the world is only selectively rational.


Finally the author leaves us with a warning:

"A source of much of the 20th century's madness, cruelty and bloodshed has been the result of the refusal to live in accordance with nature or to even recognize its reality. Any time we are out of sync with nature, we, not nature, will be the loser and the sufferer.
We must adapt to reality; reality will not adapt to us or allow us to shape it. That's what Shannon Faulkner discovered when she met the reality, as opposed to the theory, of being a cadet at the Citadel."


any comments?

Allowing feminists to second guess nature, and legislating against those who oppose their ideologically defunct 'social determinism theory' is a recipe for social disaster. The examples of which are all around us.