EQUALITY vs INEQUALITY

Males and Females are not the same thus NOT equal.

The female brain has more lateral wiring between the left and right hemispheres. The female is therefore better at multi-tasking and a fine example of this would be playing the Piano.

The male has more wiring from the front to the back of the brain. The male is therefore better in areas of three dimensional awareness which is ideal for a hunter.

This information is given here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-25198063

Although there is some argument that these differences may develop as a result of culture, certain aspects of the culture cannot be changed. For example women have babies men do not. The culture of looking after a baby will automatically develop the female brain and will always be present within the culture. The wiring then, looks fixed.

Inequality does not automatically infer superiority (perhaps that's unintuitive). A spanner and a syringe are not the same. We cannot say that the spanner is superior to the syringe, but it might be (unless you're in Cuba).

While inequality does not automatically mean that one of the two is superior to the other it does mean that each has different uses. So, gender roles (sex roles) are indeed an automatic consequence of inequality. Because males and females are not the same there will be some tasks that the female is SUPERIOR at and there will be other tasks where the male will be SUPERIOR. If a female or male tries to do a task better suited to their opposite sex it is likely that the result will be poor and they will look INFERIOR as a result.

To determine whether the male is superior to the female, or the female superior to the male it is necessary to resolve all of the gender roles and then compare the value of these lists both in terms of financial reward and also their impact on society, culture, and future history. A Piano playing female vs a male Civil Engineer for example. The Piano player may indeed earn more money than the Civil Engineer, but during the life of each, while the Piano player may have made more money, the Civil Engineer may have designed and built a City. The City will have more importance than the piano music thus the male in this example would be superior to the female. Proving the case in general would be difficult and changing culture may invalidate the end result.

Females who believe in equality in absolute terms could easily end up looking inferior by focussing on tasks that they are not good at, and the male environment in which this would occur could easily cause broad generalisations of the ineptitude of all females not just those creating the impression.

Hello,

I am not certain about this!  For every 5 genius males, there is only 1 genius female.  Also, there are 2 stupid males for every 1 stupid female.

[~} I am an adamant traditionalist.  I believe in NO women's education except home-schooling, no women's sports, no women's freedoms, no women's jobs and certainly no women being in political power!  The entire world was like this 50 years ago {(non-Western world was mostly like this 25 years ago)}.  I believe that man is master over woman and women can play instruments and read novels, etc.  But they must be controlled at all times by cultural norms that make it clear that any virile behaviour from them will NOT be tolerated!!

"Females who believe in equality in absolute terms could easily end up looking inferior by focussing on tasks that they are not good at, and the male environment in which this would occur could easily cause broad generalisations of the ineptitude of all females not just those creating the impression. "

But see, most females do not seem to have QUALITY STANDARDS on everything, and thus don't care or don't get the idea of "looking inferior", as they won't to themselves (in my understanding). They value success over value and objective quality of the service provided. Also their definition of success is quite mediocre, ie having a family and a salary to them is "success". They usually don't think very "big". They're very mediocre beings, with mediocre expectations and ideas of happiness and wellbeing IN THEIR BEST FORM.

In short we must remember that average females and many males lack STANDARDS, and as a consequence don't believe in inferiority or superiority if not on an "emotional" level. They don't take actual, logical superiority seriously and that is the basic on why the are completely unsuccessful at being QUALITY PEOPLE. Only a person with STANDARDS, whether he is aware of them or claims them or not, can hope of achieving quality and superiority.

Females are children who laugh at the very serious nature of superiority.

They are just underdeveloped. They are to be compared to male CHILDREN, not male adults. Most females don't really grow up as HUMANS. As an overall HUMAN value - intelligence, reason, morals - I don't think it can be denied that females ARE inferior. I have always taken it for granted. Everytime a feminist woman screams "i'm equal" or "i'm superior", it is a given to me and I'm sure most people take for granted that they obviously aren't, but come on, let the children play. I GAVE ALWAYS THOUGHT MOST PEOPLE DON'T FIGHT AGAINST THEM JUST AS YOU DON'T FIGHT FOR CHILDREN. Men don't really think they're equal or inferior...they act like they do because the children have to play.

But these are morons, who don't see that what started as a game has become a serious social issue. The lie of female "equality" or even superiority.

Also, let us never forget that men of the same gender aren't equal, there too some are superior and others inferior.

These are facts and anyone who denies these surely is a dullard. And there again...is he a dullard or is he only unwilling to oppose the children who aren't expected to be serious all the time?

A serious man takes serious matters seriously. Superiority is a serious matter.

Also in sexual attraction. Do we men find GORGEOUS, BEAUTIFUL women "cute" or "funny" ever? Women don't take ANYTHING seriously, including beauty. They most often call a gorgeous, classic good looking man "cute" and that's a perfect example. We wouldn't call model Alessandra Ambrosio "cute" or "nice", we have RELIGIOUS RESPECT and take her beauty with extreme seriousness.

Women don't take anything with the required seriousness. Schopenhauer stressed as women are the "unaesthetic sex" for their incapacity of feeling the greatness of great art and music, something that I have always noticed.

In conclusion: women are CHILDREN, and are not expected to hold serious matter with the right seriousness. They take irrelevant ones seriously instead, like their hair and clothing. For male standards, women ARE stupid and men must consider them so, and the former would be twice the stupid to expect men to take them seriously and think of them as SERIOUS people who deserve respect.

We must respect the gorgeousness of Alessandra Ambrosio (or any other you consider gorgeous, it's just an example) and take it with extreme seriousness, as doing so, and not playing around, will make us come hard and make children. This is how nature has ordained. Notice also how much more seriously men take SEX in comparison to women? I have seen way too many women lacking seriousness in bed...almost phone-calling while being penetrated...they don't even enjoy sex right. They dont' take it seriously...I find it extremely, sexually annoying. I have met no woman that satisfies me sexually or in any other way. They're just too stupid for my taste. They simply lack intelligence and seriousness and overall they are to be laughed at as humans - only their body is an extremely serious matter. Objectifying things RIGHT, is a sign of objectivism and rationality; standards. Women have none.

Nothing is more seriously disturbing, yet also tragicomically hilarious than a feminist woman who wants to be respected for her completely stupid assessments and ideology. That is, your average western female "student"...university makes them think they're intellectual and intelligent. No they're not...their brain is that of a chicken, to a man of intelligence.

I have some prejudice against women.

As I grew up I developed a deep voice and I came to think of this as an example of becoming an adult. My voice demonstrated that I was grown up. But then I noticed that females did not have deep voices and I too thought of them as children who had not grown up, and this became a very definite prejudice that resulted in me not taking anything that they said seriously. So their behaviour plays into this.

Females have a different culture of their own and I suspect that we look as stupid to them as they do to us. The feminist is then at the rebellious teenager stage of mentality? The problem with women taking things seriously is that when they do they come across as being mean. So you have the options of them being either being mean or being childish. It's rather like cats and dogs. Dogs seem normal but cats are nuts?

"Females have a different culture of their own and I suspect that we look as stupid to them as they do to us. "

if they do they're wrong. Simple. Females don't see things as they are, or at least it can't be proved that they do. In that sense reality is "subjective" and an opinion - but it's nto reality that is an opinion it's its PERCEPTION that is.

Whatever females think isn't the absolute truth and one is free to reject it.

Idiots don't considers those above them so. Dunning Kruger effect. So them thinking men are stupid is compatible with men being superior. The inferior seldom recognizes the superiority of the superior.

One of the problems is the relativistic language which has been based on practical considerations for example:

The sun rises, the sun sets. In fact neither is true as the Earth rotates, but we don't have a suitable way of expressing the rotation of the earth in the language which is as apt as the idea of the sun going down below the horizon or coming up from beneath the horizon. So we stick with the existing language although what it is describing is in fact untrue. It is relative to the viewpoint of the observer.

Now women need men, and men need women, and for the human race to continue to exist these needs must be met. Men and women have different roles. It is clear that women got the shit end of the stick, but that's too bad.

Reality is a practical thing often determined by death. Evolution will determine whose perception is correct. There are many dead optimistic motorcyclists for example, so it's better for these guys to be pessimistic and then live longer. I think that a materialistic view is required even with religion.

"Evolution will determine whose perception is correct."

That's where you're wrong. Darwin himself stated that it's not necessarely the best and "correct" who survive.

The "fittest" isn't superior...he just happened to survive out of the sheer RANDOMNESS of this world. No other reason. Having survived doesn't make him better. Perhaps the better ones died. There's more to life than surviving. Those who die sooner aren't inferior than those who live longer...give me a break. The truth is the precise opposite.

There is no success or losing in this world. Everyone loses at the time of death.

And all civilizations fall and everything stops existing. So everything loses in the end by that standards.

"Evolution will determine whose perception is correct."

No. The ones who survive aren't necessarely correct. Correct is correct period, inherent quality.

Right is still right when it loses, is not believed and not successful.

It's not the best who survive. That is the problem of the world. That idiots are "winning" in the sense that they overshadow intelligent people in number and end up having way more control than they should. This doesn't make them right and certainly not superior. Idiots are inferior in intelligence to intelligent people, period. Always have been and always will until they become more intelligent. There's no "winning" for them - they're idiots period, and anyone who respects them becuse they undeservedly win, is an idiot too.

Success is nothing. Means nothing. Worthless. What matters in life is BEING SUPERIOR.

Women are inferior, and obviously they think "having control on others" perhaps proves they're superior...no it does not. If they achieve control and leadership, it will mean idiots will have control and leadership. THERE IS NO WAY TO "PROVE SUPERIORITY" - it's OPINION and you can't force it on anyone. Each one of us will go with his discernment. To me, women are inferior and there is no way they can prove otherwise. If they win on me, I'll simpluy call it injustice. I only care about things being right and just, life isn't a race contrary to what most americans think out of mental retardation. LIFE ISN'T A RACE. There is nothing to win in life. It's fantasy. A fantasy women in feminism have. They think life is a race and having control and leadership means winning. It doesn't.

All cultures based on "competition" are childish. Such is modern western culture. Competition, competition. Call it with the right proper name: RAT RACE AND A WASTE OF TIME AND HUMAN POTENTIAL. There are better things to do in life, than "racing". Nothing is more pointless than racing, attempting to win over others, overcome others. One should compete solely with himself, try to better himself. Idiots only work to put others down and they call it winning. Again, they're idiots and they don't win anything but the fact they're idiots, noone can take that away from them. No matter how much they perceive themselves as winners or the whole world does, THEY STILL ARE WORTHLESS. Facts are RIGID. Absolutism is the truth. If an idiot thinks he won, then the reality is that he loses. Idiots are the anti-standard: if they think it, then it's wrong. Their perceptions have nothing to do with reality. You sometimes speak like if one thinks he won, if one is happy, then there is no criticism to be applied. False. Completely unrighteous.

Happiness is nothing but an absolute and total proof of inferiority and stupidity. Children have it, women have it in some way, but intelligent people are not "happy". happiness is another myth of contemporary society, like "success". It's all stupid american feelgoodness for the masses. The masses aren't the truth and aren't the winners, nor the best. The majority isn't "the best". The best is always an elite, of course. the idea that those who survive are "better" is completely wrong.

Things aren't like they should be. Society doesn't necessarely prize the best, and ignore the worst. Precisely the opposite happens today.

only absolute concepts of BEING INFERIOR and BEING superior matter. We should only discuss those and determine who ABSOLUTELY IS inferior and who is superior in ABSOLUTE. There exists objective truth on the matter like on anything else. I don't give a fucking shit if the majority thinks they're unsurpassable or if they win or survive. Life isn't a race, nor a game nor competition. I only care about absolute truth. ABSOLUTE ABSTRACT TRUTH IS THE ONLY THING THAT EXISTS. Everything else is inferior, and not true.

There are no winners, there exists nothing like "success", no concept is more empty and delusional, and relativistic.
Those who "win", do so ALWAYS TEMPORARELY, will indisputably get back to losing status in the future, and DO NOT PROVE SUPERIORITY BY WINNING. THE BEST DOESN'T NECESSARELY WIN, you speak like that is the case. That is an either naive or evil, unhonest thought - that is, you hate those who are inherently better, you are ENVIOUS, and want them to fail and make them think they're not better after all.

SUPERIOR IS SUPERIOR NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS.

Rich people are inferior to bums. All of them. Inherently inferior as human beings.

I only care about how things should be. I have no respect for idiots who win. They're my enemy. Successful, happy idiots are enemy no.1 of mankind.

Everything should be judged by its INHERENT superiority or inferiority of BEING...

possessions don't change the being. Noone is defined by the things he OWNS. One is what he is.

An ugly women pretty with make up is an ugly women pretty with make up. She's not pretty, she's ugly period and make up creates illusion. The reality is that she's ugly.

Success isn't value nor superiority. "Success" is irrelevant, a myth, and an obsession of a society of retards.

Intelligent people focus on value and being, not possessions, acquisitions and "success". Possessions and success are completely irrelevant. I judge everything and everyone by the inherent value of being. And then things can change. Something could be better yesterday and be worse today. Of course. But "things" do not change the situation.

Essence is what matters, everything else is superficiality. Superficiality doesn't define being.

"Now women need men, and men need women, and for the human race to continue to exist these needs must be met."

the purpose of life isn't surviving and making mankind survive. The purpose of life is that I become a God and you, being inferior, submit to my will. The purpose of life is making idiots suffer and making intelligent people reach a state of 24/24 orgasm and euphoria on the back of the existential pain and uncompromised living hell of the majority of the worthless. The worthless but exist, but only in pain. They must be in hell, and that's what they'll certainly achieve in the afterlife, no matter how much they think otherwise, how "successful" and "happy" they are in this life. THIS LIFE IS IRRELEVANT. The world is irrelevant, evolution is irrelevant. If there's something that defines who won and who has lost is the afterlife - never this world, which is RANDOM and low and not fair.

99,9% of people are worthless and below those who consider them worthless and below. 99,9% live their life like nothing beyond this world or universe can ever exist. They just obsess about happiness and comfort. Idiots. Thsi world is irrelevant and how you feel there is not the last word. Also your family and children are irrelevant. What matters is that after you die, you submit to the reality of what you ARE: inferior or superior to anything else.

Inferiority and superiority ARE THE ONLY METER ACCORDING TO WHICH EVERYTHING SHOULD BE JUDGED.

Anything that is inferior is to be despised, anything superior is to be worshipped. It's called being GODLY.

People are inferior and never, never they must receive ANY form of RESPECT. THE WHOLE UNIVERSE DESPISES MANKIND. Mankind is deluded. If they're happy - they're not - it's irrelevant. People don't define what is what. People are only idiots.

Anyone who considers them idiots is INDISPUTABLY their lord of right, and defines their destiny and decides what they are.

Anyone who doesn't DEEPLY HATE MOST PEOPLE, IS WORTHLESS.

On the one hand you only believe in absolute facts, but... on the other hand only the absolute facts of the afterlife count? The afterlife is not a fact as it hasn't really been proven? On top of that you have to live and then die to get to the afterlife, but if the human race ceased to exist then it wouldn't live thus wouldn't die and thus wouldn't reach the afterlife. Unless there is also a before life?

Evolution gets what evolution wants through testing the individual during that individuals life. Often it seems to favour low intelligence average individuals.

The key problem with this planet is that the cost of living is quite high and many species are competing for survival. As the dominant species we compete against one another. Governments in their greed like to try to make the cost of living even higher and have the population working as slaves. Their money is a requirement and therefore work is a requirement. Even gypsies are given money so that they can be controlled within this structure.

The world is very unjust and often very unfair.

God is an interesting subject. The blasphemy is that God is probably the Son not the Father, and the Father is most likely to be the Father of God (his son). The human brain must first become God like, and then in combination with other similarly charged brains form a hive mind of an even more powerful externalised God. So man creates God through religious practice, but the man himself must improve himself before a God can appear as a byproduct of the man.

So the world is very chaotic and is not how it is supposed to be. I myself, think that if we are required to work for a living, that this is a sign of a failed culture. In the modern world we work about five times more that we would have done in a more primitive world and over population makes the situation worse.

The problem with evolution is that it's best fit. A problem requires a specific solution and the creature that provides it gets to live, but on a different occasion a different problem will require some other answer and the group that survived last time gets wiped out this time. The survivor has to combine both strategies and the result is increased complexity - thus evolution. But it is BEST FIT, not the strongest nor the smartest, and on top of that it's dependent on the circumstances which is a factor based on the calendar - the actual timing.

Inferiority and superiority have to be measured through comparison - thus relative not absolute. As this is relative and in general practice what ever is superior, will always be replaced by something that is later discovered to be even better. There will always be someone greater and smarter than yourself. In a technical profession this is discovered very quickly. In practice you can never be the best for very long.

But... what practical strategies do you suggest? Have you found any practical solutions that can allow a person to become even more superior? Or what would the nature of such strategies be. Would they be physical or mental strategies? Would they be scientific or religious strategies? Would they be social strategies?

The hive mind concept is a very generous concept. The people who can power a God must also develop a control structure, a centre of intelligence. The most powerful brain might corral the hive as it were. The people would submit to the will of the God - but they would not submit because they would not be aware of it - it would be automatic co-ordination of their activities much like bees. The egotistical is automatically accounted for and measured within the power structure. Who ever is the strongest would tend to lead automatically. In this sense evolution may have an impact on who has the most powerful brain, so it is not irrelevant as you suggest.

Although other people may be worthless, again in the sense of a hive mind God form, they are still useful as they can contribute their mental capacity - and if they have less then their brains will have more surplus capacity and this means that in religious terms thick people are actually more useful than smart people and again you need both. They are also good at following religious practices and those practices could empower a God even if that God is external to themselves. So people are not worthless even though they may seem worthless to you. They have a use but you are not using them - your failure not theirs.

The inferior are to be used by the superior, so again they exist for a reason and they are not to be despised. I think given your belief in absolute facts that you should focus more on practical realisation. Useful practical techniques to enhance the human condition. Again test any practices on these worthless people.

"THE WHOLE UNIVERSE DESPISES MANKIND"

This for example is not "ABSOLUTE ABSTRACT TRUTH IS THE ONLY THING THAT EXISTS", in fact your suggestion is not proven? How do you know that this is so. In practice any aliens would be glad to find the earth with an organised population.

Again "THIS LIFE IS IRRELEVANT. The world is irrelevant, evolution is irrelevant." we don't know that this is true as it is not the "ABSOLUTE ABSTRACT TRUTH IS THE ONLY THING THAT EXISTS" that you are referring to. In fact life may have a purpose and therefore may not be irrelevant as you suggest. Just because you suggest this doesn't mean that it's automatically true - you may be mistaken? Do you have any evidence that proves that this is true?

You have made some suggestions about what I think:
"you hate those who are inherently better", untrue and it's hard to say why you thinks this.
"you are ENVIOUS", of what or who, again this is unclear and untrue.
"and want them to fail and make them think they're not better after all", failure is not helpful and they can think whatever they like (just as I can), so this would not serve me in any way thus it's also unclear why you think this?

What I respect is intelligence. I also favour efficiency and effectiveness. A robust grasp of factual data or a willingness to experiment and prove data accuracy. Some people can get results and these people are favoured. I am not envious of people who are superior as I can learn from such people.
 

It seems that women may develop some superiority to men through the use of technology, and even a well trained police dog may be superior to a male criminal (who isn't smart enough to shout "Good Dog" and throw the dog a bonio). So the question has been how to overcome this and various forms of technology have been considered.

The simple solution is alcohol. It seems to affect the cortex of the brain first, and it's clear that a male who is not drunk will definitely be superior to a female who is drunk. Provided that the male does not intentionally get the female drunk then there is some sympathy for the guy whose standing is so much greater than that of an alcoholic female.

In religious terms this solution would have to be viewed as slightly evil, but the evil is with the female not the male, and it's generally her choices that have placed her in an inferior position.