Women have wildly different interests than men

[aurum]

12 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

This would be a balanced, accurate generalisation imo

Difficult to actually address the topic. I feel a 'general truth' is a way to assert a fixed essence or pattern to something inherently varied - almost an oxymoron: we are trying to squeeze infinite diversity into a tidy box and slap truth on it.

So I think this balanced generalisation hits harder.

Boxslappers.org forum 

[aurum]

8 hours ago, Emerald said:

It isn't that woman are conditioned to go for lower paying careers. It's that the careers that women naturally gravitate towards are devalued and underpaid because Femininity is culturally viewed as inferior to Masculinity.

It's viewed as inferior because femininity generally offers less survival value than masculinity in the workplace.

That's the beauty, innocence, and naivety of it.

It's also why women can feel like they have to squelch their femininity to compete at work.

[Vali2003]

@Natasha Tori Maru @Joshe

Glad it resonated 

[Emerald]

2 hours ago, aurum said:

It's viewed as inferior because femininity generally offers less survival value than masculinity in the workplace.

That's the beauty, innocence, and naivety of it.

It's also why women can feel like they have to squelch their femininity to compete at work.

I can't think of very many careers that offer more survival value than childcare and nursing.

[Schizophonia]

On 10/08/2025 at 6:49 PM, theleelajoker said:

OK I am not familiar with these terminologies, and even after some research I am still not sure. Will give it a try with paraphrasing to see if I get it: 

1. You want X --> you take action --> all good, a least you do what you can. 

2. You want X --> Instead of action -->  accepting not doing anything --> you feel your emotions of not having / not going for X as in 1. 

3. You want X --> Instead of action --> rumination, victimization --> you transfer your discomfort to sth outside, sth symbolic --> not feeling your emotions, at least you have something on the outside to give responsibility to

---> you do 3. because when you say it's on the outside, then its beyond your control. 

Scenarios 1 and 2 amount to the same thing: it's about feeling the emotion of failure, of lack (castration).
If you want to do something with your life, to move in a direction, you must automatically contemplate and digest the difference between your current self and your ideal self.

If you don't want to feel it, then you end up living life through defense mechanisms that protect you from it; this is neurosis.
To feel powerful and function in the sense of pleasure, you will regress to an archaic libidinal functioning called "anal sadism," (or oral, for hysterical people typically) where the phallus (not literally, not just lol, but the usual signifiers like a beautiful woman, a big car, sports activities, etc.) is substituted by "excrement."

What you call victimization and rumination in general is a false "scatophile" phallus. It's frustrating, but it protects you from castration anxiety (being humiliated, hurt, etc.); unconsciously, that's what it's all about.

On 10/08/2025 at 6:49 PM, theleelajoker said:

So far so good. Can you give a short definition of your understanding of "taking phallic position" and "castration anxiety"?  

The phallic position is the position used to fight castration.

Men are generally more "phalic" than women; that is, when a castration scenario presents itself (lack of money, lack of sex, drama, boredom, etc.), men will normally directly seek to suppress castration anxiety, passively (through acceptance) or actively (making a plan, being proactive).
Whereas women will remain passive and endure the anxiety, or preferentially transfer it onto a man.
In cases of poor Oedipus complex development, trauma, etc., a man may also chronically fail to adopt the phallic position, which will generally lead to passive and feminine behaviors and even fetishes in general (due to the weakness of phallic dynamics and regressive mechanisms).

Castration anxiety is the fear of losing power.
The phallus, as Lacan would describe it, is the ultimate signifier hidden behind the various objects of desire.
Someone who doesn't have the phallus is someone who doesn't have money and/or a woman and/or a PlayStation 4, etc.; what we consider the phallus to be is individual; it is the frustration that signals castration anxiety.

 

[Schizophonia]

On 10/08/2025 at 6:59 PM, Xonas Pitfall said:

@Schizophonia This sounds so interesting! Do you know why?

1. Are you essentially saying that the weaker or smaller you feel, the more you want feminine girls (girls who are also weaker, smaller, cuter, passive, and innocent)?

Yes, exactly.

Probably because when I (my ego) become small, "castrated" (of certain signifiers), well paradoxically I am dispossessed of castration anxiety, so there is no more "void" to fill.
I am once again "full of myself," even if it is anger/bad feelings.

Quote

1. What does "being empty" mean here?

It's a good question.

I would say that feeling empty is a sign that you don't want to seek the phallus, and probably what's behind this (unconsciously) is exaggerated castration anxiety.
And if your brain functions in a way that manages strong castration anxiety, even if it isn't felt because of defense mechanisms (hence the feeling of "emptiness"; I'm bored because I don't want to do things that make me happy, I don't make myself happy because in the end I'll be useless, I'll be humiliated, blah blah blah), well this will induce more feminine behavior, even fantasies.
Either you believe you have the phallus and will automatically, systematically take the dominant position; or you believe you are not phallic and you will tend to more or less project the phallus, instead of identifying with it.
Here we're talking about sex, but it's at all levels.

Quote

I like your reflectiveness and honesty.

Thanks my mouse.

Give a piece of Comté.

Edited August 14 by Schizophonia

[Joshe]

3 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

Either you believe you have the phallus and will automatically, systematically take the dominant position; or you believe you are not phallic and you will tend to more or less project the phallus, instead of identifying with it.

This seems legit. 

Edited August 14 by Joshe

[theleelajoker]

2 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

Scenarios 1 and 2 amount to the same thing: it's about feeling the emotion of failure, of lack (castration).
If you want to do something with your life, to move in a direction, you must automatically contemplate and digest the difference between your current self and your ideal self.

If you don't want to feel it, then you end up living life through defense mechanisms that protect you from it; this is neurosis.
To feel powerful and function in the sense of pleasure, you will regress to an archaic libidinal functioning called "anal sadism," (or oral, for hysterical people typically) where the phallus (not literally, not just lol, but the usual signifiers like a beautiful woman, a big car, sports activities, etc.) is substituted by "excrement."

What you call victimization and rumination in general is a false "scatophile" phallus. It's frustrating, but it protects you from castration anxiety (being humiliated, hurt, etc.); unconsciously, that's what it's all about.

The phallic position is the position used to fight castration.

Men are generally more "phalic" than women; that is, when a castration scenario presents itself (lack of money, lack of sex, drama, boredom, etc.), men will normally directly seek to suppress castration anxiety, passively (through acceptance) or actively (making a plan, being proactive).
Whereas women will remain passive and endure the anxiety, or preferentially transfer it onto a man.
In cases of poor Oedipus complex development, trauma, etc., a man may also chronically fail to adopt the phallic position, which will generally lead to passive and feminine behaviors and even fetishes in general (due to the weakness of phallic dynamics and regressive mechanisms).

Castration anxiety is the fear of losing power.
The phallus, as Lacan would describe it, is the ultimate signifier hidden behind the various objects of desire.
Someone who doesn't have the phallus is someone who doesn't have money and/or a woman and/or a PlayStation 4, etc.; what we consider the phallus to be is individual; it is the frustration that signals castration anxiety.

 

Thx man, appreciate it. 

Please correct if wrong: Thinking about it, and leaving all this phallic & castration terms aside, it comes down to:

1. Go for what you want (your desires) and either achieve it
2. Or accept that you want it, but don't have it now / can't achieve it now and feel the difference between ideal/actual self
3. Or change your desire (if possible)
4. No.3 is dangerous because of defense mechanisms; you might tell yourself you don't want it, but actually you want it without feeling difference ideal/actual self
5. Object of desire is individual (for some it's car, money, freedom, social impact etc etc)

My personal experience does not really fit this:

Quote

Men are generally more "phalic" than women; that is, when a castration scenario presents itself (lack of money, lack of sex, drama, boredom, etc.), men will normally directly seek to suppress castration anxiety, passively (through acceptance) or actively (making a plan, being proactive).
Whereas women will remain passive and endure the anxiety, or preferentially transfer it onto a man.

Men suppress in my experience just differently. They might go actively for the outside object, but they neglect their inner state. Or they are equally anxious, they are just not in touch with them enough to notice.  The materially most successful men I know are deeply unaware of their inner states and extremely disconnected from their body. Same time, I have seen women that are very active, although I have seen the anxiety as well oc. 

As so often, it's IME much more personality type then gender. 

Edited August 14 by theleelajoker

[aurum]

13 hours ago, Emerald said:

I can't think of very many careers that offer more survival value than childcare and nursing.

[Alexop]

On 15/08/2025 at 8:30 AM, aurum said:

Edited August 17 by Alexop

[Alexop]

@Emerald no offense but it is pretty clear to me that you have some personal issue with this subject. Idk, maybe a macho guy hurt you or something. This level of closed mindedness is only given by a personal ego involvement all due respect, try and find the issue. 

Even if nobody said something about machos or some toxic masculine shit, you keep bringing it up. 

Edited August 17 by Alexop

[OBEler]

On 14.8.2025 at 4:44 PM, Emerald said:

I can't think of very many careers that offer more survival value than childcare and nursing.

In my mind there are so many careers with more survival values than childcare, it would be hard if you really mean that seriously.

Are women in general blind to the work men do? It seems to be so.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Mining, oil riggers, construction workers 

Most manual labour jobs - men are the backbone there.

I can see Emeralds point (I think both have equal value), but since I work in construction, I see the infrastructure and raw power that men physically have and what it has built.

And sustains.

[aurum]

Keep in mind my point about asymmetrical value was specifically about the workplace.

Femininity has unique advantages for dealing with children, which mostly still takes place at home or at school.

It's not a coincidence that the division of labor has been what it has been for so long.

Which is not to say women can't succeed in male-dominated fields. They obvious can and they do. But the point is they typically succeed by leaning into their masculinity, not their femininity. 

[Emerald]

14 hours ago, Alexop said:

@Emerald no offense but it is pretty clear to me that you have some personal issue with this subject. Idk, maybe a macho guy hurt you or something. This level of closed mindedness is only given by a personal ego involvement all due respect, try and find the issue. 

Even if nobody said something about machos or some toxic masculine shit, you keep bringing it up. 

I mean, macho guys can also get on my nerves when I've interacted with them in day-to-day life. Though I've never been close friends or had a romantic partner who was particularly macho, because of divergences in values.

So, I don't really associate macho men with pain and trauma. They're just a bit annoying sometimes because they can sometimes be a bit bone-headed.

But on this forum, I can't recall ever having any debates or disagreements with macho guys. There's really only a couple guys on here that I'd put anywhere near the macho category, and they're mostly pretty reasonable. They seem less likely to get in their head about women.

It's usually the "brain in a jar" nerdy guys who come up with all sorts of weird gender ideologies (in lieu of real experiences with women) who I end up debating with. And they tend to have particularly inaccurate views on women as they tend to see us as a totally alien species from themselves and are always trying to understand women through complex intellectual frameworks that exaggerate men's and women's general differences... rather than through direct experience where a common humanity can be directly recognized.

And it's difficult to reach them because they believe these ideologies are serving them, as it feels empowering to them in framing them as the stronger and superior ones. But these narratives don't serve them and are really just soothing their ego and holding them back from fulfilling experiences with women.

But then it's also annoying and genuinely scary from the female perspective because it's like having all these distortions and inaccuracies projected onto you, as it makes it impossible to be seen and understood. And common humanity gets overlooked. 

Men who have these projections tend to have an idealized notion of femaleness and Femininity that conceptualizes of women's nature as something that fundamentally exists to serve themselves and to exist in an inferior role to them. And they project their self-serving narratives right over top of the authentic things about women's personalities... and frames real female authenticity as somehow Masculine or as a sign of societal corruption or as a trauma response. 

It's like the idea that, "If society was operating like it should, women would be Feminine (in the way I define it) and would exist to serve men." So, it views the real humanity of women as an aberration and mistake that humanity is making rather than as a reflection of the ordinary human nature that has always been there.

And it aggravates ancient collective wounds because women have collectively suffered a lot because of the strange psychological projections and misunderstandings about women's nature. And that's because this projection phenomenon and the misunderstandings that it produces, has had such an insurmountable influence on culture and politics in a way that squelches women's capacity for authenticity, sovereignty, freedom, and personal expansion.

So, it feels genuinely politically unsafe when a man is really up in his head about women because he's doing nothing but shadow boxing. And it's a really common pattern... and not just one-off instances of ignorant arrogance.

And you can see how much these projections could lead to a loss of human rights for women. The way that we're going, I give it another 10-20 years before women's right to vote gets called back into question because of all these distorted notions people project onto women in order to try to "understand our nature".

You just might not necessarily see the political danger of these projections and intellectual narratives when they infect a society, as you feel that they won't affect you. And you may even assume that women will be better off anyway if these projections are applied... as you believe it's a movement towards a more accurate framework of female nature. (Hence the danger)

Consider how races and ethnic groups can be exploited, enslaved, tortured, and killed when another society projects over top of them... and uses those projections to justify their own terrible behaviors.

Remember that white slave owners projected onto black enslaved people that black people are not full people and therefore lack the capacity for self-governance... therefore white slave owners are doing something charitable by governing the enslaved people.

That's the unconsciously self-serving way that people operate when they have a collective interest in controlling and exploiting a people group.

So, if you consider men's collective interest in controlling and exploiting women for their own gain (especially when those men struggle with meeting women and getting a girlfriend), you will understand why I push back so much on the perspectives that I do.

So, it is the future collective political harm that I fear... not some upset feelings towards macho guys. It's not even remotely about relationship-related stuff.

[Carl-Richard]

7 minutes ago, Emerald said:

There's really only a couple guys on here that I'd put anywhere near the macho category, and they're mostly pretty reasonable. They seem less likely to get in their head about women.

[Emerald]

9 hours ago, aurum said:

Keep in mind my point about asymmetrical value was specifically about the workplace.

Femininity has unique advantages for dealing with children, which mostly still takes place at home or at school.

It's not a coincidence that the division of labor has been what it has been for so long.

Which is not to say women can't succeed in male-dominated fields. They obvious can and they do. But the point is they typically succeed by leaning into their masculinity, not their femininity. 

My point in relation to your previous post was that the Feminine itself is under-valued because society is polarized towards the Masculine-principle.

So, society views Masculinity as superior to Femininity. And that's the root cause of many of the problems in society... the biggest one being our relationship with the Earth itself.

We tend to operate off of a mind over matter paradigm, which doesn't have to do with gender but is very patriarchal in its valuation of the Masculine principle over the Feminine principle. And it causes us to value ideas and constructs over the planet itself.

That's why the idea that "We need more women in STEM" misses the entire point as it just reaffirms the idea that Masculinity is better than Femininity... as STEM is a Masculine principled career. It's just that many people who are more egalitarian-minded, believe that Masculinity and Femininity are pure social constructs... when there is an archetypal and energetic reality to that polarities that remain even if neutrality is projected over them.

And if STEM were suddenly to become a female dominated field and were perceived as Feminine in a societal sense, it would lose its prestige and pay... despite it being archetypally Masculine with its focus towards technology and hard sciences.

When there are careers that shift from male-dominated to female-dominated, those careers loses prestige and gets less pay. Like nursing used to be male-dominated and have more societal prestige and better pay. But now it's a female-dominated field and associated with Femininity. So, it has less prestige and pay.

Money is the way that society indicates that it values something. That is why anything Feminine or female-related will always be paid less and get less appreciation, until we are able to depolarize our valuation of both principles.

As a side note, I wonder how things will shift with AI replacing a lot of the Masculine-principled labor. I wonder if society will continue to push further and further into Masculine imbalance with AI (given that AI is hyper-Masculine principled)... or if AI will take the Masculine-principled burdens off our plates and behoove us to finally integrate the Feminine in lieu of those obligations.

It looks right now like it will be the former because these Masculine pursuits are mostly being used in pursuit of more polarization into Masculinity. But I can see how it could be used in a more integrative way. 

When the Masculine is more aligned, the Masculine is the polarity that builds the stage and context, while the Feminine is the play that takes place on that stage once the Masculine builds it. (like Teal Swan's idea of Masculine containment)

So, I could see a potential future scenario where humanity can re-integrate the Feminine when so much of the logistical Masculine principled "stage-building" work we have to do can be automated out.

And when you've been operating your whole life (and humanity for its entire history) off of obligation-mindset, it can be so difficult to answer the question, "What do I really want?"

But it would be a chaotic transition to that, as humanity has historically defined itself by its labor and obligations. And it could always go to hell in a hand basket in the transition over the coming generations, especially if it serves more and more of the same polarization.

Humanity hasn't fully built the container for the Feminine yet (but is getting close to the point of diminishing returns for tech innovations). So, it's an interesting prospect to ponder on to think about what a world would be like if the obligations and needs are squared away... and there is a room for discovering one's sovereignty (if we can actually use this technology in a way that serves integration instead of reinforcing polarization).

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

To be clear, I wasn't trying to take a jab. 

When I think of guys who are macho, I think of Joe Rogan and Hulk Hogan types. And I don't have any particular admiration towards that type of guy over other types of guys. So, when I say, "There aren't many macho guys on the forum"... it isn't reflective of a negative value judgment.

I literally mean that they just aren't Joe Rogan types... which to me is a values-neutral statement.

The majority of the guys I get into debates with are just average nerdy guys with particular ideas and ideologies about men and women.... not macho guys.

[Carl-Richard]

4 minutes ago, Emerald said:

When I think of guys who are macho, I think of Joe Rogan and Hulk Hogan types.

Balding people who lift 🫡

[Emerald]

Just now, Carl-Richard said:

Balding people who lift 🫡

Macho guys can also have hair. But they have to have a hyper-Masculine voice and personality, cocky swagger, and big bulky muscles.

But either way, that's just one type of guy.