Women are better hunter, science suggests

[BlessedLion]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

That's not a real solution.

That's a bandaid over a deeper problem.

You cannot understand Reality without empathy and no one can do it for you.

I have no problem with integrating your feminine side , I do it, I love my inner Goddess. 

At the same time, when I am dealing with a woman I understand the sexual dynamics going on and my role as the man. It's not some macho bullshit game, it's about regulating her nervous system and letting her be the woman in the dynamic. 

 

12 minutes ago, Alexop said:

This is bad advice. Just be normal, don't play macho and shit. Be fun, take initiative, work on body language, tonality, face expression eye contact

I have no interest in being buddies with women. The moment i started focusing on polarity i started getting more sex than i ever have in my life. The amount of sexual success I am having these days in absurd, Call it bad advice, but results are results and I am learning more and more the truth about women and what actually works, versus what they say or what we've been programmed with. 

[Alexop]

11 minutes ago, BlessedLion said:

 I have no interest in being buddies with women. The moment i started focusing on polarity i started getting more sex than i ever have in my life. The amount of sexual success I am having these days in absurd, Call it bad advice, but results are results and I am learning more and more the truth about women and what actually works, versus what they say or what we've been programmed with. 

Good for you buddy. Depends on which women we are talking about. They differ a lot nowadays. The Green women I want to attract actually are repelled by macho shit. 

[Inliytened1]

27 minutes ago, BlessedLion said:

Recently i've been meeting so many women (btw who have husbands and boyfriends) and complain to ME, sometimes only a few hours after meeting them about how there is no polarity or attraction in their relationship because the men are too emotional and clingy. The irony of course is that they pressure men to be emotional and vulnerable (not in a malicious way it's just how they connect) but this slowly turns them into mommy and dries up their attraction to him. Next thing you know they are talking to me about it. 

Haha. Precisely.  See. Women play games.  They don't say what they mean. And they don't mean what they say.  It took me way too long to realize that. But it's going against the grain for us.  We need things spelled out explicitly..while women can read between the lines.  So this is the game. And if you can play it well - you will emerge the victor. Now i saw you in a few videos and you were as handsome as a lion.  But that gets you only ao far. You have to understand them.  And it's not just that and you're done. You must be able to roll daily. 

Edited 7 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Alexop]

@Inliytened1 please do not turn the thread into a men's locker room. Good for you guys that you have lots of sex. Nobody cares.

Edited 7 hours ago by Alexop

[Leo Gura]

32 minutes ago, BlessedLion said:

I have no problem with integrating your feminine side , I do it, I love my inner Goddess. 

Well then, you have done what most men refuse to do.

[Emerald]

8 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

That's the rub.

External effectiveness comes at the cost of empathy and children.

This may be the most incorrect thing that you've said on this thread.

A woman need not be incompetent or lack survival skills to be a loving and caring mother.

In fact, women have historically always had to have skills in order to survive and contribute to the group throughout the entirety of human history.

Also, from personal experience... in my zones of genius, I'm highly competent.

But I'm also a very deeply feeling person. And I'm a very supportive and caring mother.

[Leo Gura]

2 minutes ago, Emerald said:

This may be the most incorrect thing that you've said on this thread.

A woman need not be incompetent or lack survival skills to be a loving and caring mother.

In fact, women have historically always had to have skills in order to survive and contribute to the group throughout the entirety of human history.

Also, from personal experience... in my zones of genius, I'm highly competent.

But I'm also a very deeply feeling person. And I'm a very supportive and caring mother.

You are not working in a warzone, on an oil rig, logging trees, laying bricks, or policing streets.

What I said is exactly correct, but a truth you have not yet considered.

You have a comfortable job made possible by men crawling through sewers.

Edited 6 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Inliytened1]

@Leo Gura actually they are. There isn't a a single thing a women isn't in that a man isn't.  It would be sexisr of us to say otherwise.

Edited 6 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Emerald]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

You are not working in a warzone, on an oil rig, logging trees, or laying bricks.

What I said is exactly correct, but a truth you have not yet considered.

You're moving the goalposts.

Your claim was: "External effectiveness comes at the cost of empathy and children." in reference to women

Your claim was NOT: 'Women who work in war zones and other very difficult jobs lose their capacity for empathy and childcare." (which is also a dubious claim)

[enchanted]

7 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You are not working in a warzone, on an oil rig, logging trees, laying bricks, or policing streets.

What I said is exactly correct, but a truth you have not yet considered.

You have a comfortable job made possible by men crawling through sewers.

Don't you know @Leo Guraonly women are allowed to have grievances on the way things are and about the opposite gender? If men complain it's toxic and automatically inaccurate. /S

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, Emerald said:

You're moving the goalposts.

Your claim was: "External effectiveness comes at the cost of empathy and children." in reference to women

Your claim was NOT: 'Women who work in war zones and other very difficult jobs lose their capacity for empathy and childcare." (which is also a dubious claim)

No.

My claim is the broadest possible: women have traded off physical effectiveness for maternal effectiveness.

That is the entire reason why femininity exists. If you deny that, you have no explanation for why femininity and masculinity evolved. They evolved for division of labor.

[Inliytened1]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

No.

My claim is the broadest possible: women have traded off physical effectiveness for maternal effectiveness.

That is the entire reason why femininity exists. If you deny that, you have no explanation for why femininity and masculinity evolved. They evolved for division of labor.

 

They didn't trade it off they are just maternal first. It doesn't mean they can't be otherwise.   Just like guys don't have to be brutes. I think you paint too broad of a brush.  That might be how we evolved evolution wise but we have rose above Darwin. Have we not?

[enchanted]

9 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

@Leo Gura actually they are. There isn't a a single thing a women isn't in that a man isn't.  It would be sexisr of us to say otherwise.

Women are pretty awesome and are more capable than we give them credit for.

But here's what modern day society forgets: the same thing can be said about men.

These labels often turn into a self fulfilling prophecy so we have to be careful what we say about each other and what we tell our kids. If we beat into our kids that men are inherently evil they might behave better but they will become demotivated and disenfranchised and stay at home playing video games and porn. 

Edited 6 hours ago by enchanted

[Leo Gura]

No. You guys do not understand how deep this issue goes.

You have no appreciation of how difficult survival is. You need to give live in the Middle Ages. You are taking survival for granted.

Edited 6 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Emerald]

5 hours ago, Alexop said:

One gender was specialized in creating and nurturing life, the other in taking away life. Baby nurturing activity is antithetical to the action of taking away a life. One requires max empathy and feelings, the other requires decoupling from empathy and feelings.

Tell that to all the agrarian farmer ladies that needed to regularly slaughter chickens (and other animals) on the farm.

Also tell that to wilderness-hardened nomad ladies who (even if they weren't hunters in some groups) always needed to be able to spear encroaching animals to death to protect the camp.

The only reason why women get to be nice and soft and nurturing today is because life is a lot easier to survive in. And there is more space for women (and men) to be connected to their Feminine side.

Honestly, if you interacted with women anytime before a few hundred years ago... you're going to find a toughness that just doesn't exist in industrial and post-industrial societies.

[Inliytened1]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

No. You guys do not understand how deep this issue goes.

You have no appreciation of how difficult survival is. You need to give live in the Middle Ages. You are taking survival for granted.

Its true.  A woman needs a man's brute strength.  That's  a fact.  But if they had our physical strength they wouldn't need us at all. 😀

[Leo Gura]

10 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Tell that to all the agrarian farmer ladies that needed to regularly slaughter chickens (and other animals) on the farm.

When your farm ladies were butchering chickens, men were raping and pillaging castles and enslaving men.

Imagine climbing a castle wall and getting an arrow through your eye.

Today's women do not even understand the work men did. It would give you PTSD.

Edited 6 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Inliytened1]

5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

When your farm ladies were butchering chickens, men were raping and pillaging castles and enslaving men.

Imagine an arrow through your eye.

Bro. Women were as tough in the middle ages.  Probably tougher than we were.  You're way off.  The only thing you have going is a man's physical strength.

[Leo Gura]

2 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Bro. Women were as tough in the middle ages.  Probably tougher than we were. 

That wasn't my point. You are comparing apples and oranges.

Compare men and women from the same era.

Your thinking is sloppy, guys. Wise up.

Edited 6 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Emerald]

5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

No.

My claim is the broadest possible: women have traded off physical effectiveness for maternal effectiveness.

That is the entire reason why femininity exists. If you deny that, you have no explanation for why femininity and masculinity evolved. They evolved for division of labor.

This is also a new claim.

Which claim are you actually arguing...

Claim 1: "Women have traded off physical effectiveness for maternal effectiveness."

If this is your claim, what does "physical effectiveness" mean?

Is it about women's lesser speed and strength compared to men. If so, I don't understand why it follows that women being slower and weaker is directly related to being better and more empathetic moms.

I'm sure there are some fast and strong women who are great moms... and some slow and weak women who are terrible moms. And there probably isn't any correlations to be drawn... like "Slower, weaker moms are usually better at mothering."

So, I'm assuming that men evolved an extra dose of muscle and speed because of the nomadic roles they needed to play... as opposed to women evolving weakness and ineffectiveness to make them better mothers. (especially since nomadic women had to be strong and highly effective just to survive in the wilderness)

Claim 2: "External effectiveness comes at the cost of empathy and children."

External effectiveness implies that women who have skills and talents at anything at all are worse moms than moms who are less competent and effective in their work.

Basically, this equates capability with bad mothering... and incapability with good mothering.

But again, I see no such correlation.

I'm great at what I do. But (if I say so myself) I'm a very caring and empathetic mother. Softness is an inextricable part of my nature.

Claim 3: 'Women who work in war zones and other very difficult jobs lose their capacity for empathy and childcare."

This one's still a dubious claim, as it implies that working these jobs will fundamentally change a woman's temperament and personality.

Though, I understand that being in a setting that requires toughness, can cause you to become stressed and to get very contracted around logistics.

But honestly... is working on an oil rig or lumber yard actually anywhere near as difficult as surviving in the wilderness as a nomadic woman? I think not.

The reality is that modern women are about as soft and empathetic as women have ever been (even women on oil rigs or construction)... because survival is easier. And the Feminine thrives when survival is easier.