Detached thoughts on women.

The following was originally posted on my private wall on Facebook, but I figured it to be good enough to be shared. I have a lot of thoughts regarding the “Woman Question”, some that are probably greatly unorthodox compared to common takes. I might share more on this over time, though since speaking of women inevitably leads to speaking of men, it will probably be more generalised towards both sexes.

Generally speaking, women are more “politically forgivable”, so to speak, because they are born with an instinct to preserve stability in their lives, meaning women tend to prefer the status quo and will often take their worldview from an established authority (excepting usually a few singular issues due to personal experience with them). Obviously it is not universal to all women, but is generally the case.

Men, on the other hand, are not so forgivable. This instinct for them is not as strong and so generally their support for the status quo comes more from them being passive or active beneficiaries of the established order. The worldview of men is often their own, resulting in it typically being quite shallow for it relies primarily upon his experiences.

Of course, men are susceptible to being influenced by authority just like women, but his susceptibility is not because he intends to adopt the worldview as a woman generally does, but rather it’s by curating his environment in such a way that he is made to conclude in certain ways that authority influences him.

This is why men, on average, will have a shallower worldview compared to that of women, because women intuitively assimilate the worldview more totally, while men only do so according to what he is exposed.

Because of this shortcoming, it is necessary for men to grow through experience and learning, but owing to the way in which society has been structured, he is discouraged from doing so and instead he indulges in becoming a beneficiary of the status quo.

After posting this, I was asked several questions, to quote: “Why is a worldview more informed from personal experience shallower than imbibing established orthodoxies? Why is it that when the men are influenced by the same authorities to the same worldview as women, that men’s worldview is shallower? How does the stability instinct help women to understand an established worldview intuitively more easily than men?”

Women desire stability in their environment because stability is necessary for child-rearing. They will often suffer anxiety when significant change occurs, even if the change is towards the better, and this accounts for why it is often the case women will continue to cling to abusive partners (part of this is actualised via oxytocin). Politically, women are socially conservative – but conservative within the understanding that they always prefer the socially accepted and wishes to conserve its perpetuity over novel ways of thinking. So they are conservative in the sense they are conformist and promote conformity, rather than how we usually think of it politically.

This conservatism is logical when considered with the matter I started with, child-rearing. Common to many community-forming animals is an instinct to preserve the female sex by virtue of the fact it is females who caretake and feed the children, something males can’t do. It is especially worth remembering children are first breast fed and can’t be fed normal food, so in very early human history death of the mother would usually mean death of the child depending how old they are as men can’t breast feed. This was resolved through communal wet nursing of course, but the need to preserve the community’s women in general still applied.

This is usually considered from the perspective of men having an instinct to preserve women, but consideration of how this instinct might manifest in women is usually forgotten. It’s my view that both men and women possess this instinct in common, but naturally the expression of this instinct in women must manifest differently to how it does in men.

Consequently, this is where the instinct for stability comes in, along with a number of other behaviours that complement her self-preservation. One of them is her strong impressionability. One side of this strong impressionability is that, given it was generally for women to remain in safety while men engaged in adventuring, it was important that women were less critical in their reception of what they were told by men because for the vast majority of their history, they were not exposed to the same experiences (thus information) as men.

Men, though still impressionable to a degree, are not so open because they are historically the sex responsible for making critically informed decisions and acquiring knowledge (i.e. where to hunt, when to migrate elsewhere, being strategic, learning and applying skills, etc.). Being too impressionable throughout his life would make him susceptible to potentially unhelpful input, so he generally will judge new information given to him against his experiences.

As I have already said, women were denied these experiences for much of history, so they relied on men to inform their understanding. Further to this, social disagreement leads to tension between those in disagreement, a tension women seeking to preserve themselves can’t afford in an environment where being abandoned by your partner meant certain death. Consequently, women are inclined to prioritise the information, experiences, and beliefs their sexual partner imparts to them, sometimes even over their own experiences despite perhaps contradicting. This helps maintain stability and amicability.

This doesn’t necessarily mean women will suddenly have a change of mind in an instant; they will likely go along believing their partner is wrong, but regardless of them thinking this they are instinctually inclined to give a strong “benefit of the doubt” to their sexual partners even when thinking they are wrong. When women do express their difference of opinion and it is met with strong disagreement from their partner, they are most often compelled by anxiety to seek forgiveness from their partner even when they are most certainly in the right and they are strongly aware of this. This is a result of their instinct for preservation and stability and their hormonal makeup which complements it.

Now, to finalise by answering directly your questions. I did not say that a woman’s worldview is more informed, only that it has more depth. It can be completely ill-informed and erroneous, but it will nonetheless be more holistic and well-rounded because they were not solely responsible for its formulation. Arguably it is far more superior to formulate a worldview utilising experience and information verified to be true, i.e. the masculine method of worldview formulation, but the masculine method has the downside of resulting in superficiality if a man fails to be exposed to enough experience and information to form a coherent and holistic understanding.

The consequence of this is that women will generally have a more complex and holistic view than men, which is probably part to blame for why the recent idea of women being smarter than men arose. Men are also not universally capable of actually piecing together their experiences into a meaningful worldview, regardless of how many experiences or pieces of information they are exposed to. We can safely say that women’s ability to assimilate orthodoxy is far more universal among them by observing the IQ distribution of women against men; women have a very low standard deviation from the average, while men’s standard deviation is far higher.

So in regards to why men’s adoption of orthodoxy is shallower than women’s- I’d first clarify my meaning as I think it was misunderstood as being used in a kind of degrading way instead of descriptive since it was assumed I argued women were necessarily better informed, which was not my meaning. By shallow I mean truly in the descriptive sense of being shallow; there is less depth to their understanding of the worldview they hold, not knowing its inner complexities. It has taken in the façade but often neglects the interior, merely because to ask about the interior doesn’t come naturally to him. Women are more likely to apprehend the façade and at least some of the interior; not because they have interest in the interior but merely because their higher receptiveness has them absorb more of the orthodoxy than men.

Then to answer why women absorb this much better than men, the answer lies in the combination of their developed instincts for preserving the female sex, from which stems her receptiveness to imposed ideas and maintenance of the status quo for the sake of preserving herself (and other women too, though I won’t mention how* for the sake of not making this comment any longer than it already is).

Of course, this is all said when we are dealing with the sexes essentially. Sometimes women present masculine worldviews, other times men present feminine worldviews. It is a natural consequence of the fact we are both human, so share in common a lot. But overall, the rule can be applied against the average.

*For my explanation, see: Psychical collectivism and hierarchy in women.