As a sort of little corrective warning before some could become unthinkingly reactive, as often the case with my articles, I will place the gist of it firstly: Linguistics can overlap with logic, but the entirety of it is not completely. Mathematics is a form of logic. Emanating from such logic are branches that are related to it, which can be also in linguistic format & various symbols. Linguistics is not necessarily truthful. You can be an intellectual & use lots of words yet not be intelligent.
This is not proclaiming to be a technical article. It’s quite the opposite actually. The point is to use essential condensed generalities from a technical source – a means of bringing what is too hard in a transliterated way – to simplify for those not versed in sciences to reduce confusion, that is the common narrative of the popular. You can talk about what the trends & projections of what the common dictates all you want, but until you actually start to establish the organic cores, you won’t have a real understanding, & that’s why there’s so many confused memes being circulated – complicated, but not in a good way, & femininity has a tendency to present itself in this same way of making their complexities seem sophisticated. It’s not that kind of complexity. It’s the kind of a thousand yarns tied in knots in a vacuum cleaner’s dust bag. There’s a lot of politics & opinions, etc., that sounds & appears better, but it’s just poor.
One of the most important figures of neuroscience is V.S. Ramachandran. I will emphasize the importance of his science in conjunction to the war realists have with the opposition, like feminists, & even people proclaiming anti-feminism yet still ruining realism, with a great short quote of his:
“Denial is a very common phenomena in human nature. You know that half the human race is in denial about their stupidity?” – V.S. Ramachandran. Source: from a recorded lecture he gave entitled: ‘40/40 Vision Lecture: Neurology & The Passion For Art’. Just click forward to 1:18:40.
His editor-ship in chief of ‘The Encyclopedia Of The Human Brain’ marks it as an essential tool for anyone seriously concerned with using the core of realism to fend deceptions & unreliable aspects. From page 301 of that encyclopedia, there is a section on sex differences in cognition, which concludes in a general duality, which is, emphatic, much needed to base the more abstract analysis, that males do better on tests of visuospatial skills & mathematical reasoning. Females generally score better on language tests. The opposition doesn’t even have the plain generalities, so it’s mostly incoherent due to nothing to use as a base from. This lack of rudimentary facts is a major problem when you consider that feminists & the like, being driven by this cunning tendency of articulation, will steer the narrative with a massive amount of lies, opinions, & just spanned narrative to degrade truth. I have even been shamed before from the opposition, I joke you not, that I resemble more of a “whimp” – that is a natural tactic of the feminine – because I’m, due to adopting methods to defeat the enemy by knowing my enemy, skilled in verbosity. Because females are more clever with language, with their fake intelligence, they miss the point of plainer language of males, sometimes even just purposely playing dumb, & try to alter the dialogue by fixating on detail of less importance, or by being relentless to a minor imprecision.
Now that the base is supportive, the following is the abstractions, or what they would call internalized misogyny – trying to make a vogue conclusion sound more sophisticated with “internalized” – in terse, blunt, masculine wording, rather than excessive, feminine poetry:
It’s intrinsic that males are visual creatures. Consider the pornography males indulge in: Videos & photographs, hence it being more bodily fetishistic. Females place more emphasis on erotica in novels. Masculine Fetishes generally involve body parts, posing, & objects, while feminine fantasies generally involve more role-playing & extra drama. Actually, there needs to be some specification: I read in a psychology book a long time ago that the original root meaning of a fetish is an object regarded importantly. So we might be, perhaps, applying a slightly imprecise context. Regardless, m. & f. sexuality is different. Don’t listen to what females will tell you about what male sexuality is because it will only be a subjective extrapolation. Males have a tendency to seek objects & treat them like a muse. When his female companion requests: “Honey, take me to the sale”. A similar scenario is: “But there’s a car modeling show on at 3:00 p.m..” Males are quite literally objectifying, & there’s nothing wrong with that, especially in comparison to females’ tendency to cause what is unnecessary. Simon Baron Cohen’s ‘The Essential Differences’ defines that a “more masculine brain”, or what is often influenced by feminine interpretations to be described as a “man-child’, means that you probably have a large collection of baseball cards.
Females are very crafty with language. Paul Julius Mobius – an 1800th century neurologist – already knew that females lie, take statements out of context, gossip, use ad hominems, manipulate, conspire, use plausible deniability, use decorative dialogue, use cognitive dissonance, opine, & have a lack of far-ranging, profound conclusions – just “cocaine” infused attention grabbing, at a time when those understandings were not influenced by the fact that females will write something for a t.v. show to insinuate a feminist agenda. They’ll write word-mazes, but they won’t produce dictionaries.
Unfortunately, with a lot of science, you get a lot of “synthetic” analysis, so, yes, it’s superior to much amateur info. or the info. given by the humanities & liberal arts, but science is a very rigorous thing. It’s a process. That’s the price you pay for absolute truth – a lengthening of time that requires much patients & diligence, which is what the feminine verbosity, which is a large sector that influences the humanities departments, tends to ruin. Males sacrifice & remain objective to make the world more functional, as stated in their inclination for mathematical type of reasoning, hence technology, etc.. Mathematics does not give entertainment. It’s boring. Linguistics does though, & females instinctively take advantage of these ideations. While the humble cognition of males lacks the same kind of “power” over others, females have just lounged & complained throughout history with their “better” mind control.
In summation: masculinity is defined by a characteristic of humble logic, from the most basic aspects of logic, all the way to the higher technicalities, generally, while femininity is generally defined by a characteristic of drama, & that drama influencing the humble logic of masculinity. Sure, females are often more “philosophical”, if you’ll allow me to degrade that word, but it doesn’t derive truth. It’s not insightful, logical, or coherent. It’s just “small” (too big) talk, kind of like in the way that some will hype themselves by being belligerent & fashion experts.
Males implemented language methodologically. Females warped it.
Thank you science via masculinity for fixing after the “storm” of femininity by setting the fundamentals for what is obvious & often on many peoples’ minds but do not say.
Do not mistake me for trying to persuade females to become more rational. That only has detrimental effects. What we should do is the apposite – keep them as simple & pleasant as possible.