(Note: This is a follow-up to my article Men Make History, But Women Raise Boys to Manhood. I posted the article on r/JordanPeterson, and someone asked me to clarify. Below is an edited version of my reply.)
Historically speaking, there was a pervasive difference between male and female greatness, with the former being explicit and history making, and the latter being implicit and forgotten in the sands of time. In the present era that’s beginning to change, but I think the change is occurring only through brute-force effects that inadvertently trample all over the biological facts of human nature. Women who are feminine through and through, both in terms of physiological factors (e.g., hormone balance) and psychological factors (such as upbringing) don’t usually strive for the explicit leadership positions that have for the majority history characterized male-style power. They simply don’t care. They want to lend their support to a man who competes for the attainment of such positions, while raising competent children.
(Note: This article is an edited combination of three different comments I originally wrote on Reddit.)
It’s one of the best-kept secrets of polite society that non-monogamous sex when done with Epicurean mastery can be a deeply profound and mutually satisfying activity. There’s no necessary contradiction between engaging in promiscuous behavior and keeping one’s dignity, humanity, and discipline.
(Note: This is an edited version of a sequence of two comments I posted on Reddit.)
It seems that two of the major goals of feminism are (1) to pressure women to be more like men, and (2) to make women less dependent on men even if they would be happier if they were dependent in some way, such as financially. If the objective of feminism was to empower women to make any choice they desire, then the feminists wouldn’t spend so much time and energy leveling social pressure against women who decide by their own free will to follow traditional gender roles, by acting like they’re unsophisticated airheads with nothing to offer to the world, brainwashed victims to be pitied, and so on. It’s quite a revelation to realize that many manifestations of feminism aren’t about giving women the freedom to make whatever peaceful choices they want, but rather employing underhanded tactics to systematically convert women into poor versions of men. They’ve mastered the Dark Arts tactic of coming off as compassionate when they’re really just attempting to shove their toxic ideology down other’s throats. When they say that it’s sad that certain populations of women are still controlled by the patriarchy (e.g., Japanese women), their actual meaning is that they’re frustrated that such women have used their free choice to remain within comparatively traditional social arrangements.
(Note: This is an edited version of a comment I originally posted on Reddit.)
Biologically speaking men and women are different, and as a result they have different strengths and weaknesses, comparative advantages and comparative disadvantages. A woman would never be as effective of a man as an actual man, and a man can never be as good of a woman as an actual woman, when controlled for something that we could perhaps loosely refer to as “status”. For example, there are plenty of women who without breaking a sweat can defeat almost all of the world’s male players at tennis. But when you compare a man and a woman at a similar social status (e.g., D1, professional), you find that the man is in every single case lightyears better. Sports are, with almost no exceptions, something that biologically speaking men are simply better at. There are a lot of top female players who are clearly as successful as they are because they have an unusually masculine hormone balance, and in that sense they’ve gotten to the top of that particular female-exclusive hierarchy because they’re more like men than most of the women who are also competing. But they’ll never be as good at being men as they would be if they were actually biologically male.
People tend to simply take for granted that one can swallow a pill and then have that pill produce major psychological effects (e.g., anti-depressants). If food in general didn’t have at least subtle mental effects, why would the body be set up such that putting something in one’s stomach with a particular physical makeup can cause one to feel and behave in significantly different way? If you imagine engineering a living being from scratch, virtually every single way of structuring the begin wouldn’t involve it then being able to change its psychological parameters by putting a physical object into the part of its body designed to digest physical objects into fuel for movement and building blocks for repairing itself. When seeing this subject with fresh eyes, it seems quite striking to realize: ‘Wait a minute, why would the section of the body built to extract fuel and nutrients from physical things found in the environment double as a space where substances can be placed that re-program its cognition? A self-driving car may use a certain substance within its AI system as part of how it makes choices, but of course that doesn’t seem to imply even for a moment that chucking that same type of substance into its gas tank would have literally any effect at all on the way it makes driving decisions.
(Note: I originally wrote part of this as a Reddit comment which can be found here.)
To begin with one of the most actionable conclusions, I would say that the fundamental mechanism underlying the modern cancer epidemic (though not every type of cancer in every situation) is a deficiency of fasting. Within the ancestral environment, we can imagine that humans had fasting forced upon them on a regular basis, due to the difficulty of hunting and gathering. When a certain behavior is consistently imposed upon a species by unchanging external forces, even if that behavior is vital there’s simply no need to build into the organism’s psychology a ‘taste’ for the activity. We crave food because otherwise we wouldn’t take the trouble to find food and consume it, and we crave sex because otherwise we wouldn’t reproduce. But we don’t crave fasting because in the ancestral environment not craving it didn’t make it so it didn’t do it, as it was forced upon us by the environment. Although it’s of course fortunate in many ways that humans have a surplus of food at this point in history, this evolutionarily novel environmental condition has the harmful effect of leading to humans almost never fasting, despite fasting being the only way that a certain very important healing system is turned on—a healing system which, among other things, handles deep cellular clean-up, or in other words the removal of cancerous cells and other damaged structures.
On Reddit, a user asked why someone may want to learn only one or two languages, rather than learning “a bunch of languages”. This is a more pertinent question than it might appear at first glance, since many people in the language-learning community dream of becoming ‘polyglots’, and many are indecisive about which language(s) to learn, leading to dabbling in many of languages instead of mastering a manageable number (usually one or two).