Today we will try to find out how a man differs from a woman. Moreover, we will talk about behavior, characteristics of life, as well as psychology. External data will not be taken into account - it is already clear that we are all different from each other. But health, mental structure, as well as other aspects of life sometimes deserve attention. In general, the question of how people differ from each other is a very interesting thing. And when you have to look separately at a man and then at a woman, it’s difficult to distract from the topic. It would seem that we are all human - we have the same needs, instincts and desires. But the perception of the world is different. Moreover, it depends, for the most part, on gender. So what is the difference between a man and a woman? Humor often talks about “female logic,” for example. Or about differences in behavior. We will have to understand what causes such phenomena. Maybe this will teach you to understand each other better.
Chromosomes
It all starts at the biological level. The body receives all differences from each other at the moment of conception. It is when it becomes clear who is destined to be born - a boy or a girl - to a couple. How is a woman different from a man biologically?
This is not so difficult to understand. Firstly, gender characteristics. Women have a slightly different structure of the genital organs. This is noticeable to the naked eye. And thanks to this phenomenon, even before birth, in most cases it is possible to say for sure who will be born - a boy or a girl.
Secondly, the chromosome sets of men and women are different. As you know, there are many double chromosomes in the body. And these are the differences between boys and girls. Women have what are called X chromosomes. And men in the 23rd pair are Y chromosomes. What does it mean?
In biological terms, in girls the 23rd pair of chromosomes consists of XX, and in men - of XY. It is also worth noting that the egg always contains “X’s”, and the sperm always contains “X’s” and “I’s”. The gender of the child depends on the mixing of these chromosomes. But it’s not worth going deeper into this area. It is clear how a man differs from a woman at the biological level. But what next?
Opposites
It's not for nothing that they say that opposites attract each other. If you think about it carefully, this is indeed true. Why? The thing is that if you decide to find out how a man differs from a woman, you may notice that some are the complete opposite of others. And in every sense.
The very perception of the world between men and women is radically different from each other. For example, it is worth paying attention to the clarity of the information received. The ladies preserve it just fine. It’s not for nothing that girls are considered excellent gossips - they can convey information “through 10 hands” and at the same time preserve the truth of the meaning. True, they love to be cunning and get out.
But straightforwardness is a purely masculine trait. Guys, as a rule, are not used to storing details and unnecessary information in their brains. They express their thoughts directly, without hints. That is, “yes” is yes, “no” is no. And there are no deviations from these principles. So we can already say that a man and a woman are the complete opposite of each other. But this is precisely what brings them together.
How is a man different from a woman? 1.1. Man, woman and scientists
The first section of the chapter “How a man differs from a woman” from the book “The Unreal Man”
HOW IS A MAN DIFFERENT FROM A WOMAN?
Alexander Biryukov
(from the book "Unreal Man" )
1.1. Man, woman and scientists
We are all used to trusting science. Links to scientific journals, names of scientists, statistical calculations force us to accept information as fact. Actually, I myself trust it, if only because, as a scientist, I studied and am studying it. But there is a trap in this trust.
Throughout the existence of mankind, science has been dependent. This is a fact for almost all of its branches - with the exception of the exact sciences and some natural ones, such as astronomy, physics, and chemistry. I will not trace and retell the entire historical path of science; I will give only a few examples that will explain what I want to say.
In the Middle Ages, science depended on religion and was completely subordinate to it. Everything that did not correspond to religious dogmas was declared heresy. Only that which fit within the framework of church ideology had the right to exist. Can we trust the results of scientific research obtained using this approach? Only with very great caution.
In the Soviet Union, only that which did not contradict the party line had the right to be called science. Not only the humanities - even the natural sciences were obliged to be based on Marxist-Leninist ideology. And she argued that everything, from human behavior to plant reproduction, is influenced exclusively by social factors, while biology and heredity have no significance. This is how Lysenko’s works, Lepeshinskaya’s “theory of living matter” and other works appeared that were in line with Marxism-Leninism, but had nothing to do with the actual picture of the world. Critics of these theories, which were later refuted, were subject to repression.
A sad fate befell those sciences and teachings that, for whatever reason, did not correspond to Marxism-Leninism or – horror of horrors! - they contradicted him. They were immediately declared bourgeois, reactionary pseudoscience, obscurantism, and scientists who worked in these directions were subjected to repression. Were there any reliable articles in those days? Certainly. But they dissolved in a sea of theories of living matter.
At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries in Europe and the United States, there was a theory in scientific circles about the inferiority of blacks (and in the United States, also Indians). Of course, it was not true, but who cared if it was in line with the current policy?
In Nazi Germany, hundreds and thousands of scientists worked to find (more precisely, invent) “evidence” of the superiority of one race or nation over others. Any such “discovery” was applauded, and any refutation of the idea was considered a mistake. Were there scientists in Nazi Germany who were engaged not in subservience to the ruling party, but in unbiased science? Of course. But they were lost in the crowds of hired researchers. What does this have to do with modern times? The most direct thing is that absolutely nothing has changed since then. Science is still fulfilling ideological orders.
In the era of victorious “humanism” and “human rights,” pressure through repression went out of fashion. Nowadays this is considered barbaric. Physical repression has been replaced by economic and reputational pressure.
It just so happens that science (with the possible exception of purely applied science) is not a self-sufficient thing. It does not produce any finished product, and therefore does not have its own source of money. The result is that she is forced to ask for content from a third-party source. Meanwhile, money has this property - it is not given just like that. In return they demand a certain service. This rule is valid from the moment a person realized the fact of private property and material wealth, and will be valid as long as a person exists.
In simple terms, whoever pays calls the tune. Formally, all this is called charity, patronage of the arts, but, as Captain Zheglov said from the film “The meeting place cannot be changed,” “mercy is a priest’s word.” Believing in a kind philanthropist who throws billions of dollars down the drain is like believing in Santa Claus. Behind any “charity” there is the fulfillment of certain political and economic tasks. Therefore, it would be more correct to call such activities sponsorship.
Modern fundamental science and the humanities sit on a short leash of foundations and feed on grants. Grants are not given just like that: they are allocated for those scientific areas in which the foundation is interested, and tacitly imply obtaining results that would be useful to the foundation. Otherwise, what's the point of funding parasite scientists?
Let me give you an example. A very large part of the “scientific” articles devoted to research into the effectiveness of a particular drug is fabricated material. At least, this practice was common in the late 2000s - early 2010s. A pharmaceutical company is financially interested in a candidate, doctor of science, or even an academician. In three evenings, he writes an article stating that studies have been conducted on the effectiveness of the drug and its superiority over its competing analogues has been proven. The article, of course, is formatted according to all the rules of scientific research: here you have a representative sample, a blind research method, and formally correct statistical calculations. In general, an outwardly absolutely reliable looking article. Next, the pharmaceutical company financially interests the journal editor in the same way, and the “scientific” article, but in fact an advertising falsification, flaunts in the most respected scientific journals. I'm not suggesting that all drug articles are done this way. Many works are actually written on the basis of serious research. But what is their share among fakes? And how to distinguish one from the other? After all, neither the reputability of the magazine nor the fame of the author are a guarantee of quality. The abundance of custom-made articles and fakes makes one doubt any work of similar content.
Let's get straight to the point of the conversation. All major Western foundations now support feminism. We'll look at why they do this a little later. Their ideology is as follows: biologically a man and a woman are the same, all people are androgynous, socially a woman is superior to a man, while any man is either a real or potential aggressor. This justifies discrimination against men. Power and social influence should belong to a woman.
I do not touch upon politics, journalism and jurisprudence in this chapter - we are talking only about science. And it is assigned the role of an “evidence base” for the above-described ideology. Natural sciences must prove the biological identity of men and women and the normality of sexual perversions, while humanitarian ones must prove the social superiority of women over men. To obtain official results, foundations issue grants, and scientists are ready to work off the customer’s money. Researchers understand everything perfectly well - they are interested in producing results that correspond to the ideology of the fund, which the sponsor ultimately wants to see. Otherwise there will be no money - what fool would sponsor an ideological opponent?
Nobody hides the bias of science in favor of feminism. Hundreds of departments of women's sciences have been created, where articles on the desired topic with the desired results are quickly and formally reliably produced. But this applies not only to the humanities: natural scientists also want to eat. Moreover, this does not depend on the reputability of the research site: even the most respected teams sit on a short leash of grants. After all, people are essentially the same everywhere.
Therefore, when I read any modern article on the topic of gender, first of all, even before analyzing the results, I ask myself the question: whose money was used to carry out these studies? Who ordered the music here? I am absolutely sure that any current article on a similar topic, even published by the most reputable institutions, written by the most prominent scientists, published in the most respected journals, should be taken with extreme skepticism. Sift information through the finest sieve. This applies to neutral articles. If it is openly custom-made, laudatory, then you should not trust it, even if it is published in the most prestigious magazine. The editors of even the most prestigious magazines are people too, and almost any person can be seduced, if not by money, then by a lot of money.
Or just intimidate. If you, reader, believe that censorship is the lot of the old Stalinist times, then you are deeply mistaken. Censorship still exists today, including in science. The one who pays calls the tune. And he doesn’t need his music to be suddenly interrupted and another one to start. This is strictly monitored.
Everything that does not profess the above-described ideology, even if scientifically confirmed, is subject to censorship, which can take the form of scandals, public refusal to publish, or outright bullying. God forbid if you prove that a man is somehow superior to a woman or that being raised in homosexual families is harmful for children. This could be the end of your career, and you can be sure that your nerves will be pretty frayed.
There are countless examples of this. I will give a few for illustration. All of them are easily searched by search engines using keywords and are very widely covered in the media. I deliberately do not indicate specific sources so that the reader can use the specified data to find the source whose authority and completeness will satisfy him.
In 2012, Mark Regnerus, Doctor of Sociology, an associate professor at the University of Texas at Austin (USA), conducted a huge study of children raised in homosexual “families” and received shocking results. For example, it is reported that 25% of pupils of homosexual “parents” had or have sexually transmitted diseases (8% of heterosexuals). Up to 24% of adult children from same-sex “families” have recently planned suicide (of heterosexual families – 8%). 28% of people from lesbian “families” are unemployed (8% for children from heterosexual families).
Of course, there are many more results, and those who are interested can find them on the Internet. But this is not surprising. The reaction of the public, especially the scientific community, is surprising (or not?) When Mark Regnerus was preparing the findings for publication, he encountered aggression from LGBT activists. They demanded that the results of the study not be made public. The author was publicly, including in print, called a fraudster and a charlatan, and they demanded that he be fired from the University of Texas. Even many colleagues spoke out against Regnerus. This is the reaction to the truth when it goes against the “party line.” As a result, the university conducted an investigation that lasted several months. Regnerus was lucky: his article was published. And how many similar articles, under the pressure of the ruling feminist ideology, remain in the form of manuscripts?
In 2005, Harvard President Larry Summers, at a closed conference on the underrepresentation of women in science and business, summarized a number of scientific studies that prove that women, on average, achieve more modest results in science due to sex differences in the brain and higher nervous activity, rather than due to discrimination. In other words, a woman’s brain is “sharpened” for something else. He is no better or worse than a man's, just different.
I will repeat. President of Harvard. Analyzed. Scientific. Sources.
It would seem - what's special here? The scientist summarized the research results. If you have different results, then express them, discuss, prove your point of view.
What started here! The press was seething with indignation! How dare he say something that does not fit into the concept of the sameness of men and women?! How did he allow that the results of scientific works contradict sexual symbolism? This is wrong work! Ban and don't let go! Summers' colleagues erupted in furious "fucks." Everyone found it necessary to publicly accuse the professor of sexism. Summers' student Nancy Hopkins said with all the emotion of a woman: "It is very sad that all these talented young women at Harvard are led by a person with such a point of view." The press was full of articles condemning and accusing the professor.
Accusing of what? Let me remind you: the only thing is that he dared to quote scientific works that run counter to feminism and the concept of the biological sameness of the sexes.
Under pressure from this persecution, Summers was forced to resign as president of Harvard. His example is a lesson to others. If you don’t keep up with the ruling ideology, they will crush you. Moreover, the level does not matter. Even the most significant and respected scientific person can very quickly end his career if he opposes the ruling ideology.
Now imagine the editor of a scientific journal who is sent an article saying that yet another difference has been found between the male and female brains. Yes, he, remembering the fate of Summers, will throw the seditious article in the trash with horror. And he will look out the door to see if anyone saw him reading something forbidden. Even if the article is completely scientific, it will never be published.
This editor may be the head of a research group, laboratory, department, institute, or publishing house. Each of them is well aware that he can instantly repeat the fate of Summers if he does not think and speak “correctly.” Everyone remembers that thought crimes are punishable.
Do you think I'm joking? Am I exaggerating? Not at all!
In 2021, Theodore Hill and Sergei Tabachnikov wrote an article where they mathematically substantiated the greater variability of the male sex compared to the female. This statement in itself is not new at all. Vigen Geodakyan wrote about this back in the 1960s, and Hill and Tabachnikov simply substantiated this statement using mathematics. Moreover, they did everything strictly following the principles of scientific knowledge. One scientific journal agreed to publish the article.
It would seem - what is the problem? Since there is some scientifically proven biological fact, a law of nature, then we should accept it as a given. Not proven enough, do you have any doubts? Write a refutation. Justify from a scientific point of view why those scientists are wrong and you are right.
But it was not there. It turns out that the work is sexist, as representatives of the Women in Mathematics organization stated. The feminist community demanded that Tabachnikov exclude himself from the co-authors of the article. Then, under pressure from feminists, the National Science Foundation demanded that the mention of itself be removed from the article. Then the scientific journal refused to publish this work, also due to feminist pressure. Simply put, I was scared. Another magazine agreed, but three days later it also refused. Feminists and feminists intimidated the editorial board so much that a significant part of the staff threatened the editor with dismissal if the article was published. There were no justifications for the refusal, no scientific refutations.
Do you know the name of the job title of the man (a man, by the way, Nate Brown) who wrote menacing letters to magazines? “Chief Diversity and Equity Officer.” Justice! That is, intimidation, terror, aggressive censorship, scandals - this is “justice”. Truly, Orwell's Ministry of Happiness and the Ministry of Truth rolled into one.
Orwell is resting. Totalitarianism and the most severe censorship in their purest form are components of feminism. There are only two opinions: feminist and pseudoscientific. We will talk about the reasons for this in a later chapter. Let us understand that this is not a matter of secret orders or reptilians from Nibiru, but of ordinary human greed and thirst for power. That is, in animal instincts.
Are there few examples of ideological distortion of science? Please, at least a hundred servings.
The demand to divide the sciences (including the exact ones) into “female and male” has been heard for more than a decade. Thus, back in the 1990s, researcher Luce Irigaray argued that “the equation E = mc2 is a “sexist equation.” Because it puts the speed of light in a privileged position relative to other speeds in which we are vitally interested." She and another feminist, Katherine Hayles, demanded that physics be divided into “male” and “female” physics. This curiosity is described in Richard Dawkins's work, Postmodernism Unmasked.
Another “scientific” feminist, Whitney Stark, blames Newtonian physics for the oppression of women. Why? Yes, because this terrible physics divides creatures on the basis of binary and absolute differences. In her opinion, the division of beings into living and non-living creates hierarchy and exploitation, and this, in turn, is “part of the apparatus that makes oppression possible.” Based on this, Stark denounces Newtonian physics and demands that the “apparatus that allows oppression” be changed in favor of a “less oppressive” force.
I have one question, and it’s rhetorical: how can we call this dogmatized obscurantism, serving the political interests of feminism, science? Doesn’t the global scientific community understand that with such things it devalues science as such, turning it into quackery?
There are no “women’s/men’s sciences”, “European/African sciences”, “sciences for fat people” and “sciences for thin people”. There is one science - mathematics, one science - physics. One for all, all people. Science should work with facts, and not “scientifically confirm” someone’s political fabrications or “justify” the claims of power.
In July 2021, two female geologists demanded that the scientific community cite as few men as possible in their papers. According to feminist “scholars,” citing men “does a disservice to researchers and writers oppressed by white heteromasculinism.”
Feminists demand that scientists and their works be cited not by scientific significance, but by the gender of the author. A reasonable question is: what is the real scientific and practical value of such “science”? To what extent should she be trusted? How to respond to scientific works if they are assessed, reviewed, published, or mentioned not from the point of view of reliability, fundamental or applied significance, but from the point of view of the dominant ideology?
How does the gender of the researcher relate to science at all? Or do “scientific” feminists really don’t care about science, are they only interested in the dictatorship of their ideology? This seems to be the case in modern science. It is sad that aggressive feminist censorship, having practically corroded and destroyed the humanities, where it is no longer possible to distinguish real research from ideologically biased fakes, has moved to the natural sciences.
Does the scientific community understand that such actions radically and irrevocably undermine the authority of science and its credibility? Not to mention that all this strongly and very unpleasantly smacks of racism. Only racism is not based on skin color, but gender racism.
On February 17, 2021, at the University of Portland, biologist Hizard Haining questioned the concept of “gender” and said that the anatomy and physiology of men and women are different, regardless of subjective opinions on the matter. Captain Obvious, isn't it? No not like this. An indignant feminist stood up in the hall and started screaming. Haining was surprised by her reaction and said: “You may be offended, but it’s the truth. Men and women have different heights, different amounts of muscle mass, and store fat differently. And the brain works differently too.” But the feminist was supported by several other women, and they collectively smashed the audio system. The hooligans were taken out by the police. Leaving the hall, feminists accused the female biologist of fascism and said that she was “brainwashed.”
In the fall of 2021, Italian physicist Alessandro Strumia analyzed discrimination against men in science and presented a report in which he cited a number of facts confirming his thesis. In particular, he pointed out that in Italy women are offered discounts on education based on their gender, and these discounts are not available to men. And in Oxford, due to complaints from women, the length of exams was changed. This report caused the scientist to be accused of sexism. Strumia was removed from her position.
If the article does end up on the magazine pages, then only in one case. One must convince feminists that it is written exclusively in favor of feminism. The article on female sexual violence, “Sexual victimization perpetrated by women: Federal data reveals surprising prevalence,” contains several paragraphs (!) consisting entirely (!!!) of justifications for feminism and the belief that the article is directed exclusively against men. Apparently, they no longer remember that science should not be for or against someone. The book "The Blank Slate" (author Steven Pinker) contains several pages of apologies and justifications for feminism. This is understandable: it contains so much information refuting gender symbolism, showing the difference between a man and a woman, that a few paragraphs of apology will not be enough. The author also swears allegiance to feminist ideology. When I read these works, I could not get rid of associations with the “letters of repentance” that former Trotskyists and others arrested under Article 58 wrote to Stalin, renouncing “heresy” and swearing loyalty and love to the Leader. And there is also a strong association with sects, where you cannot think, reason, speak, write differently than according to the commandments of the leader.
For your book to be published under Soviet rule, it must fully comply with the ideas of Marxism and praise the Communist Party. For your article to be published now, it must be in the spirit of feminism and praise women or sexual perversion. Science turns from a search for truth into adjusting results to initially known and desired dogmas.
Do you doubt it? I propose to compare the events described above with what has already happened in history.
People's Commissar of Health N.A. Semashko pointed out: “The solution to the question of the relationship between biological and social factors in modern medicine is a litmus test that determines the Marxist or bourgeois formulation of basic medical problems.” Let me remind you that in those days the term “bourgeois” in relation to science meant “pseudoscientific”, hostile to “true science”.
In 1948, the editor-in-chief of the journal “Problems of Philosophy” B.M. was fired. Kedrov. This happened because the journal under his leadership “...did not take the correct positions regarding quantum mechanics,” which weakened “...the positions of materialism.” In what ways did Kedrov move away from the “correct positions”? The fact that M.A. published the article. Markov on quantum mechanics, which at that time was considered a pseudoscience. In addition, Markov’s article “...was a departure from dialectical materialism in the direction of idealism and agnosticism.” Markov himself was also persecuted. Thus, if science “weakens the position” of materialism (communism, feminism), it is quickly recognized as pseudoscience.
Geneticist S.S. Chetverikov was arrested after lengthy attacks in the press and a final article in Komsomolskaya Pravda, “The Class Enemy in Scientific Institutions.” The authors of the article demanded that the People's Commissariat of Health dismiss Chetverikov from the institute because his positions do not correspond to Marxism. As a result, Chetverikov was not only fired, but also arrested. Conclusion: if your positions do not correspond to Marxism (communism, feminism), then you are a false scientist.
Geneticist N.I. Vavilov was arrested because the results of his scientific activities were nothing more than “Weismannism-Morganism” and “fascist science.” It turns out that Marxism argued that all the characteristics of a living being depend not on heredity, but solely on the conditions in which the organism exists (the well-known thesis “being determines consciousness”). Vavilov dared to assert that many traits are encoded by genes and - oh horror! - are passed on by inheritance! Vavilov died in prison. His colleague I.I. Agol was shot.
Meanwhile, Trofim Lysenko, head of the All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences of the USSR, at whose instigation geneticists were repressed, and the science itself was declared “bourgeois” (i.e., pseudoscientific), without a hint of a smile, stated at a meeting at the USSR Academy of Sciences:
“Now a large amount of factual material has already been accumulated indicating that rye can be generated by wheat, and different types of wheat can generate rye. The same types of wheat can produce barley. Rye can also give rise to wheat. Oats can give rise to wild oats, etc.”
(“On the works of O.B. Lepeshinskaya, a full member of the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences”).
Yes, this man, who believed that wheat gives rise to rye, headed the entire Soviet agricultural science, and his illiterate inventions were published in the most serious scientific journals of the country.
Why do I compare current articles with the works of “scientists” of the Middle Ages or Soviet “scientists”, who hammered religious dogma or Marxism with a sledgehammer, respectively, wherever possible? It would seem, how to compare scientific works from reputable modern publications and those outright profanities that were produced for the needs of the ruling ideology?
So the trouble is that only now, after tens and hundreds of years, we call them profanations. And they were presented to contemporaries precisely as science. Very respected people with academic degrees, professors, academicians worked on them. It is precisely what we call fake decades later that was considered the only possible, official science, just as now the idea of the biological sameness of men and women (sexual symbolism) is considered the only true one. Works that have now been refuted and long ago recognized as fictitious nonsense were published in very reputable journals of those years. Scientists were obliged to accept them as proven truth. Ideologically correct works were compulsorily studied in universities and even schools. That nonsense of Lysenko that rye grows on wheat was considered science in its ultimate instance. Those who doubted, or even more so their opponents, were threatened with punishment. In the same way, she now threatens those who dare to say that after all, a man and a woman are different from each other. Ostracism, accusations of political incorrectness and sexism are guaranteed. Your science should not go beyond the ruling ideology. And even more so, she has no right to contradict the ideas of those funds whose money you feed on.
I would not be surprised if in 100 years all these “ideologically correct” theories will be refuted, just as Lysenkoism was refuted. It has been refuted not even by science, but by life itself - playing with nature ruins those who play too hard. However, now “reliability of sources” and “respect of authors” outweigh even common sense.
As proof of falsifications in science, here is the story of 2021, when three scientists decided to “test the strength” of serious science. James Lindsay, Peter Bogosian and Helen Pluckrose. They wrote 20 “scientific papers” and sent them to reputable scientific journals. I repeat, absolutely all 20 articles were completely fictitious, that is, not supported by any real research.
Three “science trolls” admitted: “Sometimes we just came up with a crazy or inhumane idea and ran with it.” In one article they suggested training men like dogs to prevent rape. In another, they called astronomy a sexist science. The third accused men of sexual assault who imagine women naked in their fantasies. Finally, “scientific trolls” rewrote a chapter from Mein Kampf in feminist language. They sent all this nonsense to the editorial boards of scientific journals.
Do you think the articles were rejected as pseudoscience? Not at all! By the time the three mischief-makers decided to admit to trolling, seven articles had been accepted for publication, and four of them had been published. The remaining three were under review. Two more were returned for corrections. That is, the editorial board agreed with the essence of the matter; cosmetic changes were required. From 4 editorial offices, scientists received invitations to become reviewers in these journals. And one article received special recognition for excellence in feminist geography. Yes, this also happens, along with feminist mathematics, physics, and astronomy.
As I already wrote, our “scientific trolls” could not withstand remorse and themselves admitted to their mischief. Of course, this infuriated the scientific world and especially the journals. But this fury is reminiscent of the saying “there is no point in blaming the mirror if your face is crooked.” Three scientists have proven that so-called scientific journals are very respected! – they will publish any nonsense, as long as it supports the line of feminism.
Alas, friends, in this situation, I cannot take “authoritative” articles in “reputable” magazines on faith and I do not advise you to. Common sense doesn't allow it. Only after extremely careful checking, first of all with the help of common sense. *** Because of all this, exploring the physiological differences between men and women is not an easy task. The fact is that there are extremely few sources that you can trust. In Russia, such studies are almost never carried out, and if they are carried out, they are also infected with feminism. Westerners have to be treated with great doubt, since they are under the special pressure of political correctness. “About a woman as a dead person: either good or nothing” - this is the motto of modern “scientific” research. If it suddenly turns out that a man is ahead of a woman in some parameter, then such work will face a lot of obstacles on the way to publication. I know firsthand - fortunately, I have a lot of colleagues (scientists and doctors) all over the world. Departments of “women’s sciences” strictly ensure that a man on the pages of journals or dissertations does not suddenly outstrip a woman in anything, be it mathematical abilities or reaction speed. Ideally, of course, there is complete equality, identity between men and women, androgyny, but if suddenly a woman turns out to be “more equal,” then why not? Very good news. And very scientific, yes!
Now in the humanities (sociology, psychology) and even biology, gender symbolism is declared the only correct ideology - a doctrine that claims that a man and a woman are absolutely the same from any point of view, and gender and sexual differences are fiction. Consequences of education. If scientific work contradicts sexual symbolism, then such work is declared erroneous, harmful, chauvinistic.
Some “scientists” do not even hide their contempt for men and sexist views. On the contrary, they work hard for the ruling ideology, proving the superiority of women over men. They curry favor with their owners as best they can. For example, the American anthropologist E. Montague wrote the book “The Natural Superiority of Women.” The fact that the author of such a eulogy is a man is not at all surprising. Modern men are characterized by masochism and reverent fear of women. It is surprising that the authors call their works scientific. I can imagine what would have happened to the author (especially taking into account the experience of Mark Regnerus and other repressed scientists) if he had written a similar book, but about men.
Unfortunately, gender symbolism, feminist dictatorship and censorship are penetrating Russian science (or rather, they have already penetrated and are moving on a broad front). Especially in its humanitarian part. Fortunately, natural science, such as medicine, still remains within the framework of common sense, although there are already noticeable trends towards affirming the equality of the sexes and the superiority of women over men. Therefore, difficulty immediately arose with the selection of material. Reading foreign articles and seeing in the first lines the hosanna of the sameness of men and women, or even outright misogyny, I immediately understood what conclusion the results were tailored to. It was possible to find only a few dozen more or less neutral, at least externally, sources with relatively plausible material and research methods. Most of them are Soviet or Russian articles and monographs created in the 1970-2000s. I don’t think that the properties of the human body, which have remained almost unchanged for thousands of years, have changed dramatically in 10-20 years. However, there is a possibility that, using these particular works, I will neutralize the destructive influence of feminism on science.
However, let's move on to the subject of the chapter.
Continued here
Aspirations
Over time, the world changes. And so does the perception of it. But the patterns that have developed in the heads of women and men still remain at approximately the same level. That is, the aspirations and goals in life of both always remain the same. Yes, there are some deviations, but they are still not so significant and widespread in the modern world.
What is it about? Why are men different from women? For example, because of goals in life and aspirations. Men are leaders, providers. For them, as a rule, a huge role is played by their career, their own successes, and self-realization. But women are the keepers of the home. Every girl, even on a subconscious and unconscious level, will strive to start a family, a relationship, and have children. In other words, to realize yourself as a mother. Men, as already mentioned, give preference to career growth.
Yes, recently there has been a picture that completely turns the perception of the modern world upside down. That is, men and women are changing places more and more often. Often in families, the breadwinner is now the mother. And dad leaves his career and takes care of the house. A kind of role reversal. It can be considered a deviation for now. But in general, women and men still differ for the most part in their aspirations.
Brain
The brains of boys and girls deserve special attention. As strange as it may sound, the difference in this area is simply phenomenal. And not only on a psychological or biological level. We can say that in terms of “functionality” the brains of a girl and a boy are not the same.
What does it mean? How are women different from men? Evidence indicates that a guy can only focus on one task at a time. But the girl is on several at once. So to speak, women's brains are more functional and versatile in this regard. Therefore, you should not be surprised that a girl can cook, embroider, do laundry, talk on the phone, and do her own manicure at the same time, while a man at the same time does only one thing. The girl has more neuron fibers in her brain. That is why he is able to concentrate on several tasks at once.
Rivalry versus friendship
Men are interested in competition, dominance and the expression of individual characteristics, while women love to observe human relationships. For this reason, representatives of the fairer sex are characterized as gossips (although recent studies have shown that guys are not inferior to girls in this aspect).
Example : a husband watches football, and his wife wants to switch to a TV series or melodrama. Men are often accused of being thick-skinned and lacking emotion, citing their dislike of romantic films as evidence. In fact, they are no less emotional than women, but they are interested in their own, not other people's, emotions. They are absolutely not interested in watching the development of relationships between strangers - their psyche requires something more dynamic and active, which includes sports competitions and action films.
Alcohol
Another very interesting fact is the perception of alcohol. It's no secret that women hardly know how to drink. And it's not their fault. This is how the human body works. Have you ever wondered what is the difference between a man and a woman? Then take a closer look at one and the other - you will notice everything with the naked eye. You will see that all it takes for women is a little alcohol and they lose control of themselves.
All this can be explained at the biological level. When drinking alcohol, the body begins to produce special antibodies and enzymes. And it depends on them how quickly a person gets drunk. Men produce them better. Therefore, it is more difficult for them to get drunk.
Behavior
Our conversation continues. How is a man different from a woman? Psychology indicates that the difference between the first and second is enormous. She's literally everywhere. And not only at the biological level.
For example, the behavior of women and men is truly radically different. Girls are energetic individuals, flirts, those who are used to taking care of their appearance and health. One might say that a certain lightness is associated with them. Cunning, resourceful, they can perform several tasks at once.
But men seem more restrained, courageous, and strong. They concentrate on only one goal and go towards it until they achieve the desired result. They don't spend that much time on appearance. There are exceptions, but they are not very common.
So the behavior of men and women is really different. And this is where conflicts often arise between them. Solving them is almost useless - people’s psychology has not changed for many years.
Instant reaction versus adaptation
Representatives of the stronger sex know how to mobilize in critical situations, react correctly to them and quickly solve problems. The female psyche is a little late - they are scattered into small things and details, which does not contribute to a rational decision. At the same time, interference in completing tasks unsettles men, while girls quickly adapt to new conditions and look for optimal ways to avoid obstacles.
Example : a pipe burst in an apartment. If there is a flood in the house, the husband will quickly turn off the common tap and try to eliminate the breakdown on his own. The wife will begin to grab the phone, then rags, worry about the damaged furniture and the neighbors’ apartment below, which can aggravate the situation. If it is impossible to solve the problem immediately, the woman will figure out where to get water to wash the dishes and cook dinner, and the man will get into a bad mood due to the fact that he cannot take a shower, as he is used to doing every evening.
Despite the fact that the boundary between female and male psychology is quite vague, knowledge of the psychological characteristics of representatives of different sexes can improve mutual understanding and minimize the likelihood of conflicts.
Our channel: Yandex Zen
Conversations
It has been proven that men and women communicate in different languages. More precisely, their speech development differs from each other. This does not mean that women are more developed in this area and communicate better, far from it. We are talking about something a little different.
What exactly? How does a man differ from a woman in terms of speech? Because girls are more talkative. Their speech is better developed, they are talkative and open. But men are usually silent. “Chattering” and “scratching your tongue” without any meaning is not for them. A normal phenomenon that is very easy and simple to notice in modern life. Girls, on the other hand, are capable of “talking incessantly” for any reason and even without them.
Moment vs Eternity
The different psychology of men and women leaves an imprint not only on everyday situations, but also on love relationships. Representatives of the stronger sex live one day at a time, and sometimes one moment at a time - they are able to quickly become infatuated with a woman, after a few days they want intimacy, and after that they quickly cool down and repeat the cycle. Women are more constant in their affections - the process of courtship, the passage of each stage, and after that a wedding and family life in the spirit of “they lived happily ever after and died on the same day” are important to them.
Example : why doesn't he call me? The eternal women's problem - why a man doesn't call after the first meeting or a night together - is again associated with different attitudes to the situation. The guys do not draw any conclusions from what happened and do not make long-term plans - the evening was great, but today there are many other things that need to be done urgently. The woman, due to her psychology, develops a whole drama out of these events - she mentally selects a wedding dress and the name of her first child, and perceives the lack of calls as a painful collapse of her fantasies.
Observation
It is worth paying attention to such a feature as observation. It is different for boys and girls. Just like any other area of human life. It has been proven that women themselves are more observant. They tend to pay attention to details, to focus on all the details of a particular object. Men, on the other hand, perceive information as a whole; details, as a rule, are not as important to them as the true meaning of a thing.
Women under stress or some kind of emotional upheaval quickly lose their heads. And all their powers of observation disappear instantly. Men under stress, on the contrary, begin to behave more attentively. Here's a little thing that's worth paying attention to. After all, this is precisely why the upbringing of boys and girls should be different - excess stress makes a woman absent-minded, and a man - collected and organized. Of course, everything should be in moderation.
Love
Now is the time to pay attention to the two biggest problems of humanity - relationships and love. It is these directions that a guy and a girl will differ radically. Sometimes even too much. What is the difference between a man's love and a woman's love?
Feelings are important to a girl. She needs to understand that she is the one and only for her lover. A woman is guided by her feelings and heart when choosing a partner. She gives all of herself and devotes her life to a man. One might say, to some extent, he becomes completely attached to the person.
But men have a slightly different perception. They, as they say, “love with their eyes.” For them, a woman’s appearance and her certain qualities play a huge role. Feelings tend to be relegated to the background. If a girl in a relationship considers herself obligated and busy, then men often do not feel any such responsibility. And this becomes a huge problem that destroys even the most true love.
Relationship
Relationships, as already mentioned, are also problematic when studying men and women. Why? In principle, for the same reasons as in the case of love - the “device” is different for guys and girls. Due to this, even simple relationships are perceived differently.
A woman in a relationship is a busy person. She, as already mentioned, devotes herself to her beloved man. And accordingly, she tries with all her might to tie him to herself. You could say it suppresses freedom. Both yours and the man's. All this is done on a psychological level. After all, women are less protected; they try to find their support in the form of a man, and then not let go of it.
But guys, on the contrary, are freedom-loving. And they, for the most part, do not attach any special importance to relationships. And even more so, there can be no talk of any super-responsibility. Often a busy man considers himself completely free. But at the same time, his chosen one, in his opinion, is not one. In other words, a woman in a relationship is always busy, and a man is free. This is exactly what many people think. This leads to problems - the girl claims the freedom of her loved one, but he does not want to “cut his wings”. All this leads to the collapse of relationships.
Concrete versus abstract
Men's thinking is aimed at solving specific problems, and abstract concepts like “how do you feel” are of little interest to them. They do not understand hesitation and reflection if the way out of the situation lies on the surface (take it and do it). Women literally drown in their emotions and can think about solutions several times, which is why they can go down the wrong path.
Example : a wife talks about a problem, and the husband begins to get angry. Typically, women who talk about their problems do not expect advice, but sympathy and compassion. For men, this concept is too abstract, so in every similar situation they see a veiled request for help. If it is impossible to help through action, representatives of the stronger sex begin to feel their inadequacy, which results in discontent and aggression.
