Well there you have it; the mediator of things is the person of influence (not control) and the person who guides outcomes. To blame the horse because its not as fast as a race car is more the blame of the desires of the rider, than it is the horse. Its unrealistic and the emotional response to the horses failure is unwarranted. Of course men are not horses, and analogies are not real, they are educational and communicative tools for transferring information as intended rater than accepting it as assumed.
So rather than the feminist myth that behind every great man is a woman doing the work for him, what this work explains is why behind MOST great men is a woman doing what a good manager does. Support the people in their endeavors, not dictate the actions of them.
Anyway, in this case women manage the state of things among our society, while men manage the production of things and such. What this study shows, is that at any particular time, the current state of society is a product of women doing selecting and managing the resources around them.
Contrary to the notion that the patriarchy is male rule, it turns out that a patriarchy is subtle female guidance, while a matriarchy is overt female control without mutual considerations and equal benefits shared.
Bottom line, her choices, how she structures family, her own life, the childrens life, and how she is willing to wisely accept outcomes, and wisely use those resources. As the men have been saying for a while, they may make the society, but its women that tell them what would be nice. Whether they are right or wrong. and when they are wrong men make hell for them as they ask, and when they are right, we make a better place like they ask.
Ultimately in any time, they are actually getting what they are asking for, even if its not what they want. The more they learned from culture in the past and wisdom and understanding the more effective they were at this.
to compare yesterday to today, yesterday a farmer knew how much they could get out of what they were doing before pushing too hard gave them less. So they were able to maximize things to what those things could do.
Today, the farmer is too busy trying to beat the horse to get more out of it, and doing no where as near as well as the farmers in the past that WISELY used resources at their disposal.
What they dont realize today, is that a man, and woman, are mutual resources to each other. The one that beats their resource, literally, mentally, operationally, legally, or in any way, destroys the system. And no one can do as much without resources as they can do with them.
Everyone knows bad magagers that blame their employees rather than themselves for outcomes, that refuse to accept that they are part of that outcome. On the shoulders of the manager rests all the responsibility for the outcomes! For to managers, everything is a resource, and outcomes depend on using resources correctly and effectively based on their own requirements and abilities.
As many here will attest, the feminist concept of making men do work that they are not suited for (OR making women do work that they are not suited for), is a manager who is putting the wrong resource to the right task, and then blaming the resource that its not right.
When someone uses a screwdriver for a hammer, is it the fault of the screwdriver that the outcome isnt right?
Below also explains why successful men get married, and how that works in synergy to create better outcomes. In effect she is looking for a good producer, and he is looking for a good manager.
[It also implies why untraditional relationships may have more subtle problems over our darwinistic development and over longer time periods than living beings clearly percieve over their liftimes. Two managers with no producers is not effective (two captains on a boat yelling at each other to do the work. they do it, but they resent each other over time)... nor are two producers with no managers (a crew with no reason to go in a particular direction - why most men dont have a direction till married). A manager that doesnt listen to the producers is ineffective (the crew mutinies - or the captain become vicious thinking the crew is disobediant when the captain is wrong for imagining its equivalent to a Queen - or a god, and ordering the winds but blaming the crew for them not arriving). Also turning a manager into a producer or visa versa will result in substandard outcomes as well]
Ok. the examples below are not from Humans, but the concepts still apply. A group of people in which everyone is leading, or no one, is not effective when goals are important. When they arent, then everyone just lazes around waiting for an outcome.
Females decide whether ambitious males float or flounder
Aggression, testosterone and nepotism dont necessarily help one climb the social ladder, but the support of a good female can, according to new research on the social habits of an unusual African species of fish.
The study, published today in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society, highlights the complex relationship between social status, reproductive physiology and group dynamics.
We found that changes in social status were regulated by the most dominant female in a social group, says John Fitzpatrick, lead researcher and a graduate student in the department of Biology at McMaster University. In fact, dominant females seemed to act as gatekeepers, allowing only males larger than themselves to move up in status and become dominant.
Males rising to a dominant social position, says Fitzpatrick, instantly altered their behaviour, becoming more aggressive. In addition, they dramatically ramped up their reproductive physiology, almost doubling the size of their testes in one week.
Working underwater off the Zambian shores of Lake Tanganyika in Africa, the researchers examined how males respond to changes in social position in the cichlid fish, Neolamprologus pulcher. This species lives in permanent social groups made up of a dominant male and female breeding pair and subordinate males and females that help this pair look after young and defend territory.
By removing the male breeders, researchers created vacancies and provided an opportunity for subordinate males to rise through the ranks.
Hormones and genetic relationships didnt necessarily determine who gets to be top dog, says Sigal Balshine, the senior author on the study and an associate professor in the department of Psychology, Neuroscience & Behaviour. Most folks would have thought that how aggressive you are, how big and powerful you are or how much testosterone you have might be important in understanding status change and dominance rankings. Our study combined several approaches to show that simply isnt the case instead, the female and the social landscape are key.
The last sentence is important, as it can highlight a fundamental change in how Humans are doing something and why things are not working out today.
The work above says or shows that the older human system where the marriage and partnership makes the man, has been overturned as she tries to select one ‘ready made’ for several reasons, when in the past she could make better selections (and have the better outcomes of her ancestors that she wonders why she cant get now).
However, this ignores process as being meaningful. A man, like a soldier, who comes up from the ranks, is a much better and more productive leader. He can lead with compassion, and empathy, pushing down cruelty and extremes. If he is put in charge voluntarily because he was selected for those skills, the same way you select a doctor rather than operate on yourself, he will be a better leader and those under him will be happy with the outcome of his leadership and decisions. (Second guessing the trust leads to a leadership in which nothing gets done, but the arguing as to which direction to go, and then blaming all around to play the next round to advantage. While the one that is upset refused to drive themselves, and refuses to accept the others direction, in effect creating stalemate)
So she is selecting for the attributes of the final product, but is not discerning the difference between a thug and a knight. Our system has removed this distinction and made them equivalent (both fight, but without distinctions, a cop is the same as a criminal, a soldier the same as a terrorist, God and the Devil are equivalent, as is good and bad, and a sociopathic thug is a good husband choice) which shorts out her selection ability (so she then blames outcomes not on her choice I mates, but in the mates inability to be something that they are not). Marrying later forces her to no longer look for a person in which they can create together a future, she doesnt have that time any more.
All this then serves to make her pick things that appear in costume like the real deal. Or fail the same lesson Shakespeare taught us with the three casks, lead, silver and gold.
When she unwraps the package over time, both find out that neither is what should have been, and under the surface image, are something else. Often the woman is now bitter thinking that the other tricked her by posing, but the truth is that the buyer has to beware, and if they arent willing to make a distinction between gold and iron pyrite, the outcome will follow. Blaming iron pyrite for not being gold just skirts the source of the problem shifting the blame, and making it impossible to fix.
In this way a man leads the way the president leads, a professional, or a surgeon, not the way a dictator does. Again removing the distinction makes one throw out good leaders and accepts bad ones. The man from the ranks is more likely to be a leader, not a dictator, like a thug would be. The changes in our selection abilities, has created a situation where the women are selecting males that fulfill feminist ideology by trickery.
She gives up her overt leadership and he accepts his responsibility to LEAD, not RULE.
The return is that she has to listen to him in order to be successful, just as we listen to a brain surgeon rather than use a drill and a spoon in the kitchen to solve our problems.
Her selecting him is like electing him to his post, and his directing then is him fulfilling his job for her, freeing her to be concerned with more important things. Like creating a good person, who can grow and take their fathers place or position in society, and continue the mutual work that their ancestors started. If she fails in this, she fails her lineage and genetic contribution to the world, his lineage, and all our futures.
A good leader is not a tyrant or a despot, so a good father is not what feminists paint all fathers to be again without distinction. Without that distinction one has to accept that all are bad, or all are good. Since its obvious that all are not good, then by their simple logical black and white assertion, all are bad. If all are bad, does it matter which she selects?
By removing distinction, and nuance, and twisting leadership by voluntary cooperation, we have removed the ability to discern between the things we choose and the outcomes that arise from them.
The bottom line is that the work above indicates that we are much more complex and nuanced than is practical for ideologies, and double for ideologies like feminism, in which their selection of direction steers followers to horrible outcomes, so they can affix false blame and garner support for false causes, collecting power unto them. In this way, they have figured out that pain, fear, misery, confusion, and such, can get them to topple power that is based in merit.
The rest is the downhill ride to the bottom with no breaks that we have been riding in.
Add A Comment