Women in Armed Forces

[GaudaNaresh]

No it isn't lol. Not even close. A lot of the biology around child rearing makes women a lot more neurotic and more prone to stress btw, not just for themselves but also others. You can't make a claim both ways.
Never mind that if the roles were to be reversed and men were forced to take up the nurturing duties they would still mog women but they don't/won't make a big deal about it. Single dads make for better parents than single moms for a reason. This zero sum game is why feminist ideologues - unsuspecting or otherwise - keep needing reality checks.

That's illogical- those who handle far more stress are more vulnerable to stress ?!
That doesn't make sense.
Men don't mog women in role of nurturing. Because men can't handle stress as well as women can. Duh. Single dads don't make for better parents than single mom's and there is hardly any data to conclude this, given how rare single dads are and how much more prone men are in abandoning children and being shit at basic child care compared to women.

I ain't a feminist, you need to read the thread on feminism to figure out that not being a chauvinist like you doesn't make me a feminist.

Women are masters of dealing with people - social hierarchies and children - because they can handle stress a lot better than men and there is nothing more stressful than keeping social hierarchies intact and managing them.
Something we men Suck extremely at.

As I said, women outperform men in stress management at such a superior level, it's like comparing usa and Iraq in military power.
The data on this, as I said is overwhelming and it's clear you have not seen the data on this topic and are just speaking out of your feelings only.

 

[Roshan]

It isn't that only reason. But it is the main driving reason. As I said, whether it's women centric Bengal or feminism peddling western, women dominant societies change at warp speed while men dominant societies are much more or a time capsule society frozen in an era. Even amongst western societies, those that are more women centric, such as French culture, evolve at a much faster speed than male centric ones, such as Russia.

This is because Women are fundamentally " emotion oriented", meaning they are far more willing to change things due to feelings, while men are fundamentally more " security oriented", meaning they are more willing to keep the status quo antebellum, as long as it serves the security interests.

This women centrism you see is an effect and not cause. It is not that you decide to become gynocentric and thus as a result produce high culture soon later. You will find primitive tribes across the world too who are matrilineal. In India from Kashmir to Tamil Nadu you will find great scholarship and work of immense scholarly and spritual merit being produced regardless of whether they were matrilineal or not.
In the Wests case Id argue that their feminism is patriarchy Pro plus max and their societies have generally been far less gynocentric for a millenium at least since the Church became dominant. These movements happened primarily because of the industrial revolution and how it changed society rather than the core value system undergoing a significant change.

 

[GaudaNaresh]

This women centrism you see is an effect and not cause. It is not that you decide to become gynocentric and thus as a result produce high culture soon later. You will find primitive tribes across the world too who are matrilineal. In India from Kashmir to Tamil Nadu you will find great scholarship and work of immense scholarly and spritual merit being produced regardless of whether they were matrilineal or not.
In the Wests case Id argue that their feminism is patriarchy Pro plus max and their societies have generally been far less gynocentric for a millenium at least since the Church became dominant. These movements happened primarily because of the industrial revolution and how it changed society rather than the core value system undergoing a significant change.

No. It is root cause.
Bengal at least right before advent muslim invasion WAS as woke as the western world is today - we followed tantric Buddhism and tantric Hinduism, which is LITERALLY " when in doubt, just relax, phook some ganja and have some sex" way of life.

Why the hell do you think the first thing that happened when kannadiga chalukya vassals conquered Bengal ( Sen were kannadiga), is import shit tons of orthodox brahmins ( kulin brahmins) from Kannauj ??
Because Bengal & bihar were literally as woke and asleel sex crazed cultures like modern day west today.

You compare like to like. When you compare gynocenteism vs masocentrism, you have to compare like to like. A farming settled one to another farming one. A hunter gatherer one to another hunter gatherer one. And when you do that it's clear cut - gynocentrism yeilds more high culture, masocentrism yeilds more high security.

In India the historic centre or gravity of high culture production is bihar-bengal region. Ie, the gynocentric region of India, at least in the north.

Modern west is far easier to explain and you will see this with your own children if you follow this simple axiom: when you rule via a highly illogical and fascist system of governance you enforce through a belief System and then suddenly destroy that belief System as false, those who " had their faith crushed" will act like a typical rebellious teen and go to the polar extreme opposite end to act out/dance on the corpse of the prior dead system.

Don't believe me ? Try it on your kids- raise them from age 5-10 as ultra-orthodox patit-a-pavan-siya-ram and then suddenly go " this is all bullshit, ram, Sita are all bullshit".
You will have a tattoo freak polyamorous kid in no time.

 

[Roshan]

That's illogical- those who handle far more stress are more vulnerable to stress ?!
That doesn't make sense.
Men don't mog women in role of nurturing. Because men can't handle stress as well as women can. Duh. Single dads don't make for better parents than single mom's and there is hardly any data to conclude this, given how rare single dads are and how much more prone men are in abandoning children and being shit at basic child care compared to women.

I ain't a feminist, you need to read the thread on feminism to figure out that not being a chauvinist like you doesn't make me a feminist.

Women are masters of dealing with people - social hierarchies and children - because they can handle stress a lot better than men and there is nothing more stressful than keeping social hierarchies intact and managing them.
Something we men Suck extremely at.

As I said, women outperform men in stress management at such a superior level, it's like comparing usa and Iraq in military power.
The data on this, as I said is overwhelming and it's clear you have not seen the data on this topic and are just speaking out of your feelings only.

Child care and nurturing is not the most stressful job in the world. Don't kid yourself. And so no, they are not more adept at 'dealing with stress' than men. Saying there is data to support this again and again when there isn't and you're just hallucinating things doesn't count for anything. Women being the more emotional and neurotic sex who are more prone to meltdowns and letting their hormones get the better of them is not just basic biology but can also be backed up with data and real life observations that have a sample size basically the whole of human civilization to attest to it. There are no ifs and buts about it unless you're in denial or don't know head or tail of what you're talking about, especially with regards to being 'stress resistant'. Generally and broadly that means not succumbing to frequent emotional outbursts, especially not experiencing negative emotions more intensely than is necessary, keeping a calm head in a crisis - more than just dealing with a bawling baby -, being rational and logical along with courage, basically pre requisites if you intend to lead/govern. You're not telling me women have men beat in all this as a group unless you're on a wind up and have psyched yourself to buy into falsehoods that patently don't hold upto any scrutiny. And no, your personal anecdotes about some poker game don't matter here.
I mean they can barely effectively govern themselves and we are supposed to buy that the whole social hierarchy is handled by women as a conclusion to the fact that biologically they are supposed to raise/nurture kids? Talk about a gigantic leap of logic with basically squat-all data to back it up except/ in spiyr of shrill rhetoric.

 

[Roshan]

No. It is root cause.
Bengal at least right before advent muslim invasion WAS as woke as the western world is today - we followed tantric Buddhism and tantric Hinduism, which is LITERALLY " when in doubt, just relax, phook some ganja and have some sex" way of life.

Why the hell do you think the first thing that happened when kannadiga chalukya vassals conquered Bengal ( Sen were kannadiga), is import shit tons of orthodox brahmins ( kulin brahmins) from Kannauj ??
Because Bengal & bihar were literally as woke and asleel sex crazed cultures like modern day west today.

You compare like to like. When you compare gynocenteism vs masocentrism, you have to compare like to like. A farming settled one to another farming one. A hunter gatherer one to another hunter gatherer one. And when you do that it's clear cut - gynocentrism yeilds more high culture, masocentrism yeilds more high security.

In India the historic centre or gravity of high culture production is bihar-bengal region. Ie, the gynocentric region of India, at least in the north.

Modern west is far easier to explain and you will see this with your own children if you follow this simple axiom: when you rule via a highly illogical and fascist system of governance you enforce through a belief System and then suddenly destroy that belief System as false, those who " had their faith crushed" will act like a typical rebellious teen and go to the polar extreme opposite end to act out/dance on the corpse of the prior dead system.

Don't believe me ? Try it on your kids- raise them from age 5-10 as ultra-orthodox patit-a-pavan-siya-ram and then suddenly go " this is all bullshit, ram, Sita are all bullshit".
You will have a tattoo freak polyamorous kid in no time.

We disagree on the polairites and I think you're being a little too reductionist both in terms of Dharmic history and what value system a culture owes its origins and merits to because of the conclusions you seem to want to draw so there's no point expanding this one without' omitting a lot of nuance and doing it all a big disservice. What you call a 'fascist system of belief as one polarity is in fact quite feminine and irrational, not the epitome of peak masculinity you seem to believe it is. My way or highway is as narcissistically feminine as it gets which is pretty much Islam or Xtianity in having a jealous God who sets very clear red lines.

 

[GaudaNaresh]

Thanks for doubling down and proving that you're only a demigod in so far as peddling the usual specious feminist tropes are concerned and trying to use your degree to convince people as if we are all libtard halfwits who cannot think for ourselves like you & need 'expert guidance' like a lot of the Cancucks you are surrounded by. Academics nowadays - especially of the soft sciences variety - not having touched grass and their useless theories made in some ideological echo chamber deserve only to be treated and dismissed with contempt regardless of how much they themselves are unaware of it or try hard to project like you do by accusing others of having an ideological tilt or 'being unqualified'.

Don't care, you don't have any data anyway so what some evolutionary biology hack which you might have cherry picked said doesn't matter. Just by the sounds of it I can tell it must be wild. You suffering from some mind virus from a place of deep ignorance and along with an inability to think critically is not due to someone else's 'ignorant chauvinism' I'm afraid. You can masturbate to all the theories you want to, I'm sure you can find some rationale for these theories which also say children are capable of providing consent and can experience orgasms apart from gender being a social construct which by itself will blow a hole in the merit of copious amounts of 'research' trying to disprove any differences between men and women to advance feminist goals. A lot of data will support it and a lot of studies have also been conducted in this regard recently.

Heightened pain sensitivity is also why pain tolerance for women is much lower. The only advtg is they can experience some punishment due to having to bear kids but that's far from the only excruciating physical pain one can possibly be subjected to. Your avg woman is far less resilient to physical beatings, never mind mental stress which is why this whole 'mental health' industry which relies primarily on female psychology and championing victimhood is so big nowadays. Regularizing if not romanticizing anxiety and depression along with a host of other 'boutique disorders' like body positivity, anorexia etc which women tend to suffer from much more than men contradicts this quite clearly. And I haven't even gotten into anecdotal experiences of everyday life where your garden variety slay queen makes a big deal out of the slightest inconvenience and would likely blame 'systemic Brahminical/white xtian misogyny' for it. Only someone living under a rock with no interaction with the opposite sex, no observation skills or the ability to glean any nuance from those interactions/observations would disagree with this unless he was an ideologically possessed simp determined to die on a hill.

Army specifically mentioned physical requirements being lowered but you ask anyone who has to work with/recruit them and they will tell you of the host of other issues they bring too. Bipin Rawat stated quite categorically that they don't entertain any gender equality delusions for a reason and increasing their numbers before he died, just like they don't entertain any kind of caste based affirmative action in the armed forces. If it was only physical it wouldn't need to be that emphatic a statement. They will retain a token amount and in roles where their presence makes no perceptible difference to the overall performance of the institution.

Radfem ideology of yore is what you see as the vanilla femcel ideology today that is all over pop culture and permeating every day interactions. I'm not the ignoramus here, you are the one devoid of any context. Overton window has already shifted considerably.
PS Your Magadh guard (?)is superceded by a gorillion other examples of women not being fit for combat so not being entrusted with it or being downright saboteurs, never mind men being so much more superior that it doesn't even make a difference to point it out or make a case for them.They wouldn't need protecting otherwise, often asking for it themselves with a sense of great entitlement. Unremarkable exceptions who don't in anyway disprove the rule but serve only to emphasize it more. I'm sure as a Maths MSc you can grasp this.

I am going to double down because you are speaking nonsense.
There is no such thing as a soft science. Don't insult science by calling arts degree crap of social studies, psychology, etc as a science. That's what artsi people do, not actual science degree holders. We don't see them as science.
Having said that, we also don't throw the baby out with the bath water and when they got the data we listen.

Stress testing on sex based sample size is quite voluminous in track record and the data is absolute on this. The end.
Same with pain tolerance. Women have 2x the threshold of men in tolerating pain.

Bipin Rawat should've studied chanakya and seen effect on society by militarizing womenfolk like israel did.

And if you think being royal guard of the most powerful empire of its time is due to affirmative action of some woke maurya, right under chanakyas nose, I will say your feelings are clouding your judgement. How very womanly of you.

 

[GaudaNaresh]

We disagree on the polairites and I think you're being a little too reductionist both in terms of Dharmic history and what value system a culture owes its origins and merits to because of the conclusions you seem to want to draw so there's no point expanding this one without' omitting a lot of nuance and doing it all a big disservice. What you call a 'fascist system of belief as one polarity is in fact quite feminine and irrational, not the epitome of peak masculinity you seem to believe it is. My way or highway is as narcissistically feminine as it gets which is pretty much Islam or Xtianity in having a jealous God who sets very clear red lines.

I am reductionist because I KNOW history better than anyone here except perhaps Azad. And I know world history far more than he does.
I have omitted no nuance, I have summarized the topic- obviously it will be reductionist if you don't want a 4 page essay on the topic : all summaries are reductionist. Again, duh.

If you read closely the actual muslim sources, the two main regions of India Made caricature of, for having temple Whores and sex sex sex culture, is Sindh and bihar-bengal. The writing of khiiljis, etc are actually talking of bengal and bihar, not the soorseini region or rajputana. Why ? Coz both these regions were clusterfuck of tantric Buddhism competing with either tantric Hinduism or such for popular appeal.

Tantric Hinduism, tantric Buddhism isn't oooga booga bhut-pret or magi/witch stuff as " tantra mantra" We see today, tantric Buddhism is ALL about sex sex and more sex - their specific thesis is your post organic bliss is the closest to " true enlightened mind peace" a mere mortal can experience unless he is Buddha level arihant and tantric Hinduism is same - chasing oneness with god via post nut clarity. This is voluminous in pal empire period records as pal were tantric Buddhists- which fled to Tibet under muslim onslaught and Tibet nomads with zero resources ditched the ' sex sex and more sex' angle and put ' vajrayana' tag oh it to sanitize it.

The fascist system of belief I speak of, is Christianity: stfu and obey and don't ask questions on any and all depravity we have.

The reforms in Christianity are due to a strategic mistake catholics made: they copied Islam and BANNED translation of the Bible and made it mandatory that it remain in Latin, but the Bible ITSELF lacks command on no translation, which the Koran contains. So eventually some German dudes ( Martin luther) worked up the balls to call it " roman imperialism" and enact structural reform- which kept gaining Momentum once the dam was breached.

My point was, as history shows, when you implement a highly illogical and fascist control system and then take it away in blink of an eye, the masses who had their faith taken away act in polar extreme opposite way as a psychological 'making up for lost time' .
This is what the west ie going through now and west is eating a double whammy- they not only had their religion being shown as nonsense, they also are coping with their main societal system: racism and white supremacy- also being shown as nonsense simultaneously.

 

[Roshan]

I am going to double down because you are speaking nonsense.
There is no such thing as a soft science. Don't insult science by calling arts degree crap of social studies, psychology, etc as a science. That's what artsi people do, not actual science degree holders. We don't see them as science.
Having said that, we also don't throw the baby out with the bath water and when they got the data we listen.

Stress testing on sex based sample size is quite voluminous in track record and the data is absolute on this. The end.
Same with pain tolerance. Women have 2x the threshold of men in tolerating pain.

Bipin Rawat should've studied chanakya and seen effect on society by militarizing womenfolk like israel did.

And if you think being royal guard of the most powerful empire of its time is due to affirmative action of some woke maurya, right under chanakyas nose, I will say your feelings are clouding your judgement. How very womanly of you.

Soft science is basically what you described and yet you choose to double down on your position so yes it only proves the point I eas making. Never mind that these fields are an unholy intersection of of several of these and so both the data and the conclusions it generates ought to be treated with sone skepticism considering that these fields are quite ideologically compromised nowadays so come with a slant. If it flies in the face of common sense and what we cna clearly observe it is the opposite of 'scientific'.

There is no such data, not anything that is of any use anyway. You can verify this with a random sample size of 1k men and women on the street at any time to see if it holds good both for stress testing and pain tolerance, even the women themselves will attest to it never mind society since it's one of those things that's bloody obvious. It must be something related to pregnancy if that is what it concluded never mind that it never would've had any equivalent data point on the mens side to compare to but ran with it anyway lol. Then again I'm sure the soyence will also say 'men can get pregnant now' and because it comes with the veneer of science we may get to a point where a like for like comparison may even be possible and the likes of you will say it is conclusive and incontrovertible.

Bipin Rawat knew his onions and could use common sense, it hadn't taken leave of him like a lot of others who are bitten by the DEI bug. Thankfully the men who matter now aren't either since it's their asses on the line. Israel feels the need to do it probably because of a lack of numbers and there too they make a clear distinction. In an ideal world it'd never happen.

Your exception doesn't do anything to disprove the rule. It certainly doesn't make any case for having women in combat roles the same way you do men. its not on us if they couldn't have men do what these women couldve done back then anyway, not that either you or I are capable of getting into the nitty gritties and granular details or the fact of this 1000 odd honor guard you seem to be clinging onto now for making your point. You can weigh this against million demonstrable and easily accessible examples of women being liabilities in battle and themselves asking to be saved and kept safe so they dont end up as war bounties. It's not that it cannot ever be done but the opportunity cost is not worth it on a social level.

 

[Roshan]

I am reductionist because I KNOW history better than anyone here except perhaps Azad. And I know world history far more than he does.
I have omitted no nuance, I have summarized the topic- obviously it will be reductionist if you don't want a 4 page essay on the topic : all summaries are reductionist. Again, duh.

If you read closely the actual muslim sources, the two main regions of India Made caricature of, for having temple Whores and sex sex sex culture, is Sindh and bihar-bengal. The writing of khiiljis, etc are actually talking of bengal and bihar, not the soorseini region or rajputana. Why ? Coz both these regions were clusterfuck of tantric Buddhism competing with either tantric Hinduism or such for popular appeal.

Tantric Hinduism, tantric Buddhism isn't oooga booga bhut-pret or magi/witch stuff as " tantra mantra" We see today, tantric Buddhism is ALL about sex sex and more sex - their specific thesis is your post organic bliss is the closest to " true enlightened mind peace" a mere mortal can experience unless he is Buddha level arihant and tantric Hinduism is same - chasing oneness with god via post nut clarity. This is voluminous in pal empire period records as pal were tantric Buddhists- which fled to Tibet under muslim onslaught and Tibet nomads with zero resources ditched the ' sex sex and more sex' angle and put ' vajrayana' tag oh it to sanitize it.

The fascist system of belief I speak of, is Christianity: stfu and obey and don't ask questions on any and all depravity we have.

The reforms in Christianity are due to a strategic mistake catholics made: they copied Islam and BANNED translation of the Bible and made it mandatory that it remain in Latin, but the Bible ITSELF lacks command on no translation, which the Koran contains. So eventually some German dudes ( Martin luther) worked up the balls to call it " roman imperialism" and enact structural reform- which kept gaining Momentum once the dam was breached.

My point was, as history shows, when you implement a highly illogical and fascist control system and then take it away in blink of an eye, the masses who had their faith taken away act in polar extreme opposite way as a psychological 'making up for lost time' .
This is what the west ie going through now and west is eating a double whammy- they not only had their religion being shown as nonsense, they also are coping with their main societal system: racism and white supremacy- also being shown as nonsense simultaneously.

You are unnecessarily getting into the weeds with topics that have nothing to do with what we are discussing to make what point im not sure with superfluous historical nuggets of information that are quite irrelevant so you can shove your appeal to authority again.
If the yardstick for gynocentrism is devi/shakta worship and recognising the divine feminine then this exists throught India in some way or form. Knowledge production of a certain kind is not the calling card of only a region or two that you determined is only and only because of what you think is Tantric buddhist medieval Indian woke degenerate culture that is feminine pro Max. That's all I was highlighting. There's enough rich literature and high culture from regions that didn't follow what you think this particular region of interest produced to highlight that it's more an effect than a cause. At the very least it's over determined and owes to a wider value system that the society adopts. Even the Bengalis in the late 1800s are markedly different in their intellectual calibre compared to a century later when arguably not much of the Dharmic value system actually changed that much.

 

[GaudaNaresh]

Soft science is basically what you described and yet you choose to double down on your position so yes it only proves the point I eas making. Never mind that these fields are an unholy intersection of of several of these and so both the data and the conclusions it generates ought to be treated with sone skepticism considering that these fields are quite ideologically compromised nowadays so come with a slant. If it flies in the face of common sense and what we cna clearly observe it is the opposite of 'scientific'.

There is no such data, not anything that is of any use anyway. You can verify this with a random sample size of 1k men and women on the street at any time to see if it holds good both for stress testing and pain tolerance, even the women themselves will attest to it never mind society since it's one of those things that's bloody obvious. It must be something related to pregnancy if that is what it concluded never mind that it never would've had any equivalent data point on the mens side to compare to but ran with it anyway lol. Then again I'm sure the soyence will also say 'men can get pregnant now' and because it comes with the veneer of science we may get to a point where a like for like comparison may even be possible and the likes of you will say it is conclusive and incontrovertible.

Bipin Rawat knew his onions and could use common sense, it hadn't taken leave of him like a lot of others who are bitten by the DEI bug. Thankfully the men who matter now aren't either since it's their asses on the line. Israel feels the need to do it probably because of a lack of numbers and there too they make a clear distinction. In an ideal world it'd never happen.

Your exception doesn't do anything to disprove the rule. It certainly doesn't make any case for having women in combat roles the same way you do men. its not on us if they couldn't have men do what these women couldve done back then anyway, not that either you or I are capable of getting into the nitty gritties and granular details or the fact of this 1000 odd honor guard you seem to be clinging onto now for making your point. You can weigh this against million demonstrable and easily accessible examples of women being liabilities in battle and themselves asking to be saved and kept safe so they dont end up as war bounties. It's not that it cannot ever be done but the opportunity cost is not worth it on a social level.

Bro I am mathematician. Which means I can tell from your dataset whether your conclusions are valid or not.
That's why I am doubling down: If you got data that adds up, I don't care if your field is astrophysics or plumberology.

When you say there is no such data to a mathematician, you are simply saying you don't know of such data.

I treat Data with far more skepticism than you do, trust me, since my job used to be data analysis and math dudes Don't even finish reading thesis Paper title before they start looking for the data file.
That's why we don't do " nonsense field/propah science field" and go by reputation, we simply look at data because we can catch the 1 in 1000 paper that is valid in data as well as dismiss the 999 of them that are invalid.

I would ask a simple question to you: habe you read chanakya and seen WHY he accepts women only cadre as royal guard ?? He gave his reasons. And chanakya is definition of nationalist. So why did he see women royal guard as a net positive?? What were his reasons ?

 

[GaudaNaresh]

You are unnecessarily getting into the weeds with topics that have nothing to do with what we are discussing to make what point im not sure with superfluous historical nuggets of information that are quite irrelevant so you can shove your appeal to authority again.
If the yardstick for gynocentrism is devi/shakta worship and recognising the divine feminine then this exists throught India in some way or form. Knowledge production of a certain kind is not the calling card of only a region or two that you determined is only and only because of what you think is Tantric buddhist medieval Indian woke degenerate culture that is feminine pro Max. That's all I was highlighting. There's enough rich literature and high culture from regions that didn't follow what you think this particular region of interest produced to highlight that it's more an effect than a cause. At the very least it's over determined and owes to a wider value system that the society adopts. Even the Bengalis in the late 1800s are markedly different in their intellectual calibre compared to a century later when arguably not much of the Dharmic value system actually changed that much.

Tantric Buddhism and tantric Hinduism isn't shaktaism. Why are you talking on this when you don't even know the difference?? Shaktas were FYI the main opposition to tantric Hinduism before the kulin brahmans arrived.

My comment isn't binary on/off: it's not like women centric societies are baby level at defence or that male centric societies are literally frozen in time with 0 rate of change. It's a matter of scale and it's clear cut apparent that societies that are male centric form better top down governance and security state while societies that are women centric are grassroot level change oriented that are worse as security state. Yes there are other regions of India with intellectual output but historically they all pale into insignificance to bengal-bihar region. That is historical reality

 

[GaudaNaresh]

Child care and nurturing is not the most stressful job in the world. Don't kid yourself. And so no, they are not more adept at 'dealing with stress' than men. Saying there is data to support this again and again when there isn't and you're just hallucinating things doesn't count for anything. Women being the more emotional and neurotic sex who are more prone to meltdowns and letting their hormones get the better of them is not just basic biology but can also be backed up with data and real life observations that have a sample size basically the whole of human civilization to attest to it. There are no ifs and buts about it unless you're in denial or don't know head or tail of what you're talking about, especially with regards to being 'stress resistant'. Generally and broadly that means not succumbing to frequent emotional outbursts, especially not experiencing negative emotions more intensely than is necessary, keeping a calm head in a crisis - more than just dealing with a bawling baby -, being rational and logical along with courage, basically pre requisites if you intend to lead/govern. You're not telling me women have men beat in all this as a group unless you're on a wind up and have psyched yourself to buy into falsehoods that patently don't hold upto any scrutiny. And no, your personal anecdotes about some poker game don't matter here.
I mean they can barely effectively govern themselves and we are supposed to buy that the whole social hierarchy is handled by women as a conclusion to the fact that biologically they are supposed to raise/nurture kids? Talk about a gigantic leap of logic with basically squat-all data to back it up except/ in spiyr of shrill rhetoric.

Childcare is THE most stressful job in existence. You will realize this when you have a baby and your whole life will be made to change, including sleep schedule, due to that annoying overdemanding tiny Human.

In fact this is why women are such peace-makers and have far more patience than any other female of any other species: If it wasn't for human females capacity to tolerate stress, they'd bash in the head of the baby in Six months flat. This is also why females of other species show far less patience with their kids- they haven't evolved to care for such incompetent tiny ones like we have.

Being more prone to meltdown etc doesn't negate the fact that women score about 2x-3x higher than men in stress management tests. As I said, data is absolute on this.

Women also negotiate far better than men. This is a proven axiom in diplomacy and corporate world, this is literally why 99% of human resource bigwigs are women- their better handling of stress and hierarchies makes them far better conflict resolution people than men.
Duh.

 

[Roshan]

Bro I am mathematician. Which means I can tell from your dataset whether your conclusions are valid or not.
That's why I am doubling down: If you got data that adds up, I don't care if your field is astrophysics or plumberology.

When you say there is no such data to a mathematician, you are simply saying you don't know of such data.

I treat Data with far more skepticism than you do, trust me, since my job used to be data analysis and math dudes Don't even finish reading thesis Paper title before they start looking for the data file.
That's why we don't do " nonsense field/propah science field" and go by reputation, we simply look at data because we can catch the 1 in 1000 paper that is valid in data as well as dismiss the 999 of them that are invalid.

I would ask a simple question to you: habe you read chanakya and seen WHY he accepts women only cadre as royal guard ?? He gave his reasons. And chanakya is definition of nationalist. So why did he see women royal guard as a net positive?? What were his reasons ?

Well despite their best efforts people are prone to lapses, mistakes and Blind spots. What can I say? Data doesn't lie but your interpretations can always be way off. Not talking about you per se but in general. And this can happen despite skepticism.

If you're going to hang your hat on Chanakya then you better also accept his other gender realist views re women. We don't need to mandate honor guards only because Chanakya might've thought they served some purpose for Chandragupta Maurya.

 

[Roshan]

Tantric Buddhism and tantric Hinduism isn't shaktaism. Why are you talking on this when you don't even know the difference?? Shaktas were FYI the main opposition to tantric Hinduism before the kulin brahmans arrived.

My comment isn't binary on/off: it's not like women centric societies are baby level at defence or that male centric societies are literally frozen in time with 0 rate of change. It's a matter of scale and it's clear cut apparent that societies that are male centric form better top down governance and security state while societies that are women centric are grassroot level change oriented that are worse as security state. Yes there are other regions of India with intellectual output but historically they all pale into insignificance to bengal-bihar region. That is historical reality

Are bhai I didn't say Shaktaism is Tantric HInduism and buddhism. The discussion veered so far off course that now soon even I will forget what we were actually discussing.
I don't agree with your conclusions not when you yourself are not that clear on what is women-centric and what is male centric. Hard disagree on intellectual output, the debate was on the cause. You think it is only because of being women centric that this happens when you obviously cannot prove this and had to take a big historical detour and sidetrack the whole discussion.

 

[GaudaNaresh]

Well despite their best efforts people are prone to lapses, mistakes and Blind spots. What can I say? Data doesn't lie but your interpretations can always be way off. Not talking about you per se but in general. And this can happen despite skepticism.

If you're going to hang your hat on Chanakya then you better also accept his other gender realist views re women. We don't need to mandate honor guards only because Chanakya might've thought they served some purpose for Chandragupta Maurya.

Data interpretations aren't "off" when divergence is by a few factors ( ie, 2x,3x,4x etc). It's absolute. This is as asinine as saying India has higher rape per capita than the West and Indians just report less, when rape per capita in the west is 20x more than that of India.

As for chanakya, I don't blindly follow anyone. Even chanakya got a few things wrong and I can tell you what they are. Coz I have read him and analysed him.

The reason chanakya favoured women only guard for the royal guard of the most powerful empire of its time, is because he saw the 'Brianne of tarth and renly ' scenario: women of lower station treated exceptionally well by a man of high status tend to fall in love with them and you will always protect the ones u love better than the ones you don't.
He saw the main job of royal guard to not be sword saints but those who will keep an hawkish eye out for poisoning attempts or throw themselves in line of fire to protect their high value target.
So he saw women as better fit for this role and specifically instructs emperors to seek a female royal guard, pick them from the lower classes and shower them with love that they are effectively protecting their husband, not their leige.

Whether you agree or disagree with him, this is the rationale he presented.

 

[GaudaNaresh]

Are bhai I didn't say Shaktaism is Tantric HInduism and buddhism. The discussion veered so far off course that now soon even I will forget what we were actually discussing.
I don't agree with your conclusions not when you yourself are not that clear on what is women-centric and what is male centric. Hard disagree on intellectual output, the debate was on the cause. You think it is only because of being women centric that this happens when you obviously cannot prove this and had to take a big historical detour and sidetrack the whole discussion.

But I have proven this- both in modern times and historical times- those who do 'naari shakti' have a far faster rate of social change than those who do ' nari enslavement'.

Social phenomena isn't a phenomena driven science, it's all correlative conclusions. Thwrr is no magic formula or chasing one specific variable or data point like trying to find the Higgs boson.

All sociology and all of psychology (except experimental behavioural psychology) are based on correlative analysis.

I don't see how you can disagree that sum total output of culture and literature of bihar-bengal is greater than rest of India combined in history. 80% of Indian universities existed in bihar Bengal region. 90% of Indian holy men- from Buddha to mahavir to chaitanya to even guru nanak have strong bihar-bengal connection.
Bihar-bengal is literally the defining culture of indian-ness and our divergence from the Iranian cousins is fundamentally based on this difference.

 

[Roshan]

Childcare is THE most stressful job in existence. You will realize this when you have a baby and your whole life will be made to change, including sleep schedule, due to that annoying overdemanding tiny Human.

In fact this is why women are such peace-makers and have far more patience than any other female of any other species: If it wasn't for human females capacity to tolerate stress, they'd bash in the head of the baby in Six months flat. This is also why females of other species show far less patience with their kids- they haven't evolved to care for such incompetent tiny ones like we have.

Being more prone to meltdown etc doesn't negate the fact that women score about 2x-3x higher than men in stress management tests. As I said, data is absolute on this.

Women also negotiate far better than men. This is a proven axiom in diplomacy and corporate world, this is literally why 99% of human resource bigwigs are women- their better handling of stress and hierarchies makes them far better conflict resolution people than men.
Duh.

It can be if you want to ignore every other circumstance or instance where the stakes and so stress is much higher and it's a matter of life or death how you handle it which rearing a child certainly isn't. It's not like the women do it alone either for the most part, raising a kid effectively is a matter of governance and not just nurturing and it takes a whole village to do it like they say. The biological imperative to raise kids makes women more neurotic and prone to anxiety, transferring the same to the kids and the spouse too apart from their inherent insecurity due to hormones and their physical weakness which they tend to be acutely aware of unless tempered by a man and the stability he brings. You can see this in the demands women tend to make for a partner if they have the slightest self awareness. That they don't bash a kid's head in out of a sense of irritation doesn't mean they would handle the stress in some other crisis or circumstance where they are expected to take responsibility well, the 2 are vastly different scenarios and have vastly different demands.
Women historically have been responsible for a lot of conflicts instead of being the peace makers you claim them to be with their chaotic nature, the wise in any village who solved conflicts too were usually the elderly men and not women for a reason. This chaos finds some stability/healthy expression only in family life and child rearing.

If women are more prone to frequent meltdowns and emotionalism despite the toxic gynarchy we now live in both with and without PMS, then these stress tests and their results are not worth the paper they're printed on to put it simply. And then too I press X to doubt like they say. We know this anyway without any useless study to validate the obvious.

Bargaining for extra dhaniya when buying vegetables doesn't make you a better negotiator, their pettiness and narcissism often can completely gazump any delicate situation in diplomacy making the situation worse. HR like careers were made for women and lend themselves to female nature quite well which depend on very rigid processes, group conformity and shrew like scolding for failing to do so, it's not a great case to make and most orgs can function quite smoothly without them. Ask anyone who works in an org with strict DEI requirements and they will tell you what they think of their HR dept. That running joke in the Office exists for a reason with Michael and the HR guy lol.

 

[Roshan]

But I have proven this- both in modern times and historical times- those who do 'naari shakti' have a far faster rate of social change than those who do ' nari enslavement'.

Social phenomena isn't a phenomena driven science, it's all correlative conclusions. Thwrr is no magic formula or chasing one specific variable or data point like trying to find the Higgs boson.

All sociology and all of psychology (except experimental behavioural psychology) are based on correlative analysis.

I don't see how you can disagree that sum total output of culture and literature of bihar-bengal is greater than rest of India combined in history. 80% of Indian universities existed in bihar Bengal region. 90% of Indian holy men- from Buddha to mahavir to chaitanya to even guru nanak have strong bihar-bengal connection.
Bihar-bengal is literally the defining culture of indian-ness and our divergence from the Iranian cousins is fundamentally based on this difference.

Good thing no one ever did nari enslavement then anywhere in the subcontinent. We are splitting hairs here anyway since the disagreement is on where it issues from.
Social phenomena are a result of a lot of correlations some more true than others. Just because they tend to be correlated doesn't mean that any and all correlations are correct and not just coterminal. The conditions for this nari shakti came before, not after was my initial point lest i myself forget it. That was the fundamental point being made in response to your claim. Now whether this and this alone is responsible for intellectual output of this region which you think is singularly distinguished in this regard due to it's dharmic style woke women empowerment relative to the rest of the lumpen subcontinent is upto you. I don't intend to take this further if you still feel the need to belabor it.

 

[Suryavanshi]

Guys instead of doing all this word celling can you guys stay on the topic?
Topic went from women in combat to naari shokti, higgs boson and philosophy.

It's not that deep.

 

[GaudaNaresh]

It can be if you want to ignore every other circumstance or instance where the stakes and so stress is much higher and it's a matter of life or death how you handle it which rearing a child certainly isn't. It's not like the women do it alone either for the most part, raising a kid effectively is a matter of governance and not just nurturing and it takes a whole village to do it like they say. The biological imperative to raise kids makes women more neurotic and prone to anxiety, transferring the same to the kids and the spouse too apart from their inherent insecurity due to hormones and their physical weakness which they tend to be acutely aware of unless tempered by a man and the stability he brings. You can see this in the demands women tend to make for a partner if they have the slightest self awareness. That they don't bash a kid's head in out of a sense of irritation doesn't mean they would handle the stress in some other crisis or circumstance where they are expected to take responsibility well, the 2 are vastly different scenarios and have vastly different demands.
Women historically have been responsible for a lot of conflicts instead of being the peace makers you claim them to be with their chaotic nature, the wise in any village who solved conflicts too were usually the elderly men and not women for a reason. This chaos finds some stability/healthy expression only in family life and child rearing.

If women are more prone to frequent meltdowns and emotionalism despite the toxic gynarchy we now live in both with and without PMS, then these stress tests and their results are not worth the paper they're printed on to put it simply. And then too I press X to doubt like they say. We know this anyway without any useless study to validate the obvious.

Bargaining for extra dhaniya when buying vegetables doesn't make you a better negotiator, their pettiness and narcissism often can completely gazump any delicate situation in diplomacy making the situation worse. HR like careers were made for women and lend themselves to female nature quite well which depend on very rigid processes, group conformity and shrew like scolding for failing to do so, it's not a great case to make and most orgs can function quite smoothly without them. Ask anyone who works in an org with strict DEI requirements and they will tell you what they think of their HR dept. That running joke in the Office exists for a reason with Michael and the HR guy lol.

You are yet again talking out of your ass.
Men play virtually zero role in child raising in toddler stage or baby stage and all your structure and male parenting comes into play at age 7+ or so, when the most stressful job of raising a child is done.
Stress management is like any other scenario- you get better at something by routine and consistent exposure and women are routinely exposed to consistent amount of stress in child raising at this most demanding stage than men by a huge margin.

And yes, those who are exposed to more stress and handle one stressful scenario are better at handing other stressful scenarios. Because as I said, stress management is about making optimal choices in a stressed state of mind- where your cortisol levels are through the roof.
This is why women also make far better decisions when sleep deprived than men- because sleep deprivation is extremely stressful on the body and women handle stress better.
You are not going to impress a math guy with overwhelming data on topic with standard anecdotal crap, sorry.

HR process is rigid?! Lmao. Wtf. HR is the most 'play fast and loose and just resolve conflict by any means necessary' sector of corporate world. Because it's a field BASED on negotiations.
Once you work corporate you will realize this.

Your " We all know this without useless study" shows that your views aren't data driven. Mine are. Data is god to mathematicians is perhaps why I don't play fast and loose with feelings and anecdotes like you do.