Early in the development of man, children became a prerequisite for the tribe’s survival and had to be protected and trained throughout their long growing-up period in order to become useful resources for the common good. This upbringing task was quite demanding and forced a specialisation where the female’s physical and mental characteristics were adapted to take care of and protect the child during its early years while the male’s qualities were developed to fulfil the task of training and guiding especially their male offspring when the child grew a bit older.
Female empathy and concern thus is primarily focused on the woman’s own children and secondly on the children of the tribe, while for a man the primary empathy and concern goes to the group as a whole, especially to the women, and in particular to his own woman.
The above observations are important as they render the political will to reach an equality in outcome a hopeless project. If a woman follows her biological programming then it makes it impossible for her to have a super career that follows the male model because her genetical programming tells her to give priority to the children above all. She might choose to disregard this fact but then she will probably feel so mentally uncomfortable that she is forced to take to all kinds of physical and mental substitutions to compensate for her unnatural behaviour. A feminist society like the one we see in Sweden today is thus not at all optimal for the majority of women in Sweden or anywhere else in the world. On the contrary, it might very well be the explanation for increased burnout in women and teenage girls’ increased mental ill-health in the world’s most feminist country.
However, the feminist “value-foundationTM” sect in Sweden have a different explanation and will argue that inequality in outcome is due to the Western man oppressing the woman (and ethnic groups from other cultures) and to hidden (white, male) power structures in society.
Exposed to this aggressive claim, men of power tend to yield because men as a group regard women as a prioritised object of concern and empathy. But if this behaviour continues it will eventually lead to a change of the male focus of attention from focusing on the best possible outcome for the group by using planning, consequential analysis, adaption, cooperation, and capability, to a focus on individuals, nursing and “everyone’s equal valueTM“.
Swedes and assimilated immigrants experience to their great horror that none of those in power really cares or even understands that there are problems. All that is produced are platitudes and useless symbolic actions instead of taking powerful action to stop the countless rapes, shootings, and blasts, and to stop islamic terrorists from coming and going as they please, and to put an end to mass migration of people who never will be able to support themselves in the Swedish society. And not at least take measures to stop the decay in our welfare systems, in our legal system, and in the social apparatus which has been kidnapped by feministic activists.
The problem is that feminists (women of both genders) primarily have children as their primary empathic objects (their own and others’) together with everybody else that they can claim are vulnerable and cannot take care of themselves or are treated unfairly by white men (Afghan beardchildrenTM, transgender people, Muslims etc). But they definitely have no empathy for other women or for the oppressive, disgusting white “cis” male who they blame for all evil that has happened in the world at least since the late 1400s.
Unlike the male who, in order to protect women and children, targets his aggressiveness outward, against the invaders and against those within his own group that creates problems, the feminists focus their aggression inward against “white men” in their own group who have not adapted to the rules and conventions of the feminist sphere. Some women’s outrage is therefore not about the ubiquitous unsafeness in the Swedish society and the numerous rapes, which they instead try to cover up as best they can and make weird excuses for, because feminists do not have other women as objects of empathy. Instead they attack the white males’ incorrect use of language and clumsy physical contact patterns, which is well illustrated by the metoo-disaster.
Another thought is that the main representatives of the feminist “value-foundationTM” consistently ignore planning, risk assessment, and impact analysis. For example, the impact that mass immigration might have on Swedish society has never been investigated in depth. Do they not want to know for fear of what the result might be? Is it because of the demands from feminist sect morality? Probably but there might also be a more plausible explanation.
The answer may be revealed by the fact that women historically have been responsible for the inner sphere that contained family-related activities and that didn’t require a very extensive planning and it didn’t have a lot of uncertain parameters. This implies that no deeper risk assessment or impact analysis was required from women.
Planning regarding the outer sphere (that was governed by men) on the other hand comprised the whole group and contained activities like hunting, defence and group movements and therefore held more parameters of which many were uncertain, and that required a higher degree of foresight and also a firmer hierarchical organisation, based on competence and ability.
On the other hand it might be that simple that the advocates of the feminist “value-foundationTM” are not interested in planning, risk analysis, or impact assessment as long as there is the slightest possibility that the result clashes with what this infamous “value-foundationTM” dictates.
The people who lived in Europe during the ice age survived thanks to their adaptability and their ability to cooperate and make plans, and this is probably the explanation for that the advanced Western culture originated in Europe shortly after the ice age. Perhaps it is also the desire to cooperate and the lack of jealous guarding of territory that is the explanation for why the northern man does not react when the global power elite wants to steal his habitat through mass immigration of people with completely different survival strategies.
The high crime rate that comes with the immigration from MENA and Sub-Saharan countries could possibly be better explained as genetically conditioned than as culturally conditioned. Namely, aggression as a survival parameter works better in dysfunctional, populous states and cities in warm areas where people tend to have low confidence in society and with each other, than on the ancient sparsely populated steppe in central Europe.