If ever anyone wishes to expose the bigotry of Feminism there is nothing quite like discussing the biological differences between men and women. This usually involves Feminists getting very angry at the suggestion that men and women have inherent advantages when compared to one another. When presented with scientific evidence Feminists will respond in a number of ways that indicate how hard it is to digest any information that breaks down gender neutrality.







Some responses I’ve encountered include the suggestion that evolutionary differences between men and women have now altered over the last few hundred years, as though modern innovations have changed the millions of years it requires for life to evolve. It is impossible for the 10,000 years of human civilisation to be enough time for men and women to fundamentally change biologically, let alone the 100 years of the 20th Century where women gained the opportunity to expand their roles in society.





The other typical response from a Feminist involves the line about “not all women being like that,” or how there are plenty of women that could beat up a man, obviously relating to the fact that men are the larger and stronger sex as a rule. Of course there are women that are larger than some men, but only a bigot of some shape or form would attempt to argue that statistically men don’t have an advantage over women when it comes to physicality.





Feminists will use this to their advantage when dealing with areas like domestic violence, as though a woman could never use an object or a weapon to gain the upper hand, or get a man to unwittingly ingest a substance that incapacitates or kills them. Furthermore the societal impression of a man defending himself against a woman makes it very difficult for him to so much as raise a hand against a woman in self defence if he does not want to face the consequences of innate human chivalry giving special privileges to women, especially in our female-centric Western culture.





In the last few decades there have been breakthroughs that have allowed the scientific community to conduct research highlighting the differences between men and women. One book that I have read that is excellent for anyone that wants to learn about this is “Why Men Don’t Listen and Women Can’t Read Maps," written by Alan and Barbara Pease, a married couple from Australia. They use references that bring together the likes of Dawkins and Darwin, and two of my earliest videos “Men Vs Women” and “Boys Vs Girls” specifically deal with the research cited in this book. In 2005 there was a BBC series called “Secrets of the Sexes” that also dealt specifically with the type of research that scientists have been undertaking in this area:









In the above video the effect of testosterone on the human body is discussed. Believe it or not Professor John Manning of Lancashire University carried out research showing that the size of the ring finger relative to the index finger can indicate the amount of testosterone that we have been exposed to in the womb – the larger the ring finger, the more testosterone. The explanation for this is that the genes that trigger testosterone production in the womb also trigger finger growth. The more testosterone we are exposed to the more athletic we are, and the more prone we are to higher feats of endurance and strength, though this also has a direct link to our visual/spatial abilities.





Remarkably Professor Manning staked his reputation on a 5000m race between six men, where he stated that the winning order of the participants would be relate to their ring finger size. The order he predicted corresponded with the final order thusly; first, second, fourth, third, fifth, sixth – outstandingly accurate, almost depressingly so – yes, the size of your ring finger would indicate whether you are naturally athletic or not.





Professor Manning then goes on to take a group of five women and five men, lining them up based on the size of their ring fingers. The results were that all the women were on one end of the scale, while all the men were on the other end – with one exception – a woman who worked as a flight test engineer, named Grace. The programme states that in visual/spatial tasks men on average score 40% higher than women, and in the tests given to this group of ten men and women the results mirrored this trend, with the exception of Grace.





In the final part of the programme the group are given the task of changing a nappy on a baby. All the women become excited when they see the baby, and they all do very well, with the exception of Grace, who doesn’t appear to take to the task. The men also deal with the task very clinically, completing it without bonding with the child. However, one of the men with a higher level of testosterone actively goes out of his way to compensate for his acute awareness that he struggles with bonding. This makes him very emotional when interviewed, and he talks about his gradual bonding with his own son over the years. Many use this perceived weakness of men involving children to make women primary custodians of children upon divorce. This falsehood is gradually being eroded by growing evidence showing men are amply capable caregivers , also essential in the development of children.





In every test there are exceptions to the typical rules about men and women, though this is the key – they are exceptions. Men are statistically more athletic and better at visual/spatial tasks, while women are statistically better at language and emotional skills. The fact that there is growing research that shows how hormones influence us, directly associated with sex, is removing the false perceptions of Postmodernism regarding social constructs. That is not to say that our environment doesn’t influence us, but the idea that this has a large effect when compared to biology is now being broken down in the same manner that Rationalism tore down Theology after the enlightenment.





But as human beings we are capable of developing our skillset if we apply ourselves, though naturally there are some limitations to what each of us can achieve. This is not a value statement – it simply is. This is what leftist philosophers struggle to understand. If one compiles enough data in this field there will always be men and women who break the mould, but it is the overall results that truly define the conclusions.





This type of information is not taken well by leftists, but I have stopped believing that those consumed by the likes of Marxian ideology actually care about anything objective, and this is what makes this group so ignorant. They are too caught up in their false theories they wish to perpetuate, instead of building a picture that can help us better understand life. They are dangerous people, and they wont go down without trying to destroy reason and logic.





This is RockingMrE – over and out!