To paraphrase a famous saying: "Women must be seen, not heard."
In fact, when it comes to women if she is not able to talk at all it might even be for the good. Though obviously its better if she can talk but does not talk unless really necessary, especially if her voice is not that pleasant.
Quiet girls are the best.
Also enjoy the silence:
At a drop of a hat, I cannot think of a good female voice actor, whose voice I really like, but I will think about it and will update this article when I find one.
Modern women should really work on their voices to sound better and more pleasant.
Update 1: Take for example this song, female voice here sound very cute and angelic. Why IRL women cannot speak with similar voice.
Silent Generation (aged 80 and older) - Few of them left and most of them are not just old but also very frail, they struggle to walk and such. At this age their bodies are typically deformed and either very skinny or very short. Typical age traits such as wrinkles and white/grey hair are also present.
Boomers (aged 61 to 80) - Your typical retiree or soon to be retiree. There are plenty of them. All have white or gray hair. They often hide their age behind thick sunglasses to appear younger than what they really are. Generally, sunglasses are unusually popular among this generation. Nonetheless behind these sunglasses one can find wrinkled face. Unlike Silent generation these guys have normal size bodies and visible signs of age are not as apparent. However, if you pay close attention, you may notice that they are weaker and frailer than initially apparent. They walk slow and have hard time with stairs. These traits are certainly more pronounced in older boomers who are older than 70, but one can notice them in those who are still in their 60s.
Gen W (early Gen X) (aged 61 to 52) - They often have white/grey hair but otherwise do not show any signs of ageing and are full of energy. They are rich and all over bars, restaurants and sport games. They have confident attitude, act like they own the game and are either on the prowl for young women or going out with their families. They have conservative dad vibe about them and often sprout conservative views. They and boomers are the reason things are shit now.
Xennilas (late Gen X) (aged 51 to 42) - Older version of adult: still no white hair but some wrinkles and facial features but face generally does not look old. You can find these guys in shopping malls and such, some have spouses/gfs but typically no children or very young ones. They typically wear smart casual or simple but fancy clothes. They look much classier than Gen W. They typically have their shit together but not as much money to splurge as Gen W so they are doing it modest. Some possibly share interest in video games and anime with Millennials below.
Millennials (Gen Y) (aged 41 to 30) - Younger version of adult that gives much older look and feel than what they biologically are. As hard to find as ninjas, typically dressed casually without the smart part and blend with the environment. They are typically loners with rather angsty look, jaded and defiant. Most stay home and chronically online but sometimes you can see them in the wild for one or another reason. Half of them took their lives after financial crisis and the other half plot revenge on boomers and society for that betrayal. Most are into anime and video games but do not show that openly. They play so called boomer shooters and other old games they grew up with. Few younger Millennials are like Gen Z below.
Gen Z (aged 30 to 18~13) - Current young people. Some are tattooed gym monsters with ugly wifes and children. Some colourful but equally ugly lefties. Some are more normal looking. Some do drugs or such. Most visible generations since boomers, they are all over the place no matter where you go. They are loud and stand out. Most Millennial stereotypes are about them.
Gen Alpha (aged younger than 18~13) - Current kids and young teens. Wild bunch that just break shit for no reason, will probably end up in prisons.
And that is what different generations are currently like.
Since I generally better understand what I do not like rather than what I like, I will begin with things I will not do.
To begin with we have to rule out any physical work. I can handle my own belongings even if they are heavy, but I do not have stamina for sustained physical effort, I will get tired in less than an hour and will not be able to continue.
That has to be followed by any work that involves customers. I have no patience to listen to some Karen. Generally, I get tired from talking or especially listening to people too much. In fact, listening to people is much worse than talking. Even half of the music I listen is without lyrics.
That will also rule out any kind of assistant work or apprenticeship. I do not want to be told what to do by some superior. Interactions with bosses or other authority figures should also be minimal. I can work with colleagues who are my equals, but not with superiors or customers.
Also, I will not do any cleaning work. I may not look like it, but I actually like clean things and dislike dirty stuff. Since I do not like cleaning, a lot of stuff around me is rather mess as I refuse to touch this mess with my clean hands.
Finally, I do not like to care for anyone, be that plants, animals, children, sick or old people. All of the abovementioned being are slow and messy and require attention, I do not like to deal with that.
With these '5 no' there sure is little else left that does not fall in any of the above categories. However, I will try to think of something.
Now for the things I actually like.
Back when I was a kid, I wanted to be a country president or head of the company. My dad was head of the company back then. I wanted the same authority and the perks and privileges that come with it. I think I am suitable for that kind of work as I can make well thought and balanced decisions and take many different things into consideration. I like strategy games precisely because they allow me to feel being an authority that controls a lot of things.
I have good ability to see bigger picture and make plans that take that into account. I can be a planner for infrastructure or such. I got Architect role in MBTI sorter which proves my planning abilities.
I guess it does not have to be the visible role. Being one of directors on the board or an expert on some issue who advice on best practices (rather than assists with everyday tasks) the management will suit me as well. Being an MP or councilor might also work for me.
Aside from that I like technology. That is why I studied IT in uni. I enjoy computer technology and build several rigs for my own use. The biggest issue with this field is that most software developer work is likely located in the US or something and there is little relevant work where I live. Most of tech work here is IT helpdesk type for which I am overqualified, and it does not pay as much as I want to be paid. The second issue is that this work is rather hard, stressful and energy consuming. At the same time, it is far underappreciated, people just want their tech to work and ignore the fact that it takes a lot of effort to get it work.
With my tech education I can be a weapon designer for a military or something like that. I think military will likely pay well and I have no objection to designing things that kill, far from it, I will more likely enjoy designing and developing a weapon then something more trivial.
Speaking of military, I might enjoy being an officer in military. Being a soldier or NCO is not really for me, but in a more senior and abstract role might suit me better. I am not sure if one can be a lieutenant or higher with just a bachelor's degree.
There are also science and research. I write a lot of blogs, so I guess I can write research papers as well. Some of my articles of blog posts can be considered research in nature. With that said I am not sure how academic career works and if I will enjoy something like that. I am not sure if I can enjoy teaching students if that is required.
I actually can read a lecture or speak to public; unlike many other introverts I would much rather do public speaking than talk to someone face to face. I have no fear of crowd; public speaking does not require me to listen to anyone and will allow me to focus on topic I am talking about.
I also have great interest in history. Dad dissuades me from doing history, claiming there is no work for historians, but I am not sure how true it is? That said this also likely means an academic career.
Aside from that, I like travel. Not to see various cultures or meet new people but rather travel in itself. I like airplanes, various watercraft like yachts, trains, buses, airports and the like. I like being surrounded by sleek and clean man-made objects much more than nature or people. Travel has plenty of just such objects. Looking in the window on ever changing scenery has its appeal to me as well. However, even looking at how road is disappearing under the train or bus also has certain charm. I once had a nice view on a major motorway from my once home and I liked it a lot, especially at night. This golden illuminated road looked really awesome. It was a high floor, so no noise, just an awesome view.
Problem with travel is why travel or why. Certain destinations are unsafe so I would not want to go there. Also is done for work some sort of work has to be mixed with all the travel, I am not sure if I will like the work part. Finally, I do not like crowds and sometimes travel can involve crowds.
I like staying in hotels, particularly luxurious ones. Some of my best memories of the childhood are connected to such resort hotels. That said hotel work is unlikely to suit me as most roles likely involve customer service in one or another form. Stays in hotels can be part of work that involves a lot of travel, but then the abovementioned problems will apply here as well. Also, not all hotels are equally good, some likely will not appeal to me for one or another reason, due to being too cheap or old or design will not be to my aesthetic taste or location will be difficult or I will have some personality issues with personnel.
Finally, I may like operating various machinery. I am not sure if I can be a pilot though, but there are probably some other machineries I can drive. I do not have open driving licence though so ordinary cars or buses will likely not do.
I guess I will leave it at that. Turns out there are number of things that may work for me, but all of these are rather complex to get into, so I am not sure if it's possible for me. Also, some of it might not work due to certain work duties that I am not aware of. Overall, I think this article represent my career aspirations well enough.
The example in the picture is how giraffes gradually evolved to have longer and longer necks. Why longer neck is an advantage, a simple fact that it allows giraffe to eat leaves that grow higher and higher on trees, leaves that are inaccessible to other shorter animals. The fact that these leaves are inaccessible to shorter animals gives giraffe a clear competitive advantage, instead of competing with smaller animals for the scarce vegetation that grows on the ground level, giraffes figured how to get taller and access leaves that are too high for others to reach. Thanks to that giraffes have access to more food than others and could just chill as they munch on high crone leaves as their shorter brethren like zebras and buffalos are roaming around in herds in search for grass that was not eaten yet.
This is but one facet of evolution, but it does a great job illustrating not only how it happened but also why it happened. Not every change and branch of evolution was conditioned by attempt to gain advantage over other species, but most influential ones certainly did. Including the one branch that leads us to us, humans. We top by far the most shrewd and industrious branch that never failed to explore new ways of doing things to gain an advantage over competitors (other species).
It begun already in the ocean, or much rather river, when we were still fully aquatic species, known as fish.
I want to clarify that we did not branch out of cod, tuna or sardine. These species of fish choose an evolutionary strategy that is polar opposite of ours. They chose to constantly adapt to existing environment and survive. That gradually made them smaller and dumber but nimbler, more slippery and hard to catch. They now live their lives in large herds (schools of fish) because if predators attack them, there are greater chance they will eat a few and the rest will escape. You might say they constantly sacrificing a few members of their species so that the rest may live.
This evolutionary strategy gradually shaped them into distinctive oval fishy shape. Early fish were all sorts of shapes, but generations of evolution perfected this typical for fish shape and coalescented them into species we know today and use for making fish and chips.
That is not something that happened to our ancestors, they either retained or perhaps gained a rather distinct rather non-fishy look and shape. Catfish or Sturgeon are good example of that. Look at them carefully, they are soft of middle ground between, fish, lizard and a snake. Something that could gradually become either of these species. Wider head allows for a bigger brain and a more quadruplectic shape allows for forays onto the surface.
Thanks to their bigger brains, our ancestors figured out how to hide from predators in places they will either not look or not be able to fit, the rivers. Ocean is big and there are plenty of space for sharks, orcas and other predatorial fish. In contrast river is narrow, a shark will have a hard time fitting in and navigating something like that. Hunting in such environment will be too hard to an aquatic predator.
That was a defence advantage for our ancestors. Slow and easy to catch due to suboptimal shape, they would be easy prey in open ocean. In the river however they were safe. Here they were not a prey for bigger fish but a big fish in a small pound instead. A clear advantage that their fish brains managed to figure out and take advantage of. Something their oceanic brethren could not. In rivers they were safe. food was more plentiful and they could chill, take it slow, eat plenty grow bigger and smarter and think of the next move that will take them even greater.
New environment also changed what our ancestral fish looked like. It was not an endless space of water, like in the ocean but a limited space between surface and riverbed. To live in this area our ancestors had to adapt to handle these diverse conditions. Every so often they might even accidently get pushed either to surface or shallow banks of the river. Being able to get back to water would be essential in such situation. Moon cycles also mean water level changes based on time of day. What was submerged can become exposed and later resubmerge again.
Navigating this new environment meant our ancestors bodies has to be not specialised to one environment like for pelagic fish but be flexible and be able to not only swim but also crawl and more. We already originated from demersal fish that lives on the bottom of the ocean and traits that distinguish demersal fish from pelagic one only further exacerbated in rivers. Unlike heavily specialised pelagic fish, our ancestors became true jacks of all trades. All these traits allowed them to make "one small step for a fish, a gigantic step for Fishkind", advance onto the surface. Later on, Neil Armstrong did the same for humanity.
Rivers were all good and dandy, but gradually they have become overcrowded too. Food was no longer enough to feed everyone; Barracudas preyed on smaller fish and particularly on newly hatched baby fishes who still have not grown to defend themselves.
As the same time solution all our ancestors' problems lie right above the water line, the surface. There was plenty of food, no predators and plenty of space. If only they could just live on the surface, they would be kings.
The problem was the same as for humans in space: breathing. Fish could not breathe on the surface. Was that a dead end then? Now we of course know it was not, but for our ancestors it was quite a problem.
However, if one could nor breath on the surface, what if you hold your breath, briefly jump out to grab a bite and then swiftly get back before you run out of oxygen. I am pretty much certain that our ancestors lived like that for quite some time. Those who could stay on surface longer could therefore eat more, get bigger and stronger and have better chances to breed and pass on these traits to next generation.
Eventually however a fortunate mutation evolves one of them a lung and allowed them to actually breathe on surface without getting back. Australian and several other species of lungfish still live out there.
First fish with lungs certainly ate plenty during its unlimited stay on the surface and return to river to breed as a ginormous by fish standards giga Chad who definitely, put lungless fish out of dating market. Soon there were many more lungfishes roaming around the surface and eating completely helpless and defenceless insects and more.
Gradually even surface around rivers and lakes became overcrowded. Further evolution gradually changed these lungfish into myriads of different amphibians, like frogs or newts. Eventually we managed to break our dependence on rivers, but early surface species could not. Adult species could live on the surface for prolonged periods of time, but their infants could not. Thus, to breed, they had to go back to water.
Amphibians like frogs look anything like fish from which they originated, yet they have a clear connection to them. Frogs lay their eggs in water and tadpoles that hatch out of them look much like infant fish of any other species of fish, they do not have limbs and cannot live on the surface like their parents. Only as they grow older, tadpoles gradually develop limbs together with ability to live on the surface. Eventually they leave their ancestral home and live on the surface in adulthood.
Reptiles that evolve out of amphibians do not have this problem. They can lay eggs on the surface and juveniles that hatch out of eggs are surface ready. Formative years, that amphibians spend in water, are spent inside egg instead.
In humans and other mammals this instead happen inside womb of a woman. Early human embryos look much like a tadpole with no arms and legs, before they gradually develop limbs and other human like features.
This is but one example, but in every other stage of evolution we always took the smartest and most ingenious solutions to our problems. When surface became too crowded, we evolved into living on trees, like lemurs and monkeys still do nowadays. When trees became too crowded, we learned to hunt mammoth and other such huge animals. When we ran out of mammoth to hunt, we learned to grow crops, husband animals, build things and now we have power, an average fish could not even dream of. By now most of our former brethren are but helpless primitive beasts for us to hunt or breed for food or sport.
Thus, our destiny is not in adapting to survive on this ever-shrinking overcrowded planet, but to go beyond and reach the stars. Space is ours for the taking. We do not need this planet or even staying human. Why be human when we can be something much greater. Lungfish did not think of staying fish when it managed to reach the surface, it thought of opportunities the surface life brings. If we fail to do the same, all the lungfish in the world and all the monkeys in the world will laugh at as.
Religions such as Christianity is the way of the sardine; science is the way of lungfish. The latter will make as an Ubermench, a human beyond humans, a being that will transcend humans, the former will make us a future canned food for the latter. I do not think it's a hard choice to make.
This is a rather abstract and heavily conceptual idea that I thought of a while back. I kind of metaphysical idea that ties together many fields of science and history into a single cohesive picture.
Humans are gods for insects and other such lesser creatures. Many human religions have surprinting parallels with the life of insects such as moth and cockroaches experience living among humans in the environment created by humans. Human religions is possibly originated among the insects and then somehow transplanted into humans.In our daily life we do not think much about insects such as moth, cockroaches, ants, spiders and such. To us these creatures are nothing more than pesky annoyances. When we see one, we either try to push it away or smash it. We use various pesticides to get rid of them and keep our homes insect free.
Despite our best efforts to rid ourselves of insects they always keep coming back, requiring us to keep using pesticides and such. That is because our dislike for insects is completely one sided. Insects keep coming back because for them we are very beneficial, benign even beings. It would not even be a stretch to call humans gods of insects, because from a perspective of an insect, the power and abilities we have are as omnipotent as these of Christian or Muslim god.
Various nature supporters like to say that humans destroy natural habitats of various animals and such. That worldview stems from rather naive view on wildlife. In reality out there in the wilderness food is scarce and predators that wish to prey on smaller creatures are many. Thus, most animals want two things: protection from predators and abundance of food. Human society provides from with ample of both.
To begin with, humans have ample of food. We store out food for future consumption, and such food can easily be eaten by various insects. Sure, food we use for our own consumption is stored in a matter that protects it from pests, but even without access to protected food, pests still have plenty to feed on. That is because we use food wastefully, we eat the good parts, throwing away less desirable pieces. Since we are so large we do not care for small things like breadcrumbs and such, every so often we will accidently drop a cookie on a floor and just ignore it. To us such small amounts of food are too insignificant to care about, but insects are much smaller than us. What is insignificant amount for someone our size is something that can feed a colony of cockroaches for a week or even a month. Top this with the fact that we sometimes discard food as spoiled and inedible and you have a complete bonanza. From a cockroach perspective it must look like we are benign gods who provide them with so much food that cornucopia metaphor will be appropriate to describe it.
Second is protection. Human build structures give small pests plenty of nooks and crannies to hide, from birds, lizards and other such animals that feed on insects. Since insects are much smaller than birds it is much easier for them to hide while those who feed on them sure to attract more human attention. From size perspective birds and small animals clearly have reasons to fear humans, as humans might want to kill and later eat them. Insect is too small for human to pay too much attention so it's easier for it to hide meanwhile a bird is sure to attract attention and will not be able to hide. Because of that human made structures make for effective protection for insects and even mice.
Because of the above reasons it's not too strange that a lot of insects such as moth and cockroaches live in the cracks and shadows of human settlements and prosper on the scraps that we cast aside as trash.
First of all, insects can be certain that we exist. They see us every day and far more often than we see them.
Second from an insect perspective we are omnipotent. We have ample of food, by wild nature standards, so much that it just lay around with no one taking it. We can build huge structures, turn clay into bricks, concrete and more. We can chop trees and make them into furniture, or toys and more. For a tiny insect such power is sure a sign a divine level of omnipotence. We also can just smash an insect with a slap of a hand, a power so huge by insect standard, its incomprehensible.
Humans created the world. We can see that a lot of the world is not created by us, but from a perspective of a tiny insect, a simple human house or even a room is like the entire world. Some of them can live their entire lives in human made structures without ever stepping foot outside.
Humans (gods) are eternal, they always been there. That might sound a stretch but relative to an insect lifespan human one is indeed near eternal. Most insects only live a single day or so. In that short time span, they hatch, grow, mature and mate, lay eggs and die. Withing a single human year and hundreds of insect generations will be born and die. Seasons will change, bountiful summer will end, and life will completely cease for insects. Unlike warm bloodied animals, insects and even reptiles cannot survive winter and subzero temperatures. Insects experience winter like the end of the world. Yet when winter ends and world is reborn somehow only humans remain alive and not even that much changed from last season. From insects' perspective this ability must mean that we are greater that world itself, that we create and destroy world at will. Death of the world does not affect us in the slightest. We are there when world dies and we again there when world begins anew.
Furthermore, in spring when new world beings, we plot earth, plant crops, build things and do other things. Insects must surely see it as we creating the world right in front of their eyes.
Humans (god) work in mysterious ways. No matter how much a moth of a cockroach will scratch their insect brain, they will never be able to understand why we live our lives the way we do. Why we create all these structures and then just leave them empty. Why we plant crops and leave them alone. They cannot understand concepts such as work, daily commute and so on. They also cannot understand why we dump so much food into dumpsters where they can easily access and eat it. The very idea of discarding something edible is incomprehensible to them.
Because of that they will likely explain in the matter as if we deliberately create food and leave it in the dumpster for cockroaches to eat it, multiply and fill the dumpster with themselves. A cockroach will not be able to explain it in any other way. It's like a genesis myth were God created heaven and earth, filled it with various plants and animals for humans to live in, enjoy it, eat is, procreate and fill the earth. Except it's us humans who do it for cockroaches and we do not do it to feed them, but end result matches.
Because of the above cockroaches and other pests must view us as benign loving gods who build them homes (dumpsters) and fill them with food and other items. They think that we love and care for them from the bottom of our hearts. Of course we are not doing it for them at all, but they have no way of knowing that.
Of course, we also kill cockroaches and other pests. Since we do not eat them, like a bird would. Cockroach will not be able to understand why we do so. After all their live is controlled by just two desires to eat and to breed, they can understand a bird snapping insects and eating them. They will see a bird as a giant man-eating (insect-eating) dragon of sorts. However, why would humans kill an insect and just leave its dead carcass out there. They would think it's some kind of divine plan than a common cockroach cannot even comprehend (see humans work in mysterious ways).
Alternatively, and much more likely, they will see it as some sort of divine punishment for transgressing on some divine law. Every religion is filled with complex rules and strong prohibitions against transgressing on gods' territory or offending god in any way. For humans such rules are pointless, but for an insect trying to survive in human world, such rules will clearly help. Cockroaches that do not crawl where people can see them will much more likely to live longer than those who do. There is also prohibition from seeing God for the same reasons.
Also, sometimes we will wash dumpsters and other things. From an insect perspective it must look like biblical flood that destroyed most humans on earth.
There are also these lines in the Bible. This is my body eat is, this is my blood, drink it. Moth feeds by consuming human clothes. Moth cannot understand concept of clothes, so they likely see it as body f god, that God have given them to eat. Other insects such as mosquitos, drink human blood, I am not sure if they see it as wine, but close to how it was Described in bible.
There are other similarities, for example monks' robes are of the same colour as cockroaches are.
All of the above gives rather clear indication that religion and god or gods are no one else but us seen by insects that live in human inhabitant areas. Parallels are far too many to simply ignore is as mere co-incidences.
Older does not mean just older generations or parents have authority over children, older siblings have as much authority over younger ones, that parents have over them. Thus, an older brother such as myself, can pass all the work parents pushed on me, on my younger brother and do nothing as he does all the work.
Women are subordinated to men, sometimes it depends on generation, so wife is subordinated to husband but not to male children. Other times any male takes precedence over a female, no matter the age. This way women are forced to do almost all of actual work in such a system.
Broadly speaking in its traditional form this system often not only works but create social harmony of sorts. Women are naturally submissive so pushing all work on them solves pretty much every social issue and conflict within family.
The problem come when someone try to create a mix between this and western system. For example, equalise women with men while at the same time keeping the age seniority intact. System where siblings are treated equally, but parents enjoy generational authority is another such perversion of Asian system that does not work.
A system where everyone simply pushes job down the chain of command could only work if there is someone at the bottom who will do all that and will not ditch the whole shit due to obvious reasons. Women are one such people who value, sex, community and being approved more than personal benefits and status, that is why one can push work on them. Without it the system will not work.
Any system falls off when someone fails to get the rewards, they are due. The more valuable the person is the more rewards they can expect. Both of my parents had to learn it hard way, when I ditched them after they lost control of the money that held the family together in 90s. You cannot distribute the treasure to you key supporters if you do not have the treasure. However, you are double stupid if you think they will not leave or replace you, if you do not give them the treasure. Keys have to get their rewards.
Equal siblings and genders but entitled parents system eventually produce generational struggle for power. Grown up younger generation eventually seek to overthrow the older generation by force, take their place and rule for their own interest, leaving older generation to die. Periodic revolutions and other forms of struggle for power, followed by a period of relative peace is a symptom of such system.
For example, war in Ukraine is happening because Zelenski and his administration is one generation younger than Putin and his administration.
Immigration of young people to the West to avoid their parents is also a typical strategy.
That happens because this system fails to adequately reward young man and puts undue burden on them, forcing them to seek ways to remove that yoke off their neck.
Its fundamentally misandrist and wrong.
Mainland China where communist won and introduced communist feminist, mixing it with traditional Asian age authority system. In practice that put women in more privileged position than men. Young men are the main victims of such system; they are burdened with not only their families but their wives as well.
Aside from the fact that it is downright abuse and misandry, it creates all sort of irregularities that tear society apart.
Selective abortion is one such thing. Parents do not want a girl because PRC's wild mixture of feminism and traditional agism makes girl worthless. Thanks to feminism she is no longer a servant to the husband and the family, but at the same time she cannot continue the family in the same way as man can.
The result is that China has a lot more men than women. Men cannot find a wife as there are not enough women and women use their scarcity to play men against each other in dating market, extracting a lot from a potential suitor,
That is not all, sooner or later men will realise that they are screwed by the broken system, the CCP has created and will demand solution. A revolution is not out of question.
Internationally a mainland Chinese girl does not have good prosects either. Western men want submissive wives, and Asia is a common source of such wives. However, that only applies to traditionally raised Asian women and not to a mainland feminist one.
[continue later]
Somehow in modern world a lot of people try to be as noisy as possible. I do not like that. I like quiet people, quiet places, quiet women...
