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.
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...
