/lit/ - Literature

>>15240274
>It has never been the role of men to have interesting personalities
The only thing a woman has ever had to do to pass on her genes, in most instances, is to spread her legs and give a knowing wink. They have always taken on the more passive role in regards to sex and evolution. For men to reproduce, they have to climb to some dominant or affluent position within their given social hierarchy in order to signal fitness to prospective mates, and that process always includes the cultivation of socially competent personality traits. The selection pressures to developed interesting personalities have never applied to women, were they overwhelming have for men.

All of the best artists? Overwhelmingly male. All of the best writers? Overwhelmingly male. All of the best philosophers, mathematicians, scientists, or meta-physicians (etc.)? Again, overwhelmingly male. In fact, the higher echelons of almost any dominance hierarchy you can think of is virtually always bound to be disproportionately populated by men, even for things that women are typically known to be good at.

>"Oh but we're just 2deep4u. We're really complex and full of hidden, unrecognized potential! Men are just to simple to see it."
This is psychological compensation for latent penis envy. It's a coping mechanism.