I will link to the fundamental pages when the "occasional entries" demand it.
-The First Principle is 'cause and effect'. It means nothing acts without something acting upon it. Like domino effects or billiard ball bank shot chain reactions.
B- There is a finite/limited amount of energy ultimately [in the end]. Ie if there is more steam there is always less ice and vice versa. (Replace the words 'steam and ice' with what ever; eg force and matter, gas and solid, this or that chemical compound [tinker toy arrangements of molecules, giving off unique to that pattern hums that attract and repel other hums].) More of one thing = less of some other arrangement of stuff.
-Natural Selection. This is the Second Principle of the universe after cause and effect/limited energy Principle.
.Different baby variations form. (because of cause and effect)
.Only some live and pass on their unique arrangements.
."Environment" selects. (Environments [arrangements of energy flow] are always varying too [like cloud formations in the sky], also because of cause and effect.)
Use this knowledge for good and not evil, Grass Hopper. (I for one will be using it for evil. Hence my cry of "cull back the masses, before it's too late".)
->Female sexual value.
->And male combat over it. Either as individuals (eg deer) or in groups. Few males win; most lose.
-If in groups, that selects for male variations who engage in schmoozing and compromise (simply 'sharing'). (Parallels to hive social dynamics and multi cellularism (simply 'body') metabolisms then can be seen.)
-The groups are variation assembly line machines fighting (directly or indirectly) other group variants. (Natural Selection will select the winner group variant.)
-Inside the group there is an 'alpha beta gamma' hierarchy where coup d eta civil war --_and counter strategy suppression_-- is always brewing.
-If the male vs male combat becomes more display based[eg birds] than direct engagement based [eg bears], the so called female 'handicapping' principle takes over: simply females choose the 'winner' male variation rather than being chosen by the best male warrior variations.
[All this is online at reputable places.]
'super' and 'sub' affixes affect these headings...
Animalia (predators as separate from photosynthesis)
(sponge, coral, and their jellyfish, worms, molluscs, arthrodpods, vertebrates, starfish; note around upper coral, self moving multicellular predators form --important)
chordata [these come from mullosc-like worms (most animals are worms) --but that takes us into evolution not just naturalist taxonomy.]
-sub: placentalia (also marsupials and monotremes [platypus])
Primate (lemurs etc)
-super family: pongoid ("Apes" --tailess primates)
Hominoidea (biped apes)
Race (all this gets loose):
~'Celt-Nord with vestigial Cromagnid' (=fancy talk for the skull type human females still find attractive.)
I would add sexual types to that.
.A-sexual (clone /self-splitters -most lifeforms)
.Sexual (most animals)
-hermaphrodites (sponge, coral, jellyfish, worms, molluscs)
-dimorphic sexuality (boy girl reproduction. Most arthropods, vertebrates. For these animal types, it starts with emasculation attacks symptomatic of their moving predation lifestyles).
~temperature (or energy/food acquisition)-created gender. (Reptiles/nesters etc)
~Y chrom/genetic-created gender. (Upper mammals AND through parallelism some insects [phylum: arthropods; class: insecta]!)
Note that reproduction is the most fascinating subject but least explored. Much parallelism; eg proto dimorphic sex formed in "pond scum" (one-celled specialist-breeding between multiple species in symbiosis with each other!) but modern vetebrate dim sex comes from totally different and much later branch.
"Objective" is tough. Relativism is always lurking.
_BUT_... these are OUR relative designations and therefore valid in and of themselves!
These classifications will modify over time as "paradigm shifts".
We want them to only shift according to OUR standards and observations. We must fight to keep alien --"Marxist" --paradigm shifts out. (Last time we fought, you jebus dolts fought for our enemies. Everything has sucked ever since. You all --christers-- complain about the modern world we live in but you are oblvious to the fact you have done it yourselves. You have done it to us all. There will be a reckoning...)
Others that don't like our relative designations and classifications can go to death camps where they can grapple with the error that was their attempts to replace our relative constructs WITH THEIR relative constructs.
Genetic cladistics (biochemical dissection) is replacing taxonomy (study of skeleton similarities and subtle differences) to classify into groups.
Final note about "parallelism" (some call it "convergence" which I dislike)...
Simply the phenom where a 30million year old dolphin (from coast-living proto-dog-thang) looks like >400million year old shark (from early fish).
This parallelism creates problems for taxonomists, since they look at morphological shapes (creature's parts) to classify: The seen similarities might be symptom of similar niches rather than family relationship. Genetic cladistics seeks to cure that classification problem.
As an exercise, figure out why dolphins and sharks have similar morphologies.
(Hint-- use NATURAL SELECTION theory...
1-) Different variations are born to a litter (they look, act and feel-inside different because of their different chemical compositions); 2-) only a small portion live; 3-) the niche they live in decides life and death.
Niches change over time but some remain consistent.
The fundamental motor of the Universe is "cause and effect" --billiard balls on a table... ricocheting, bank shot after bank shot forever. That ever continuing domino effect motion creates the varying niches and varying pups o'the litters.)
"Adaption" and "Evolution"
Nothing "adapts". That is not the way evolution works.
Natural selection is the way "evolution" works and it aint pretty. (There are other complexity systems too--none of them are touchy feel-y either.)
"Adaption" is classic liberal wordplay to trick people away from the truth of how "evolution" works, because liberals don't like the facts as much as christers don't.
When creatures 'evolve' from one form to another, what happens is environments change and consequently most pups die/drown, while some freaks/runts who normally didn't thrive go on to be the new top dog strains of that new niche.
_And no utopias happen in the offing._ Amphibians are every bit as cruel as the deep blue past was; And Romans were every bit a deadly as cromags; ...as the lingering cavalry fort [ie the city] is every bit as deadly and oppressive as the Indians were.
So if society IS "evolving", no one is magical adapting. We are simply creating a world hostile to certain types (ie killing strains that don't fit anymore) so that other types can thrive. The sewer, of have-n-have-not brutality called the city, is the new 'utopia'.
Welcome to what liberalism's progress really means.
And note that I don't care what your professors or pastors think: they are wrong and should be in political reeducation camps.
Don't post some nonsense response about how "they aint got no profes for ebolution --and give me back my stems!"
You conservatives --ie natural born dunces-- need to get your heads out of the philosophical and psychological hole you hide in.
As an exercise towards that end, stop fighting liberalism's wars for it.
>Creationist said: "And [science tech fraud] tends to indicate that attempting to construct an objective moral standard for Man based on science would not merely fail, but prove downright
So you're saying that observations of other mammal social groupings are so inaccurate and lied about that conclusions drawn from those observations could never be used to understand more about the human condition from an outside looking in perspective?
And note the only people lying about mammal social dynamics (and the socio- and psycho- babble implications) are marxists (ie jews) and their fellow travelers.
_Creationism keeps fighting the wars to keep those marxists in power over science-conclusions but then complains that science says things that are dangerous to conservative values._ (Read that sentence again.)
That is why creationism MUST go as a pre requisite to stopping "Marxism" (ie modern liberalism --feminism, affirmative action, immigration etc). (NOTE marxism is NOT Russian tank armies from the 50s-80s; marixsm is american 20th century liberalism which American white males/Christians keep fighting FOR. Creationists are doing that because they are susceptible to confusion; that is the same confusion tendency that hampers their grasping the simple Natural Selection concept.)
(And note the only thing that has "proved downright disastrous" so far is the american religious zeitgeist and parliamentary democracy in general.)
CHOICE CREATIONIST QUOTES
[quote]Supposing Dawkins and Darwin are impostors [/quote]
Wouldn't change a thing. (BTW, FYI to all, as far as I can tell dawkins is a feminist.)
Reality doesn't come from books.
I don't recite back what I read in some books. I understand what I do cause what I do understand is obvious.
You are congenitally predisposed to not get it and to not want to get it.
Along with chivalry, that is Western Mans' fatal flaw.
Classic Conspiracy Theory,...
...Classic Conspiracy Theory, used to refer to Darwin, Marx and Freud as the three thinkers who’d unshipped the rudders of European civilisation. [sic] Personally I’d add the insane moralist (NB NOT “philosopher") Nietzsche into the mix.
And the God Fearing US/Brit nutters fought against the Third Reich which was going to right the ship (and keep the true epiphanies).
So there you go.
How's that working out for ya?...
[quote]Surely the fact that a bunch of amoebas that suddenly got wise and moved about a bit and grew white skin and hair and teeth and learned to walk and talk is now giving way to another bunch that grew black skin and all the other accoutrements should be accepted as part of the great (but ultimately meaningless) progress, destiny, whatever, that results from Natural Selection?
"Suddenly got wise"
You don't understand Natural Selection or naturalism at all and therefore mis characterize it with strawmen, that I guess work out in the stycks of that `god forsaken hell hole once called america, but it doesn't work with even the mildly lucid.
If Dawkins is correct in deriving from his Darwinian positions the belief that “the universe that we observe has precisely the properties that we should expect if there is at bottom, no design, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference”
Well known. One of Dawkins' better observations.
Why don't you see it yourself?
Then WHY should anyone bother about The Decline of the West?
`Cause I want to live and thrive. I don't want to be "ugly ducklinged" out of my own home pond. (Also I don't want the inherent character flaws of my females --though adaptive, as part of that grand indifference-- to get away with "it"; also the human condition regarding reproduction in general --and all it entails (mostly pain --catalystic as ever-- on one plane or another)-- needs to be solved --for the good of everybody.) Period.
As for not seeing the soundness of cause and effect "materialism"...
You don't think the universe is generally as big as 'we' think it is? Same with the time scale?
You don't think weather is cause and effect on the scale of hot and cold creating currents? Same for earth quakes and volcanoes. You don't think mudslides and floods etc are "domino-effect" movements?
You can't put together for yourself how the movements of people, creatures and things --all of which are chemical composites-- are the continuations of movements from previous days and then previous days before that?
Now if the Uni is that big and old, any self aware creator entity which could grapple with all of its movements over that span must be magnifico in the extreme. Does it make sense that "red in tooth and claw" would be the cosmos-wide motor of this loving fatherly protector being?
Now you say "Satan did that red in tooth and claw jazz".
Okay but Is "God" too weak to stop `him? And didn't the great savant --who created satan, according to your particular myth (which just recently comes from a previous one called Zeus and Prometheus) --see that his throne bare-ing class was prone to pilfering?
As far as Natural Selection (which is cause and effect on the bio-chemical [carbo nitro atom] scale) --"Darwinism"...
You don't think dog breeds come from wolves through selectively picking certain traits over others? Same for horse breeds and grass/wheat/rice. _You don't think that that process of "only some traits getting to breed" applies to other organisms over more generations, as selected by the cause and effect domino effect movements of their surrounding locales/environments?_
You don't think human babies are chemical variants? You think all babies go on to do equally well at passing on their genes/ideas? (Ideas/memes are a symptom of the chemical composites we call genes.)
1) Different variations are born to a litter (they look, act and feel-inside different because of their different chemical compositions);
2) only a small portion live;
3) the niche they live in decides life and death.
Niches change over time.
The fundamental motor of the Universe is “cause and effect” --billiard balls on a table… ricocheting, bank shot after bank shot forever. That ever continuing domino effect motion creates the varying niches and varying pups o’the litters.
Parallelism: The phenom where a 30million year old dolphin (from coast-living proto-dog-thang) looks like >400million year old shark (from early fish).
Technology and wisdom in general is the Luciferean Apple yes. (If this loving protector god of yours wasn’t an A class prick Man wouldn’t grab it so readily.)
At any rate the techno snowball and a philosophical ontological understanding (eg natural selection) are not the same things. We can destroy ourselves --or a part of ourselves-- with the crazy train techno snowball but the facts of nature we have observed can still BE RIGHT too. (We can’t just hide our heads in holes and pretend truth hasn’t been seen.)
If we are to protect ourselves from the crazytrain snowball And at the same time accept what we now know to be true too, maybe we need to shale off atavistic (obsolete vestigial) christian sentiment, see a little means and end justification and throw down in un jesus-like, undemocratic ways, Third Reich style.
New Pearls.Since people are dumb and they need to have things said in different ways in order to comprehend them and since this stuff bears repeating, I am posting some more. (Though most everything necessary has already been said.)
Cause and effect domino effects. Nothing mystical.
Domino effects on the scale of hydrogen-cloud(nebulae) collapse (created by some pressure density event [wave]); then stars and their planets; then star ist kaput creating new pressure density events.
Just like with that, there is cause and effect on the planets too. It gets a little more complicated to say the least but it still is simple determinism. Just like the star birth cause and effect --"cosmic determinism".
Dimorphic sex for vertebrates and how understanding that is relevant to 'our' cause...
The point is to keep her stunted.
There is no reason to allow here to mature: she will just masculinize and make trouble for men. Especially make trouble for men who are specifically stunted by modern peace goals. (Peace goals are created by men as their attempted solution to the culling matches female sexual value naturally instigates.) These peace goals between the males cause the males to be bred/culled and trained to be gits so as to make them less threatening to each other.
The females if allowed to mature are _naturally_ triggered into dominance attempts--and other behaviors hurtful to the men of the 'peace bred society'--by the display the 'peaceful' males exhibit.
The more sappy the society makes males the more sappy and stunted the females have to be in order to still be the females.
A little analogy to help the dense understand... If we turn our grizzly bear species into a panda bear species, we have to make sure and make the females into pandas too. If not, the grizzly females--normally dominated by and triggered into submission to the male grizzlies-- will make mince meat out of the panda males.
Note that our society is about to collapse specifically because of a stated and unstated goal to stop "uppity" females. If the liberal males of the last few centuries would have simply stunted the females too along with trying to forge the new peaceful man, their liberal society might have worked. But by not stunting the females --and indeed allowing and prompting female aggression (which is the inevitable side effect of too many git males in her presence)-- they damned their society at its inception.
Most of you are too stupid --for genetic reasons-- to get this simple, simple stuff. Unfortunately.
All our "opinions" about this are not equal (regardless of what your mother tells you). I understand more about the root fundamentals than most. (The fact you all didn't learn these fundamentals for yourselves as you grew is note worthy and a grand indictment of the "age of reason".) As such I see the way it all works in practice better.
The other aspect of dim sex and how it is relevant to our struggle is fem sex value...
Females are "more valuable". This is why males are better at everything: Sperm egg ratio is such that a bottle necks forms around the egg. The males battle through this bottle neck; selection only allows some males through thus making them 'better'.
Either male vs male direct aggression is the culling force [eg bears or lion etc] or female choice is the culling force [eg flying birds, insects, some fish etc].
That is fact of Universe.
If you don't like the way that fact is spun at academia or media then you don't advocate suppression of this fact. You advocate murder of the git males (elimination of their bio chemistries) who create the fem empowerment spin.
Killing those git males is ultimately part of your/my reproductive strategy for getting through that bottleneck. As the git's spin of nature _used as deference payment to female vanity_ is their strategy for getting through that bottleneck. Since the gits are cowards and runts, deference to female caprice is their only hope of winning reproduction.
Note that you and I --we-- are trying to reinstate the bear or lion form of culling. While the gits in charge of this modern upside world are trying to more fully cement in their bird strategy for culling "us" bears/lions out of the way... as we all spiral towards the egg through the bottle neck.
"Either male vs male direct aggression is the culling force [eg bears or lion etc] or female choice is the culling force [eg flying birds, insects, some fish etc]."
Either way, females are "more valuable".
This is a great irony of dimorphic sexuality since dim sex originates(for proto vertebrates) as an emasculation attack by the mature hermaphrodite (male) directed at a younger hermaphrodite (female). The irony is the victors through their victory (ie creating females) actually made things tougher on themselves since males do have tougher lives (whether in male combat species [bears/lions] or female-as-chooser species [birds, insects]).
But yes, the females are still emasculated stunted males by nature*. That's what you want to hear. You are looking for an empowerment argument from nature; same as liberals. Liberals just have to pound square pegs into round holes and then censor the challenges to the illogic. (*female as stunted creature by nature is massively suppressed fact of our evolution _by all sides._)
Liberals hype up the fem sex value aspect of dim sex; And also the specifically female choice dynamics [eg birds, insects etc] and extrapolate to all nature and use as an "argument ad naturalism" to vindicate the modern western female-as-chooser bird-like dynamic [which gits need --it's their only possible chance]; Meanwhile conservatives try to hype up the male vigor aspects of the male as warrior dynamics (bears, lions). Conservatives are hamstrung in their empowerment attempt by their allies in the anti nature creationist and fuddy duddy "moralist"(effete) community. (Moralist fuddy duddies are the bird-like gits that vectored us into this female-as-chooser dynamic in the first place.)
A good example of the absurdity that comes from spinning biology into "nature as female empowerment display" is "females come before males".
Nonsense. A-sexual organisms come first; then hermaphrodites; then dim sex. One can not have "females" or "males" without the other--absurd. (Dim Sex formed a couple separate times through parallelism.)
They concoct the 'fems come first' absurdity from the fact that A-sexual organisms have parts that later become female parts.
"Female lions pick mates." They observed females go to new brunette stuffed males more than new blond/red males. Fine. But how blinded by political "relativism" does one need to be to not see male lions KILLING EACH OTHER IN WARS complete with coalition flanking and diversionary maneuvering!!? (Panzer Battalion strikes again! [It's actually Pz Abteilung.])
Same with the elephant "matriarchy". Nonsense. Male elephants fight to the death and the winner male fucks his choice at his leisure. It is like claiming that a harem parlor --filled with lounging dames-- is a matriarchy cause sometimes Sultan isn't in there. _How blinded with bigotry does one have to be to not see a giant --no, a JUMBO-- male elephant in must?_
(That is a main reason I ignore this "matriarchy/ patriarchy" blabber. It is all ill defined just so tales.)
A specifically human example of the absurdity that comes from trying to spin everything bio science into pro female display is "female open callosum" brain is better than male human single hemisphere brain". ...Pigs, deers, horses, crocodiles etc all have open callosum brains. The male human has the single hemi focused brain and only the male human has left Erda. Coincidence?
Not to mention liberals are shameless hypocrites: One minute it is "we are all the same and biology isn't real"; the next it is "biology is real and females are better --even if we gotta pound square pegs into round holes and shamelessly censor --and excommunicate those 'in league with the devil'-- to make it so".
There are tons of socio anthro babble [not really biology per se] matriarchy /patriarchy fem empowerment absurdities. (List some yourselves.)
We are definitely in a dark age when it comes to bio science -- and especially gender bio science. You conservatives--most especially Americans-- played your part in building that by being stubborn gits who couldn't(and still can't) get certain stuff. Liberals exploited accordingly until their citadel like control was complete. Now we are in a dark age.
FYI, Erda is an old Norse goddess; it is our modern word Earth.
I meant men have built all this crap, including stuff _that leaves Earth_ --even though "handicapped" by only having half a brain. (poor dears) :roll: Meanwhile the mighty wimmins/mouse/crocodile open brain has... um has... Now give me a second and I'll come up with something.
Ah got it: gossiped about ass.
Dame wrote: "I thought China and Asian cultures in general have always favored boys, culturally speaking."
That is a complexity issue that people always point to as another example of how non natural humans are --how above reality itself we are.
While I don't have it figured out entirely it is something like this...
The fathers (and his top sons) are achieving and holding rank so that they can be as reproductively valuable as the females. (Note females do nothing but just show up and be healthy to be as valuable.) The way _those_ fathers hold rank is by having lots of mules that work and fight on behalf of him (and his number one son(s)) and the land needed to sustain that continuum. Those main 'top dog' genes are the main things making it through the bottle neck of fem sex value; the extra sons are a type of husk around the kernels.
This question and concern of your's is more valid than a dame's last one about "self awareness"/ Why creatures are motivated to do what they do. (I explained that one. She was simply wrong there because wimmins are "too close" in their thinking; they lack big picture objectivity.) This 'I want sons' thing is a more important thing you have brought up.
There are other similar examples like that too. Wife immolation(healthy fem killed and buried with high rank man); dowry paid to boys family.
Like I said I don't have this all figured out yet. But the dim sex premise I explained earlier is still valid and accurate. This "I am compelled to want sons" [compulsions are created by chemical modules] is simply a "god of the gaps" issue. ("God of the gaps" = a profundity that hasn't been figured out which doubters use to throw a monkey wrench into the premise.) It is a complexity issue that doesn't negate the premise; it just muddies it.
Also the whole thing might be spandrels. A trait that is just going along for the ride --like ornaments on a cathedral.
(More later if I think of a better, smoother way of explaining this. Good shot dopey girl!)
(Just FYI note "culture" is some kind of expression of underlying natural reality.)
Self awareness and compulsions...
Males aspire because they have compulsions to achieve. (A compulsion is created by chemical chain reactions.) These specific compulsions have been selected more often than other compulsions, from the litter of extended siblings, given the energy conservation principle[finite food] and specifically female sexual value(bottle neck growing from the sperm to egg ratio).
Female humans aspire because they have compulsions to make it harder for males to just get "some" easily; "shit test". These compulsions have been selected once again by energy conversion/conservation BUT specifically... creating chaos and boundaries around reproductions is making her children (ie her compulsions /chemical conversion trends) more effective in some way. (Simply, it is inducing competition and then having that chaos separate the men from the boys.)
(Chemical chain reactions vary. Only some will be selected as efficient at converting more finite food into more of that chain reaction assembly line. The deemed-efficient is selected by an unwitting varying environment.)
To put it even more simply. A male aspires to rock stardom so he can get a chick to become a weak kneed dick sucker. A female aspires to rock stardom so her knees won't just become weak when a male rock star points at his package.
But to say people join up for "honor" or "protection" reasons...
...A red mud tribe(ocher in hair) was asked why they were at war with the blue mud tribe(wode in hair) [they both descend from the white lime in hair culture earlier --blue tribe finding itself by a part of a river bank where wode was exposed, and red tribe finding itself by some other bank of the river where ocher was exposed]. A rud mudder says "Well duh, just look at them... They have blue mud in their hair".
Deeper analysis is not something a joiner has a compulsion towards.
I put that little bit above about the tribes not really knowing what they were fighting for other than their collective feeling that the other tribe sucked ass so as to try to grapple with something. It was meant to be poetic.
Once there was a whale watching boat. College girls on it and a man. (Lets call that man Sean.)
So the whales jump out of the water and smash back down on to the water. Sean says, "do you know why they do that? Only boy whales do it."
Sean continues, "it is reproductive display scaring other males away using the conductivity of water to convey size and strength."
The girls, basically in unison, go "Nuh uh. It probably just feels good." [And the 'nays' have it. ...Gotta love democracy.]
Well of course it feels good. But good feelings are compulsions created by bio chemical modules. Out of all the bio chemical modules that formed (rolling around on the ocean floor, pissing in your own face, standing upside down in a volcano plume) --all of which feel good to the doer-- that "jumping out of the water makes me feel good" module did best; ie was 'selected' by the complex unwitting environment more often.
I --er uh Sean-- stated why that module got selected ("scared other males away") but Sean didn't say the whale knew this about his motivation. It simply felt good to him. Sean didn't think that he had to break it down to CAVEMAN BRAIN level for the um "feminine mind" of the world to get it.
Male Lions' midnight belly-grunt festival is the same as the whale jump: an impulse that feels good to the doer but it got unwittingly selected for "intimidation display" reasons (it scared younger smaller male(s) away).
To understand how unwitting selection of modules works, think leopard spots (a cutaneous system bio chemical module). Out of all the other kitten variations, the module that coincidentally unwittingly [since it is just some protein polymers in a goop] created a pattern that mimic'd dappled sunlight did best for reasons unknown to the victorious over-the-other-kittens leopard him/her self.
We then as humans from an outside looking in perspective figure out why that particular cutaneous module did best. We say: stalk pounce ambush predator [as opposed to run the prey down predator] benefits from having camouflage; the camo could mimic some environment feature (or be pattern diffusion/confusion like Zebras or WWI battleships). Eg dappled sunlight coming thru trees.
Same with orgasm module. Same with any other module that has benefited the host it makes up. The modules don't --and the host itself doesn't-- need to know it is the most efficient energy converting trait in an amoral energy based universe for it to "win". It simply "wins" for reasons that go over its "head".
Now back to pussy (the be all end all of our little corner of the universe here)...
Avril Lavign (or who ever) aspires because it feels good. But by doing so she limits (even further) the amount of boys who are eligible breeding stock. Shit test. Avril Lavign doesn't need to know this about the module that compels "aspiring".
GI Joe aspires because it feels good to him. Ie he has modules which compel 'this a way' and not 'that a way'. The particular modules which make him feel happy when he stomps face have gotten selected because they limit the amount of males in his area. GI JOE doesn't know this about himself or his modules; He simply, "knows" (is compelled to feel) that those other dudes `suck ass.
Now given the species we come from so far --not what we are becoming now-- the female human's desire to stomp face of other is not there so as to limit the amount of males in her vicinity. It is there to make it harder for the surviving males (on her side) of the face stomping hoedown to get twat. Shit test.
If Mankind continues to become a male-less hive (and it will --even after this little fall a comin') then the females will diversify --specialize--into different roles. Like the female-only caste of a hive. Then yes that hive's female-warrior-specialist-compulsion (to stomp face and see others as "suck asses") can be said to be something other than shit test impulse.
Do you understand CAVE WOMAN?