Women are not inherently cooperative. During the history, women could not advance on their own, and developed traits that allowed them to advance by horizontally joining men or the groups. The women’s goal – just like the men’s – is to advance in social hierarchy. In relations with their men and the groups, women accept horizontal connections as the best practical option.
The notion of the priority of horizontal relations in female cognitive framework is erroneous. Horizontal relations are the female means of achieving vertical relationship.
Women try to choose men with the highest status, whether in attractiveness, physical power, or social relations. Young women often if not fall in love, then feel attachment to men with high status. Sometimes, women ostensibly irrationally choose a worse option. They might use a different value system from the observer’s, such as masculine beauty instead of the financial criteria. Women are risk-averse, and often prefer the reliability and assured status of the current relationship to the risk of entering a new, better relationship; that trait is commonly misinterpreted as female loyalty.
Mindful of her goal in social hierarchy, woman unapologetically defends her man before others but criticizes him for every imagined offense when they are alone. In the last situation, there is no group, and she does not need the man to advance herself. When alone with her man, a woman establishes herself in family hierarchy by belittling him.
Men put hierarchy above lives. They can join ideologies, groups, and die for them. Women, likewise, sacrifice their lives for hierarchy. They attach themselves to men, dissolve in them, and considerably lose their personality.
Female groups are shielded from outside, “manly” competition, and women compete internally, though tacitly, to avoid destabilizing the group. They compete in minor things, such as clothes. They structure the intra-group competition to actually strengthen the group; e.g., young females often compete for closeness to the group leader. With years and expertise, women reduce the risk of destabilizing the groups, and smooth over the conflicts. The increase in tolerance reflects lower competitiveness of older females who often lost their most competitive feature, attractiveness. Women opt for competition when assured of secrecy: they commonly treat husbands to after-party lectures of how ugly the other women have been there.
When circumstances allow, e.g., with weak husband or very submissive subordinates, women strive to domination no less than men. A woman who cannot lower her husband explicitly, might consider him a fool and lower him in her own hierarchy.
Sex is a means both for males and females. The former use it to directly advance in social hierarchy by the victory and showing the trophy to others. The latter use sex to join the men to advance together. Societies where the women could advance on their own are sexually emancipated because women there do not relate sex to the necessity of building stable relationships. Women hold average place on the scale of intellect and are risk-averse, and are less likely than men to advance the social ladder. Sex remains for women a precious means of advancement or rather franchise payment. Women, consent with their social status, are normally sexually emancipated.
Women are more average than men. Women have fewer deviations both towards stupidity and brightness. Most deviations from the average among men are towards stupidity, and so the women are generally smarter than men.
But women lack geniuses. Writers and poets need no education, but no women are great writers. Japanese culture welcomes female poetry, but there are no great female poets in Japan. Universities are now open to women, but there are no major female scientists. Women are good in every occupation, but great in none. The females who advanced in social and scientific hierarchy are characteristically manly.
Women are not more perceptive than men. Females are underrepresented among the artistic and choleric temperaments. Petrarch yearned for Laura, not vice versa.