Very well put. I would just challenge definitions here.
the male is naturally a more argumentative and disagreeable thing within in society (which is supported strongly by psychological literature)
I would state this as men have a stronger tendency to provide a check against usurped authority and a stronger inclination to stand up and fight for their values and standards. The Jewish invention of psychology was produced partially to introduce the terms you used (argumentative/disagreeable) to castigate men for causing division when they stand up for their interests. "Why are you so negative, can't you just be positive?".
This lays the foundation for demonizing masculine protection of values as "toxic". The patriarchal authority figure is now identified as the one who causes division and who blocks the synthetic whole from achieving acceptance and unity. The traditional man is viewed as the source of cognitive dissonance when he stands and says "no". The group must then purge him if they wish to see their communist utopia become a reality. Psychology was created for that purpose.
Yes, I'd agree with that. To your point, I used the phrases without even questioning them. I've used them so many times that it's just a heuristic, basically. I do agree. For what it's worth, I don't take disagreeability to have a negative connotation. I meant exactly as you have said, which is they are likelier to challenge authority. The male, if he feels something is wrong or contrary to his own value system, is likelier to disagree with sources of authority than the female, who is likelier to mask her own values if she experiences social pressures that make it seem more beneficial.
I understood your meaning. I just wanted to point out how those terms are read by others and what they mean to the dialectic Bolsheviks. I dont think there's anything wrong with being disagreeable or negative either. "No" is the most important word in our language.
(post is archived)