Category: Human Analysis

Identity Politics: Toxic Masculinity Hoax: Gender Identity Disorder: “Domestic Violence in the Transgender Community”

“A 2015 survey of 28,000 transgender people in the United States and its territories by the National Center for Transgender Equality found high rates of intimate partner violence in the community. Overall, 42 percent of respondents reported intimate partner violence, and rates were higher for many transgender subgroups including…” Click: Domestic Violence in the Transgender…

Identity Politics: Toxic Masculinity Hoax: Non-Traditional (Female, toxic) Masculinity: The two facets of female violence: The public and the domestic domains

“Violent behavior of women varies significantly in the public and private domains. Criminal statistics indicate a relatively low proportion of women among violent offenders in the public domain, while in the domestic and/or private domain statistics reflect almost no gender difference in violent behavior. The following paper proposes a dynamic model which draws upon psychological…

Identity Politics: Typical Liberal Hypocrisy: +200 Studies Examining Assaults By Women On Their Spouses or Male Partners: California State University

REFERENCES EXAMINING ASSAULTS BY WOMEN ON THEIR SPOUSES OR MALE PARTNERS: AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY Martin S. Fiebert Department of Psychology California State University, Long Beach Last updated: June 2012 SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 286 scholarly investigations: 221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive,…

Politics: Language: Words Have Meaning – “Gender”

Introduction Let’s keep this as simple as possible so no one can mistake what is being said. If anyone tells you that there are more than two genders, or that gender (as it relates to human beings) does not directly pertain to sex, they are either deceived, disingenuous, or delusional. The deceived can be aided…

“…However, when an individual chooses to engage in casual sex, breaking bond after bond with each new sexual partner, the brain forms a new synaptic map of one-night–stands. This pattern becomes the “new normal” for the individual. When and if the individual later desires to find a more permanent partner, the brain mapping will have to be overcome, making a permanent bond more difficult to achieve. Often the individual is not aware that the brain has adapted to the behavior pattern and he/she begins to think, “That’s just the way I am”, further reinforcing the pattern. “


Click Pair- bonding and the Brain | Medical Institute for Sexual Health for the entire article.

My Thoughts: The purpose of this post is not to call into question, or to bring to attention, the legitimacy of the “beauty” of anyone. The women in this linked article having nothing to do with me, and I have nothing to do with them, so whatever thoughts I have (or that anyone else has) on their personal appearance is ultimately irrelevant. My goal isn’t to fault them for doing what they (rightly or wrongly) feel is necessary to get by, on a day to day basis. However, I believe that the matter is a relevant one from the point of view of modern physiognomy; objectivity; transparency; and honesty. Call it what you like, such (significant appearance-altering) use of make-up is (by the very definition of the words employed, when objectively discerned) nothing short of a mask, or disguise.

Things, far too often, are not as they appear to be. The glamorous often isn’t very glamorous after all (and glamour, in fact, when etymologically-discerned, was a word that originally pertained to: “witchcraft; magic charm; a spell affecting the eye, making objects appear different from what they really are.“). Men, be careful of false allurements; beware of what many so highly esteem (or over-esteem) on television, in movies, or even in real life; again, such things are often not what they appear to be. Women, what does it say about our society that you cannot look as you naturally look, without so many of you feeling the need to substantively alter your appearance? I’m not talking about “highlights” or “minor touch-ups;” I am talking about radically altering your appearance for the purpose of either (1) bolstering your self-esteem and/or (2) obtain greater acceptance from the external world. It is a sad case when people cannot simply be as they really, truly, and naturally are. Beauty radiates out from within; we must break the conditioning of focusing on what the media puts forth as standards of (what really is artificial) beauty.

Granted, some people have major accident/deformity/health-related concerns; and I understand this; it’s not what I have in view by posting this. My focus is on those who have no such factors in play, and yet, who nonetheless feel the need to significantly alter their true form for personal or external approval.  So many young girls, and adult women alike, are not satisfied with themselves, are struggling to keep pace with an artificially-induced (false) look, and fail to see that beauty is not found in (sometimes nigh unrecognizably) altering your visage, but embracing it as is, and expressing your true being through it — without regard to what other people (whose opinion should not count) think or believe. It is not the natural face that I have concerns about; it is the masks people use to cover it. In fact, there is far more beauty in the “plainest of Jane’s” (in my opinion) than in the heavily-coated faces of the celebrities, or “stars,” who (quite often) play just as big an acting role off-screen, as they do on. There is beauty in realness, in transparency, in truth, and even in vulnerability. Sadly, far too many prefer the lie… and for what, really? To get approval from others? What a world we live in if that’s what it takes.

Moreover, though it may sound chauvinistic, in Physiognomy circles it has been said that the face is man’s autobiography but the woman’s work of fiction. Obviously, this isn’t always the case; and when it is, there are always varying degrees and factors to consider. Nonetheless, from the physiognomic point of view, there is real truth to this ‘generalization’ (especially in our modern materialistic/hedonistic/humanistic/overly-consumeristic society). If you doubt the impact of makeup on such considerations, just note how significantly it can visibly alter such vital (psychocognitive, emotional, social, and physical) data-conveyors as the:

  • Forehead: (lines, especially, and also the eyebrows (shape, length, thickness, etc.); the glabella; etc.
  • Eyes: in general, as to size, depth, etc.; but specifically, the tarsi (visibility, thickness); eyelashes (thickness/length); lower lids (shape; puffiness underneath); and so on.
  • Nose: nasal bridge (thickness/length); nose padding, alar creases, visible lines, tip/ball shapes and sizes, etc.
  • Philtrum: the depth, width, line distinctions, etc.
  • Lips and mouth as a whole (thickness, width, the vermillion, commissures, nasolabial, marionette, and other lines, etc.).
  • Cheek, jaw, and chin (shape, contour, length, width, positioning, lines/dimples/creases, etc.).
  • Insulation: Don’t forget that it also affects such considerations as skin color; skin health; lip colour and health; dark circles, etc.).

The bottom line is that makeup puts forth (usually on an unconscious/subconscious level) those physiognomic traits with which the person desires to be associated, or that they wish they had naturally. The makeupless face gives the truest display of one’s personological traits and characteristics. Makeup creates the show face, the public face, the acceptable mask, even the pretend face (for the more that’s applied, often, the truer this is). The natural face gives the truest phsyiognomic readings. As a quick proof of this, see how women act/feel (concerning themselves and others) when their “face” is on, compared to when it is off. Does it impact their feelings of self-esteem, melancholy, confidence, joy, extroversion, etc.? For many, it does. Likewise, for the observer, look at the side by side shots (with and without makeup), whether in the linked article, or from others like it (YouTube also has many video examples). Does the before & after view alter your thoughts and emotions in any way? Rightly? Wrongly? A combination of the two? You will have to decide for yourselves.

Finally, can you rightly and fully judge a book by it’s cover? No.. And yet, as the most detailed “cover” you will likely ever encounter on a daily basis (i.e. the human face), you can learn much about the “book” (the person) when you know what to look for. Just as neurology manifests short-term psychological, cognitive, emotional, and social states via facial expressions, neurology also manifests longer-term cognitive, psycho-emotional, and related characteristics via the more static facial features mentioned in the bullet list above (along with many others not listed). Through regular study, practice, calibration, and testing, these things will become more and more obvious — you just have to be open to seeing the patterns.

From the article: “You will see in these before and after pictures what makeup can really do, how can hide skin problems, change eyes shapes, change face shape and beautify any woman. No wonder why men criticize makeup, we understand the shock they have when meeting a woman with makeup on and later seeing her without. We think women should be more conscious and do massive transformations only when really needed. On a daily basis, the makeup should look as natural as possible and as close as to the real face of the person. This will create more genuine connections with people and will save any woman the pain of rejection. What do you think about wearing a lot of makeup all the time? Do you think women should stop hiding their true beauty?

Click What Makeup Can Really Do – Before and After Pictures – AllDayChic for the rest of the article with the comparison images.


“The face acts “like a road sign to affect the traffic that’s going past it,” says Alan Fridlund, a psychology professor at University of California Santa Barbara who co-authored a recent study with De Montfort University’s Crivelli arguing for a more utilitarian view of facial expressions. “Our faces are ways we direct the trajectory of a social interaction.”

That’s not to say that we actively try to manipulate others with our facial expressions (though every once in a while, we might). Our smiles and frowns may well be instinctive….”

Click BBC – Future – Why our facial expressions don’t reflect our feelings for the rest of the article.

There has been a recent boom in research on how people attribute social characteristics to others based on the appearance of faces—independent of cues about age, gender, race, or ethnicity. (At least, as independent as possible.) The results seem to offer some intriguing insight, claiming that people are generally pretty good at predicting who is, for example, trustworthy, competent, introverted or extroverted, based entirely on facial structure. There is strong agreement across studies as to what facial attributes mean what to people, as illustrated in renderings throughout this article. But it’s, predictably, not at all so simple.

Click The Introverted Face – The Atlantic for the rest of the article