I have already written more than once about the advantage of female genes over male ones, the main one of which is a programmed “Commitment to Mission”, in contrast to male self–commitment, that is, ordinary egocentrism. That is why women could surpass men in many, almost all, spheres of human activity, especially in those where this “Commitment to Mission” plays the main role. Male scientists are extremely selfish, and therefore, for them, intellectual honesty is sadly dragged along in the rearguard of other, SELFISH interests.

THERE is NO such sincere and dominant commitment.

Female scientists are much more intellectually honest in this regard, and therefore they could easily surpass the pompous and swaggering pseudo-scientists.

But I’ll get to the point of the note.

Every living being that arises as a result of meiosis (and not mitosis) carries two halves of its parents’ genes. But the “trick” is WHICH GENES become dominant, that is, the main determinants in the development of this creature, and which are recessive, also influencing, but weaker.

So, let’s imagine two types of men: Some with dominant paternal genes, others with dominant maternal genes.. Paradoxically, it is a fact that men who are dominated by their mother’s genes turn out to be MORE COMMITTED to a MISSION, like their mothers, than to the selfish mission of commitment to their own interests.

And how does this “Commitment to Mission” manifest itself in men, “mamma’s boys”?

They are MORE HONEST in science, they do not have a gnawing inferiority complex or it is weaker than that of male scientists with dominant paternal genes. But they are more honest not only in science, but in any other field of human activity, because they UNCONSCIOUSLY but powerfully express the predominance of this Commitment to the Mission.

This is also evident in military affairs. The instinct of self-preservation speaks in every living being, but it is also a form of selfishness, but in women, because of their Commitment to the Mission, it is weaker than in men, so the bravest and most selfless warriors are just men with dominant mother genes! LOYALTY TO THE MISSION SUPPRESSES FEAR and THE INSTINCT OF SELF-PRESERVATION, so there are many more heroes among such “mama’s boys” (UNKNOWINGLY “mama’s boys”) than among “daddy’s boys”.

Female warriors are clearly superior in bravery to male warriors (statistically, of course).

Well, Mr. Esprit, readers will say ironically, this is not the first time you have spoken about the superiority of women, both biological, “mission” and intellectual. One wonders why the majority of warriors are still men. The majority of politicians and prime ministers are men, and scientists are also the overwhelming majority.

It wasn’t PHYSICAL strength that propelled men to the FOREFRONT of society, was it?

How do you, Mr. Esprit, explain the predominance of men from your position of such “bowing” to women, although in your opinion, everything “should be” the OTHER WAY AROUND???

That’s right, and you can’t argue with the facts. But it is possible and necessary to argue with THEIR INTERPRETATION,

I’m not “bowing”, but just expressing my thoughts, and trying to be INTELLECTUALLY HONEST!

I talked about the female genetic commitment to the mission, but I purposely kept silent, for the time being, about WHAT MISSION!

That’s where the answer lies.

Commitment to the biological mission of procreation!

And all other missions are just DERIVATIVES of the aforementioned one. Let’s say the “branches” of the main and most important, biological!

But the main one remains the main one and therefore dictates to women a certain way of thinking and, accordingly, behavior. And the reason for the social dominance of men lies not in their physical strength, not in their high intelligence, and not in their “Commitment to the Mission”, but in the commitment of women to their basic, basic, biological mission, which most men LACK.

It was not the mystical “strength” of men that determined everything, but the “weakness” of women, due to their commitment to biology, allowed selfish males to seize preferential places in the hierarchy of the human herd. And I still believe that women are superior to men in many of their qualities, both “in work and in battle,” but their loyalty to their biological mission greatly weakens women’s positions in the continuous competition for the best rungs on the herd hierarchy.

I am sure, for example, that both Einstein and Bohr were “mamma’s boys,” because they were not only very talented, but also honest, decent intellectually, and devoid of the usual herd inferiority complex. And other scientists, even if they were also very talented, were very zealous in protecting and praising their “EGO” and the high step they had climbed, albeit deservedly!

For them, it is not honesty or loyalty to this honesty that is important, but admiring their own “ME”!

It’s not women who like to “spin in front of the mirror,” but men, but it’s often inside their psyche.

And so it is ALWAYS AND EVERYWHERE!

Faciant meliora potents

If I’m wrong, let my seniors correct me.

17 VI 2026