“No sensible man ever engages, unprepared, in a fencing match of words with a woman.” – Wilkie Collins
The fundamental difference in what women say they want, and what they actually want is a product of the notion that women tend to exercise rationalisation, not reason in and of itself. Most women have extremely weak reasoning, you’ll notice in arguments with them that they will try to attack the credibility of your logic to try to make themselves look better, this is the classic “I can’t beat the competition so I’ll try to make the competition less effective” strategy that women employ on a grand scale with ideas like fat acceptance, but applied on a micro-scale in their interactions on a one-to-one basis.
Questioning a man’s logic and credibility is a way a woman essentially “brings a man down to her level of absurdity.” There comes a line of questioning so invasive, so interrogative and so unreasonable, that a man, feeling like he is on the defence, will yield his logic to his sense of frustration, and then the woman who deliberately and calculatingly imposed this form of mental tyranny in her sense of outrage will then use this frustration as a weapon against the man to further reduce his credibility by pointing out quite proudly that he is in fact no more logical than she!
Women will hold you to your logic as it forces you to take responsibility for things they do not wish to, but they are bound by no such logic themselves because they have no prevailing internal dialogue that is actually based on logic, at best they tend to have segmented ideas based on emotional thought layered with rationalisation that works to present a veneer of intellectual credibility, which is later necessary for the purpose of saving face. What women are doing here is exploiting the nature of logic and the sense of duty to the truth which is inherent within it, they make you feel bad by making you feel like you violate your own sense of duty to the truth whilst simultaneously feeling no such duty themselves. This gives them an edge in verbal combat as once you are emotionally compromised within your own frame of reference, questioning your own sense of logic due to your emotionally provoked slip-up, they can then exploit this momentary weakness to dominate the agenda.
They do whatever they do and then worry about making themselves look good later on, unemotional reason does not permeate the thought process beforehand. Satiating the “need” caused by the desires of their current emotional state is of the utmost importance to them; essentially they care more about feeding their emotional state more than they care about the tenets of objective logic. Emotional preference beats rational preference for them almost every time, as much as they hate the fact this makes them seem less credible than men, and thus to some extent inferior, this is practically a universal truth that not even government imposed “equality” has managed to rectify, women are not held any more accountable for their actions now than they were pre-feminism, you only need to look at sentences handed out by the judiciary for confirmation of this.
When you’re inherently unreasonable you are prone to making mistakes, making mistakes makes you look bad – looking bad is bad for your status. This is why women are good at saving face and maintaining a reputation whilst simultaneously practicing poor reasoning ability. This is where manipulation comes into play; you’ll find that, women are very good at spinning things, far more so than your average man is. They’ll talk to you, they’ll hold you to your words and get you on the defence, constantly questioning you, but they’ll ignore any criticisms directed at them as if to say with the unspoken word that your concerns or notice of their irrationalism is unworthy of validation. Then they use your own words against you, using underhanded and subtle spin, to make you look like an idiot. The more you put into an argument with a woman the more likely you are to lose with her because she will act most deviously in sabotaging your reputation whilst she layers hers.
To a woman, an argument is not usually an exchange of information between one person and another where despite opposition, ideas can be exchanged and information learnt. To a woman, an argument is a battleground for pushing an agenda, and reputation maintenance always comprises part of that agenda, there’s nothing more and nothing less to the nature of their argumentation. This is why typically, they cannot be held as accountable and thus even remotely equal to men due to an absence of credibility, they demonstrate repeatedly that their mental faculty is averse to claiming responsibility via honest, transparent discourse. Even when they are in positions of power which require by nature of the job description that they be held completely and utterly accountable, they still demonstrate reluctance to give up plausible deniability and be forced into a position, analyse any female bosses in the workplace you’ve had to draw a personal inference if you need so.
This desire for plausible deniability is what creates their blame-shifting nature and makes them, happily to themselves, not only unaccountable, but to their simultaneous dismay, incredible (not credible as a group of people.) Women will always move the fixation of the analytical microscope from themselves onto the opponent in their defiant acts of emotion-fuelled verbal sparring. This is how they defend themselves. They are wholly incapable of standing up to scrutiny on a logical level (due to the lack of faculty previously explained) and this is thus why they do everything in their power to remain out of the spotlight, shaming and scapegoating others in place of being a target of scrutiny themselves. As long as “it’s not my fault” and “I don’t look bad” she doesn’t care.
Despite the common woman’s indignation at being deemed illogical or, at least in terms of mental faculty, far less capable of logical reasoning than man himself, women in all their self-honesty beyond their hubris and ego maintenance do in fact realise that men are the more logical party. How is this you ask? Something I have observed in my arguments with women over time is a tendency for them to say that “you claim women are illogical, but you’ve just been illogical yourself!” again as mentioned earlier, this is a device used to try to bring you down whilst they bring themselves up, it’s the credibility game of “making you seem less credible by destroying the appearance of your advantage (your logic) to onlookers” however, the irony here is that such statements are often made after the woman in question has been incredibly irrational herself.
However, if you as a man are to make one wrong step, to make one statement that isn’t totally sound in logic, you are immediately held at gunpoint and this one faux-pas in comparison to her long list of logical mistakes is held up as an example of just how illogical you as a man are. How is this women admitting that they believe men to be more logical than themselves I hear you ask? Well as usual, they’re communicating it via the subtext, not with words. They’re holding men to a standard where even one sentence or idea uttered illogically is immediately picked up on and condemned, thus they have the ability to identify irrationalism, yet ironically they perpetuate their own irrationalism as gospel. They’re holding themselves to a lower standard of logical accountability than they do the male party. Gotcha there, ladies.
A man is condemned for being illogical and immediately compared to a woman for being so, yet the same woman who draws this comparison is the same woman who will try to condemn you to save face using all the most argumentatively illogical Machiavellian tactics in the book. Women KNOW they are illogical, they know they are not fair to you in discourse, they push all your buttons and drive you crazy with their irrationalism, and quite simply, they don’t care as long as it fulfils their agenda. They are undeniably selfish and hold commitment to their personal needs higher among their list of personal priorities than the diction of intellectualism. The only thing they care about is feeling like they’re right and getting their ego stroked, not actually discovering that little known thing we value called “the truth.” Solipsism does not need truth, equally accountable standards of logic applied to both genders however does need truth as the truth is objective. The truth has the potency to be harmful to solipsism and the female sense of well-being, and therefore, typically, the truth is an adversary of the female, only an ally when she needs it to make someone else appear weak.
What they’re doing despite their lack of intellectual integrity is making themselves look more credible than the straight-talking logical party, which is typically the man, so that when it comes to saving face they win the game of “appearing more sophisticated.” As sophistication carries a grace of validity and credibility to it, this is what they are mostly concerned with in the perpetuation of their thoughts. Women care about winning arguments, not about being right per se. To a woman, being right is using whatever underhanded tactic is required to get her own way and come out of the conflict favourably, being right is not obeying the laws of logical objectivism but spinning other people’s logic to make her look better than them whilst offering up some weak arguments herself just to get the ball rolling.
There are a few ways that they can put spin on the argumentation at hand, one of them is to shame you. By shaming you they can make you react emotionally, once you react emotionally you have lost – they will then make a theatrical example out of your show of emotion and use it to condemn you. Another way they put spin on things, one they favour greatly, is to play the victim. All of a sudden all the verbosity of being equal turns into “I’m just a girl and you’re being mean!”, water tears get worked and everyone looks at you like you’re the asshole. The fucked up thing is you will probably even feel like an asshole too, even though you’re in the right. Voila, she gets her own way and that’s all she wanted to begin with. There is no low too low for womankind to steep to if it means she gets her own way and secures her interests.
Women are very egotistical, because ego, like everything, is composed of emotions, and emotions are that much more de facto dominant in women than they are in men. Next time you argue with a woman, remember the agenda at hand is to appear the most credible and maintain a superior reputation in juxtaposition to your own. If she tries to bait you into reacting emotionally (and she will, she is dependent on your anger to have a chance at beating you to a pulp with your own words) do not take her seriously and just laugh off her words, because really, they are nothing more than baseless Machiavellian nonsense that will drive you to insanity should you take such words seriously and attempt to engage them at face value.
I’ll end this post on a high, and allow Bill Burr to reiterate what I’ve said in a more comical format: