“The heart has its reasons which reason knows not.” ― Blaise Pascal
Contents:
1.) Introduction
2.) My Philosophical Position
3.) How Female Emotivity Manifests In Disagreement
4.) How Women Form Opinion
5.) In Closing / Relevant Reading
1.) Introduction:
The claim that woman’s capacity for reason matches man’s is humorous, and yet be it espoused by radical feminists or well-intentioned humanists, the “equality of reason” myth persists.
It was only the other week I observed two men debating woman’s logical capacity, one man insisted women were less reasonable, whilst the other disagreed whilst conceding “all women are like that“. Yet in spite of this concession, said man went to the lengthy effort of recalling instances where he had observed women exercising reason. It was as if this particular man wasn’t quite willing to accept women are the less reasonable sex, which ironically is an unreasonable position in and of itself.
There is of course a discrepancy here, a gentle person can get angry and a frugal man can make a large purchase in the same way that an unreasonable person can demonstrate logic; a capacity for something does not equate to a propensity for it. The man who could not believe women are less reasonable is naive, the claim was not that women never make logical decisions, even a broken clock is right twice per day, the claim was that women are governed so strongly by emotion that their capacity and proclivity for reason is greatly vitiated, ergo, their reason is inferior to man’s.
Even in the comments section of this very publication, the notion women are just as logical as men is oft dispelled, for women are quick to offend and be offended by nature of their volatile reactivity. Now of course the same principle applies to man, an angry man cannot reason too well either, but here is my contention: the average woman becomes emotional far more easily than the average man, and thus whatever reason she does possess is quickly lost when even a modicum of pressure is applied.
I believe less intelligent women are simply incapable of reasoning to any elaborate degree, whilst smarter women can only do so whilst their emotions are in check, eg: they have managed to encounter something unsettling without taking offence to it. Nevertheless, I do not believe smarter women are any less emotional than their lower IQ counterparts, but only that they have better impulse control. This is why although smart women can exercise reason, they often do so with less frequency than even the average man.
2.) My Philosophical Position:
In my analysis of women’s behaviour I try to minimise my sexism as much as possible, for I do not wish my weaker expectations of women to sustain an untrue personal delusion, but rather, I wish for my view of man as the primary sex to be grounded in sound observation and empirical evidence. For example, I observe men making sounder judgements more often than women, debating better, skewing more to the right on the IQ bell curve, as well as making the majority of discoveries and inventions that elevated us out of the stone age.
In my inquiry into male and female differences I have discovered women’s sole biological reason for existing is to reproduce and nurture the young, whilst man’s is to reproduce, protect his mate (oft dying in wars in an attempt to do so) and contributing to the grand project known as civilization.
In case any wish to contest the point on civilization, do so bearing in mind you contend the point with a machine invented by a man, using a power source discovered and refined by a man, in a house designed and built by a man. As women are and have historically been preoccupied with child rearing and maintaining social ties, the elevation of the human condition can thus be credited almost solely to man.
Even since half a century of woman’s emancipation, women have done little but accrue more money, in terms of major intellectual and civilizational achievements, few have achieved anything of significance. Yes, women have entered highly prestigious professions such as medicine and law, but do the majority of women make major contributions to their fields, or do they just teach and practice the work of men who came before them, rather than endeavouring to truly excel in, innovate and push the boundaries of their chosen disciplines?
In case it is not clear, my intent is to make a philosophical inquiry into man and woman’s complementing nature as to allow for the refinement of my view, the goal is not to arbitrarily denounce one sex whilst heralding the other. If women are thereby described as being secondary or lesser in some form, it is because this is what reality is indicating to me, not because I want it to be so.
3.) How Female Emotivity Manifests In Disagreement:
As somebody who likes to be proven wrong by reason and empiricism (because I can learn from this) it is disappointing but nevertheless predictable the majority of comments women have made in my time writing have been subpar. If it is disjointed emotional babbling, I hastily remove it to prevent an explosion of vitriolic derailment from occurring in the comments section.
Despite my desire for an open forum and strong ethical appreciation for freedom of speech, not all speech is equal in its reason or value and thus I do not permit the dregs of human thought to manifest and take root within my comments section, censorship be damned. Offending comments are not removed on the basis of whether they agree or disagree, but rather, whether they are well argued or not. If you disagree but make a compelling argument, I won’t remove a comment. But if the person knows no better than to try to play mind games with me on my own blog, I will vibrantly dispose of their trite.
The women who are offended and disagree with the content here oft do so on a profusely emotional basis, with typically little in the way of cogent reasoning in their attempts at refutation. I imagine due to the choice of topic and depth of language, my comments section attracts a higher IQ female than average, and even from this pool of women, 3 kinds of comment tend to be made:
– “I agree with what you’re saying because I’m a traditional woman (usually she is Christian or highly conservative) and my emotions/upbringing agree with your world view. I arrived at similar conclusions I couldn’t verbalise, reading what you’ve deduced has confirmed my intuitive beliefs and suspicions.”
– “I disagree with what you’re saying because I cling to the interpretations of reality indoctrinated into me by feminism, your criticism of women is misogynistic and what you say represents everything that is wrong with society.”
– “I disagree with what you’re saying because my solipsistic point of reference is more valid to me than your reason, I don’t fit neatly into your world view because I’m different from most women and thus your world view cannot possibly apply to most women, you must be wrong.”
A woman who makes a very well-reasoned comment is a rarity, but when it happens it is a welcomed delight regardless of whether there is consensus, nevertheless, such a thing is rare enough that one does not hold their breath waiting for it to occur.
If Illimitable Men was contingent on women making reasonable comments for sound discourse and new topic ideas, as a platform for unorthodox ideas it’d die with much haste. Now I am not going out of my way to be offensive here, but I am emphasising a point: women just aren’t all that reasonable, logic is not their primary mode of function and this shows emphatically in their contributions.
In case you think this site is read exclusively by men, you would be mistaken, I receive enough page views that if even a meagre percentage of my readers are female, that’s a good few thousand women.
4.) How Women Form Opinion:
Time and time again, be it a televised debate, a private argument or even in universities where the female IQ skews higher, I see little in the way of reason espoused by women. This does not mean women do not say correct or truthful things, but rather that they do not rationally deduce truth so much as they intuit it, intuition being the vague sensation that something feels or sounds right.
Likewise women will hold untrue and irrational beliefs because said irrational thing feels good to believe. You should begin to see a pattern emerging here, whether a woman holds an opinion based in truth or an opinion that isn’t, this opinion is almost always held because it feels good to believe, or her peer group believes it and thus she adopts their view. Scarcely does she hold a view because she has rigorously investigated a topic with reason and come to a conclusion she believes to be true; this is not impossible but I believe it improbable.
Often when the veracity of a woman’s viewpoint is being challenged, if she believes her opinion to be true out of no more than an intuitive emotional conviction, she feels the validity of her emotion is being disputed rather than the credibility of her reasoning.
When a woman’s reasoning is disputed, she oft perceives this as the invalidation of her emotion, the deprivation of her “right to feel” because her opinion and its hasty conclusion is oft founded upon an instinct or feeling rather than a deduction or investigation.
Women have a tendency to defensively double down on their position when they feel bad, employing Machiavellian fallacy such as shaming (eg: reductio ad absurdum) rather than opening themselves to greater scrutiny and taking the time to step back and re-evaluate their opinion.
Essentially, women trust their emotions far too much, they act on their emotions almost entirely without restraint, and often fail to question, analyse, check and hold their emotions to account. For a woman if it feels right then it is right, a woman does not consider that perhaps although some things feel good to hear or believe, they may be logically unsound, false, outright incorrect or otherwise verifiably false.
One can make such discernments by comparing how men and women back up their arguments, for example, an incorrect man is generally able to devise a chain of reasoning to explain his thinking, whilst a woman is scarcely capable of producing any such evidence of reasoning. Why? Because even when a man is wrong he’s thinking in a way that is logically congruent even should his conclusion prove to be false. A woman on the other hand merely felt the thing to be true, so has no cogent basis for communicating why she believes her opinion to be correct, “it just is!”.
5.) In Closing / Relevant Reading:
It appears to me that women just hold opinions, and that they have these opinions because they feel intuitively correct, and if anybody presents them with evidence counter to what they feel to be correct, rather than accept the evidence presented to them and adopt a world view more aligned with reality, they lash out and refuse to internalise the uncomfortable truth.
Women would appear prone to correcting emotional inconsistencies rather than logical ones, that is rather, women are better adapted to coping with things than understanding them. Of course woman can understand things, it would be idiotic to claim otherwise, but an underlying ability to understand does not always translate to a desire to understand. Generally, a woman won’t even make the attempt to understand something if she believes the truthfulness pertaining to it will upset her emotionally.
In accordance with AWALT theory, I believe this to be true of all women but to differing frequencies, that is to say, some women are like this most of the time, whilst others are only some of the time. I’m not saying men are infallible and do not do blunder or even indulge in the exact same ignorance either, I believe they do, just with less frequency, reckless abandon and fervour than do women.
I have a lot of thoughts on this topic, so in part 2 expect me to explain how conformity, shame and female evolutionary psychology almost compel women into Machiavellian/emotive responses rather than honest or logical ones. It should be noted this article has been designed as an introductory piece for a more substantive follow-up, which can be found here.
Books:
The Manipulated Man
The Rational Male
The Rational Male: Preventive Medicine
Blog:
A Most Solipsistic Nature
How Women Argue
Solipsism, Emotion & Arguments
The Nature of Women
The AWALT Misconception
Now this, sir, is gold. Gotta bookmark it and re-read from time to time.
Still got part 2 to come also!
Will make sure to read it!
Looking forward bruv….2016 is looking good!!!
Can’t wait! I could read a whole book of your insights on this matter.
What a load of mysoginist crap. Some men are just inadequate and need this shit to feel better about themselves. Pathetic and weak
Thanks for the post, I’ve been married for 1 year, but cohabited for 4 years.
I have an intelligent woman, but I could never discuss anything of my interests with her. Its almost as she is just there to challenge my ideas or research. I did not have the right vocabulary to express this topic in the way that you have before.
Been having this problem with my girl all week.. le sigh!
“In a time of universal deceit – telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” – George Orwell.
Great job. Long time reader and new supporter.
Women will follow rational males. Here is the most rational female conversation I’ve ever heard:
http://youtu.be/3bR_Hg1aTrQ
Us Republican women tend to be more logical yes🙄
Well the link was removed, but if you search “European Women Speak Out on Leftist Lies” youtube it’s quite impressive to see how great females can be with the right anchor to hold onto.
Complimentarity suits them…however vehemently they deny it.
I see your points, but I think what ends up triggering this backlash from females is the language/emotion you impart on your deductions. “The myth of female rationality” is a attention-grabbing, emotion-seeking headline, but with a reasonable / rational (yet still entirely anecdotal and without any sources whatsoever) post. It is as if you are almost enticing women to give into their emotional behavior and respond emotionally. What if you had instead came up with a headline which more accurately represents your thesis? You concede throughout your blog post of many counter arguments. So your point is not nearly as “ground breaking” or eye opening as the headline suggests but instead rather mundane and inconsequential.
Now onto the body of your post, I think when you look at the numbers it supports what you’re saying but your one point about sopilism to me does not go with the rest of what your saying. What the “sopilistic” argument is basically saying is that a woman who doesn’t exibit these traits as often as the average means that it disproves your premise. Which is does, because your conclusion (AWALT) and your concessions (but some are more than others or experience them at different frequencies and amounts) are at odds with each other. So what is a rational woman supposed to take away from this? Well I can certainly say it compels me to utilize reason more than intuition in my own decision making and opinion making. Because I believe although ones intuition could be very good, it pales in comparison to reason as to which is more indicative of the truth. But what about the irrational woman ? She will see it as an insult to her character. The irrational man? He will use it to justify misogynist behavior towards woman. The rational man? He will use it to dismiss women before they have the opportunity to even speak
So what is the truth? As you conceded, women are in fact capable of rationality. But they also get caught in emotions. I compel our more rational counterparts to not stand for irrational, emotional behavior. In the case where emotions are overtaking rational discussion, end it there (If its a rational problem being discussed). If they see a faltering in a (rational) woman’s reasoning, question it as they would a man. There is no reason to give women a pass in a discussion just because she is being emotional and is unable to logically string together an argument! If she is unable to take kindly to your own rational suggestions, its probably she does not trust or respect your expertise and will be prone to dismissing it anyway. So it boils down to does the woman respect the man? No , and that’s why she lets her emotion rule her, because she can get away with it.
I’m going to be honest here. I consider myself to be rational but also can see that emotions get “in the way” of logic. I have had mentors who have refused to engage in discussions when I’m emotional, or behaving with anger (which I can be prone to). On matters which are important to me, I will disgard the emotional aspect and address the situation with logic. Because in any technical field, logic dominates the progress. Even if a woman’s nature is to perceive through emotion, if she values logic, she will utilize it to the best of her ability and remove herself from situations involving emotions so they do not control her decision making process. I know this as this is how I operate, and how many rational females operate as well, but I agree this is not as common as you would see in males, though males are not immune to irrationality. You concede that too.
I think that when it comes to logic, its not if its more suited for women or men, but it comes down to the self awareness of the person exhibiting the reasoning, and their ability to identify when their emotions are interfering. If they are able to master it, even the most emotional women can exhibit logic and rationality in excess.
Using a lot of words to contribute nothing to a conversation is also a female trait, I’ve noticed.
Interesting…
It could be said that your post is in itself solipsistic and emotional….though cogently presented.
Great job, as usual. You really have perfected the goldilocks approach to intellectual writing, deep yet concise.
A little feedback on the 3rd paragraph: Did you mean to say “a capacity for something does not equate to a propensity for it.”?
Keep up the good work.
I did, thanks for catching that! I’ve added the inadvertently omitted “not”.
“an unreasonable person can demonstrate logic”
Are you sure of this?
Some logicians are extremely unreasonable. To be unreasonable is a disposition, a general way of behaving. Women have the capacity to be reasonable, but less so than men.
While I don’t disagree that the average woman is irrational due to emotions, in my experience the average man is equally irrational. To be blunt, the average man is retarded and ridiculously easy to manipulate. Men seem to exist in a constant state of heightened hormones that cause them to consistently, almost infallibly, make terrible decisions in the pursuit of sexual fulfillment.
That alone could just be chalked up to a bit of biological weakness, no real harm in the creature rutting around in the mud, but the innate irrationality in the male mind is its stubborn persistence to cling to the “way things should be.” I’m sure you’ve seen it plenty of times, especially in older men. A man, when faced with a discrepancy between the way things are and “the way things should be,” will almost inevitably choose to dig his heels in and have a fit that things aren’t the way they should be.
The example you gave where women double down when their feelings are challenged is equally true when applied to men doubling down when their sensibilities are challenged. Basic social conventions, while having value on their own at times, often lodge themselves so deeply into the male psyche that they are unable to be overturned. An older man, when faced with a younger, more intelligent, more capable colleague who is in a position to overtake him, will rarely look to the young man for leadership. Instead, he will insist the younger man treat him with the respect due to an elder. Why? Because That’s The Way Things Should Be.
My hope here is to encourage the average man to be less stupid, as I would also hope as the average woman grows up and learns more about life she will make decisions more through rational calculation and less through emotional reaction. Though the average woman might not like that very much, as it will make it harder to push the easiest button available to manipulate a man…contrary to popular opinion, the easiest way to manipulate a man is not through sex, but simply through his ideals. Present him a vision of The Way Things Should Be and he will crawl through hell itself to reach it.
“While I don’t disagree that the average woman is irrational due to emotions, in my experience the average man is equally irrational. To be blunt, the average man is retarded and ridiculously easy to manipulate.”
That is stupidity, not irrationality.
“Men seem to exist in a constant state of heightened hormones that cause them to consistently, almost infallibly, make terrible decisions in the pursuit of sexual fulfillment.”
The male sex drive is strong, but you are exaggerating.
Re: ‘the way things should be’ – You’re telling me men are as bad as women when it comes to this? He is talking about general differences. Your average human being is certainly like this, but women, on the whole, are worse.
“Present him a vision of The Way Things Should Be and he will crawl through hell itself to reach it.”
On average, do you think it is easier for men to realize and admit ‘red pill truths’, or women? Most men I know know the score, they just don’t want to talk about it because they see no clear way out of the fog.
Well played sir!
Another emotive response…
“To be blunt, the average man is retarded and ridiculously easy to manipulate.” Well, at least she’s come out…with what was said here all along.
Another earlier pearl of wisdom comments “rather mundane and inconsequential.” about this piece. Inconsequential to her perhaps, because she’s not bearing the consequences of failed relationships. She’s harvesting the benefits.
Then there’s another reader saying ” It has been my experience that some women in power lose compassion for humanity and subconsciously taunt and belittle their subordinates just because they can, try proving it.” – That’s from a woman coming from a place of hardship.
Well, what do you know…
It’s solipistic to assume women do not bare the brunt of their own irrationality and failed relationships. Infact one of my points was the importance of holding women accountable for their actions. Rationality and ignoring emotions is a skill. As mentioned if you have capacity for something but not propensity for it , you can grow and learn to have the propensity for it over time and repetition. Human nature is to adapt, to learn.
What would make this post more insightful is if it considered the woman’s side a bit more. These posts compare ideal male behavior to unideal female behavior and create a false dichotomy. To say that it helps a males ego and helps him in sexual pursuits is great, but it’s not ground breaking intellectual analysis of human behavior. At best, it’s a heuristic.
It’s fine to acknowledge the fact that men are far and away the driving force of invention, innovation and cultural development — as long as it’s at the same time acknowledged that one of, if not THE most important predictor of a man’s success is his secure attachment to his mother at a young age.
A logical, rationally driven woman is not a woman who is going to form secure attachments with her children during the crucial years of 0-3. You need ooey, gooey emotion for that.
Women’s deficiency in logic in favor of emotion IS one of the driving forces of society, it’s just behind the scenes. Without great mothers, you can’t have great men.
Makes a lot of sense, I like your angle. Some of the most psychopathic men I’ve met had very detached mothers, eg: self-absorbed narcissistic women who use their kids as props and don’t really give a shit about them. I agree female emotion is necessary for forming the initial mother-child pair bond attachment which is all but essential for the functioning of a high trust and healthy society, unfortunately though it gets in the way of everything that isn’t childrearing!
As many men have told me, they were closer to their mothers when very young (lower T, lower IQ, more emotional, just like their mothers) but after puberty when the T shoots up and they’re smarter because they’re older, they feel closer to their dads (and oft “above”) their mothers. Not that they don’t love their mothers anymore, but rather that, their mothers cannot teach them anything they don’t know, or cope with stress and reason to the degree that they can.
Boys have a propensity to outgrow their mothers psychologically upon maturation and, as men, often feel like their mother has become the child they now have to take care of.
The role reversal is quite fascinating.
Right, and to me that doesn’t diminish motherhood or women at all. The mother does grow the boy within her own body and feed him from her own breast and with her warm nurturing from 0-3 set up the landscape of his mind.
Her role doesn’t become less important, it just becomes more concentrated time-wise if it’s true that the father’s role is the one that will quickly come to take up the greater significance and remain that way for the rest of his life.
Well honey, the founder of psychoanalysis disagrees with your unqualified opinion.
“I cannot think of any need in childhood as strong as the need for a father’s protection.” – Sigmund Freud
And yet, for the boy to become the man, he must outgrow the control and influence of his mother and develop his own standing on everything in his life, which may or may not be the script of his parent’s life.
Here’s a bitter truth. Only your mother can still see you as the little boy no matter how old you are. The rest of the world, including yourself, expects you to be a top tier man and nothing less. Too much nurturing, controlling, hand holding, spoon feeding, domestication and betatization is not what makes men out of boys. It keeps you a good little boy who never becomes the great man. The reality will become clear when you have to face the outside world.
Nothing turns off a woman and fills her with as much contempt as much as seeing a boy that hasn’t outgrown his mother and isn’t his own man. I guess this is biologically a reason for MIL-DIL troubles. And in that way, the nature of a woman is similar to that of the rest of a man’s world, which is why most people realize the red pill starting from their experiences with the female.
I can guarantee you that at no other point does the full Machevilian nature of the female manifest itself to a man than at this stage. The unhappy man is troubled individually by both mother and wife at separate ends and by both collectively. The manipulations, backhanded comments, guilt trips, threats of harm or self harm, divorce, disapprovals, shaming, drama, passive aggressive behaviour, cold wars at family gatherings, all take a heavy toll for which the man and the man alone will be blamed for it all.
To grow up, he must blow up the relationship with his mother and probably also the kind of blue pill relationship he’s had with his wife till this point. There is an excellent article by Wayne Levine on blowing up your relationship with your mother and creating a man’s mature relationship instead.
“It’s fine to acknowledge the fact that men are far and away the driving force of invention, innovation and cultural development — as long as it’s at the same time acknowledged that one of, if not THE most important predictor of a man’s success is his secure attachment to his mother at a young age.”
Being a good mother is very important, but… source?
Dude, this whole article has no source on it, why would you ask a source for the comment? Because you disagree with it?
All present source or no source is needed.
You Are idiot.
Referring To Society Would Fall Apart if if Women Were Rational, SUCH is Stupid, Rather Both Marriage And Society Would Greatly Benefit if if Women Were Rational,, Meaning Or Rather Corruption Would End if if Women Were Rational, Would NOT Mate With irrational Men, Resulting in Less irrational Men Would Result in LESS Corrupt Society Would Result in LESS Corrupt Government + LESS Laws, including Less Police + Less Soldiers Would Help Society To Be Rational, But Evil Elite is Always Plotting To Start Civil War And Steal $ By Property Tax + Get Citizens To Rob + Attack Each Other By Propaganda + By Stupid Laws
Exquisite!!!
One of the times Machiavellian fallacy tends to rear its ugly head is when you tell a woman that your not into “relationships” or “commitment”….the shaming encountered is just interesting to witness!!
I think the difference is not necessarily that men are more logical or rational than women, rather in the importance given to the objective reality of a given situation. Men tend to give overarching importance to the facts of the situation while women are inclined to place other people’s opinions and feelings on the same level, or even higher, then the objective facts of the situation. I think this is the major difference in how men and women reason and why propaganda works better on women, why women tend more toward conformity, etc. etc.
Soooo…we’re more logical then?
I am impressed by the tenor of the commenting here. Very balanced, ….. with appreciation for nuance….. precisely what this scope of inquiry calls for at this juncture IMO.
Unknown – it seems to me that you are pointing to a very powerful and nuanced concept with respect to the man/woman-differences inquiry. You are pointing to the subjective/objective dichotomy and how that plays out differently wrt the motivations, and therefore differently within the psyches, of men vs. women. This concept has potential for accounting for the differences that IM outlined in this post, as well as for the differences that Maya suggested in her comment above. To be blunt and uncouth about it (for brevity-sake):
women’s worldview tends towards Hivemind
men’s worldview tends towards Übermensch
Imagine what is in store for humanity if we can get these two powers energizing each other via more intricate feedback loops (which I believe is the go-forward task for humanity), thus supercharging the human endeavor. Humans already possess the second stirrings of a trait born as strong emergence – “agency” – the belief we have the power to make meaningful non-deterministic decisions. It is not inconceivable that this new challenge I am pointing to might bear another mysterious aptitude characterized as an emergent property! That would be mindblowing.
I think that now is a time where humans are being forced out of the comfort zone wrt less nuanced descriptions/beliefs around the man/woman dynamic, that no longer apply to current conditions, and this is occurring now for various reasons (which I can outline if you like), and so we are in a period of growing discomfort around this issue. This discomfort could be taken as a good sign, if you buy my above-noted argument.
So let’s keep going and continue to get on this stuff!
My current line of thinking is that “agency”, and how it tends to be used differently inter-gender-wise, will be a fruitful line of inquiry wrt to better understanding the powers and weaknesses inherent in each of the above mentioned worldviews.
Presented overly obtusely (i.e – just as starting point for further discussion), perhaps it could be said that men are prone to hyper-agency (taking more than is rationally warranted) and women are prone to hypo-agency (taking less than is rationally warranted). Since I have defined agency as the belief in our personal power to make meaningful non-deterministic decisions, this does imply personal responsibility for these decisions, and it is wrt to the “responsibility” aspect that we find so much discomfort right now, all round.
Thoughts?
I am female, and I have not experienced negative emotional conversations or experiences with many women; maybe it’s because my approach to life is off the grid, but is also no nonsense, or maybe it’s because most of my closest friends are male. Worked for the military for the past 30 + years, and from my experience, emotions get in the way of getting shit done! Listen, my husband lost body parts over in Iraq, and it was a woman who (put me in my place), told me that the government was not going to spend 100k to buy him a new leg just for cosmetic purposes! Emotionally, at that moment, I literally wanted kill her, but I decided that my objective would serve a higher purpose if I spoke to someone who might understand that I wanted my husband to be as mobile and active as possible. If I had been an emotional mess, my family would have suffered a great deal. I wish that I could say that I had family support with all of the Hollywood trimmings. I did not. I was the motherfucking man, social worker, and long distant parent because the emergency called for me to leave my children. In other words, I was a woman who assumed whichever role necessary to achieve what I needed to do for my family! Emotion was necessary for the calming effect, nourishment and nurturing of my family, but aside from this, it was necessary to put aside any emotion that might prevent me from getting a job to support my family!
I might be out of line for saying this, but I believe that some women, especially those in power are worse than men! It has been my experience that some women in power lose compassion for humanity and subconsciously taunt and belittle their subordinates just because they can, try proving it, and you just might lose your job because the rules are subjective, and also emotional! ! Some are able to get away with this type of treatment because we are a culture of people who do not tattle! Even if maltreatment were brought to the forefront, the gender card would rear its ugly head!
I may be biased, because my experience has not been positive. My energy is masculine although I look inherently female; but this should have nothing to do with how anyone is treated as a person!
Sometimes, I feel sad that I reared my children as if they were in boot camp; in that I taught them to rely on self, never turn against the other, and exceed the standard regardless of occupation ! I believe that I gave them the necessary tools to succeed according to their abilities without having to depend on the government for assistance, and to become self reliant creative, and good and decent people. Emotion was part of my process because they needed to know that they have loving, caring sharing; and open parents who would do anything to see them become the best people that they are capable of becoming!
in my opinion, I do not believe that men or women are better in either gender. I believe that we are just different. Those differences, in my opinion create balance. This is different in how a person chooses to utilize their humanity. It has been my experience that a few women do not necessarily empower other women, some may emotionally talk the talk, but unless you “stand in favor” or are a part of a particular circle; empowerment and sisterhood is an emotional slogan that appeals to those who are asleep.
Lastly, after all of your love and care and training as a parent, the probability exist that at least one of your children will marry an emotional manipulator. This personality serves to insulate, isolate, oscillated, and emasculate!
Funny to me that you should write this while I’m halfway through a book by a very logical woman who deconstructs the faulty logic of a well known man (Christopher Ryan). Not to refute anything you say but just to give an example of the exceptional logical capacity of some women, albeit rare, does exist.
This book is actually one of the best I’ve read on human sexuality and I highly recommend it to anyone interested in evolutionary psychology/biology and the truth about human monogamous pair-bonding, jealousy, marriage, violence, social structure, etc..
Sex at Dusk: Lifting the Shiny Wrapping from Sex at Dawn by Lynn Saxon (endorsed by Steven Pinker)
As a side note, I found this quote in the book that I thought y’all might find interesting. Saxon uses it to dispel an assertion made based upon Rousseau. I find the last part about unleashed female libido to be prophetic:
Rousseau wrote of women and sex in Emile: “…The man should be strong and active; the woman should be weak and passive…” “If woman is made to please and be in subjection to man, she ought to make herself pleasing in his eyes and not provoke him to anger…she should compel him to discover and use his strength. The surest way of arousing this strength is to make it necessary by resistance… This is the origin of…the boldness of one sex and the timidity of the other, and even of the shame and modesty with which nature has armed the weak for the conquest of the strong…” “… How can anyone fail to see that when the share of each is so unequal, if the one were not controlled by modesty as the other is controlled by nature, the result would be the destruction of both, and the human race would perish through the very means ordained for its continuance?” “Women so easily stir a man’s senses and fan the ashes of a dying passion, that if philosophy ever succeeded in introducing this custom [of an unleashed female libido] to any unlucky country…the men, tyrannised over by the women, would at last become their victims, and would be dragged to their death without the least chance of escape.” (Rousseau 1993 edition)
Saxon, Lynn (2012-07-30). Sex at Dusk: Lifting the Shiny Wrapping from Sex at Dawn (p. 85). CreateSpace. Kindle Edition.
Ever read book reviews where a woman will literally rave about the book as if it was her own heaven sent Bible while making valid and reasonable arguments about it’s merits, but in the end mention how it contains a chapter that contains research about Animals that goes against her ethical beliefs, so she’s forced to give a “1 star”. That’s classical woman-think: letting emotions overwhelmingly override logic. Now extrapolate this to voting – candidate A is educated, smart, practical, but candidate B is a bit of goof-off but has a nice smile and makes her feel warm, so she’d rather go with candidate B.
“Whilst smarter women can only do so whilst their emotions are in check” This is true I experienced it first hand. I had several discussion and talks with a fairly smart woman and one time I started to talk about eating meat (I didn’t know that she was a vegetarian at that point) immediately her emotions took over and she went full retard so to speak. I couldn’t take her serious after that.
It’s fascinating to me that we fail do 4 things in this age old debate of gender rationality. One: we don’t define rational consistently (in reality it is one’s ability to use deduce, use logic and reason) Two: we don’t reference the bell curve which when controlled for adult age, says women hover the median, meaning there’s an entire decile of men more logical than women and entire decile of men less logical than women. 3. We think someone’s emotional propensity necessarily negates their ability to reason. 4. We equate emotion with females only. When reality women tend to be more prone to expressing the emotions of sadness, fear, anxiety. While men are more prone to expressing/exercising the emotions of anger, aggression,lust due to socialization but mainly biology. Men are far more at risk for accidents in illogical risk-taking behavior. Men are also overwhelmingly overrepresnted per capita in the criminal system for violent crime and sexual offences. None of these are logical undertakings. They are in fact, the opposite. Why are men not deemed illogical or irrational for these well-known male leanings of risk-taking, seeking adrenaline high, high risk lust promiscuity, violence and anger? But women are deemed illogical for their empathy and emotional responses? In fact, the biggest predictor we have of one’s ability to use logic and reason is IQ. and based on what we know of gender and IQ, (as mentioned above) women tend to hover the median. One’s biological predisposition to gender-specific emoting also doesn’t necessarily negate their ability to use logic or reason. You can have an incredibly logical high IQ male, get him sexually aroused, or get him enraged by punching him or insulting him, and his emotion will overtake him and logic will lose. Even though, at other times, he is quite logical. The same can happen for a women with her female-leaning emotions. While it may influence their ability in the heat of the moment, neither negates their overall ability. I’d argue that men have been the innovators because the possess the upper decile of IQ, and because male brains desire different things. Males desire to create and conquer their environment (which leads to interest in innovative technologies) where women, even with high IQs and abilities to logic and reason) desire different things. They value motherhood, tending to the emotional health of the family, community, tribe. This is why women tend to excel in general medicine, veterinary sciences, while men tend to be in more specialized (less personal) areas of medicine. women also tend to be more involved in community activism, they even vote more than males because their biology makes them driven to care for the interpersonal and social health of the tribe . Even now with all of the choice and opportunity women still choose different areas of study than males in academia and still choose family time over career ultimately. Male biology also drives him to innovate for female companionship and family. Many experiments and studies show, male drive to innovate, create and build, diminishes significantly when there are no females around.
I suspect that part of this could come down to the “men suck at expressing emotion” argument that often surfaces. Men are trained to be in control of their emotions at a much younger age, while women are encouraged to “let it all out”.
After reading The Rational Male, The Manipulated male, and a lot of evolutionary psychology and biology, it seems quite unreasonable to assume that a sexually dismorphic species, would be different in most ways except in mentally/cognitively. The differences in the prevalence of mental disorders between the genders, the difference in how mental disorders manifest, I could go on but a lot of things point to the brain being different as well.
I think that the classic feminist argument goes something along the lines that this entire framework is set in terms of masculine ideology and that the only reason women have not been culture producers is because they have not had the opportunity to (being that they are the oppressed group), and this could be changing what with the female graduation rate/watch Hillary win.
I do not believe that anyone acts irrationally and this article leaves me wondering how you define rationality- a coherent set of beliefs and actions??? In which case women simply have the rational to act on their emotions(a rational thing to do depending on if the emotions are a better premis that correlates with reality better than whatever else you have to go on(ever try dancing rationally?)).
I would suggest this author adapt a different vocabulary when it comes to describing the differences between people because even the greatest troll is still a troll.
I am curious where you obtained your definition of rationality because I cannot find “a coherent set of beliefs and actions” in any dictionary. Rather I find rationality to be defined as “the quality of being based on or in accordance with reason or logic.”
After forcing myself to read the little I did read. I honestly can say, next time keep your. “opinions” to yourself. People like you are exactly why this world is the way it is. Men are not considered to have more reason or to be more responsible than women. Do you not understand that without women your world wouldn’t exist. We are the only mammals on earth that can bleed for 7 days and not die, can grow another human being inside of us, go to work, come home and actually STILL clean , cook, do homework and still have time to please the “dominant” one, as you would call yourself. Men go to work and come home to do absolutely nothing like they done back in the old days that you speak of as your “view of the world”. Women however, we have evolved into much more than you speak of. We can now vote we are now (supposed to be) considered equal (but with men like you in the world… That’s kinda hard to do) in the work place and are no longer considered just “stay at home mom’s”. I feel so sorry for the way you perceive us women. We don’t just cook and clean and pick up after men and children. We are running for president and changing lives over the world. We no longer stay quiet bc our opinions DO matter because we DO have reasonable thinking and have impeccable decision making skills, whether their IQ level high or low. We can care for a man and a child and know the difference when we are being “played” and know when to follow up with those things. Such as we know when to pick and choose our own battles. We are NOW independent and men NOW are intimidated by this ergo that’s why men act as such as yourself, thinking you are inferior. Haha that cracks me up. NOTHING my friend is impossible, NOTHING. A weak man who on the outside seems to be inferior will only destroy a great women due to how we are devoted to pleasing. Yea we do use our emotions some times and some times that is bad but it’s also good as well. Men nine times out of ten dont use emotions and that too can be good and bad. If God wanted everyone to be the same he would’ve done that. He made man strong and courageous but he also made women the same way. He made women emotional and understanding as well as he made some men. I understand where your coming from but, dude, seriously the world is changing and you’d better catch up before wyou get left behind. If women would have stuck up for themselves a lomg time ago, we would be running this country by now. However, since we are a little behind the “man” (because in my opinion, men didn’t value us women) we are still trying to catch up. But rital me this good sir, if men are so damn inferior to women, then why are us women making an impact in our country in a shorter period than man has had to do great things? One is NOT better than the other, rather we compliment each other and better each other. This is why they say behind every man is a great women. Men to be honest wouldn’t be (excuse my French) shit without a women. Even back in the day the women would give her man advice behind closed doors verses now, we openly express our opinions. We were devalued and stripped of our courage and confidence to be who we were born to be. Who in God’s name do you people (meaning men like you) think you are, you can’t tell someone they are unworthy or can’t do something as good as the next man. I don’t know if you watch t.v good sir but, you have to watch American ninja warrior. Women whoop men’s ass on the regular. Just because we don’t go to the gym and work out to gain big muscles like you guys doesn’t mean we CAN’T go do just that. We choose to live by Society’s guidelines for women, such as must be pretty, must wear makeup and stay thin, gotta keep your nails done and toes, oh you must not have big muscles or you will look unattractive. You must always listen to what your man tells you for he is the strongest. Ha ha that’s makes me laugh just typing it. Women nowadays, don’t give crap what you men have to say to us or about us. You men have made it a dog eat dog world we live in and it’s turning to shit. Men don’t have empathy or compassion so therefore will only run this world straight to the ground much like we are already doing now because of men. If our leaders would actually have a damn heart and think some times with their emotions this world would be a better place. Honestly I didn’t read majority of what you had to say but what I did read infuriated me and I am all over the place because so many things are running through my head. Go ahead and classify me however you want, because at the end of the day, I’m a very very independent women and knowy worth on earth and can eat alone. I just wanted to give youy opinion since your going around gladly giving yours. Whether you read this or not, I know that I’ve made my piece and said what needed to be said to a very very very stupid individual, who should seriously stop perceiving women as nothing other than a bunch of mammals that it reproduce and take care of the house hold. Boy if God was in front of you he’d probably slap the taste out your mouth. I can agree and say one thing men are built to become stronger to protect the women who yea can reproduce, not destroy her self confidence/esteem. Men are suppose to protect and serve yes, but that’s doesn’t mean you are God and plan how a women’s life will go. Just like a man can make his own choices in life, so can a women. And if you ask me, us women are slowly but surely taking over the world. Men on the other hand are becoming more like the women used to be in the world. Why you say, because it’s people like you who tell us women we aren’t this or that and that only adds fuel to our fire. Ergo hell has no furry like a women scorned. Don’t underestimate us. We can withstand a LOT of you men’s shit, but when we had enough we push back twice as hard. Keep that in mind. Now I have to get off here because I’ve given you MORE than enough time to understand us women and I have to tend to my child because these dead beat ass dada we have now a days aren’t here to help. And if you have anything you would like to add to this please feel free to elaborate. I will then in return explain how your view on life will always be wrong in my eyes.
Haha finally came back to reread this and wish I done so before I post. But superior not inferior as I was typing. My mind was cloudy. But y’all get what the point I was trying to make.
If it was possible for me to enable posters to edit their comments so they can correct spelling/paragraphing, I’d do so in a heartbeat. I’m glad you feel better after getting that all off your chest. I recommend not reading these kind of websites, as you’re not the intended audience (it’s a website for men) and the material obviously makes you very upset. Unless of course, you like getting angry and offloading your emotions because the catharsis is therapeutic, then by all means, continue to read for the sake of emotional stimulation. Naturally, this site is not designed to be emotionally stimulating, but rather, educational if not at the very least rationally compelling. Of course, it is up to the reader how they use the material. Take care.
Can you explain what’s rationally compelling about reducing woman and men to singular variables and making large conclusions on unadequately proven premises?
I am all in favor of such reducing as a heuristic , but I think from a rational perspective to think heuristics are a accurate representation of the topic you’re discussing is folly.
The funny thing is , I always see the same point unfold. Men make large sweeping claims and say they’re rational and logical (while using emotionally charged language to make their claims – double speak) And once holes get poked in them , it becomes back tracking and saying the intended audience is men and that it’s to help them have more sexual success via heuristics. Well, what is it? Objective or subjective? Rational or emotional? I think that the more I process it the more I believe that it relies on the double speak to exist. Draw in males with failed relationships by telling them theyre so rational and important (bolstering their ego) then tell them about the “true nature” of the irrational and Emotional female, so males (irrational) idealistic visions of angelic women are shattered and they are able to treat the woman as lesser – which in turn, will lead to him being more successful because there are a lot of women out there to take that kind of treatment as a signal of him being “alpha”.
Just because “it works” doesn’t mean it’s rational in all respects of the word. It would be expected then to be called out on the double speak time and time again, I think.
Your response is a pratical exemple of what the author is trying to explain.
1) You’re off the topic
2) You assume
3) Your response is emotionally driven
4) it was not constructive in it’s structure, just a wall of bitterness
5) “My mind was cloudy. But y’all get what the point I was trying to make.” typical
6) You were not seaking to make a point, just wanted to get something out of your chest because you’re in defensive mindset.
7) If you were my girlfriend, and I was the author, I would get in a futile agurment saying stuff like “I’ve never say that, I did not say that, thoses were not my words, why are you saying this?”
8) You won’t ever come back and admit you were wrong, ever.
If women were logical, 99% of relationships would never happen. Women would all realize that most men arent monogamous anyway and that most of “dating” is dude trying to play the field. Theyd realize the sexual double standards are bullshit and that theres nothing at all wrong with her dressing skimpy, having sex without attachment or even charging for it. Then she may come to the conclusion that charging for sex makes more sense financially and lifestyle wise. Hey, if the men will play the field, Ill beat them at their own game and get paid for it! Most women do not understand my reasoning because they arent logical. Its ok, HUSBANDS are my biggest money maker and someone has to be the wife!😁
I would like to leave a comment (as a woman), thanking you for this content. It has benefited me a lot in trying to understand my own nature. You’re spot on with the categorization of women that typically comment, as I would be in the first category – raised Christian/Conservative. I was cautioned against buying into feminist ideologies, and taught to respect men, instead of attempting to prove to them how much better than them I was (because that is what feminism has become – the downplay and downright mockery of male attributes). This may be the reason I can read articles like this one and not get offended. I assume that the writer may have something of use to say, rather than letting my ego/emotions get the best of me.
Thanks to people like you I have become more aware of how much my emotions do in fact control me, and of the different patterns that play out in my psyche without me realizing what is happening. I understood how much I’ve made men suffer in the past as a result of my emotional whims. I also don’t want this to come off sounding like I’m better than any other woman, because I’m not. I still confuse myself constantly, but I’m trying to become more aware. I’ve realized that men have a lot they can teach me if I’m willing to listen. They have perspectives you never hear other women verbalize. Once again, I’m not bashing women, I’ve just not heard anything on this topic from them that would get me to think about myself and my actions. Advice from them is usually something along the lines of: “You’re beautiful as you are honeylovesunshine!”
It’s just not helpful. I know that I have issues that prevent me from being as authentic as I could be. I want to be a person of substance, not somebody who just carries that illusion with them. Conversations with other men oftentimes show me that I lack a deeper understanding on topics that I bring up. I am in fact studying medicine right now, so I hope that I can in fact become a person who is interesting to talk to, and not just one who can regurgitate information all day long. I’ve experienced this many times before, that I would become lost and flustered when put on the spot by a man, who challenged something I said. My goal is to learn to learn to speak better and think clearer rather than lash out at anybody who disagrees with me.
It’s wonderful that resources like this exist. Thanks again.
I agree with the general notion that women are highly emotional which can be their weakness, but men are highly sexual which can be men’s weakness. This applies to the majority, of course there will be exceptions.
But in the end I agree we are complementary to each other and should not be competing with each other. Because if men and women were truly equal competing force, we would have not had structural differences and men also would have become pregnant and had periods, its as simple as that.
All that said while I agree with your overall premise based own experience with women across the cultures, you have not not provided enough data to back up.
Also I do disagree with you that women are sub gender in any context, no they cant be neither can men, which is what feminist movement trying to declare. We both are complementary and equally necessary for the human race survival.
But if we do want to have a rational argument as you say that does not sound mysogynistic or misandrystic for that matter, I encourage you provide lot more statistics and data about both genders on their strengths and weaknesses to make your case. How many women go into nurturing jobs, like nursing, teaching vs
hunting jobs like technology innovation or hard labor etc. This will involve time and research but it will be all worth it if you have a passion for it. Keep in mind passion is also an emotion and does not necessarily be rational.
But if you do not provide well rounded data then you are contradicting to your own narrative that men are more rational. Because rational arguments involve data and logics and not mere statemets. If you are truly believe in rationalism then you would post my comment. FYI, I am a man who wants to remove the gender divide and bring men and women closer on the basis of truth that is facts. Good luck!
I am too old (experienced) and practical to get into debates with people who disagree with my views that haven’t first won my respect. But your comment has been approved, so others can tackle it if they wish. Thank you for your comment, not because I agree with it, or even appreciate the rather personalising and manipulative nature of it – but because you have clearly made an effort to put your best foot forward, and that’s all we can ask of anyone. So thank you for taking the time to present your disagreements.
Thank you for posting my comment. But you are contradicting yourself, on one hand you are saying men are rational and less emotional. On the other hand when challenged/encouraged to provide data to backup your claims you responded with emotions, stating you are too experienced and would not engage in a debate unless someone earns your respect. That is so far from rational but factually a personal and emotional response. Isn’t this exactly the reason you claiming women when challenged respond by emotions and not the facts?
While I agree with you that women are driven by emotions and men are less or so, emotions are equally essential. One cannot be motivated without passions and desire for sex and reproduce, which are emotions. The purpose of life is to leave our legacy behind either in the form of another human being or by innovations and if those purposes do not exist there will be hardly any motivation to reproduce or innovate and human lives would have ended millenniums ago. Therefore emotions are not secondary to the logics but they are complementary and are equally essential. You can solve problems though logics but you need a passion/motivation (emotion) to solve them. Hence neither female nor male gender are sub genders, they both are equally necessary for the life.
Once again, I would be happy and encourage any materials that help eliminate the gender divide and promote dependency and love and one way to achieve that is to provide statistics on what is effective. Mere blaming one gender being sub gender is not logical nor productive. Hope you view this positively, whether you decide to post it or not.
I think having sound logical debates requires reflection, and inquiry. Most of the time on the internet I see people reacting right away to something that elicits emotions. A lot of comments here are a reflection of that, either that be men agreeing or women disagreeing.
I can only speak for myself, but I think it makes sense for anyone to question an argument based on data, otherwise you would only be adding to your own cognitive biases. I do see value in learning from experience, too, but it’s important to question your line of thoughts on both sides.
On the other hand, as a woman, I’ve found that articles or opinions that elicit strong emotional responses from myself tend to lead me to something where I can grow. To be honest, I’ve had a few when reading your tweets or now your articles. After that I can say that I do agree that as women we can cloud our judgement by emotion, quite often, interestengly enough, I think my mother is one of the more mature people I know, and that’s because she’s rarely affected by emotion when there’s a debate or discussion, growing up I think I’ve only seen her cry twice, to give an example. Having said all of that, I think as women we can grow a lot by acknowledging this, and going beyond our first reaction. Also by understanding male nature and motivations. For that I can thank your blogs and tweets. I do believe there’s also value in emotional responses, and intuition, but that’s upon reflection, and consideration. Anyways, thanks for your work.
One underlying assumption in this article is that reason/rationality is a superior mode of cognition. This superiority is attributed to reason because it is assumed that this mode of cognition connects the thinker more reliably to the truth. However, this is, at best an assumption and has not been anywhere scientifically tested, because it is too difficult to reduce intuition to a clear statement (intuition is less articulate, but it does not logically follow that it is less correct) which can be compared one for one to a rational statement or belief in a controlled, experimental trial. Women do operate cognitively with greater ease and fluidity by instinct and intuition, which I would call the wisdom or knowing of the body. Men do use rational applications of thought/cognition with the greater ease. However, the wisdom of the body is older by several orders of magnitude, than the knowing of the conscious mind. It has billions of years more data at its disposal (for building models—even if they are inarticulate models), than does consciousness (reason), which is an extremely recent cognitive development, relatively speaking. Therefore it is not automatically obvious to me that reason is actually more accurate, that it is actually drawing on a sufficiently robust data set to build useful models, and that it is actually drawing the most truthful conclusions about the nature of reality—which includes very much that is unconscious to say the least.
First part:
Divide a room full of people, part 1 gets access to the ball court, a few of them go on to play on the ball court, and only a few of those manage to shoot the ball through the hoop.
Can part 2 not shoot the ball through the loop? Or worse at it?
Apparently, there are people who manage to rationalize it that way: part 2 are not as good as part 1, and the exceptional few of part 1 somehow represent the abilities of part 1 as a whole.
The people who contributed to human inventions were all exceptions. They were exceptional.
Throughout much of written history women did not have access to “the ball court.”
Though, one can rationalize that earlier contribution in agriculture, art and things related to the tasks women were often preoccupied with, basket making, clothing, medicine, etc, had a lot of contribution from women.
Civilization is built on social connections, which you say women are preoccupied with. The more patriarchal, the more closed off tribes were, the more egalitarian the more it reached out, which helped spreading ideas and inventions.
Yet, even in the short amount of time women have had the ability to contribute to the sciences in the industrial times, and how few have partaken, I’m writing from a device that required inventions from multiple women, and able to share it here or elsewhere because of contributions from women.
How people came upon their discoveries and inventions one can only guess at. I’d “rationalize” it as: we use intuition most of the time, until the question becomes too difficult and more energy is spent on trying to work through it.
Eureka’s of the world shows how much of that info is already in people’s minds, they just need something to tie the right pieces together, and that’s what reason attempts at when intuition fails to give and answer, or one hasn’t experienced that aha moment from something external.
So to what degree all those exceptional men through history used reason, compared to intuition, trial and error, etc, no one knows.
You may argue that, “a rational person would choose careers that requires it”
Someone’s ability of reason does not speak of their interest or preferences which is the second most important driver for what profession a person chooses, when not under any external pressures.
You have more men on the exceptional end of IQ than women, but the same applies on the retarded side, however most are neither.
Second Part:
You base your argument on women being more emotional.
I see people bring up the big 5 in relation to this, yet this test does not show that same gender difference everywhere. It is more pronounced in western countries, and the divide is 0 elsewhere.
One can argue that the difference stems from infantilization of women, if she has to rely on others for her basic needs, she is powerless, and has more cause to be anxious.
It can also have to do with conditioning that makes different interpretations of the questions.
“Do you remain calm under pressure?”
A man is conditioned to not show his emotions in many ways, may easily judge the question from that point of view.
A man and a woman may both feel the same, and may both not display it, yet answer that question differently.
The woman focused on the inner part and thought: ‘no, i did not feel calm”,
The man focused on the external and thought: ‘yes, i acted calm’.
Secondly, alexithymia is twice as high in men than women. (Difficulty in identifying, processing, and expressing emotions.)
We tend to see a person as emotional based on them expressing it externally. Men hide it more, yet it still influences ones ability to rationalize.
Judging a group’s ability to rationalize based on who we observe emotions from the most, becomes biased in favor of those who hide emotions the most.
As for how people react to your posts…
At the core of it all, we’re all identical.
You can read everyone from a fear/safety response view.
Next level is the advantages and disadvantages of gender, or race, or what have you, in relation to one another.
Women are at a disadvantage when it comes to physical strength, and the whole energy resources in terms of pregnancy and rearing. So from a fear response, precautions are made.
While TRP like to say all women are hypergamous, it is entirely dependent on fear/safety response, either towards physical safety or to a person’s ego.
The less of a threat finances are to her, in either of those categories, the less important a man’s earnings are.
Essentially, a lot of what you write here can be seen as a threat.
For example if she is worse at reason, she is better suited to sit at home and have to depend on another. Some see the safety in relying on another, it takes away the responsibilities, others are aware of the threat it poses.
You are going to be more likely to receive emotional responses, naturally, with what you write.
You see the exact same thing happen in reverse.
Third Part:
Reasonings are attempts at making sense of ones feelings.
A person’s feel of reality, of truth, what we notice, all influenced by emotions.
See it everywhere in these gender war things, how little each side see of the other. And how much of that has to do with the fear response. We notice clearly the things we fear, very often blind to what the other fears.
What seems reasonable/rational are influenced by that fear, these blog posts are a soothing balm for that fear for many.
Gives power where otherwise felt powerless, so fear abates, and it feels right, it rings true.
We have already decided subconsciously before we reasoned, and the decision was influenced by experiences that shaped the mind in relation to fear/threat/survival/saferty…
So, whether that is justified in our conscious mind through rationalizing it, or intuition, it is at the core the same thing. One just required more effort to assuage oneself.
I’ve seen people argue this and that about gender stuff, and I’m now reminded of the whole “women can’t lead because too emotional” and then the counter is “look at all dem wars dude”, which in turn gets countered with this one paper about female vs male rulers, and wars.
Showing that percentage wise, female rulers were more likely to enter wars.
I suppose they stopped reading that paper there, because which group was most likely to win a war?
Married Queens, or Married Kings?
Married Queens did.
Married Queens divided the tasks of war, where she took care of domestic issues, while her husband handled the war.
Married Kings took on both, and therefore spread too thin, a poor decision based off of “women can’t lead.”
I thought it ironic and very funny.