The Myth of Female Rationality (Part 2)

The Myth of Female Reason (Part 2)
“If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?”Sam Harris

Contents:
1.) Introduction
2.) Herd Dynamics – Needily Conformist
3.) Evolutionary Theory of Feminine Emotional Dominance
3a.) Logic vs. Emotion Based Interpretations of Good & Bad
4.) Herd Dynamics – Shame & Approval
5.) On Solipsism
6.) Distinguishing Logical Ability From Logical Propensity
7.) In Closing / Relevant Reading

1.) Introduction:

In part 1 I speculated on the way women reason and adopt opinions, concluding they typically form conclusions based upon intuition (“what feels right”) and mimicry (copying others) rather than deduction (analysis). I highly recommend reading part 1 before getting into the meat of this article, so if you haven’t done that, please do before proceeding.

2.) Herd Dynamics – Needily Conformist:

Women are innately Machiavellian and thus superficially concerned with “fitting in” and appearing agreeable in order to be liked enough to enjoy the fruits of the groups they occupy. There are perfectly sound evolutionary arguments for why this is so (which I will get into later) but nevertheless to begin I shall explore “the what” rather than “the why.”

A woman’s most pressing concern in spite of what she says to the contrary, is how she is perceived and how this translates into whether she holds favour or not. Being liked and desired is far more important to women than it is to men, men requiring respect rather than intimate emotion validation to function.

In fact, acceptance from others is so vitally important to women that they will change an entire wardrobe, religion, sexual or political orientation in order to be and feel accepted. If you observe rates of religious conversion (from one religion to another) you will find women will convert from one religion to another more often than men.

As we say on the red pill, fickleness is a strong trait of the feminine, and it manifests in all matters of importance from apostasy to divorce. The most common reason for religious conversion is to marry a man of another religion (and thus be accepted and enjoy his economic resources) whilst the most common reason for shedding religion is to find a socially acceptable way to be promiscuous (basically denounce one’s faith and become a fertility-negative atheist-feminist.)

In the UK this is native British women converting to Islam so they can have more victim credibility, as well as a politically correct reason to be feminine rather than feminist. It also serves as a way to increase the perception of their purity and respectability, as Muslim women are not reputed for promiscuity in the way that atheist and Christian women are. When one realises this, it becomes obvious why many western women embrace Islam so enthusiastically.

In the US this is Mormon and Christian girls becoming atheist via feminist support groups so they can whore it up in their prime without feeling retroactively impure. These women are almost always completely insane because they do not entirely remove their religious programming, yet in spite of this they conflict themselves by attempting to supplant the religion they were taught as a child with a fundamentally irreconcilable belief system. This, quite predictably, leads to a spiritually dysfunctional individual torn between two conflicting sets of dogma.

Nevertheless, they appear to be able to defy the religion they were raised with so long as they have a gaggle of feminist whores to cheer them on and validate their poor life decisions. Again, this is the female proclivity for groupthink and a desire to be validated overriding incisive and cogent analysis.

Women in and of themselves rarely stand for something because they have deduced it to be true and correct, but rather they believe what they do due to prolonged proximity. So they believe what their teacher believes, or what their mother believes, or what their friends believe, rather than really analyse something and see if it is true with their own minds.

No, it seems a woman’s instinctual need to be accepted is so strong that she indulges conformity rather than ingenuity to scratch the irksome validation itch, and that so long as this itch is scratched, she is content enough to submit to authority and not ask questions.

3.) Evolutionary Theory of Feminine Emotional Dominance:

So why are women like this? Why do women care more about approval, attention, validation, fitting-in and being liked, whereas men like these things, but do not crave nor depend on them so emphatically to healthily function? It is my speculative contention that in the ancestral environment women were dependent on the herd for their provisioning, and that a woman cast out of the herd would in all likelihood – die.

Women have less stamina, less muscle mass and are physically less capable of successfully hunting animals equipped with any sufficient defence, thus they make for poor hunters. Without a tribe’s hunters sharing their food (and weapons to hunt for food) with a group in which women were members, said women would in all likelihood subsist on berries, or perish.

Assuming this is the case, it partially explains women’s strong herd-orientation and extroversion, because ensuring acceptance by the group is what a woman’s maternal ancestors had to do to survive. I believe it is because of this that women have developed a keen social intuition based on “feelings” and “vibes” that allows them to better detect whether somebody likes or dislikes them.

If one’s survival is contingent on successfully hunting animals for nourishment (men were the hunters), it makes sense one would develop a propensity for deduction. Whereas if one’s survival is more dependent on being liked than it is being innovative, it makes sense one would develop a sensitivity toward the mood and disposition of others.

I believe female emotional dominance to be no more than a survival instinct, an instinct oft so strong it dominates the feminine consciousness utterly. It would appear woman’s instincts in tandem with menstruation thus greatly inhibit her ability to think abstractly. This idea, particularly that of hormones, perhaps gives credence to the idea that the most rational of womankind tend to be post, rather than pre-menopausal.

Seeing as a post-menopausal woman is no longer an evolutionary asset (either already having served her purpose of having children, or being a dead-end) the sensitive neuroticism typical of younger females may quell the “sensitive need to be accepted instinct” enough to permit a strong preference for rationality.

3a.) Logic vs. Emotion Based Interpretations of Good & Bad:

Good to a man is that which sounds truthful and reasonable, bad to a man is that which sounds untruthful or unreasonable. Reasonability to a man is based on plausibility and deduction, reasonability to a woman is based on whether something provides or punishes. Rather simplistically, good to a woman is what feels good, bad to a woman is what feels bad.

A woman’s definition of good and bad bear little logical merit, for a woman rather be told pretty lies that charm her than be saved from colossal error that rouses ill-feeling. In fact if you give women wisdom that will save them, should it happen to feel bad they will opt to ignore it, hate you for eliciting negative feeling, and defy you in the hasty deduction you’re an enemy.

Women are not known for living harmoniously with reality, they have a propensity to weave and work with delusion because they have a blind trust for emotion and value the convenience that such rapidly attained certainty provides. Of course, the cunning can easily manipulate emotion for less than noble purposes, are pick-up artists not the perfect proof of this?

So if women are so impervious to logic and reasoned discussion, how do you persuade them into a particular course of action? Well of course, one must speak in the language of emotion, of which there are two primary mechanisms of influence: shame/guilt and approval/validation.

Whatever is validated, approved of and praised is that which “feels right” to women, regardless of whether the thing being promoted or praised is a toxic value of a declining and degenerate culture. Toxic here is not meant as a value judgement, but is rather meant in the sense “sure that feels good right now, indulge it, go right ahead, but in the long run you will regret what you just did, it will make you feel horrible, and you won’t be able to take it back because it’s done and all you’re left with is self-delusion in an attempt to cope.”

4.) Herd Dynamics – Shame & Approval:

A women’s beliefs and behaviours are like water, they reflect whatever the culture and immediate group around her tell her. Women do not defy, they conform. Today’s unruly women who defy men do not do so because they are mavericks of great ingenuity and critical thinking defying the natural order, no, they defy man to conform with the pervasive feminist indoctrination that dominates our public institutions, contemporary academia being of particular note.

Even traditional women, women who value house and child over corporations and careers are under constant attack from shrill feminist harpies, shamed and derided for their maternal instinct and bombarded by ideological vomit such as “you’ve internalised the patriarchy’s misogyny!”. These women are the real mavericks going against the grain, those who follow in the footsteps of their grand mothers and their mothers before them. Yet the vast majority of today’s women are neither traditional nor respectful of men, and I will tell you why.

She cannot see through the deception because she needs approval more than the truth. She defies man because she was told to, not because she can think for herself and has deduced after much philosophising that denouncing men is in her best interest (hint: it isn’t). She does not possess a reasoning faculty strong enough to ascertain whether the denunciations of man she was inculcated with are fact, the sexual sabotage of women with dried up ovaries, or nothing more than fictional lesbianic hate porn designed to convince heterosexual women to service the lusting loins of aposematic lesbian predators.

No, she absorbs it all hook, line and sinker. High status female celebrities such as Beyonce are feminists, her college professors are feminists, her mother is probably a feminist, who after fucking around in the slutty 70’s & 80’s settled down in the 80’s or 90’s with a less than top-tier man so devoid of masculine energy that nobody in the house respects him, her mother and brother included.

So is today’s woman really a freethinker, an ideological maverick, an innovator, or inventor? Of course not, and it is the grand and perverse irony of feminism that women have become lesser rather than greater in their misguided quest for emancipation from men.

Scarcely has any woman ever been a maverick or inventor, for they are the conformists, even the bulk of them vote for socialists, open your eyes! This is why matters of ingenuity have always been the almost sole purview of man, being that the faculty of reason comes more easily to man, and that the primitive instincts we know as emotion do not compel man quite so emphatically as they do women. Man is not infallible, no, but he is far less sensitive to the vast array of conceivable emotional manipulations one can be targeted by.

There’s a reason marketers target women and not men, they’re more profitable because despite their Machiavellianism, their lack of reason and need for approval makes them more manipulable. Women’s self-conscious preoccupation with appearing “clean” and “pure” is an instinctual need not apparent in men. This is perhaps not rooted solely in evolutionary psychology, but could be an intuitive observation of social market value, the inarticulable emotional knowledge that a woman’s power is eroded rather than enhanced by promiscuity and ageing.

5.) On Solipsism:

The reason feminism even exists is because men possess the capacity to emphasise with the female viewpoint at the sacrifice of their own, did feminism not come to power by appealing to the sympathies of reasonable and loving men rather than through a bloody coup? Well of course, for women could never win a direct military conflict against the sex evolved for combat.

Of course being a man my viewpoint is biased, and it would be easy to egotistically dismiss my philosophising on the basis of said fallibility, however I believe as imperfect as my views are, that among my speculation there is a spirit of truth to be gleaned. For as biased as man can be, a logician such as I can at least abstract into the female viewpoint in an attempt to comprehend what they cannot even articulate.

For those unfamiliar with what solipsism is, explained in the simplest way it’s women’s tendency to see things solely from a personal/feminine viewpoint, and an inability to detach and abstractly comprehend something they haven’t personally felt or experienced. As such, they struggle to understand things that run contrary to their personal experience.

The capacity for feminism to understand the plight of men is impossible, for gynocentrism is inherently devoid of abstraction by merit of its collective solipsism. Feminism is thus no more than a resoundingly negative variant of female solipsism repackaged at the ideological level.

Realise a woman’s solipsism is why she makes no sense in saying whatever the fuck it is she wants when you ask her, and why you always have to make the decisions. Said solipsism manifests politically on the macro scale, as even feminists are oft unable to interpret their monotheistic dogma in the same way. This is the problem with feelings and emotions you see, they are not objective, verifiable or empirical, everyone just sort of “does feminism” in whatever way “feels right” to them.

Because women have different degrees of sentimentality attached to situations which produce a specific emotion, when a question is asked that rouses said emotion, they all have a different answer. And this lack of consistency only further serves to reduce the credibility of women, reinforcing the belief that women are less logical. Weak logic means no corroboration meaning no credibility, I think the only group taken less seriously than women are feminists, for at least some women make an effort to combat their solipsistic disposition, whereas feminists are entirely reliant on the wishy-washy lunacy of emotive subjectivity in order to prop up their narrative.

Feminism embodies the very worst of female instinct and is an abhorrent weaponisation of all the feminine’s worst qualities, I believe with the right cultivation a woman can be far more enlightened than a feminist, albeit, not more so than an erudite man.

Women think they want to lead but hate when they have to, they fear being powerless but cannot handle power. Women are man’s burden, a constant storm that needs grounding. Her infantile narcissistic need to be treated with the respect of a man, yet simultaneous need to be led means she’s conflicted in “what she wants”, this swirling chaos of self-centred indecisive confusion embodying the very spirit indicative of the female mind – solipsism.

6.) Distinguishing Logical Ability From Logical Propensity:

A capacity for logic and being logical are distinct. Men have a capacity for emotion, but because most men prefer to (and often do) act on reason instead of emotion, they are considered logical, not emotional.

To be emotional 10% of the time is not to be an emotional person, it is to be a person who is capable of emotion that is rational the majority of the time. Just because men are more rational, does not mean they are robots incapable of emotion. People see a very black/white pluralism toward emotion and logic, that a logical person is never emotional (men) and that an emotional person is never logical (women).

Most men will act upon logic more often than women, so men as a group are seen as logical. For women, it’s the opposite, a capacity for logic but with a preference for emotion, and hence a propensity to act upon emotional volition. Women will act on emotion more often than men, so women as a group are seen as emotional. Maxims don’t need to be “perfectly true” to be correct, they need only be “accurate most of the time.”

One need not be right all the time, for it is wiser to operate from generalisations that lead one to be right most of the time than it is to reject said generalisation on the basis it is wrong some of the time. The prior believes in an imperfect statement on the basis it is usually right, the latter rejects an imperfect statement on the basis it is fallible. Rejecting the veracity of something on the basis it is fallible and not correct 100% of the time has to be one of the grandest forms of ignorance conceivable, yet sadly it is fairly common.

Women have a capacity for logic, but because most of the time they cannot segregate emotion from logic, their capacity for logic does not equate to possession of a logical nature. A person that possess logic who is ill-equipped to segregate it from emotion is not as logical as someone who possess the same logic but can better segregate it from their emotion.

Having a capacity for something does not make you the thing you can sometimes do, to be characterised as something, that part of yourself has to be dominant, a capacity preferred and used often. On the logic-emotion spectrum, you have to err more towards logic than you do emotion to be considered logical, the fact you possess an ability to think logically doesn’t matter if you’re oft overridden by the visceral impulses we know as emotion.

Don’t cling to the idea that just because a woman can have a logical thought, that she is a logical being ruled by logic, this is a false equivalency. If women were logical rather than emotional beings, it would be glaringly obvious, so obvious this essay would probably not exist. Hence pointing to women’s capacity for logic and then saying they are just as logical as men is a preposterous if not idealistic notion that cherry picks only what it wants to see.

7.) In Closing / Relevant Reading:

The rationalisation hamster may be good at speaking the language of logic, for the well-trained hamster is an eloquent sophist. It is believed you should “ignore what they say and watch what they do” because women, particularly the higher IQ ones, are great at speaking the language of logic without actually operating by it. They can adorn it, wear its clothes, and go into verbal combat waving its flag all without actually changing their innate decision-making processes.

They’ll act emotively, and then rationalise the reason for behaving emotionally with something that is plausible yet factually false. Some women are so proficient in doublethink (is this intelligence or a lack of self-awareness? I’m undecided) that they actually believe they’re logical because they deludedly believe their own rationalisations!

Women use logic to rationalise emotional decisions, and occasionally they make choices based on logic, but their preference and mechanism for action is overwhelmingly emotional in nature. To believe otherwise is not merely naive, but resoundingly idiotic.

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


74 comments

  1. I’ve been doing a series on logical fallacies recently, and in the research of them I came across something that struck me as relevant. Female perspectives are frequently victims of false dichotomies. This is most apparent in with the NAWALT principle, that if they can find one exception to even part of a statement, the entire statement is regarded as untrue.

    That creates a false dichotomy, that requires that something is either “True” for an entire set, or false for an entire set. In a sense, a female mind’s Venn diagram is a circle.

    Feminism is a great example of both the female mind and the Machiavellian arts, because it has created a social construct, that is entirely subjective yet under the guise that it is an objective and equal research method. In reality it is the female moving from a powerful patriarch as the ruler of “her” to a powerful patriarch in the form of the state.

    I think the innate solipsism, combined with emotive creates the double-think as you call it, with the result that even when presented with rational argument and evidence, there is a tendency to believe that the speaker has a reason behind doing so.

    Lack of abstraction + emotional nature => Double-Think + external stimuli (in the form of logic or argument => solipsism + emotional reaction.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Yes, they tend to be categorical (0/1 yes/no) type thinkers rather than nuanced thinkers (on a spectrum of intensity ranging from 0-100)

      One of the greatest ways to develop one’s logic and become a more incisive thinker is to see everything on a spectrum and then make generalisations and deductions based on propensity IN THE FULL KNOWLEDGE that you can be disproven, for there are always outliers and that even largely accurate generalisations are imperfect.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I think of it as “false falsification” in my mind. For instance, “All women have fucked at least 10 men” is falsifiable, it’s a case of a positivist statement. “A great majority of women are like X” is a phenomenological statement, it cannot be falsified or proven true but can be very useful based on the nuance.

        What is the whole PUA community, if not one gigantic piece of grounded theory research, complete with theory formulation and experimental testing?

        The interesting question here, is it a case of logical shortfall, or machiavellian logic?

        Lets say we came up with an understanding of the “female operating system” that allowed us to “win” 70% of the time. It would still make sense to deny the effectiveness of the understanding, regardless of evidence.

        However, it is also a female tendency to deny the effectiveness of the understanding regardless of evidence due to what “feels right”

        I tend to think number 2, because they tend not to be that smart when aggregated.

        Like

        1. The interesting question here, is it a case of logical shortfall, or machiavellian logic?

          I’m inclined to believe both purely on the basis they possess a natural Machiavellian competency in tandem with a shortfall of logic. If they were rational Machiavellians, advertising techniques would not work so well on them.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. I suppose that’s true. I always wondered why advertising never seemed to work on me. I actually notice Machiavellian behavior a lot more, since I went from a male dominated environment to a female dominated environment. Hence why I need to step up that part of my logic game.

          So an inborn form of machiavellian logic. It’s like the force, you need to learn to control otherwise it never reaches full potential. Then again, I got told my mind works on binary logic, so what do I know.

          Like

    2. I don’t think I would call them ‘victims’ of false dichotomies, that logical mistake is a massive driving force in our current culture precisely because it allows you to convince yourself you are denying something on logical grounds when it is really due to taboo, emotion etc. It is relativism in a thin disguise.

      You make it sound as if if you patiently explained this logical gaffe, they’d appreciate it. As you might imagine, they ignore you, because it is too valuable a fallacy to admit. It undergirds all kinds of shitty reasoning, and goes hand in hand with giving things the ‘benefit of doubt’ when experience dictates it should not get the benefit of the doubt, since there is usually a mountain of reasons supporting said doubts.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Patiently explaining people’s flaws in reasoning to them is pointless. You have nothing to gain and they will deny that you did them a service, they will hate you for it.

        What I did was explain that female minds in particular are prone to “black and white” rather than “shades of grey”.

        The reason I used the word “victim” was more for effect than accuracy, perhaps “prone to” or “tend to” would have been better. Plus, you know explaining people’s shitty reasoning is victim blaming!

        Like

        1. I see what you’re saying. I have one friend with which I have a relationship that includes pointing out eachother’s flaws in reasoning. It is very dear to me. As Aristotle would say, we are ‘friends for the good’, we make eachother better, the highest form of friendship.

          I agree with the black and white thinking and would like to add the tones flicker like a strobelight.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. People do not like to be told when they are wrong in a direct manner. The kind of relationship where you make someone better is always good to have though. Black and white, plus all the tones of grey really gives the best perspective. Look at hypothesis testing:

          H0 (Null hypothesis)
          H1 Hypothesis.

          H0 = No correlation
          H1 = Correlation.

          There are a lot of degrees between 0% correlation and 100% correlation.

          Liked by 1 person

        3. People are stupid, since if you cultivate the ability to be told directly and find some people that can do the same, you are cooking with gas.

          I’m not the notion of ‘degree’ is the best way of looking at it. Better, in my mind, is thinking of it in terms of generality/exception, or normal/abnormal. Stopsigns are red. Suppose someone made a blue one? Is it a stopsign? An exceptional case. Doesn’t mean stopsigns aren’t red. There is no notion of degree necessary here.

          Like

        4. There is, the reasoning here is probabilistic, so degree of probability, odds, factor into it.

          You are expressing the same idea.

          You have a set “Stop Signs” and in that set you have multiple sub-sets, blue stop signs, red stop signs, round stop signs, octagonal stop signs, and so on, they are all stop signs, but different stop signs.

          Any sign with the word “Stop” on it, is per definition a stop sign. I.E a sign with “Stop” on it. What a stop sign looks like in terms of shape, color, and so on, can differ without changing the basic characteristic of it.

          Like

        5. What reasoning are you referring to? Hypothesis testing? I agree, that is probabilistic in nature.

          There is no need for us to haggle over the essential features of ‘stopsign’. I was using it to point out that using the logic of generalization/exception is better for explaining why it is perfectly okay to say ‘women are irrational’ or ‘men are aggressive’, and why someone rebutting with exceptions doesn’t invalidate anything said.

          You can definitely talk about this issue in terms of probabilities, but you don’t have to, nor do I think it is particularly warranted.

          Like

        6. The result is the same. If you have a population of 10 stop signs, 2 are blue, 8 are red, you have an 80% probability of blowing past a red one. And you can also generalize that most stop signs are red without being wrong.

          Like

        7. Perhaps I picked a bad example, since apparently there are blue stopsigns. I meant the color to be a defining feature.

          Anyways, under your understanding, the results are consistent, but the reasoning is different – which was my point. And forms of reasoning are not always similarly applicable regardless of object.

          Like

    3. I think emotional thinking is more binary and essentialist in general, maybe this spills over into general cognition. You can’t really have an intuition or a knowing that something is 75% so, you just know.

      I know this because I used to engage in this kind of thinking under the rationalisation that it was just a different form of logic, probably because of some hormonal susceptibility (low T), and lack of mental discipline.

      Like

        1. I believe but cannot prove that this kind of nuanced thinking requires spatial rotation. Being able to see it in front of you. Yes no thinking is trying to make sense of data you can’t load into the program

          I also speculate that the fault is not solely with emotions but also with verbal intelligence. It can only create coherent sentences not load accurate models.

          This is all highly speculative btw, not my firm belief.

          Like

        2. There is some evidence out there that testosterone decreases verbal fluency. So increased t may not be an unalloyed good, especially for a man seeking to become socially dominant.

          Like

        3. That’s an interesting hypothesis. I believe that higher levels of testosterone increases risk-taking behaviors and competitiveness in individuals, so it would stand to reason that it would likely increase energy levels and pain tolerance; hard to be competitive if you lack energy, after all.

          Liked by 1 person

      1. I think emotional reactions in general are more visceral than logic or thinking. I do believe in intuition as a concept, but not in the way it is used colloquially.

        I think of it as a mix of pattern recognition and “filling in the blanks”

        Like

  2. I just want to take issue with you when you write “they typically form conclusions based upon intuition (“what feels right”) … rather than deduction (analysis).”

    You are stating tacitly that deduction is superior to intuition. I think that is a mistake. Intuition is “the ability to understand something instinctively, without the need for conscious reasoning”. That doesn’t in itself make it any less rational or intelligent than deductive reasoning.

    The best example I can think of is Star Trek. Mr Spock is a brilliant deductive reasoner, but a disaster as a captain. It requires the more “gut” style that Kirk has in order to command a starship.

    So please don’t equate intuition with emotionalism. They are different.

    Like

    1. You are stating tacitly that deduction is superior to intuition.

      I believe it almost always is, secondary only to that of intuition born of mastery, mastery being something one will use deduction to study and obtain to begin with.

      Intuition is “the ability to understand something instinctively, without the need for conscious reasoning”.

      Indeed not all intuition is equal, it can be mastery based on deep understanding, or the manifestation of an emotional impulse presenting itself as reality. One is rational intuition, the other is not.

      Now if we are not being completely pedantic and at least attempt to be realistic, I should not think it unreasonable to speculate that the vast majority of intuition is born of visceral impulse rather than learned (and thus intuitively logical) mastery.

      From the context I think it is obvious I am talking about intuition based on emotion and whimsical feeling and not intuition born out of the repetitiveness necessary to achieve mastery. I thank you for bringing attention to this distinction, but I do not believe it invalidates my point.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Excellent points. One thing I would tell young men of a rational bent is to trust your intuition unless proven otherwise. The trap I used to fall into at the beginning of University was to try to reason with people who are using knee-jerk Machiavellian confusion tactics to silence me. Often teachers. Its hard in those situations because they have power over you.

        Always remind yourself – Do you prize critical reasoning and the truth highly? If yes, does the person you are talking to prize it too (saying they do doesn’t count, look to what they do as you should with a woman)? If not, disregard/avoid. Reasoning is game and the rules are there to benefit both parties. Yes, there is an element of competition, in the sense that if you both play by the rules there can be a clear winner and a clear loser. Take losses like a man, your opponent has just given you the opportunity to be a better one.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Do you realise that most of what we call “leadership” really equates to a feminized thinking style? Addressing emotions, manipulation, inspiration, being liked and so on. This is what “management” is all about, the realm of MBAs and CEOs.

        And the same goes for politics in any modern democracy. It’s all about adjusting your beliefs to align with the voters.

        The masculine thinking style of confrontation and individualism suits disruptive innovators like Steve Jobs, but rarely suits someone trying to rise up the ranks of an existing hierarchy in a large corporation.

        In essence, there is nothing inherently superior about the male way of thinking. If an ambitious young man wants power, he would do well to study and mimic female behavior.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. In premodern China and much of the Muslim world, a LOT of power was exercised by eunuchs. Castrated males, who, freed from testosterone, adopted the cunning and amorality of women. Plus, their perceived softness lowered the defenses of male superiors, opening the doors for their rise. An ambitious young male might make a successful man feel threatened, but no one feels threatened by a pussy.

          The males in the media and academia of modern America, many of whom are homosexuals, and the brahmin caste of India, are eunuch-lite. Not castrated, but behaviorally feminized, and rising to high positions in society.

          Like

  3. Very insightful – both articles. This squares exactly with my experience. Somewhat ironically I find my analytical methodology and knowledge of epistemology strongly influenced by Ayn Rand – to whom rationality was the highest virtue. Go figure!

    Like

        1. would also recommend reading Otto Weininger’s 1903 book – Sex and Culture.

          I mention it because in it he explores many of the subjects you write about regarding Male And Female nature. With chapters on “Male and Female Sexuality, The Laws of Sexual Attraction, Male and Female Consciousness etc. In a chapter entitled “Talent and Genius ” he examines a profound difference between the two. And explains not only that real genius can only be attained through the male character, but that it actually represents the ideal and highest form of masculinity. He reasons that, due to the female character’s different method of interpreting reality, women are actually incapable of genius.

          The book itself is quite expensive but here is a free PDF for anyone interested:

          http://www.theabsolute.net/ottow/sexcharh.html#mf

          BTW, Congrats on this excellent site.

          Liked by 1 person

    1. Ayn Rand was definitely an outlier among womankind. Other than Ayn Rand and some chick from antiquity whose name currently escapes me and has no surviving works, what other female philosophers were there? I think most “philosophers” that one finds on Google when searching “female philosophers” are no more than feminists posing as such. I don’t doubt there are a number of (not so well-known) female philosophers, but like Ayn, they’re the exception that proves the marvellous rule.

      Like

      1. There is no female philosopher in the top 250 best philosophers, and certainly none with anything approaching a decent new idea. Look at Christina Hoff Sommers – she qualifies as a top 5 female thinker today purely because she can actually follow a fucking argument.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. I think Ayn Rand stands out because she saw her family and its business ruined by communism when she was a child in Russia. In that case, the government completely dismissed their individual freedoms and forced them into the collective of the state. It’s completely understandable that she developed a philosophy based on objective reality and individual freedoms.

        The modern feminist movement is almost the same as the communists. They claim to represent the female collective (even though only 20% of women identify as such), and speak of a class warfare between men and women. They want all women (and will gladly try to bully those who won’t) to be forced into a collective identity of victimhood. They go on to misrepresent reality in order to win converts to their ideology. They have it easier in a way: they only need to appeal to feelings in order to win converts.

        Feminism runs entirely opposite to Rand’s philosophy, which is highly appealing, since it strikes at the weakest parts of the feminist agenda: their ignorance and wilful blindness to reality, the fact that what they claim is reality does not match almost anyone’s experience of reality (including the 80% of women who don’t identify as feminist), and their complete dismissal of the individual rights.

        Great post, btw.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. She was an outlier for women for sure and I would argue for men too. Her “philosophizing” was as relentlessly logical, reasoned, and explicit as I’ve found anywhere. And all encompassing – ethics, aesthetics, epistemology and metaphysics. She analyzed and “reasoned” about all of them.

        I have read Aristotle, Locke, and even her nemesis Kant as well as others. Never read Nietzsche, I should sometime, she said he influenced her. I’m not interested in arguing if she was the best or not, i.e., comparing philosophers. However if there is an argument to discuss I might be interested in it. Her method of analyzing and evaluating arguments is second to none.

        IllimitableMan, I follow you on Twitter as @MuskieRA. Again super articles.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Absolutely not! In absolutely no way is ‘her method of analyzing and evaluating arguments second to none’. She wrote almost no straight philosophical work, it was almost all literary. If you read Objectivism by Peikoff, a professed condensation of her views (that she herself endoresed before she died), it is nothing special. It is, as I said above, bad arguments for (sometimes) strong positions. There is nothing novel in her writing, she was good at popularizing a set of more or less consistent views, that is all.

          Like

        2. Absolutely yes. I call “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology” about as “straight philosophical” as it gets.

          I’ve read Peikoff’s book.

          “Popularizing a set of more or less consistent views” something conservatives have failed at for decades if not centuries. Neither popularizing nor making consistent.

          Like

        3. It’s crap, nothing in it is new or good. If you want to laud her for cobbling together a libertarian worldview on shitty arguments, which really do a disservice to the positions, go ahead. But you should set the bar higher.

          Like

        4. Mr. “Fun!”

          “…bad arguments..,” “It’s crap…,” ..shitty arguments..”

          Interesting coming from someone who just got done claiming “She wrote almost no straight philosophical work, it was almost all literary” – and then you’re flat out contradicted when confronted with “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.” And I failed to mention some her other “literary works” The Virtue of Selfishness, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, The New Left: the Anti-Industrial Revolution and the Romantic Manifesto, i.e., ethics, politics, aesthetics. You are obviously “well acquainted” with her work, and probably less so with her arguments.

          My guess is you’ve heard or read superficial dismissive comments about her work and gone happily about your business smug in your understanding of “deep” issues. Tell me you’re not a philosophy grad student? Please.

          Oh, and providing you with her most “novel” arguments – do your own homework. If there’s one you think is particularly “bad” or “shitty,” let me know which one.

          Best regards.

          Like

        5. I read the Peikoff – it’s all I needed to read. They are all shitty or stolen wholesale. All you have to do is defend the best one. If you can do that – I’m wrong. If I refute one of the many bad ones, you’ve still got a bunch of other crap to cling to. The burden of proof is on you.

          Like

  4. I found the explanation for why women reject religion to be somewhat simplistic. Rather, I find the reason that women reject religion has more to do with another charismatic leader telling them to, to include a PUA, politician, feminist, marketer, or someone trying to game the stock market by engineering a trend, etc. It’s not just a reason to be promiscuous. I think a bigger reason for religious rejection in general has to do with engineered gulfs between generations such as to endanger historical narratives being passed on within families and communities. Each time sexual mores and other types of morality change, a “generation gap” is formed into which government, marketing, other ideologies, etc. insert themselves. A change or rejection of religion is essentially a rejection of one’s previous generations, which might have dropped the ball in terms of taking responsibility for the welfare of a daughter, such that she turns elsewhere for guidance, to include sexual partners–because who else will look after her when family drops the ball?

    Other than that, I support the conclusions of this article. It’s a shame that its uncomfortable truths can’t and won’t be accepted by women who are ruled by emotions.

    In addition to menopause, exposure to meaningful relationships with men who don’t just indulge her notions or shelter her from reality can, over time, make a woman less fearful of reality. The emotional need has to be fulfilled first in order for that door to open. Alternatively, FtMs who are recipients of testosterone injections also tend to exhibit more rationality.

    I think that the proximity of men who “smell like testosterone” can also have a positive (in terms of rationality) effect. Perhaps daughters of men who smell less like testosterone start off with an irrationality disadvantage. just a thought.

    Liked by 3 people

  5. I generally agree with the post – but one point of clarification is warranted – you are using the term deductive reasoning when you I think you mean inductive reasoning. It is an important point because inductive reasoning implies potential fallibility (whereas deductive reasoning doesn’t imply this), and as such implies there are limitations to the masculine style of reality-testing, however IMO this is still a superior method or reality testing vis-a-vis the feminine more feeling-based style, as long as the masculine inductive reasoning style does not lose sight of it’s inherent potential for fallibility. The continuing support of the fallibility insight, within the masculine reality-testing style, is in fact it’s primary strength, and so a most important point indeed!

    Comparatively, vis-a-vis the feminine style, as described, it is not so much a matter of the feminine style being more binary (feelings can be very nuanced), but a matter of the feminine style being much more predisposed to losing sight of it’s fallibility because fallibility is not a feature necessarily imposed upon it by it’s own internal logic – such fallibility quotient instead depends on feeling-synergization feedback loops occurring within the emotional milieu at large, and whether these feedback loops are coherent group-wise but incoherent otherwise, or alternatively both incoherent group-wise and otherwise, or alternatively both coherent group-wise and otherwise. This feminine reality-testing style is mostly blind to coherence gradients beyond the group-mode consensus.

    Personally, I am starting to form the opinion that a way forward, for men would be to commence attempting for more self-awareness around the changing colors of the emotional component of inductive reasoning, as it is occurring, so as to develop a keener intuition of the superior kind IM outlined in comments above. If one keenly splits and focuses awareness, you will see that there indeed is an emotional component to the activity of reasoning. Quite fascinating. Perhaps a way forward for women would be to work at the keener self-awareness potential, on the fly, from the other end.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. EO Wilson’s “Multi-level selection” is a very good framework to understand male and female dynamics. The basic idea is all social animals become social when there are resources such as nests or in our case campsites to defend. Defending a campsite will by necessity create a sexually dimorphic species. It requires a species to work together as a group as well as to compete individually for mates and resources within a group.

    For a group to succeed, men need to 1) defend the group’s resources and seize when possible resources from other groups, and 2) protect and provision the group’s women. In order to work together, men need to value loyalty, courage, competence, and personal integrity. These traits require the suppression of emotion. This is why you see male groups based on a top down leadership style with leaders chosen for competence and the ability to accomplish goals. The men also need to protect and provision the group’s women because they are the bottleneck of sustainability. In hunter gather groups, a woman can produce only one child about ever four years. This made young women exceptionally valuable. What was required is that men to have an innate desire to protect and help women. Men understand and empathize with women.

    For a group to survive, the women needed 1) good genes, 2) lots of resources especially calories, and 3) protection. This would have made women risk adverse and demanding of resources. These traits require emotions to dominate life. This may be why girls gravitate toward the princess stories and customs, and women are risk adverse and feel they have a low agency. These are traits that would lead to survive on the Savanna of women and also the maximization of children of those women with those traits. What is absolutely not required is for women to understand or have empathy for men. What women do to control men is to use men’s value of loyalty, competence, empathy for women, and courage (or fear of not being courageous). All of this manifests itself in the various ways in which women shame men. You will note that women lack similar means to coerce through shaming. Women shame women. Men do not.

    Feminism is a hard push toward female reproductive strategies of 1) good genes, 2) resources, and 3) protection. You will note that feminism in its current form started immediately after most women were on the birth control pill. Feminism is 1) reproduction without responsibility, 2) redistribution of resources from men to women, and 3) the creation of “threat points” that allow women to control the men in their relationships. What I mean by threat points is laws that for example will punish men in divorce regardless of who is at fault. This gives women leverage to make demands of their husbands because both understand the consequences of making her unhappy will disproportionately fall on the husband. He will lose everything even if he plays by the rules. This is really all that feminism really is.

    One of the first things that feminists did was to separate good genes from resources. This is why feminists in the 1960s pushed for no fault divorce. The birth control pill allowed women for the first time to seek out the alpha jerkboys and also rely on the government (aka men) or the baby daddy for support. Before the pill, the cost of Fing a jerkboy was 9 months of pregnancy and 18 years of labor (6 or 7 years of labor on the Savanna). The jerkboy’s behavior seems to trigger in the female brain what must have represented good genes of social dominance and protection on the Savannas.

    Affirmative Consent to the male brain seems irrational. To the female brain, it is simply a threat point. It came about only after the hookup culture, and it gives women a means to completely destroy any man they chose at will. It’s intent is to instill fear in their hookup partners. At no point should this law or others such as VAWA be thought of as rational. That is not how the female mind works.

    In addition, feminists are able to use other groups like the LGTB community to break social norms that weaken marriage in order to give women even more options. Or they might use African Americans who demand equal representation without necessarily merit to promote equal outcome without merit for women in employment. This is why progressivism always seems to center around feminism.

    EO Wilson’s “multi-level selection” is the grand unifying theory of all social studies. The strange thing is that very few seem to know about or understand this theory. Google EO Wilson. He is not a crackpot. He has been at the cutting edge of biological discovery for over 50 years.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Think about the 2 male reproductive strategies in terms of financial investments.

      Case 1: The Beta provider
      Case 2: Jerkboy

      For the sake of simple math, the cost of raising a child to the appropriate age is 10.

      The beta provider stays with 1 female, and invests 10.

      The Jerkboy impregnates 10 females and invests 1 in each.

      On the surface their investments are equal, 10 for jerkboy 10 for beta provider, however:

      A) Jerkboy by sleeping with 10 females has secured more genetic variation for his offspring.
      B) Jerkboy has diversified his parental investment, so that even if his children have a lower chance of growing into adulthood as a result of lesser investment in each, he has 10 children compared to Beta Providers 1.

      Lets say that you have a baseline death rate of 30% for children in a given time.

      That means that both Beta and Jerkboy starts off with a 70% chance each child will die. This leaves Beta with 0.7 children and Jerkboy with 7 children.

      At this point, dying in labor is common, and most people live in close knit family groups, so it is common for families to raise children after mothers die in childbirth. So, the father being out of the picture is detrimental but not to the point where it adds a massive downside risk. The group is not going to kill the child.

      So, Beta by adding investment, mitigates the child’s chance of dying by 20%, which leads to beta having 0.9 children instead of 0.7.

      Jerkboy just doesn’t chance the odds, so he still has 7 children.

      The Jerkboy children having inherited their father’s jerkboy genetics, so they pursue the same strategy in the next generation.

      I could do a much more exhaustive and more math intense post, but I’m saving that.

      Like

      1. Black Label Logic – Radium’s comment supplies some arguments for inter-group competition successes of groups that possess cooperative adaptive strategies vs groups that are less so endowed. As well, note these arguments are mathematically coherent:

        https://evolution-institute.org/article/richard-dawkins-edward-o-wilson-and-the-consensus-of-the-many/

        From a certain perspective your assessment is correct however there are more complex evolutionary feedback loops occurring at a meta level beyond the perspective you are focusing on.

        Like

        1. I know, hence why I wrote “I could do a much more exhaustive and more math intense post, but I’m saving that.”

          There are many points to consider, game theory, altruism as an evolutionary valuable trait, reciprocal altruism vs naive altruism, the breakdown of groups as cooperation (and underlying variables) disappear.

          I was carrying out an extreme case of the two strategies, in isolation from the perspective of financial diversification. Hence why my first sentence was limiting the scope of the argument.

          Like

        2. I see.

          Perhaps you will agree with me that evidence is beginning to point to the power of an information systems approach to untangling what is going on here, reality-wise and wrt the reality interface that is the human endeavor. It’s an algorithm. An algorithm implies inputs and outputs which implies a “time” substrate. “Time” substrate – what does that mean? – IMO that is the deepest question.

          Anyway, wrt to the human endeavor, particularly wrt to the man/woman dynamic, a line of inquiry ripe with possibilities for moving our overall understanding forward would be to better understand how this cooperation, or collaboration (I don’t like calling it altruism which I think is an inaccurate descriptor of the phenomenon), operates differently, by gender, inter-gender and intra-gender-wise, not so much from the perspective of behaviors (which is being worked out now, redpill and evol psych as such, by way of examples), but now there is enough learned about the behaviors to begin to wonder about what these behaviors reveal about the underlying psychic apparatus. This approach implies consciousness, which IMO implies “agency” – the belief in our personal power to make meaningful non-deterministic decisions, and I think through the lense of this “agency” concept, we may meet with some success wrt to untangling the psychic gender differences around cooperation or collaboration, which may shed light on some of the mysteries surrounding “agency”, and therefore perhaps some of the mysteries around “psychic apparatus”, and so on, – around “consciousness”,- around the reality interface known as the human endeavor, and around reality itself, if we are very lucky. This eventuality is not inconceivable if you buy my argument in first paragraph above that there is an algorithmic nature to all this. I believe we may be entering into a cognitive era whereby phenomenon, data, concepts, and meta-concepts may be codified and understood in a meta-relational way as opposed to a cause-and-effect way. The property of strong emergence is an example of what I am pointing to here. In this way I think it may be possible for humans to understand how strong emergence arises. This understanding would open a new era for humanity.

          To me this particular man/woman dynamic approach for getting at the overall deep problems has alot going for it:

          we don’t understand consciousness
          we know that “agency” is one of the core issues wrt to understanding consciousness (the history of ontological discourse bears out this point)
          the deepest scientific/philosophical mysteries now are around how strong emergence occurs
          “agency” (and consciousness) are both examples of such strong emergence
          the behaviors around the man/woman dynamic, cooperation and collaboration-wise, point to there being deep interplay, complimentary-wise, or perhaps even polarity-wise, that implies an “agentic” component
          An information systems approach to the problem might well be applied, to produce an algorithmic description of the agentic phenomenon, given that there may well be a data-set that is symmetrical polar-wise, around this phenomenon
          Such success with agentic phenomenon may well provide the “key” to untangle, or at least shed more light on the other above-mentioned mysterious phenomenon

          So if I am right about my hunch around all this, how to proceed? How do we obtain data around the gendered polarity of the “agentic” aspect of the behaviors around cooperation and collaboration?

          I started on this line of inquiry (without explicating on the overall deeper-level aspects of the inquiry) by asking redpill-aware people “what is the psychic apparatus and the agentic correlates of a woman’s egalitarian viewpoint?”

          This would be the pertinent question given that the male egalitarian viewpoint (at least a northern european male’s) has already been fleshed out by Kevin MacDonald (evolutionary psychologist).

          However I have been stymied at the get-go. I soon found out that people mostly do not understand the psychic underpinnings of the egalitarian mindset (including men and northern european men), and the word itself has crazily been twisted into orwellian-misappropriations in various ways by all sides. So I defined it, in keeping with Kevin MacDonald’s thoughts, for discussion purposes, as follows:

          egalitarian = the belief that the perspective of the equal fundamental existential value of individuals, is a worthy perspective.

          This is a meta-perspective, more birdseye, more in the spirit of empirical and philosophical inquiry, however it also easy to see that there is a attitudinal aspect to taking this position, that will color social interactions. From what I have discovered so far, everybody hates this perspective, for various reasons.

          And redpill-aware women (or other women) will not engage in any meaningful way around his issue (but neither will redpill-aware men). I have not tried Karen Staughan yet and may do that next.

          All this is fascinating.

          Like

  7. On the subject of “Logic vs. Emotion”

    In his best selling book “The Chimp Paradox” Britain’s eminent psychiatrist and fellow of the Royal College, Dr Steve Peters, explains;

    Functional Brain Scanners have become so sensitive that we can now observe the blood supply to the brain in real time. Consequently, we now know that when we are thinking calmly and rationally, the blood supply is going directly to the frontal (what he refers to as the Human) area of the brain and that, when we are acting irrationally and emotionally, the blood supply is going directly to the Limbic (what he calls the Chimp) part of the Brain. Importantly, the scanners show that the blood supply never goes to both the “chimp” and “Human” parts of the brain simultaneously. Proving once and for all, that it is impossible to think rationally and emotionally at the same time.

    This is also born out by, of all people, the avowed feminist and well-known neuroscientist – Susan Greenfield, author of “The Private Life of the Brain” in which she states; “The more emotion you have, the less mind you have?”

    Angry Harry, (a qualified Phycologist) has also written of this phenomenon and explains it’s significance, in terms of gender, in an article entitled “Are Men More Intelligent than Women?”

    http://www.angryharry.com/esMenareMoreIntelligentthanWomen.htm

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Do you think it is possible to train yourself for this though (i.e – get blood flowing to both areas simultaneously, or even fast-cycle-wise)? I would like to see mathematicians tested in the functional brain scanners while working on a complex problem. Stephen Hawking might be a very good candidate for such test.

      There is an aspect of intuition, (i.e – the feel of how the logical elements, as pieces fitting or not fitting in an overall puzzle), to higher level maths reasoning, it seems to me.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. Love the blog and your writing.

    I will go ahead and answer your last question about women’s great ability to doublethink It is most certainly not intelligence. Women are stupid as fuck.

    It is most certainly a lack of self awareness which ironically seems to grow even more monstrous in higher IQ women.

    This is why any right leaning k selected society will never allow women to have any say whatsoever in the direction of their society/nation.

    Women are better when MEN are ruling over them and providing direction. Women’s ONLY evolutionary purpose is bringing new life into the world. That is their unique and sole purpose.

    Women have ran amok because there is a great lack of male leadership and frankly there are multitudes of men and women who I see as simply taking up space and waiting for permission from their corporate masters to die.

    Permission however is only granted when the last bit of dollars is snatched from their grubby fingers and the last ounce of productivity is siphoned out of their black souls.

    To them I say….just fucking die already.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Walter E Kurtz- being a woman myself, I have to say I LOVE your comment! You just made my day! Apart from the “Women are stupid as fuck” (I wouldn’t exactly say all women) but yeh.

      Like

      1. Well that’s the first time I’ve commented in the sphere and a woman actually appreciates my real talk.

        You are from Thailand I presume? I may have to visit perhaps in the summer.

        America is only good for making money.

        Like

  9. ‘Women think they want to lead but hate when they have to, they fear being powerless but cannot handle power.’

    A lot of the nature of men and women will go back to rereading the story in Genesis. God knows how He created us.

    Basically women got childbirth and that internal war above…men got the responsibility of labor through nature and being the head of the family (an by extension institutions).

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Just a few female inventions of note – there’s no way I could list them all without taking up an awful lot of room – windscreen wipers, the Mars rover, computer code, Kevlar, the life raft, the fire escape, solar heating, the medical syringe, the electric refrigerator, wireless transmission technology, CCTV, user friendly computer software… I honestly could go on and on. Without these inventions and the ingenuity of these women, you would not even have been able to create and share this article.

    Like

  11. I’m going to make a point here which I know you either will not or cannot understand, but feminism is actually brilliant for men’s rights. Feminism means equality of the sexes, and does not advocate the rights of one sex over another. Feminism actively acknowledges that some issues which affect men can be overlooked – high suicide rate, domestic violence, etc. This is because these issues have been brushed aside or considered of unequal importance, which they are not. In a patriarchal society, men are made to feel as though they should be brave, be quiet, don’t complain. It’s seen as embarrassing to admit that, as a man, you’ve been abused by a woman, and it shouldn’t be. But this attitude has been collectively imposed by men, I’m afraid, not women. These men need equality, to feel they can speak out – they need feminism.

    Like

    1. I’m just messing around. You know what dude, you are foolish! So what if women are emotional? It don’t make them inferior. It just makes them different from men. How come you and the people that agree with you have to look down on women and bully them just because they have differences? If all women are without logic, reason and rationality, they would touch a flame without knowing it will burn their hands, they would drink bleach without knowing it will poison them, and none of them would even make it to be eighty years old! So they have to have those three aforementioned qualities somewhere in their brain.

      Like

      1. Men has to keep their idealistic projections of women so that they remain blind and so that they keep taking care and sacrifying for women. They will PROTECT fiercely those projections. Its the same as the projections towards GOD. Its not their mistake they are had wired that way.

        There is a minority of men that can master women. Psychopaths. These guys have limited projections, they view woman as a tool for them. In this they are the same as a typical woman. Its sometimes interesting to observe a machiavellian battle between a woman and a psychopath. Battle of tactics, rational, pragmatic manipulations..both parties pretend emotions, weakness, illusions in order to decieve the oponent and make him to serve their purposes. Normal man is usually no match for a woman. Psychopath is.

        There is other, very, very small minority – highly intelligent men with social intelligence and spiritual intelligence as well – very important! Theese men see through women, yet they have a soul, conscience, compassion /traits of a soul/ so they do not abuse women. Theese men use their intelligence and deep insight to protect them from women and master women…yet they usually not abuse women, because they do not want to harm their manly soul. They know that their soul is the authentic source of their being, independence and freedom and they do not want to destroy it. They live from their soul, they´ve found other, more authentic source of their being and hapiness..so they dont NEED woman as their GOD and MASTER.

        Due to their freedom women have no power over those men.

        Like

  12. You are very, very intelligent man, yet you are a victim to the blindness of men. I am former divorce lawyer and I can tell you that you are still TOO naive when it comes to women. Do not underestimate them its deadly mistake!

    Women are not rational? Women are most hardened pragmatist I´ve ever met. MEN are emotional when it comes to women and pragmatic when it comes to world and other men. MAN is a reproductive slave to woman. Your emotions, your very brain is made in a way to enable woman to master you. I can see those traits in your vey writings.

    Give yourself a question – when stronger being has to protect and provide weaker being, which one from them has to be a pragmatist/master and which one has to be a non-logical idealist/slave?

    Like Emanueal Kant said – men think that female traits are childish, non – rational, etc – but when we look close enough, we must confess that theese very traits are nothing but the TOOLS for managing men.

    MAN is the romantic, the non – logical EMOTIONAL creature, the victim, the slave and the STUPIDO when it comes to sexual relationships, not woman. Therefore man fights, provides for, dies, lives for woman. Man measures its worth by how he is liked or loved by women, her hapiness interests him more then hapiness of his own. He does not see the discrepancy here. His worth in HIS OWN eyes is measured by how well is he liked, admired by women. He dies, sacrifices himself for the woman…and he feels…right!

    He is logical when it comes to world and another men – due to single reason – he has to work for his woman, he has to protect her. So he has to MASTER the world. But he is emotional dildo when it comes to his woman. She has to master HIM! Do not confuse those things!

    He is a DEPENDENT creature, dependent on women due to the absence of other, more authentic source. He is the idealist, the IRRATIONAL STUPIDO here, not woman. Woman manages, rules and manipulates him so that he – works for her, provides for her, sacrifies for her as long as it is advantageous for her. When it is no longer the truth, she dismisses him in a moment for more convenient candiate. Its the behaviour of a slave master towards slave.

    Women behave towards men like employers behave towards their employees. Yet they pretend to be irrational,. weak, stupid, etc – in order to provoke protecting and care taking instincts of men. There is no sense in protecting and providing for the more inteligent and pragmatic being, is there? So she pretend to be naive, non logical…ooo pooor girl you have to protect, provide and THINK for her with your male BRAIN.

    Think man, think! Turn off that part of brain which makes you blind towards women, its genetic predisposition in order to make a slave of them from you. Slave must remain blind…and stupid. Open your eyes!

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s