Thursday, January 12, 2006

Social Strategy: How Men And Women Are After Different Things When They "Debate"

Men and women are after different things when they “debate.”

Men tend to, but not always, hold the truth to be the decider of the debate. (Manginas excepted – thus the name). The man who illustrates the truth the best, is generally considered the winner of a debate. Women, not so much. And don’t forget, women scoff at our “school yard rules.” Nothing seems sillier to a woman than the male “code.” When women fight/argue, there are no rules she adheres to. Women decide who “wins” a debate by who has been the snotty-mouthest and emotionally manipulates the other into submission. There truth matters not a bit to women.

Angry Harry made a really good comparison on his website once:

Men love to watch sports. They will spend hours watching men kick balls, shoot pucks, pot golf balls etc. etc. They will memorize stats, and they will see strategy everywhere in a game of sports. Men positively thrive upon these things.

But women?

Not so much.

However, when women watch Soap Operas, they do the same things as men watching sports – except they do it for social strategy. Women see social strategy everywhere in soaps… how Kathy manipulated her love interest David into lying to his wife Ruth, causing them to have a big argument, driving David right into Kathy’s loving arms… and the affair begins.

Social Strategy.

That's why soap operas are popular with women. It's what Cosmo magazine is chock full of: How to socially manipulate people.

Socially manipulating people is what women do.

In fact, it is one of the only things they do.

I think one of the absolute best things men can do with women is follow the advice of so many of those “misogynists” of old, and view women as children. “A woman is the most responsible teenager in the house.”

Of course, it is not actually that they are children. It is more likely that they do not develop the same sense of principle and justice to navigate the world, because society enables them not to have to. Regardless of whether they are or not, I think in almost every aspect – from game to simple conversations – a man is advantaged by continually reminding himself that “women are teenagers.” They exist somewhere in between child and man.

Schopenhauer’s essay on women is bang-on:

"So that it will be found that the fundamental fault in the character of women is that they have no “sense of justice .” This arises from their deficiency in the power of reasoning already referred to, and reflection, but is also partly due to the fact that Nature has not destined them, as the weaker sex, to be dependent on strength but on cunning; this is why they are instinctively crafty, and have an ineradicable tendency to lie. For as lions are furnished with claws and teeth, elephants with tusks, boars with fangs, bulls with horns, and the cuttlefish with its dark, inky fluid, so Nature has provided woman for her protection and defense with the faculty of dissimulation, and all the power which Nature has given to man in the form of bodily strength and reason has been conferred on woman in this form. Hence, dissimulation is innate in woman and almost as characteristic of the very stupid as of the clever. Accordingly, it is as natural for women to dissemble at every opportunity as it is for those animals to turn to their weapons when they are attacked; and they feel in doing so that in a certain measure they are only making use of their rights. Therefore a woman who is perfectly truthful and does not dissemble is perhaps an impossibility. This is why they see through dissimulation in others so easily; therefore it is not advisable to attempt it with them. From the fundamental defect that has been stated, and all that it involves, spring falseness, faithlessness, treachery, ungratefulness, and so on. In a court of justice women are more often found guilty of perjury than men. It is indeed to be generally questioned whether they should be allowed to take an oath at all." -- Arthur Schopenhauer, On Women, 1851
It makes perfectly good sense to me why religions such as Christianity try to remove women from philosophizing about their doctrines, or why in Buddhism it is said that women cannot become Buddhas. It also makes perfectly good sense why men of the past used to often have “men only” spaces where women were forbidden.

When discussing matters, men and women are not even after the same things.

Because women are based in relative truth, it doesn’t matter how often you pin them down, as soon as you do they create a new truth in their minds and just carry on – because her goal is not to find the Truth at all, but that is what the man she is arguing with is after and he thinks she is after Truth too.

Truth, as well as morals, are only important to women when it suits them. The instant the Truth conflicts with their agenda, they have no problems at all changing it and carrying on – because what they are really after is manipulating you. The most manipulative is “the winner.” The one who manipulates the most crapola upon the other is the one who walks away being “right.”

Truth matters not a bit in deciding who was “right.”

You can catch a woman dead to rights in a lie, like a child with cookie crumbs still stuck on the corner of her lips insisting she wasn’t in the cookie jar – it simply does not matter to them. They just create a new truth in their heads and carrying on as if nothing matters.

And, there’s really no point in trying to “convert” them. It matters not a bit to convert such a creature anymore than it does any good to convince three year olds that the Tea Party campaign is the right one.

Even the women that have been “converted” are simply incapable of rising above these things, and as soon as circumstances change, making her previous stance unsuitable for her, she rearranges the truth and carries on as if she has no clue to what you are talking about – nor can you hold her to what she said yesterday. So, what’s the point?

There was a very well-known Meritorious Mediocrus in the MRM a few years back. She had everyone bamboozled that she was “not like that.” She spoke and blogged and moralized and agreed and agreed and agreed… and all the men were happier than pigs in shit that there was, finally, such a good example of woman… they didn’t have to take women off the pedestal – not all of them, anyway.

However, suddenly a lot of shit hit the fan. (I don’t know the details, just bits and pieces which are not important). She got herself onto the divorce-conveyer belt.

“Shared- Parenting? Huh? What you talkin’ about, Willis? Unreasonable child support? But I neeeeeeeeed it!”

Yeah, uh huh. What a waste of time and effort for all the men who wound up pedestalizing her. She was no different than the rest, and her “principles” were subject to change simply upon the convenience of where she is in life.

Over the years, I suspect you might see the same thing from someone like Alte, too. She's not that old – around 30, I think. She has admitted to us that before her husband, she used to be a “man-killer” who brought emotional harm to her previous boyfriends for no real reason or purpose… and now suddenly, she has found God and submission to Him and her husband is what it's all about… until the divorce, then it becomes perfectly possible for women to move on into a new fantasy life, and forget all about the morals she had in the previous years, and she morphs into something completely new again.

Even in relationships with men, women are completely malleable. The girl you dated at 21 who screwed you over and 23, is not even the same person when you speak to her again at 28. This is because women are “empty vessels” who seek men to fill the void. Each time a woman gets together with a new man, it is based upon hypergamy – he becomes her new hero, and thus she completely adapts her morals and character to be his view of the ideal woman. When she grabs hold of the next branch, erm, man, all of her morals and character again change to adapt to be the new man’s ideal woman. When you look at it that way, how can one ever then assess a woman’s “true character?” It doesn’t exist.

There is no point in arguing with them, and there is no point in having their input into Men's Issues.It is best for men simply to take a position and staunchly never budge. Do not bother explaining yourself to women; it is futile. Either they find your logic to be sound and they will conform themselves around you, or there is no further hope in converting her to your way of thinking. A man has to come from the attitude of "it's my way or the highway." A woman - or especially her friends - may call this asshole behaviour, simply because you are not willing to grovel like a servile worm for her approval. But deep down every woman loves this about a man. There is a difference between being an asshole and being confident and assertive.

We have entirely different strategies and entirely different views of reality. It’s best to just chase them off so the men can get back to business.

Interview with a Womenfirster: Phyllis Schlafly

Jack Kammer: What if I was the kind of man, like a lot of men who have confided to me, who is sick to death of the corporate world and in a heartbeat would stay home to take care of their kids because they love them so much and they know the business world is a crock?

Phyllis Schlafly:… That’s their problem. As I look around the world about me, I just don’t find there are many [women] who want the so-called non-traditional relationships. – a radio interview, WCVT-FM (now WTMD), Towson University, Maryland, January 5, 1989

Off to the koffee-klatch with you and the other clucking hens!


Further Reading:

Bonecrcker #51 - Don't Argue With Women 

Philalethes #3 - The Anti-Logic of Women

The Intimate Journal of Henri Amiel – Dec, 26, 1868

Tom Pry's Wife -- by Charles Lamb, (1775-1834)

Point, Counterpoint – Rollo Tomassi

…. \_/...........