Men and women are after different things when we 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 and argue, there are no rules she adheres to. Women decide who “wins” a debate by who has been the snotty-mouthiest and by who emotionally manipulates the other into submission.
The truth matters not a bit to women.
“If men are always more or less deceived on the subject of women, it is because that they forget that they and women do not speak altogether the same language, and that words have not the same weight or the same meaning for them, especially in questions of feeling. Whether from shyness or precaution or artifice, a woman never speaks out her whole thought, and moreover what she herself knows of it is but a part of what it really is. Complete frankness seems to be impossible to her, and complete self-knowledge seems to be forbidden her. If she is a sphinx to us, it is because she is a riddle of doubtful meaning even to herself. She has no need of perfidy, for she is mystery itself. A woman is something fugitive, irrational, indeterminable, illogical, and contradictory. A great deal of forbearance ought to be shown her, and a good deal of prudence exercised with regard to her, for she may bring about innumerable evils without knowing it, capable of all kinds of devotion, and of all kinds of treason, “monstre incompréhensible,” raised to the second power, she is at once the delight and the terror of men.”
— The Intimate Journal of Henri Amiel, Dec. 26, 1868
Angry Harry made a really good comparison on his website once: Men love to watch sports. They will spend hours watching men kick b~~~~, shoot pucks, pot golf b~~~~ 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.
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.
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.
“Truth” as men know it does not exist in the same way for women. Women are “herd creatures” and thus women find “truth” or right and wrong through the consensus of the herd. It is what the herd believes is correct that women believe is “truth.” Thus you see women are much more attuned to eternally changing notions such as fashion, or how they use social proofing – the consensus of whom the herd finds a sexually desirable man – to decide for their individual selves which man they find sexy. Men simply “know” what they find sexy in a mate, but women find men sexy because of other women’s sexual preferences.
“… Women may have happy ideas, taste, and elegance, but they cannot attain to the ideal. The difference between men and women is like that between animals and plants. Men correspond to animals, while women correspond to plants because their development is more placid and the principle that underlies it is the rather vague unity of feeling. When women hold the helm of government, the state is at once in jeopardy, because women regulate their actions not by the demands of universality but by arbitrary inclinations and opinions. Women are educated–who knows how?” — G.F. Hegel
When women argue, they are not trying to find the objective truth but rather are after manipulating the other(s) into feeling unified with them towards their opinion. If the herd believes 1+1=3, then it is correct – because the herd believes it is so. If tomorrow, the herd believes 1+1=1, then that will be correct – because the herd believes it is so. It is men who insist upon the objective truth – based on principle and universality – and continue to argue 1+1=2, no matter how much you cows moo at me. Women are not after finding the correct answer, but rather they are after manipulating others into feeling they are right and their opponent is wrong. In other words, they are socially manipulating their opponent when they argue, rather than seeking the actual, objective truth.
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.
This does not mean a man can be foolish and disregard women as harmless children, for as Schopenhauer observes, women are naturally furnished with the tools of dissimulation – the behaviours akin to a pool hustler – and this feature is innate in women and is found as easily in the stupid as well as the very clever. Men should be very guarded when in an argument with someone who naturally dissembles.
“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
I can well understand why in the old days, when there were such things as “gentleman’s clubs,” that even all of the staff were male. Once a woman enters into group of men, the group automatically becomes feminized. It also makes perfectly good sense to me why religions such as Christianity try to remove women from philosophizing about their doctrines and they state that women are not allowed to speak in the church nor hold office or authority over men. They naturally lead away from the Truth. Just because a woman says something that makes sense once, is no guarantee that the next thing out of her mouth also makes sense… and they all, by human nature, put the female’s needs before the male, and manipulate away from the Truth with the ease, taking men along with them like the Pied Piper. Buddhism also says that women cannot become Buddhas for much the same reasons.
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.
“…it is just such responses — citing a single, artfully mischaracterized example to “refute” a carefully made argument — that long ago led to the bit of male traditional wisdom that advises, “Never argue with a woman.” Because women don’t ordinarily engage in discourse to discover the truth — as men do, not always, but men can be held to it if confronted, while women will dodge (a.k.a. “change the subject”) — but merely to “win.” And “all’s fair in war and love.” “Love” here defined as any encounter between the sexes, and “all’s fair” because that’s how women fight” — Philalethes #8 – When the Cow Rides the Bull, Priest, Watch Your Skull.
And, there’s really no point in trying to “convert” them. It matters not a bit to convert such a creature any more than it does good to convince three year olds that Ron Paul is the right candidate for President.
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 s~~~ 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. “Phew!”
However, suddenly a lot of s~~~ 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 pedestalized her. She was no different than the rest and her “principles” were subject to change simply upon the convenience of where she was in life.
Even in relationships with men, women are completely malleable. The girl you dated at 21, who screwed you over at 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 then ever 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.Having a woman “help” with Men’s Issues is like having a five year old “help” you put up wallpaper. No thanks!
“…the influence of the Lacedaemonian women has been most mischievous. The evil showed itself in the Theban invasion, when, unlike the women of other cities, they were utterly useless and caused more confusion than the enemy.” — The Politics of Aristotle: The Spartan Women
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!
“For woman the temptation to misuse cunning (for example, to deceive) corresponds to man’s temptation to misuse power. The fact that the woman’s guilt is always more strongly emphasized than the man’s is basically an indirect compliment to the woman, an admission of the degree to which she is the stronger sex in cunning. — Woman/Man”
– from Kierkegaard’s Journals
The consciousness of how one stands with other people occupies a relatively larger and larger part of the mind, the lower one goes on the scale of culture. Woman’s intuition, so fine in the sphere of personal relations, is seldom first-rate in the way of mechanics. Hence Dr. Whately’s jest, “Woman is the unreasoning animal, and pokes the fire from the top.”
– William James, Principles of Psychology
It is a mistake to argue with women. Arguments are all about words and women in our culture don’t match up words with actions and freely say things that don’t make sense and then deny that they don’t make sense. In short, they aren’t honest when trying to solve problems using discussion, negotiation and compromise. The reason they aren’t honest is because they are trying to be abusive and exploitative rather than having relationships based on mutual love and respect.
Instead, deal with women in the realm of behavior. Point to a behavior you don’t like and tell her to stop, or point out a missing behavior of hers and tell her to do it. Never discuss why you don’t like it or why you want her to do something. Get used to saying the word NO….a lot. And NEVER discuss things in terms of right and wrong (it’s enough that YOU want it). Always have a consequence lined up if she refuses, and ALWAYS come through with that consequence. Flakey girls get dumped, if you get my drift. This only works if you have her replacement waiting in the wings to take her place (your needs, not people’s expectations, are what’s important). Understand that, in our culture, ALL girls are flakey and need to be dumped sooner or later, so don’t hesitate to do so, or let them get away with anything. As this behavior among men becomes common (and it is), women’s flakiness will drop off dramatically.