You can’t argue with an emoticon.
Readership: All
Theme: Problems with The Red Pill / Misunderstood Models / Misapplied Models
Author’s Note: This post expands several comments I’ve made in the past, with some input from Jack.
Length: 800 words
Reading Time: 4 minutes
Why is it that every conversation eventually devolves into a discussion of what women want?
Why is it that men can never talk about what men want and need?
It’s because there is no way men can ever win the “men need things too” argument with women. Never. The basic reason is because most men are not attractive, and because men are expendable, and women have no time, no reason, and no motivation to listen to non-Tingle inducing men. But women will do this to all men!
Every time men talk about what they want and need, women take it extremely personally. They all think we are coming directly to them and telling them, personally, that they need to “do something” or “give [men] something”.
Women are completely and totally unable to think abstractly or objectively about this. Women are completely and totally unable to look at facts, data, statistics, and logic, and divorce themselves from their own feelings about this. Even women who genuinely love the man they’re with or who are married will get defensive whenever men drop the pretty lies that women love to hear and start speaking impartially and objectively. Whenever generalities are made, women will immediately launch into her feelings about it and then an argument ensues.
The reason is because for women, everything is personal. “The personal is political.” Remember that from feminism? Everything’s personal. Everything is always and forever about how it affects her, personally. Everything’s an attack on her or an accolade to her. Everything’s good for her or bad for her. Everything’s always all about her.
Facts don’t matter. Logic and reason don’t matter. Data, statistics – all irrelevant. All that matters is how that lil ol girl sitting there feels about it.
I see this EVERY time this is discussed at Sigma Frame, or Spawny’s Space, or on Reddit. EVERY time I say “Women are X” or “Men don’t like Y from women”, it always devolves into…
“I’m not like that!”
“But my friends aren’t like that!”
“But church women aren’t like that!”
Followed by…
“Where’s the nuance?”
“That makes me feel bad!”
“You can’t generalize like that!”
“Why are you always saying ALL this and ALL that?”
Eventually culminating in…
“You’re attacking me!”
Or
“Shut up you m!s0gynist incel!”
Or the classic bulverism,
“Who hurt you?!?”
My all-time favorite signal that she has no argument.
The fact that she has no argument is exactly why you can’t ever win this argument. This is also exactly why men should never get into arguments with women.
Can’t talk about facts. Can’t talk about what’s generally true, because well, “my first cousin’s friend’s mom’s secretary wasn’t ‘like that’, so you’re just an !ncel and you shut up!”
There’s no way to deal with that. None. No way to respond to women who won’t deal with facts, data, statistics, and men’s lived experiences.
We might think that this is a Misunderstood Model, that is, women are making a false deduction from an inductive model. But actually, they’re not capable of that depth of reasoning.
What’s really happening here is women are being faced with facts and cannot deal with it, so they deflect and evade to their fee fees, where they have the rhetorical upper hand, and say, “I am feeling bad and therefore YOU are bad and NO SEX FOR YOU, YOU BIG MEANIE POOPY HEAD !NCEL!”
What is clearly understood is that admitting to the legitimacy of the facts and recognizing the model, opinions, etc. as valid would lead to women being held accountable for their actions, and that is utterly anathema! That must be avoided at all costs!
So you see, it is a Misapplied Model. It’s not misunderstood at all; it is intentionally denied and evaded. No purpose, no vision, and everything is taken personally.
If you don’t give in to their psychological abuse and keep hammering on the facts, then eventually women get bored and tired. Their eyes glaze over and they’ll cut off the convo in favor of doing something else more ‘exciting’. So then women will say things like…
“This conversation is stupid.”
“This is not exciting at all.”
“This is sooo booooriiiing.”
Here, ‘stupid’ is a projection. ‘Excitement’ is an anesthetic of distraction which is necessary to prevent them from ever facing the truth about reality or themselves and thus developing agency. ‘Boring’ means that no such ‘excitement’ is present, and so some extra work is required to prevent themselves from getting real. Remember that for young women, agency is anathema. Having fun and sticking it to men is a much more enjoyable alternative.
At that point, the message is, “You and your opinion — men’s opinions – don’t mean jack sh!t to me! So go F_ck off, yew moron!”
That’s how these arguments always go. And that’s why men always lose. And that’s why they’re walking away.
Related
- Σ Frame: The 13 Harbingers of Masculine Doom (2022/9/7)
- Σ Frame (Thedeti): Deti on Female Agency (2022/11/8)
- Σ Frame: What we’ve learned about Female Agency (2022/12/20)
- Σ Frame: Asherah Makes Demands: Give Women what they want! (2023/2/27)
- Σ Frame (Oscar): The Lie of Female Hypoagency (2024/4/1)
ArchAngel
caterpillar345
Soup Sandwich
Lexet Blog
Novaseeker
Oscar
Red Pill Apostle
Jack
thedeti
Σ Frame 
Solipsism. It’s a feature, not a bug. I would even argue that God created it as a feature because He didn’t want women to think in the abstract. Considering what He created them for, why would they need abstract reasoning? That they’ve not only stampeded their way into spaces in which they clearly don’t belong, but have taken charge of many such spaces only highlights their limitations and shortcomings.
Clearly the only way to ensure men’s needs are met is to ensure that women’s needs are NOT met until things change. Hard reality has a way of popping solipsism bubbles.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Native tribes used promoting women into male roles (like serving as priestesses) for population control since forever. Those women had fewer or no children as a result and the tribe didn’t starve due to overpopulation.
Control over reproduction is what you are looking at.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Drink!
LikeLike
No. Late marriage is a more effective way especially for men in comparison with other cultures outside of Europe.
LikeLike
Late marriage didn’t prevent women from getting pregnant in native tribes, especially without any useful contraception available. Having them in male roles however did the trick since before 10,000 BCE. Modern feminism is the exact same thing: population control.
LikeLike
And it didn’t stop that either in mediaeval Europe. But generally, they had fewer children also because their marriage age rose in parallel as a result statistically.
And that is in addition to many men and women being single and childless. And many also being Monastics.
LikeLike
Medieval Europe is irrelevant to the topic. It’s about what hunter-gatherer tribes DID for population control before the onset of agriculture. They didn’t “marry” those women at all (hint: “marriage” wasn’t invented 15,000 BCE), they put them into male roles, so they didn’t bear any children. This is the pattern that reoccurs in Western societies with the exact same intentions and consequences.
LikeLike
MR,
Regarding the idea of hunter-gatherer tribes placing women in male roles to prevent them from procreating, can you offer any data, links, sources, etc. to support your argument?
LikeLike
Foreign Policy: The Return of Patriarchy (2009/10/20)
This feature from 2009 explains how fast-breeding Neolithic agriculture lead to patriarchy and how it displaced slow-breeding hunter-gatherers.
Every time a society regressed into pre-agriculture birth rates it got overrun by patriarchal fast-breeders.
LikeLiked by 2 people
From the article MR shared.
Huh. Ain’t that a peach? That sounds suspiciously like something some dude said somewhere. Let’s see what else is in the article.
Thanks for bolstering my point, MR. I’ve bookmarked the article.
Like I said, the future belongs to those who show up, and some of us are showing up big time. Not MR, but some of us.
LikeLike
Oscar, the “patriarchy” he is talking about is Sharia Islam, which will dominate the planet by 2100. Afghanistan won the war against the US for this very reason.
These little partisan quibbles you engage in don’t matter at all in the big picture. Nothing that exists in the US is anywhere close to “patriarchy”. It can’t be, as the US is based on an egalitarian “constitution” and everything happens within this frame, cuckservatives included.
LikeLike
Wanna bet?
Those “11 percent of baby boomer women” ain’t Muslim.
Mr. Longman is stating the obvious. Religious conservatives have more children than secularists. Obviously that includes Muslims, but it also includes religiously conservative Christians and Mormons, which is why he made the exact point I made.
Muslims don’t vote Republican, especially not in 2004. Muslims vote Democrat.
Look, I get it. You’re going to die childless, so you project your failure to reproduce (which kind of explains your obsession with reproduction) onto everyone else, but we’re not all like you. I have five biological children and five adopted children. In my church that’s pretty normal, and it’s not just my church. Mr. Longman mentioned Catholics, but attend mass at any Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) church and you’ll see that they have far more children per family than mainline Catholics. The same goes for Fundamentalist Baptists vs. Southern Baptists vs. Baptists.
As Mr. Longman pointed out, those of us who reproduce in large numbers are still in the minority, which is why even red states have below-replacement fecundity rates — for now. But give it a couple generations. By the time my youngest (2 years old) has kids, we’ll be the majority.
The future belongs to us, because we’re showing up.
LikeLike
Oscar, your gamma delusion bubble is hilarious, especially the predictions about the person of the commenter. Ad hominem is logical fallacy.
LikeLike
Muslims don’t “vote”, they erect caliphates.
America rejected the crown in 1776.
LikeLike
Meanwhile, back in the real world…..
Wait…. a childless anonymous internet rando obsessed with one subject he can’t achieve (procreation) who named himself after sci-fi character thinks I’m a gamma?
LikeLike
While the models here deal with men / women relationships, men can and do exhibit similar behavioral responses, it’s just that the issues or topics that can trigger such responses are different.
In general, the reason why politics should not be discussed is because the discussion is often taken personally and as a personal attack on one’s beliefs without admitting to the legitimacy of the facts. Nothing gets resolved.
Even an innocuous comment can be construed as a personal attack. For example, simply mentioning, “I don’t drink”, can get the response that “There is nothing wrong with drinking.” The reality is, “I don’t care whether you drink or not, or how much.”
I think what’s happening is men, in such situations, are faced with facts and can not deal with it so they employ similar behavioral responses.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Joe2,
An astute observation. Further, simple statements of fact or opinion are misinterpreted as a judgment on the listener’s values. What might be the cause of this? A guilty conscience? Insecurity?
LikeLike
Being raised by women?
LikeLike
This is why Women aren’t meant to rule. They simply don’t possess the qualities that would allow them to ensure the Greater Good and even care about the needs of Men like we see here. That is a Job for Men to supply with God’s help. Kings and Lords who are Men are to be responsible overall not women.
Its like humanities incomprehension of the Gods Eye view of things. With the need for Faith on the part of Humanity to God. Like a woman’s faith in her Husband. God’s love for us and ours for God is similar. We love Differently.
Brushing up against biological reality is how we come to see the wisdom of the Divine ordained Sex roles.
Accountability, seeing the big picture and so forth are requisites for Leadership.
LikeLike
This is 100% true. When women take this approach to marriage they are living the curse of Genesis 3:16. Men with women like this are faced with a choice between two options. He can give in to her to keep the peace in the relationship, with all the issues that creates, or he can leave.
That’s it. His options are to suffer at her emotional whims or come to the logical conclusion that the only option for any type of win for him in the relationship is not to play. Biblically, this is horrifying as men and women are built for specific roles that work in concert with each other to make each other’s lives easier / better / productive / fruitful.
Working the problem of the contentious woman through game theory, the man ultimately has the following choices.
Best outcome — Submissive wife and peaceful home with benefits of good marriage.
Least bad outcome — Single, no stress from contentious women, free to pursue passions in life.
Bad outcome — In relationship, confronts her BS and relationships ends quickly.
Worst outcome — In relationship, he yields to keep peace, relationship eventually ends after much wasted time.
The best outcome is off the table with the contentious woman.
The bad outcome adds stress to his life and is a distraction from more important tasks.
The worst outcome is like the bad outcome but with time he’ll never get back.
That leaves the least bad outcome as the logical choice when dealing with a difficult woman or women.
In marriage a similar line of reasoning exists except the least bad outcome is that the marriage ends before too much time is invested or children are in the picture.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I’ve been saying that the Least Bad Outcome is a cope. Thanks for spelling it out better than I could.
LikeLike
BtM – Agreed, the least worst option is a quite analytical means of coping. There are many choices in life where people/businesses/governments opt for the option that is less than ideal because when the choice is adjusted for risk it is the logical option.
The classic example of this is the prisoner’s dilemma. The two suspects are split and have no way to communicate with each other. If they both stay silent the cops don’t have enough on them and they both go free. This is the best option. But they get a plea offer of a very light sentence for giving evidence on their counterpart and if they don’t talk and their partner in crime does they get a long sentence. Since neither knows if they can really trust the other one the logical option is not to go for the best outcome, but to take the option that is the least risky personally.
Effectively, modern marriage is a prisoner’s dilemma of sorts for men (hell yes I just compared modern marriage to doing time). Men really don’t know how a woman is going to act when he is legally bound to her and his actions substantially affect her life. But we do know the family court stats and the misery of being married to a women who does not know how to be a wife. Hence, more and more men are choosing to cope rather that go after what would be the ideal outcome (good, loving, fulfilling marriage).
LikeLiked by 1 person
The “ideal outcome” is a gamma male fantasy. Men do better having a more realistic picture what they get themselves into once they try to further their genetic line.
It has always been a slog, it still is and it always will be. The 80 % of men who don’t have it in them won’t be sexually selected by women and leave no genetic legacy.
LikeLike