Wednesday, February 10, 2016


As I've pointed out several times, Carl Jung observed women are biologically indispensable because they have the babies and men are culturally indispensable because they created everything. Besides the babies, women can't do much of anything.

Many women are ruled by their feelings and think if they feel something is right, that makes it right.

This is from Illimitable Men.

“The heart has its reasons which reason knows not.” ― Blaise Pascal

1.) Introduction
2.) My Philosophical Position
3.) How Female Emotivity Manifests In Disagreement
5.) In Closing / Relevant Reading

1.) Introduction:

The claim that woman’s capacity for reason matches man’s is humorous, and yet be it espoused by radical feminists or well-intentioned humanists, the “equality of reason” myth persists.

It was only the other week I observed two men debating woman’s logical capacity, one man insisted women were less reasonable, whilst the other disagreed whilst conceding “all women are like that“. Yet in spite of this concession, said man went to the lengthy effort of recalling instances where he had observed women exercising reason. It was as if this particular man wasn’t quite willing to accept women are the less reasonable sex, which ironically is an unreasonable position in and of itself.

There is of course a discrepancy here, a gentle person can get angry and a frugal man can make a large purchase in the same way that an unreasonable person can demonstrate logic; a capacity for something does not equate to a propensity for it. The man who could not believe women are less reasonable is naive, the claim was not that women never make logical decisions, even a broken clock is right twice per day, the claim was that women are governed so strongly by emotion that their capacity and proclivity for reason is greatly vitiated, ergo, their reason is inferior to man’s.

Even in the comments section of this very publication, the notion women are just as logical as men is oft dispelled, for women are quick to offend and be offended by nature of their volatile reactivity. Now of course the same principle applies to man, an angry man cannot reason too well either, but here is my contention: the average woman becomes emotional far more easily than the average man, and thus whatever reason she does possess is quickly lost when even a modicum of pressure is applied.

I believe less intelligent women are simply incapable of reasoning to any elaborate degree, whilst smarter women can only do so whilst their emotions are in check, eg: they have managed to encounter something unsettling without taking offence to it. Nevertheless, I do not believe smarter women are any less emotional than their lower IQ counterparts, but only that they have better impulse control. This is why although smart women can exercise reason, they often do so with less frequency than even the average man.

2.) My Philosophical Position:

In my analysis of women’s behaviour I try to minimise my sexism as much as possible, for I do not wish my weaker expectations of women to sustain an untrue personal delusion, but rather, I wish for my view of man as the primary sex to be grounded in sound observation and empirical evidence. For example, I observe men making sounder judgments more often than women, debating better, skewing more to the right on the IQ bell curve, as well as making the majority of discoveries and inventions that elevated us out of the stone age.

In my inquiry into male and female differences I have discovered women’s sole biological reason for existing is to reproduce and nurture the young, whilst man’s is to reproduce, protect his mate (oft dying in wars in an attempt to do so) and contributing to the grand project known as civilization.

In case any wish to contest the point on civilization, do so bearing in mind you contend the point with a machine invented by a man, using a power source discovered and refined by a man, in a house designed and built by a man. As women are and have historically been preoccupied with child rearing and maintaining social ties, the elevation of the human condition can thus be credited almost solely to man.

Even since half a century of woman’s emancipation, women have done little but accrue more money, in terms of major intellectual and civilizational achievements, few have achieved anything of significance. Yes, women have entered highly prestigious professions such as medicine and law, but do the majority of women make major contributions to their fields, or do they just teach and practice the work of men who came before them, rather than endeavouring to truly excel in, innovate and push the boundaries of their chosen disciplines?

In case it is not clear, my intent is to make a philosophical inquiry into man and woman’s complementing nature as to allow for the refinement of my view, the goal is not to arbitrarily denounce one sex whilst heralding the other. If women are thereby described as being secondary or lesser in some form, it is because this is what reality is indicating to me, not because I want it to be so.

3.) How Female Emotivity Manifests In Disagreement:

As somebody who likes to be proven wrong by reason and empiricism (because I can learn from this) it is disappointing but nevertheless predictable the majority of comments women have made in my time writing have been subpar. If it is disjointed emotional babbling, I hastily remove it to prevent an explosion of vitriolic derailment from occurring in the comments section.

Despite my desire for an open forum and strong ethical appreciation for freedom of speech, not all speech is equal in its reason or value and thus I do not permit the dregs of human thought to manifest and take root within my comments section, censorship be damned. Offending comments are not removed on the basis of whether they agree or disagree, but rather, whether they are well argued or not. If you disagree but make a compelling argument, I won’t remove a comment. But if the person knows no better than to try to play mind games with me on my own blog, I will vibrantly dispose of their trite.

The women who are offended and disagree with the content here oft do so on a profusely emotional basis, with typically little in the way of cogent reasoning in their attempts at refutation. I imagine due to the choice of topic and depth of language, my comments section attracts a higher IQ female than average, and even from this pool of women, 3 kinds of comment tend to be made:

– “I agree with what you’re saying because I’m a traditional woman (usually she is Christian or highly conservative) and my emotions/upbringing agree with your world view. I arrived at similar conclusions I couldn’t verbalise, reading what you’ve deduced has confirmed my intuitive beliefs and suspicions.”

– “I disagree with what you’re saying because I cling to the interpretations of reality indoctrinated into me by feminism, your criticism of women is misogynistic and what you say represents everything that is wrong with society.”

– “I disagree with what you’re saying because my solipsistic point of reference is more valid to me than your reason, I don’t fit neatly into your world view because I’m different from most women and thus your world view cannot possibly apply to most women, you must be wrong.”

A woman who makes a very well-reasoned comment is a rarity, but when it happens it is a welcomed delight regardless of whether there is consensus, nevertheless, such a thing is rare enough that one does not hold their breath waiting for it to occur.

If Illimitable Men was contingent on women making reasonable comments for sound discourse and new topic ideas, as a platform for unorthodox ideas it’d die with much haste. Now I am not going out of my way to be offensive here, but I am emphasising a point: women just aren’t all that reasonable, logic is not their primary mode of function and this shows emphatically in their contributions.

In case you think this site is read exclusively by men, you would be mistaken, I receive enough page views that if even a meagre percentage of my readers are female, that’s a good few thousand women.

4.) How Women Form Opinion:

Time and time again, be it a televised debate, a private argument or even in universities where the female IQ skews higher, I see little in the way of reason espoused by women. This does not mean women do not say correct or truthful things, but rather that they do not rationally deduce truth so much as they intuit it, intuition being the vague sensation that something feels or sounds right.

Likewise women will hold untrue and irrational beliefs because said irrational thing feels good to believe. You should begin to see a pattern emerging here, whether a woman holds an opinion based in truth or an opinion that isn’t, this opinion is almost always held because it feels good to believe, or her peer group believes it and thus she adopts their view. Scarcely does she hold a view because she has rigorously investigated a topic with reason and come to a conclusion she believes to be true; this is not impossible but I believe it improbable.

Often when the veracity of a woman’s viewpoint is being challenged, if she believes her opinion to be true out of no more than an intuitive emotional conviction, she feels the validity of her emotion is being disputed rather than the credibility of her reasoning.

When a woman’s reasoning is disputed, she oft perceives this as the invalidation of her emotion, the deprivation of her “right to feel” because her opinion and its hasty conclusion is oft founded upon an instinct or feeling rather than a deduction or investigation.

Women have a tendency to defensively double down on their position when they feel bad, employing Machiavellian fallacy such as shaming (eg: reductio ad absurdum) rather than opening themselves to greater scrutiny and taking the time to step back and re-evaluate their opinion.

Essentially, women trust their emotions far too much, they act on their emotions almost entirely without restraint, and often fail to question, analyse, check and hold their emotions to account. For a woman if it feels right then it is right, a woman does not consider that perhaps although some things feel good to hear or believe, they may be logically unsound, false, outright incorrect or otherwise verifiably false.

One can make such discernments by comparing how men and women back up their arguments, for example, an incorrect man is generally able to devise a chain of reasoning to explain his thinking, whilst a woman is scarcely capable of producing any such evidence of reasoning. Why? Because even when a man is wrong he’s thinking in a way that is logically congruent even should his conclusion prove to be false. A woman on the other hand merely felt the thing to be true, so has no cogent basis for communicating why she believes her opinion to be correct, “it just is!”.

5.) In Closing / Relevant Reading:

It appears to me that women just hold opinions, and that they have these opinions because they feel intuitively correct, and if anybody presents them with evidence counter to what they feel to be correct, rather than accept the evidence presented to them and adopt a world view more aligned with reality, they lash out and refuse to internalise the uncomfortable truth.

Women would appear prone to correcting emotional inconsistencies rather than logical ones, that is rather, women are better adapted to coping with things than understanding them. Of course woman can understand things, it would be idiotic to claim otherwise, but an underlying ability to understand does not always translate to a desire to understand. Generally, a woman won’t even make the attempt to understand something if she believes the truthfulness pertaining to it will upset her emotionally.

In accordance with AWALT theory, I believe this to be true of all women but to differing frequencies, that is to say, some women are like this most of the time, whilst others are only some of the time. I’m not saying men are infallible and do not do blunder or even indulge in the exact same ignorance either, I believe they do, just with less frequency, reckless abandon and fervour than do women.

I have a lot of thoughts on this topic, so in part 2 expect me to explain how conformity, shame and female evolutionary psychology almost compel women into Machiavellian/emotive responses rather than honest or logical ones. It should be noted this article has been designed as an introductory piece for a more substantive follow up, expect a sequel very shortly.

No comments: