Why Men Shouldn't Argue With Women
.
Dominating Clock -- by Mathieu of Boulogne, 1295 A.D.
This female clock is really driving me mad, for her quarrelsome din
doesn't stop for a moment. The tongue of a quarrelsome woman never
tires of chiming in. She even drowns out the sound of the church bell.
A nagging wife couldn't care less whether her words are wise or
foolish, provided that the sound of her own voice can be heard. She
simply pursues her own ends; there's not a grain of sense in what she
says; in fact she finds it impossible to have a decent thought. She
doesn't want her husband to be the boss and finds fault with
everything he does. Rightly or wrongly, the husband has no choice: he
has to put up with the situation and keep his mouth shut if he wants
to remain in one piece. No man, however self disciplined or
clear-sighted he may be, can protect himself adequately against this. A
husband has to like what the wife likes, and disapprove of what she
hates and criticize what she criticizes so that her opinions appear to
be right. So anyone who wishes to immolate himself on the altar of
marriage will have a lot to put up with. Fifteen times, both day and
night, he will suffer without respite and he will be sorely tormented.
Indeed, I believe that this torture is worse than the torments of
hell, with its chains, fire, and iron.
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-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
Here's a comparisson that might make it more clear how this works:
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.
"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.
- 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
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 “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 seduction 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.
 |
| Click Pic for "The Suffragettes versus The Truth" |
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.
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 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?
 |
| Click Pic for "A Guide to Birdwatching" |
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. "Phew!"
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
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.
-
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
 |
| Click for "The Garden of Eden, Empty Vessels and Relative Truth" |
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 “like water seeking a container to give them their form.” 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!
.
.
.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Pry's Wife -- by Charles Lamb, (1775-1834)
Wisdom and the Weather -- by G.K. Chesterton
.
- Woman's reflection is almost overpowering to her; this is why it is
so dangerous for a woman to reflect. A woman's reflection usually goes
like this: if she has won on one point or another, she is so overcome
herself that she cannot avoid gazing at her victory - and then she
stumbles.
.
The man is more essentially character; and character consists not so
much in winning as in continuing after having won, keeping in
character. The woman endures something and counts on the approaching
moment when she can take a deep breath. This moment is precisely the
danger. Character is essentially continuity. -- Man/Woman, Kierkegaard's Journals
.