“And no one ever wanna know, love ain’t funny; a crime in the wink of an eye…”

 

 

 

 

 

A famous quotation from the film “As Good As It Gets” has made the social rounds from its appearance to today:

 

Receptionist: How do you write women so well?

 

Melvin Udall: I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability.

 

Admittedly, that elicits a knowing chuckle from us and our brethren.

 

And isn’t entirely inaccurate.

 

Yet it does, I’d argue, contain a hidden danger. 

 

 

 

As usual, I’m going counter to conventional (perhaps even ‘sphere) wisdom and say that the danger isn’t that it may offend or upset women.

 

Nor that it may make men look bad for agreeing or failing to agree with it enough.

 

The danger is, in my estimation, that it makes the path of the man who believes it utterly much more treacherous.

 

 

 

Reason is defined as “the capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought”.

 

Thus, given surface appearances, far too many men fall prey to the trap that women are purely creatures of whim and emotion.

 

And that’s a Hell of a trap.

 

 

 

Realize, logic is simply a process; a “system of reasoning”.

 

And “analytic thought”, for most, really doesn’t amount to anything greater than “cost/benefit analysis”.

 

Thus, just because your decisions don’t make sense to me doesn’t automatically make them illogical.

 

Your needs, goals, and desires differ from mine.

 

Women more so.

 

Simply because they have so many needs/demands, if nothing else.

 

Trust me in this.

 

(If you choose not to trust me, just observe a woman for a while on Facebook or at work and see.)

 

 

 

Also, understand a being needn’t understand logic to employ it.

 

Insects, animals and children use it every moment of the day. 

 

As they’re driven by simple needs, a complex system is unnecessary.

 

“I’m hungry; I’ll eat.”

 

That’s logic.

 

Therein lies the danger.

 

Should a man fail to acknowledge (consciously or unconsciously) the myriad motives a particular female possesses, he’s in for a surprise. 

 

Possibly many.

 

 

 

 

Recall, women are the infinitely more pragmatic sex.

 

(It’s why they don’t scale well in modern society but that’s another story.)

 

There is always a logic.

 

There is always analysis.

 

Ask a woman how much of her day is eaten up by considerations and reconsiderations of actions.

 

(That’s the line that makes my female readers nod assiduously, today.)

 

Inquire as to how many conversations she has weekly seeking guidance, approval or both.

 

For example:

 

Why do so many modern, Western women chase “tingles” (men that sexually arouse them) more than other qualities?

 

Logical answer: That’s the most common unfulfilled (pun unintended) need they have in modern, Western societies.

 

The other things men have historically provided for women are now frequently supplied by government (security, sustenance, et al).

 

It only seems illogical to men because the government hasn’t provided things historically supplied by women for their particular needs.

 

(This is also why women ► frequently damage themselves ◄.)

 

 

 

Also, remember that if a woman breaks up with a man, it was overwhelmingly likely in the works for months – if not years – prior to the event.

 

That’s not a whim, my friend, despite appearances at its moment.

 

That’s analysis.

 

As for what constitutes female logic—

 

Go through this blog and look.

 

 

 

 

 

 

4♥

Advertisements

18 Responses to ““And no one ever wanna know, love ain’t funny; a crime in the wink of an eye…””

  1. “It only seems illogical to men because the government hasn’t provided things historically supplied by women for their particular needs.”

    This, right here, is why the future isn’t going to look anything like all the futurists keep fantasizing about. If the only men women respect anymore are essentially savages it’s not a great intellectual leap.

    “Also, remember that if a woman breaks up with a man, it was overwhelmingly likely in the works for months – if not years – prior to the event.”

    In a Meta sense this is why Feminism eventually erupted. Yes it had help but the Zeitgeist was simmering for decades beforehand.

    The State is the ultimate bad boy: an immensely powerful, rich, violent and emotionally dead control freak. He takes our lunch money and shoves us into a locker in front of our high-school crush. What other reaction would she be expected to have? Of course she goes with him. She can’t afford to team up with a weak man.

    So Western women, as a group, broke up with us. The hustlers swooped them, and they enjoyed it. And we all see it.

    And yet … there is plainly very little selective advantage to being a bad man. Good men always far outnumber them and could wipe them out quite easily. We used to do that on a regular basis.

    Fuck Mars, it’s time to colonize Earth again.

    • JD,

      This passage was downright chilling:

      “The State is the ultimate bad boy: an immensely powerful, rich, violent and emotionally dead control freak. He takes our lunch money and shoves us into a locker in front of our high-school crush. What other reaction would she be expected to have? Of course she goes with him. She can’t afford to team up with a weak man.”

      Not solely because of its meaning but because – additionally – of its accuracy.

      “Fuck Mars, it’s time to colonize Earth again.”

      I’ve thought that since visiting a NASA museum in 1998.

      So, brother, you’re preaching (very well) to the choir.

      All the best,

      A♠

  2. I don’t think I need to do an interpretation of this post, Ace. It says exactly what it means, and lays it out so anyone can understand. And does so in a quarter of the words it would take me. Bravo.

    • Donal,

      Sincere thanks.

      I do try to strip the machine down to its most essential parts while still running smoothly.

      All the best to you and yours,

      A♠

  3. Beppo Venerdì Says:

    To think, anyone else trying to tackle this topic would have multiple posts north of 8000 words apiece.

    Good as always, Ace.

  4. Fascinating piece, thought provoking, as ever.

    I’m intrigued by this though; ‘(It’s why they don’t scale well in modern society but that’s another story.)’

    Please could you take a few mins to expand on this (or perhaps point me to where you have written on it before)?

    Many thanks.

    • Recall, women are the infinitely more pragmatic sex.

      (It’s why they don’t scale well in modern society but that’s another story.)

      Without the benefit of Ace’s thoughts, my read on this is that women’s pragmatism drives them to satisfy immediate needs.

      “I need what I need, now, today. I can’t think about planning for the future. I can’t think about long range planning. I can’t think about missions and visions. I want what I want, now. Today. I need it now. Today. Next week, next month, next year – all bridges I’ll cross when I get to them.”

      Men are the more idealistic sex. Men are the ones who make grand plans, who take risks, who have visions and devise missions – life purposes.

      Most men have visions and life purposes that can take them far. Women’s visions take them to the store to get things they need. Women’s life purposes don’t extend beyond their homes’ curbsides.

      • Hi Deti – I think you are close to what Ace is driving at but I think it’s something deeper (unsurprisingly). Struggling to figure out what though.

        I agree that women are primarily focused on immediate needs and wants. And that they don’t do cause and effect the way men do.

        But…..

        We have had these periods of female ’empowerment’ many times in the past. Obviously not called feminism, but the general characteristics are constant – restrictions lifted on female sexuality, acceptance of divorce, women moving from the private sphere to the public sphere, women taking on leadership positions (at the end of the Minoan civ many of the leading priests were women, Persian Armies in the 10th and 11th (iirc) had female generals etc). These periods of female ascendancy were always short, never lasting for more than 3 generations (most never made it past 1 or 2).

        So this is a re-occurring cycle.

        But, nature never does anything for no reason. I think a strong case could be made that these periods of female empowerment serve a purpose – they cull the herd. They almost always occur after extended periods of peace and prosperity when men have grown weak, and women provided for at levels in excess of of their basic needs.

        These culls prevent weak men from reproducing (they never reach the elevated levels ’empowered’ women demand for access to sex) and they prevent ‘strong’ women from reproducing (by diverting them away from life paths that would lead to them reproducing). After 2 or three generations we have re-configured the population profile – to strong men and submissive women. The very profile that ends up producing a traditional society which has always been the best way for humans to succeed.

        So, in this sense women do cause and effect on a strategic level, whilst men do it on a tactical level. Men’s approach is logical and rational – i.e. we think through the myriad outcomes of an action, and then again, and again, maybe 3 or 4 steps out. But, for women it is logical and emotional – they assess their actions based on how they feel about it, but it these assessments are still plugged into a logical framework. Which is then used to behave in ways that influence men to act in the ways women want.

        So;

        Men think tactically, women emote strategically.

        So, arguably, women have the ‘bigger’ role here – men look after civilization; women are looking after the species – and when you are looking after the species pragmatism is essential.

        But women are utterly dependent on men to do the heavy lifting – on men to impose their will on the real world to effect change.

        So what happens when female empowerment gets entrenched in a society? Sooner or later men’s nuclear option is triggered – indifference.

        Woman’s behavior becomes so repulsive to so many men, and their manipulation so blatant, that increasing numbers of men start dis-engaging from women. This is a ‘nuclear’ option because when men disengage from women, they dis-engage from * everything * – education, work, careers, marriage, father hood, civic duty – you name it.

        Men withdraw the very thing – their time time, effort and industry – that women are utterly dependent on in order to effect their strategy. This is where we are now. Maybe this is what Ace is referring to when he says women’s pragmatism doesn’t scale well in the modern world. Or maybe it’s something else.

        Whatever – women’s response to male disengagement has always been – will always be – pragmatic, emotional and logical; they start to play nice again – but only once the cull is complete.

        We are getting close, I think.

    • Caddersworld, I too, want to here more.

      Also, if you don’t mind me asking, where are you from?

      Wald

    • Caddersworld,

      I’ll try to grant your request in the very near future.

      I’m always open to reader suggestions and that’s certainly a reasonable one.

      All the best to you,
      A♠

  5. Every time I come here, I lose at least half an hour. Reading here is like studying Scripture – the depths to plumb are endless; so much meaning in so few words. I must read, and think, and read again, and ponder. It makes me search, question, test, and search again.

    I often forget women have numerous wants and needs. And their logic is not like mine. Their ways are not my ways.

    I often think one of your most important posts is the linked one: “To Feel The Pain That Spurs You On”. If the choice is between feeling pain and feeling nothing; most men choose to feel nothing. But most women choose pain. I’d rather feel nothing. I really would. Sometimes I want the pain gone. But I really believe most women like the pain, because at least they’re feeling something. Or at least they prefer pain to void.

    Jeez, this blog takes me to some dark places in my mind and soul….

    • Deti,

      I’ve read this comment a dozen times.

      I feel honored beyond words since you’ve been in these parts easily as long as I have (if not possibly longer) so I take such words from you as high praise.

      Many deep and sincere thanks.

      I’ll do my best to keep things worthy of your compliment.

      All the best to you and yours,

      A♠

    • thedeti,

      I remember when your tag was still detinennui32, back in ’11 and ’12. Feel like I’ve known you guys all my life, our stories track so similarly.

      It’s almost amusing when I see new blogs and FB pages quoting the same Rollo Tomassi lines we were reading way back then. It’s easy, in this rarefied atmosphere, to forget we’re still just a tiny group.

      We’re on a journey and there’s still so much to unpack. I appreciate A♠’s writing because I think his concise style is going to ultimately supply more aphorisms than Heartiste ever could.

      • I like Ace’s writing because while it sometimes is difficult to parse (he does write cryptically after all), his advice makes me feel like I’m trading hard work and head ache for the lessons he imparts, rather than the raw deal parts of the manosphere offered me:

        More success in exchange for pieces of my soul. And self-respect.

        Sometimes both.

        Wald

  6. […] Women are ► logical   ◄- they merely have different priorities (and methods to meet them) than […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: