Logic is misogynistic?
UMSLOPOGAAS writes an interesting post about what’s been going on recently. Here are my thoughts.
I
I’ve witnessed it a lot of times.
When the subject is emotional and threatening to a woman’s comfort, all the logic mechanics hurt her. It’s like, in her eyes, logic is an insidious snake-machine of pain that intends to force her where she doesnt want to go and reach her where she doesnt want to be touched. Like reasoning and plain logic are the ultimate form of manipulation. The fact that it’s done in a calm, structured way only makes it more threatening. It makes her visceral response stronger.
She’ll see the dissenting points as a personal attack and work until there’s nothing else but personal attacks on the plate. Once that point is reached, she hopes the tribe will come to rescue her and exterminate the foe.
This is only a real problem, though, when the woman with the issue is also in charge of the situation.
II
When an emotionally disturbed person is in charge of the situation, comply (obey), seduce (work the issue in non threatening, flattering emotional terms) or retreat (disengage) seem to be the only options. Consider this a screening test where their mind, agreement and involvement, or, in their views, “they themselves” are the prize.
When a calm / rational person is in charge of the situation, though, and the disturbed one randomly took offense and wants to engage, but cant take logic or reasoning, then there’s no need to chase this person down. They can retreat if the issue is too emotional for them, heal or whatever, then, eventually, they will come back and form bridges, because, well, the person in control is also the prize.
Let’s add male / female dynamics.
If the male is in charge / is the prize and a woman took random offense, and he doesnt chase her down nor tries to debate or force logic on her, but just keeps driving, that aloofness and lack of investment might be enough to reverse the emotional dynamics for her. And turn them in into attraction.
If she is in charge AND she’s taking random offense, a male working the issue “up” acts like a chase, and it only deepens whatever she felt disgusted about initially, while reinforcing the chase and the ladder where she’s actually the prize and the guy lacks any value – otherwise, why would he be so determined to put it in? cant he see she doesnt want it? – so it forms the opposite of attraction: repulsion.
And whenever you’re attempting “debate” with an unwilling party, you´re putting them in charge. The one chasing has less value than the one chased. Logical debate, in male / female dynamics, creates repulsion.
In short, this chase isnt worth it. Complying / seducing will destroy you. The scenario has already been rigged in win-lose fashion. Disengage.
III
Solvents and acids vs. the invasive structure.
The female’s response to unwanted male logic is to charge the debate with enough emotional content so logic ceases to work, so it’s structure crumbles to pieces, and then the whole thing can be absorbed, processed and digested. Think of what flies do with the food.
When you inject the female / male approaches in a debate, you’ll see the structures and the solvents. As long as the structures keep forming, new solvents and acids will be poured.
And forget about solving the real issues. It’s an unidirectional transfer of power. The fly is feeding.
IV
The transfer or power, which starts by holding down your weapons and taking in the other person’s position, wants and views, with the intention to mold an unified reality that considers all angles and reaches consensus, needs two entities that are open and willing to negotiate on hard, stressful, uncomfortable times.
Without two entities open to negotiate, debate means war.
Win-win seems to be more of a male skill. And we seem to do it to prevent war, and to create a collaborative, functional social machine. Rules, core, forces, agreements, like muscles and bones. And same for unified goals and objectives: lot’s of muscles, bones, rules, agreements, principles.
In comparison, women operate more like white cells or nerve terminations that create a collaborative sense of safety / danger awareness. When they perceive a threat, they go in alerted state / fight mode immediately, but one that involves more negative screaming and networking than it does karate moves. And same when they perceive something shiny / worthy / desirable. Lot’s of positive screaming and networking.
V
So. To sum this up, debate is possible when all the parties are open and willing. When male/female dynamics are involved, debate only makes sense when the male is in a position of power, but if he is, debate is unlikely because of that same dynamics.
As for the blogosphere, I decided to disengage whenever there’s a win/lose fight/alerted state. No more mud fights for me. Im avoiding all of it. Like UMSLO said, it’s good for my health.
As for my real life, Im in a position of power. As you should.
The nice guy is unattractive because he’s weak