

“Any woman who is sure of her own wits, is a match, at any time, for a man who is not sure of his own temper.” – Wilkie Collins

Contents:

1.) Introduction

2.) Male Ignorance

3.) Insecurity: A Basis for Feminine Indignance

4.) Cause & Effect vs Solipsistic Blame Attribution

5.) The Invalidity of Female Emotion & It’s Frustrative Affectation

6.) Emotional Endurance

7.) In Closing

1.) Introduction:

You do not argue with women when you wish for them to comprehend, comply or agree. You cannot argue against woman’s feelings, only manipulate them. Argument necessitates reason, but reason is ineffectual in conflict with women. In non-political matters, where a man will yield to superior logic, a woman will not. And so man must manipulate woman’s emotions in a way that makes her cooperative, or he should not engage her at all.

If a woman is so entitled or indignant that you find yourself unable to escape her compulsion to argue, you would be wise to engage her as a Machiavellian rather than a logician. Man must remember that when lured into argument with a woman, he is at battle. The dispute at hand is Machiavellian, not rational; a game, not a civilised debate. The man who believes the argument is about mutual cooperation via the discovery of truth rather than the assuagement of the involved woman’s emotional state, operates on a doomed axiom. A man’s desire to problem solve is fundamentally incompatible with a woman’s desire for catharsis.

2.) Male Ignorance:

Men are quite wrongfully taught they should placate women’s emotions, or engage in mind-numbingly futile attempts to reason with them. To do either is to forfeit power before conflict even begins. Such strategies are losing propositions. Man should neither placate nor reason with a distressed woman. But rather, he should be charming enough to keep conflict superficial. When argument cannot be avoided, he need be Machiavellian enough to belittle her. He should not under any uncertain circumstance argue back-and-forth with any degree of seriousness, for arguing against a woman’s emotional state is as foolish as it is masochistic.

If conflict is unavoidable and reason impenetrable, all that is left is to assert dominance. This is man’s only recourse when a woman is trying to dominate him psychologically with her emotions. Once her emotions have settled, it is wise to explain your reasoning and expectations as a way of guiding the woman, should you care for her. But only outside the confines of argument, never within the heat of it. Naturally, if the woman in question is insignificant, such paternal patience is unnecessary. Aftercare is discretionary.

3.) Insecurity: A Basis for Feminine Indignance:

When an argument begins, a woman’s emotions ensure her uncooperativeness. When a woman stands on the precipice of dissatisfaction, her imperviousness to reason makes the mere concept of argument inane. The key to cooperation therefore lies in keeping her emotional state positive. Just as one would not build a dam for water in a volcano, they would be wise not to attempt reasoning with a distressed woman.

And yet a woman’s feelings are quick to sour. Even the tamest critiques and concerns can result in ill feeling, largely by merit of woman’s inability to handle such things. And so the trap of arguing with a woman is always there, should a man express himself without filtering himself. Often a man knows not how such benign comments result in such grave offence. But such unsophisticated sensitivity is intrinsic to femininity.

One would not be mistaken for thinking I am describing the insecure, rather than women per se, but then it would be disingenuous to assert that the vast majority of women are anything but insecure. So are these things traits of women, or traits of the insecure? I would say both. But then I would also assert that women are intrinsically insecure, and that many arguments take place because a woman is demanding her insecurity be assuaged in spite of the overwhelming importance of the issue at hand. Men who exhibit similar behaviours are likewise womanlike in their mental frailty.

4.) Cause & Effect vs Solipsistic Blame Attribution:

When you argue against a woman’s feelings, you enter her frame by tacitly accepting the validity of her emotion’s premise. Acknowledgement is all it takes to give the irrationality of her emotion credence, and therefore such acknowledgement should be avoided.

Much to our mutual annoyance, a woman’s feelings are typically anything but valid. You see, to a woman, whatever she feels – in spite of why she feels it – is valid. Women care not for “the why” behind their feelings, but simply the fact that they are feeling. As such, the presence of a feeling is proof enough of its validity to a woman, in a sort of infinite solipsistic loop she intuits “the feeling exists, therefore, it is valid.”

If she feels a negative feeling, regardless of the reasonableness of your position, she will blame you for it. In this manner she disregards the importance of cause and effect, because such things are irrelevant to her emotion’s solipsism. As cause and effect take place outside of the female mind, it is irrelevant to her. Solipsism cares not for abstraction.

Now while one could posit that blame qualifies as an investigation into the “why” of how she feels what she does, it really isn’t. Because the blame given is entirely arbitrary by merit of its solipsistic nature. Owing to a lack of abstraction, it is simple blame attribution and affirmation for the self-perpetuation of her emotional state. It is not investigative in the cogent sense of the word.

If she were truly interested in “the why,” she feels what she does, she would look beyond blame, analyse her actions for wrong-doing and come to a reasoned judgement on if her feelings were a reasonable or unreasonable response. If she found them to be unreasonable, she would disregard them and show interest in solving the initial issue. She would do this, rather than allow her feelings to take precedence over the issue which triggered them. Of course, this is not how women work. It is the feeling born of the issue that takes priority, not the issue itself. A minority of women can do this retroactively, but I have known not a woman who can do this in the moment. Dare I say, none can.

5.) The Invalidity of Female Emotion & It’s Frustrative Affectation:

Say a female colleague is making grave errors in her work and you give her suggestions on how to improve her technique. All too commonly, if suggestions were not given with great euphemism and diplomacy, you would cause offence. As such, you can see how easily the premise for a woman’s feelings is flawed. Because it is not difficult to offend a woman, and neither does she need a logical reason to be offended, feeling bad is offence enough. And intolerant to stress as women are, it is a laborious inadvertence that occurs with great frequency.

And so it is the woman’s nature to constantly misdirect the man away from his criticisms and concerns, and rather, to vilify him for daring to infringe on the sanctity of her emotional well-being. Where man will endeavour to make his original point, stick to the point, have the point recognised and come to an arrangement over his concern; the woman cares only about how his point made her feel, not the point itself. Man doubles down on his reasoning, provoking more negative feeling in the woman; who in turn doubles down on the importance of her emotional state.

And so the woman will neither address the point, nor give the point much thought, much to the complete torture of the well-intentioned man. Naturally, this leads to endless frustration and only serves to further alienate the two parties. Women are quick to offend, quick to anger, and slow to reason even in the absence of hostility. Indeed, it is such traits that are often the cause of hostility. Whilst man wants to pursue what he believes to be a problem that needs addressing, the only problem worthy of addressal in a woman’s mind is the maintenance of a positive emotional state. Whilst the man continues to attempt fixing the original issue, the woman becomes more annoyed her emotions are being ignored.

And so at such a crossroads, male and female nature is at odds. Man wants to pursue what he believes to be “the truth,” or “correct.” Whilst a woman wishes to maintain her emotional well-being at any cost. It is for these reasons we refer to women as “the most responsible teenager in the house.” They cannot cope with stress in the way that men can, and so they can neither reason nor argue as well as men can. Remember, one need not be the superior logician to win an argument, as the prowess in which women argue with stands testament, you merely need be the more psychologically dominant.

An upset woman will dominate the frame of an interaction by maintaining your mutual focus on an indignant investigation of her feelings; particularly, the source of her feelings. And of course, in argument, it is you who is the undisputed stimulus for her negative feelings. In this frame of mind, absolutely nothing matters to a woman other than her need to understand her feelings and receive validation of their legitimacy. I am repeating this point with great frequency, but it is important it is internalised: your point is irrelevant to her if it elicits emotional discomfort.

6.) Emotional Endurance:

A woman does not care if she is “in the wrong,” has disobeyed or betrayed, for a creature who does not excel at logic is neither cogent nor appreciative of such a thing when upset. Even at the best of times, women struggle to balance reason with emotion. That’s when they’re trying. In argument, they’re not even trying. She will not give in, solipsism sees to it that women are stubborn.

Arguments nourish women, they feed her emotionally. Bar the histrionic man, argument absolutely exhausts men. Not only that, but being the party far more privy to the realm of reason, it is likelier you will give in than it is she. Her indignance will out-endure not only your reason, but likewise, your desire to even advocate for yourself.

If you get angry, your anger will be used to immediately invalidate your disagreement whilst simultaneously validating the credibility of her histrionics. Your anger will be turned against you, you will be painted as the oppressor, and her, the victimised. You will be made to feel guilty for your anger. And then following from this premise, your anger will be used to retroactively scapegoat you for her unacceptable decorum.

The narrative put forth will be that it’s your fault she’s upset, even if it isn’t. Even if you know with your full faculty of reason that such a thing is ridiculous; women do not care.

7.) In Closing:

It is not in your interest to work against her emotions, but rather, you should work in tandem with them. Leverage her emotions, change them so that they are conducive to rather than defiant of your goals. Know how to make her feel good, and her agreement will be yours. Argue against her emotions, and no matter how grand and well articulated your point, she will never agree. Equity and reasonableness are of minor relevance to a woman’s emotional self-satisfaction. Women do not sacrifice their emotional well-being to do what is morally or reasonably right, but rather, they sacrifice what is morally or reasonably right as to fulfil their emotional needs.



By manipulating her feelings to something more beneficial to yourself, you can change her frame, or even pull her into yours. This is why when receptive, amused mastery is excellent. Arguing a woman’s emotions with reason, as is man’s predilection, is a losing proposition. For her emotions are far too visceral to be swayed by the passionlessness of reason, the heart cares not what the head thinks, and a truer thing could not be said for women.