Tuesday, 30 December 2014

Why the Rationalization Hamster is Right - The Spearhead

Why the Rationalization Hamster is Right - The Spearhead



by Ethical on June 20, 2013
Few creatures are more persecuted in the manosphere than the female
rationalization hamster, the part of her consciousness which churns out
the ridiculously broken and contradictory logic needed to justify doing
whatever her “feelings” compel her to. I myself revile the rodent. I’ve
had no success treating it as an equal and trying to tame it with
reason. Every attempt ended in either playfully ignoring the hamster in
exasperation, or eventually losing patience, and heartlessly clubbing it
to death with shame, ridicule, contempt, or whatever other forms of
verbal violence happened to be at hand.

Even now I won’t say the treatment was ill deserved. Though I’m
steadily removing myself from reach of its harm in the present, for most
of my life I wasn’t one of those men who could listen to the hamster
indulgently. Growing up in a single mother home and living at the
hamster’s whim doesn’t encourage a man to be generous when any woman
launches into hamsterese. Having my ears filled with it inspired the
worst in me. I always prided myself on carefully considering other
people’s arguments, so I resented every moment I spent listening to the
hamster as if there were hope of discerning meaning from the verbal
noise. Hearing such broken logic imposed on myself and others, the utter
lack of humility of it all inspired a complete lack of pity in me. I
found myself observing with spiteful satisfaction as the hamster talked
its owners into believing they could rely on being able to start a
family at 40, or that fat was beautiful, or that they didn’t need a man
to raise children. The truth of a hard cruel world would discipline them
into either listening humbly or suffering. I didn’t care which.
Watching smugly, it would never have occurred to me that one day I’d
learn that the person who should be listening humbly might be me.
Because that one day I would learn the “rationalization hamster” was
right.

The Contradiction

Yes. You read correctly. I know that from this point on some won’t
give this article the benefit of the doubt and will be too disgusted to
read till my explanation comes. Admittedly this might be a wild
departure, but this is one of the last bastions of free male speech on
the web. If the truth can’t be spoken here to the fearless red pill man,
then where can it be?

But back to the primary question: if a woman’s rationalization hamster
works only to justify her delay of child-bearing until fertility costs
as much as a new car, and other questionable life choices, how could it
possibly be right? That an inherently illogical process could somehow be
more beneficial than cold hard logic goes against all common sense.

Consensus and the Hamster

It looks that way, that is, until you start looking at some of the
truly stellar achievements of hamster logic. Where men pride themselves
on intellectual discipline, that is restricting themselves only to
whatever positions can be justified rationally, the rationalization
hamster allows women to achieve consensus on ANY issue where they merely
FEEL the same, which they take comfort doing in great herds.

Take the question of equality between men and women. We men claim
superiority in our logic, and even greater pride in having the strength
to stand behind that logic alone. But while this solo male approach is a
great asset when solving patentable engineering problems, it’s a great
liability when solving social ones. Where men break into innumerable
different factions over the specific meaning of “equality” because each
man adds up the facts slightly differently, women are FAR more effective
at reaching and acting on consensus based on their communal FEELINGS
about the issue. Women don’t need to identify whether in objective terms
its even true that women are treated unequally. It’s true if they FEEL
it. Women’s success in gathering huge financial and political support
for women’s causes is in part based on this advantage.

Value-based vs. Objective Factual Reasoning

The difference boils down to women’s tendency towards value-based
reasoning versus men’s tendency towards objective factual reasoning.
Because it’s easier to come to consensus on values rather than logic,
value-based reasoning provides advantages on decisions requiring social
consensus. Of course value-based reasoning is also related to the
rationalization hamster in that the hamster has to start spinning its
wheels afterwards to justify those value-based choices. However our
contempt for the hamster’s confused and convoluted path shouldn’t
distract from appreciating the sheer power of the value-based reasoning
that fuels it. As a number of prominent psychologists have pointed out,
in comparison with strict logical deduction, for certain problem domains
the human brain is simply faster and more precise at using this
value-based reasoning to add up the bewildering array of facts in front
of us to come up with an immediate answer.

For example when a woman is asked her opinion about a value statement
such as “women should be considered equal to men”, her mind
instantaneously and subconsciously interprets and assigns relative
weights to possible meanings such as: “I could be asked to do things men
do and get put in danger,” or “I could be allowed to do things men do
and reap additional benefits.” In a dangerous environment like a war
zone the weight of a woman’s experience might produce an immediate
negative emotional reaction to the statement “women should be treated as
equal.” She’d be right. In such an environment equality is an outright
threat to her safety. On the other hand, in the safe nanny-state of most
western liberal democracies, with the weight of a woman’s experience
telling her she lacks any need for caution, the same statement “women
should be considered equal to men” might produce an immediate positive
reaction. Here she would be right as well , as she has no likely
negative consequences to fear and everything to gain. Either way, her
value-based reasoning – her “feelings” – respond instantaneously. The
statistics (facts) might not be available, and the (logical) reasoning
frameworks to process those facts might not be discovered till some time
far in the future. But no matter. Her value-based reasoning tells her
what’s true right now.

Made this Way for Good Reason

Anecdotally, though I’ve met some women who were quite a bit more
logical than I can ever hope to be, women on the whole are far more
predisposed to make value-based decisions. I suspect they’re more
psychologically adapted to do so. From an evolutionary or intelligent
design standpoint such an adaptation would likely have arisen because
human societies gained some advantage from it. I suspect it helped women
build consensus on issues just as it does today, enabling them to band
together to help each other in ancestral human tribes or villages. But
if we imagine the rationalization hamster may have once protected us by
providing social cohesion in our ancestral environments, now there’s
little doubt it is literally killing our sons and tearing our societies
apart. What changed?

Value-based reasoning might have been optimal for allowing women to
excel at sharing food or cooperatively caring for children in societies
where (largely male) logic could be relied upon to build the bridges.
But value-based reasoning seems less optimal in today’s de facto
matriarchies where it’s taken over the wheel and not only been put in
the position of caring for us, but has also gained prominence in every
other aspect of life, in effect imposing itself on the work of building
the bridges too. However the fact that value-based reasoning doesn’t
excel at the helm of societies doesn’t negate the usefulness of
value-based reasoning as a whole, or the benefit of women being
predisposed to it. Men and women have always been different, and in the
time scales of evolution, these differences likely have helped human
societies thrive. By this reasoning the problem is not the hamster per
se, but whatever neutered the hamster’s male counterpart, the balancing
force that in the past limited the hamster to the domains where it
benefits us all.

Extinction of the Hamster’s Natural Competition

By enabling women to support each other at all costs within the
ancestral environment, the hamster did at one time appear to benefit us
all. It’s only now that the male counterpart of reason and
responsibility has been neutered that the hamster has come off the chain
to benefit women alone. Add in men’s predisposition to protect women,
and the current enslavement of men, such as with alimony and child
support, is the only possible consequence. As is misandry. Once we’d
been enslaved, the anger that feminists and white knights have for men
who try to free themselves was inevitable.

To them a man’s labor is not his own, but the property of the woman
who lays claim to it by marrying him, by cohabiting with him, or by
having children she claims to be his; whether biologically or by virtue
of him having acted like a father. These traditional mechanisms are only
the wealth transfers to individual women. Increasingly through woman
focused government benefits combined with male focused taxes, a man’s
labor is also the property of any and every woman merely by virtue of
him being a citizen of her country and him being allowed to live there.

A Slave-owners Rights to Her Property

If this is an innate part of woman’s nature it’s almost a waste of
energy to combat the hamsterese spewing from the likes of Jezebel or
Feministing except in so far as to let other men see the logical
disconnect. We’ll probably never have much success using (largely male)
factual logic to dispel their (largely female) value-based reasoning,
especially when it’s their nature to protect their right to own a man’s
labor. Literally fearing men who’ve freed themselves, the only time they
want to engage men on the subject is when they call their white knights
to violently enforce their entitlement to that male labor. They despise
men who try to escape in any way, whether by hiding their assets or
income, or by becoming expats, not unlike the slave master during the
days of black slavery in America. To the master any slave who ran away
must have seemed just as evil. By running away the slave was depriving
him (the master) of valuable property. The slave might even be
encouraging other slaves to flee. He was putting the master’s livelihood
at risk, and therefore putting the master’s family and all that the
master held dear in peril as well. In the slave-owners view it’s for the
very good of all society that such violence against his interests as
escaping must be met with extremely violent retribution.

Castration by Disinformation

If the hamster itself is part of human nature rather than a recent
introduction, perhaps the culprit that neutered male reason to set the
hamster free is the silence enforced against men. Aside from men being
censored from championing men’s interests in the main stream, men are
effectively censored from even speaking hard red pill fact-based truths.
The only arguments that seem to be allowed on sensitive issues in the
popular discourse are value-based arguments (like “equality is good”)
that inevitably favor groups traditionally seen as victims (hint: not
men). This limitation firstly feminizes discourse so open discussion is
not permitted, and secondly makes any discussion essentially impervious
to facts, particularly hard ones (like what precisely constitutes
equality in terms of opportunity and/or outcome).

This societal resistance to facts devastates men precisely because
most men don’t worry about it. Through our own natural male
predisposition for confidence in our ability to tackle the unknown, we
disdain obsessing neurotically over things we haven’t experienced
ourselves. Particularly when young and full of piss and vinegar, the
vast majority of us men don’t bother looking past the superficial
mainstream media to investigate issues that don’t seem to directly
impact us right now. So we’re powerless against a feminized education
system and mass media that indoctrinates us slowly over a lifetime. And
we’re castrated from acting in our own interests by this misinformation
we’re fed.

Our confidence has been turned from an asset to an Achilles heel by
the illusion of control that allows us to stride into the risks men have
always had to take to win in life. Under the dangerous illusion that
they’re in control because they can withdraw from marriage, or even from
society, young men, even on the red pill sites, actively fight against
men’s rights activism. They’re repulsed by the idea that they’re in any
way vulnerable. Meanwhile for their own safety they, like all of us men,
are forced to abandon pursuit of the very commitments (like marriage)
by which we men best ensure we’ll achieve the very things that have
always given meaning to our lives, such as leaving a legacy of thriving
children. We couldn’t have become more separated from our own interests
if someone was actively trying to exterminate us. In withdrawing so far
we’ve lost sight of the true conflict, like the lions in circuses whose
roar says “if you trespass into my domain of control I will kill you”.
The ringmaster knows the lion will always be wild. His job is ensuring
the lion doesn’t notice as the domain of his control is shrunk to the
tiny circle on the floor of the cage where the ringmaster has him
standing on his two hind legs, dancing in a pink tutu to the sound of an
out of tune piano, for the amusement of children in the audience.

The ring around our feet is closing as each new generation of white
knights gives more, as each new generation of red pill men ignores the
larger struggle and retreats more, and as the older generations run
further from political incorrectness. Marching along doing these things
separately, we all unwittingly contribute to our enslavement by the
hamster’s tiny-brained whims. Unlike women who commiserate and
collaborate to expand women’s domain of control in order to protect
themselves, in our contempt for other men’s failures (e.g. victims of
the family court meat grinder) our domain of control continually
shrinks.

The Nature of Man

But this male vulnerability is also natural. We’re built for taking
risks, for gaining the insight to make some new thing work ourselves.
There a reason we value opportunity rather than valuing avoiding
failure. There’s a reason that if something’s worth doing we’ll do it
ourselves even if we have to do it alone. We’re built to walk into the
unknown, not for waiting to be being patted on the head for doing what’s
already been done. You won’t find many men huddling together fearfully,
complaining about what’s held other men back and collecting group
sympathy so someone will act on our behalf. Other men’s failures don’t
apply even to us. So not surprisingly when it comes to feminism the only
anti-indoctrination system men generally have to rely on is personal
experience. Unfortunately this usually amounts to us having to wait
until feminism happens to us personally before we can get our red pill
dose.

The End Game

Human evolution may be accelerating at a faster rate than ever
before. Pervasive forces increasingly select who we mate with. In the
upper middle class families that are now slowly splitting away from the
rest of America the hamster might even be facing slow eradication.
Because in a world where women can destroy a family at will, membership
in the upper middle class more and more correlates with the mother’s IQ
and hence her understanding of the importance of having an intact family
to the outcome of her children. In the wider population however, the
hamster thrives. It appears to be a trait human societies have long had,
and even relied on since ancient times for social cohesion. Without
discounting the immense pain the hamster has caused many male readers,
the hamster is NOT the root of the disconnect between the sexes that
increasingly threatens to undermine the entire western world. The real
issue is that some force has neutered the hamster’s male counterpart so
we can no longer choose to playfully indulge the hamster, or to ignore
it, or to do whatever in our own best judgment is in our or our family’s
interest. This force is pitting men and women against each other. As
natural halves to a whole neither gender can win a war that divides us.

Given men continue to be so powerless, most likely the solution will
come from the subsequent wives and girlfriends forced to put up with
their man’s enslavement. When their numbers grow, when the pain imposed
on them ratchets too high, they’ll rally themselves with value-based
arguments (“father are treated unfairly”). The subset of exceptional
women who’ll lead them are already marshaling their rational arguments
(“children have statistically better outcomes when fathers are allowed
to be involved”). On a long shot the solution might be technological,
some guy working in his basement might come up with a new tool finally
able to disseminate that truth widely in mass media , academia, and
elsewhere without censorship. Wherever the solution comes from, as the
red pill continues to spread, signs are everywhere that we will find it.