It took me many years (and many beers) to come to terms with what the western female is. (I don’t really have enough experience with other females so I can’t comment).
In the same way that the global depopulation agenda hijacked the environmentalists, feminist hijacked femininity.
But when feminists did this, they did it with finances given to them by the same globalists who have their plans for the world that are hidden from most folk.
But this article is about feminism, so I’ll try and keep on the straight and narrow.
Women seem to flip flop more than politicians these days. One moment they support feminism because it is about ‘women’s rights’, but then a situation arises where a woman can’t use it to gain an advantage, at which point she says she doesn’t support feminism/ is not a feminist/ wants to be treated in a traditional way.
I have personally experienced this more times than I can count. One moment a woman says one thing, the next she can completely change her tune but still somehow believe she has integrity.
This is one of the things that woke me up to the reality of the female mind.
Another example is a woman telling you how much she loves you one moment, and during the divorce will lie constantly in order to secure sympathy, which is just part of her goal of asset stripping you.
If that is love, I want no part of it thanks.
Time and time again one comes across this contradictory behaviour from women. They want to be an independent woman… they want to be supported by a man (or the government, which is mostly men’s taxes anyway). They want ‘equal pay (more pay)’ and want the man to pay for her dinner. Women want to work and have a career, and they want to have children and stay at home like a ‘traditional woman’.
But not do household chores of course. Then they’re a feminist again.
And so on, around the merry-go-round she goes.
There are various sayings by men, alluding to the ‘mystery’ of how women work.
But there really is no mystery at all. They are as simple as it gets.
The problem lies not in the woman, but in the man’s use of language to understand her. Quite simply, man’s method of problem solving involves logic, objectivity, a consistent methodology and is contained within a real-world matrix of rules and is developed by external interaction.
In other words, men see the ‘world’ as it is. A consistent, separate entity which he happens to occupy and move through during his life. This external world has rules. Man lives by these rules (which were crafted by men over centuries to enable stable society and help others understand the world).
As a logical consequence of this world-view, when men desire to achieve in life, they seek to do it by changing the world around them. Building cities, new inventions and the like. They think about how their actions can benefit the world around them.
So that’s how men think.
So how do women think? Or to put it another way, why do men time and time again, fail to understand the behaviour of females?
My hypothesis is this:
Women do not think. At least, not in the way men do.
Their thought process seems to be diametrically opposed to the male. Their world-view is reversed.
They make decisions not logically, but emotionally. A persons emotions are the epitome of their ‘self’, therefore, their decisions, and their actions stem from their feelings. Considering one’s own feelings only is the very definition of selfishness.
This develops into an understanding of how they view the world, and seeing as they view it backwards, I’ll work backwards in unraveling it.
Women ‘think’ about how their actions can benefit themselves. Women are not likely to be very interested in rules and events unless it affects them personally.
Women view the world internally. That is, the world is not a discrete, separate thing, but rather, is an extension of themselves, and they view themselves at the center of it. The rules of this world are not attached to the world, they are attached to the female. She alters these rules as it suits her. She changes her world rules to serve whatever desires she has at the time.
Men claim that women are not consistent. Think like a woman. Women are internally consistent. There is no concept of external consistency. As long as she is getting what she wants, she is doing the correct thing and her rules are good.
Of course, such actions can damage others. But that isn’t relevant. That is in the external part of the woman’s world, therefore is it substantially less important than HER world.
The following quote, by Richard Ford sums up the difference nicely:
“Men look out on the world through a window, whilst women gaze endlessly into a mirror.”
Men look out to others, women look in to themselves.
If something does not benefit the woman. She will reject it, even though the logic of her previous position/s would make it a contradiction in terms. ‘I want to be independently/ traditionally treated’, for example.
How does this make sense? This leads me to probably the most important point of all.
Women are not grounded. They do not seem to have (or want) a externally consistent logic that they have to adjust to. Why? Well, because it would reduce their ability to be selfish and still justify it internally.
The external rule book of men is most helpful for this, because it forces men to consider the potential consequences of his actions on others.
Man world = Goals (rules + actions) + consequences / (other people + actions) + (consequences = feelings) + society
Woman world = Goals (actions + consequences)
(Woman world does not have ‘rules’ in its equation since I would call it an internal variable that actually changes depending on the outcome of the equation in the first place. Putting it in would create circular logic).
Now, as women think backwards, their emotions dictate their wants (although women would call them ‘needs’), they then change their rules to increase the chance of them getting what they want. So they’re not really rules are they? This leaves huge loopholes in the female psychology that has enabled them to be controlled so easily, for instance by advertising, where corporations focus on appealing to women’s emotions which then end up influencing her reality.
Women are essentially ungrounded then. More akin to a hot air balloon than a building, a creature that follows the wind, or follows itself.
In part two I’ll explain the connections between what I postulate and real world scenarios and we shall discover that this humble hypothesis even more than meets the eye.