I had a brief discussion with Illimitable Man the other day regarding his latest article, Ruminations on Double Standards. Before reading my question and his response, I would highly recommend reading the entire article to understand the context behind this conversation and to simply enjoy the article as it’s that damn good.
Gentleman Jak: “How would you suggest debating/countering a woman who is against this “double standard” and wants all the benefits without the consequences that you’ve detailed in your article?
It’s a tricky position to take since women tend to quickly get emotional and irrational when their ego is called into question. Would be greatly interested to hear how you would approach such a topic.”
Illimitable Man: “I wouldn’t debate her. Debating women is a foolish exercise, that only results in the frustration and consequent anger of a man whom has done his veritable best to convey why something is incorrect, only to be thwarted in vitality by passionate ignorance.
You may say “but IM, this doesn’t really answer my question, it doesn’t tell me how to win” – and to that I say this: the only way to win is not to play. Who cares what she thinks? It is a God’s honest waste of our time to apply our reason and essence to the futility of trying to make a woman see sense. To do so is to believe there is hope for women, that they can be redeemed of their irrationalism and made fairer and more respectable via further exposure to reason – a thing both wrong and foolish.
Women are solipsistic, their ability to empathize with the difficulties of manhood are scant if even that. As I quite rightfully allude in the essay, she takes a perverse sense of moral superiority from being “the biggest victim” and therefore will not give that position up for anything, not for reason, not for fact, not for empirical measurement – nothing – because to do so would be to give up the very moral high ground on which she prides herself.
If you were to even attempt to partake in such a futile activity, and God knows not why you would, I’d suggest this tac. Explain the difficulties endured by the average man in all their emotional richness, the loneliness, the lack of recognition, the mockery of his underachievement, the absence of care for his well-being, the sense of overwhelming need to be better but never quite being enough – and say “this is you, this is how you feel, imagine how all of this feels right now, feel it deeply, breathe it in – pretend it is your world even just for a minute. Can you feel a tear rolling down your face? How does it feel to know you’re redundant?”
And when she replies how horrible it feels and asks why you would so horribly try to make her feel such a thing, you may congratulate her on the momentary insight she received into the spiritual condition of the average man.
You do not reason with a woman, you hijack her emotional state, for it is only by experiencing the intensity of something on an emotional level can she even begin to identify with it. If she can associate such horrible feelings as representative of the average man’s inner plight, then maybe, just maybe she’ll realize being a woman isn’t all that bad after all. But I wouldn’t hold your breath. Rarely do the pampered become aware of their own petulance.”
Mr. IM, as always, it’s a pleasure.