HOW WOMEN ARGUE

No sensible man ever engages, unprepared, in a fencing match of words

with a woman. Wilkie Collins

The fundamental difference in what women say they want, and what they
actually want is a product of the notion that women tend to exercise
rationalisation, not reason in and of itself. Most women have extremely weak
reasoning, youll notice in arguments with them that they will try to attack
the credibility of your logic to try to make themselves look better, this is the
classic I cant beat the competition so Ill try to make the competition less
effective strategy that women employ on a grand scale with ideas like fat
acceptance, but applied on a micro-scale in their interactions on a one-to-
one basis.

Questioning a mans logic and credibility is a way a woman essentially

brings a man down to her level of absurdity. There comes a line of
questioning so invasive, so interrogative and so unreasonable, that a man,
feeling like he is on the defence, will yield his logic to his sense of
frustration, and then the woman who deliberately and calculatingly imposed
this form of mental tyranny in her sense of outrage will then use this
frustration as a weapon against the man to further reduce his credibility by
pointing out quite proudly that he is in fact no more logical than she!

Women will hold you to your logic as it forces you to take responsibility for
things they do not wish to, but they are bound by no such logic themselves
because they have no prevailing internal dialogue that is actually based on
logic, at best they tend to have segmented ideas based on emotional
thought layered with rationalisation that works to present a veneer of
intellectual credibility, which is later necessary for the purpose of saving
face. What women are doing here is exploiting the nature of logic and the
sense of duty to the truth which is inherent within it, they make you feel bad
by making you feel like you violate your own sense of duty to the truth whilst
simultaneously feeling no such duty themselves. This gives them an edge in
verbal combat as once you are emotionally compromised within your own
frame of reference, questioning your own sense of logic due to your
emotionally provoked slip-up, they can then exploit this momentary
weakness to dominate the agenda.

They do whatever they do and then worry about making themselves look
good later on, unemotional reason does not permeate the thought process
beforehand. Satiating the need caused by the desires of their current
emotional state is of the utmost importance to them; essentially they care
more about feeding their emotional state more than they care about the
tenets of objective logic. Emotional preference beats rational preference for
them almost every time, as much as they hate the fact this makes them seem
less credible than men, and thus to some extent inferior, this is practically a
universal truth that not even government imposed equality has managed to
rectify, women are not held any more accountable for their actions now than
they were pre-feminism, you only need to look at sentences handed out by
the judiciary for confirmation of this.

When youre inherently unreasonable you are prone to making mistakes,

making mistakes makes you look bad looking bad is bad for your status.
This is why women are good at saving face and maintaining a reputation
whilst simultaneously practicing poor reasoning ability. This is where
manipulation comes into play; youll find that, women are very good at
spinning things, far more so than your average man is. Theyll talk to you,
theyll hold you to your words and get you on the defence, constantly
questioning you, but theyll ignore any criticisms directed at them as if to
say with the unspoken word that your concerns or notice of their
irrationalism is unworthy of validation. Then they use your own words
against you, using underhanded and subtle spin, to make you look like an
idiot. The more you put into an argument with a woman the more likely you
are to lose with her because she will act most deviously in sabotaging your
reputation whilst she layers hers.

To a woman, an argument is not usually an exchange of information

between one person and another where despite opposition, ideas can be
exchanged and information learnt. To a woman, an argument is a
battleground for pushing an agenda, and reputation maintenance always
comprises part of that agenda, theres nothing more and nothing less to the
nature of their argumentation. This is why typically, they cannot be held as
accountable and thus even remotely equal to men due to an absence of
credibility, they demonstrate repeatedly that their mental faculty is averse to
claiming responsibility via honest, transparent discourse. Even when they are
in positions of power which require by nature of the job description that they
be held completely and utterly accountable, they still demonstrate reluctance
to give up plausible deniability and be forced into a position, analyse any
female bosses in the workplace youve had to draw a personal inference if
you need so.

This desire for plausible deniability is what creates their blame-shifting

nature and makes them, happily to themselves, not only unaccountable, but
to their simultaneous dismay, incredible (not credible as a group of people.)
Women will always move the fixation of the analytical microscope from
themselves onto the opponent in their defiant acts of emotion-fuelled verbal
sparring. This is how they defend themselves. They are wholly incapable of
standing up to scrutiny on a logical level (due to the lack of faculty
previously explained) and this is thus why they do everything in their power
to remain out of the spotlight, shaming and scapegoating others in place of
being a target of scrutiny themselves. As long as its not my fault and I
dont look bad she doesnt care.

Despite the common womans indignation at being deemed illogical or, at

least in terms of mental faculty, far less capable of logical reasoning than
man himself, women in all their self-honesty beyond their hubris and ego
maintenance do in fact realise that men are the more logical party. How is
this you ask? Something I have observed in my arguments with women over
time is a tendency for them to say that you claim women are illogical, but
youve just been illogical yourself! again as mentioned earlier, this is a
device used to try to bring you down whilst they bring themselves up, its the
credibility game of making you seem less credible by destroying the
appearance of your advantage (your logic) to onlookers however, the irony
here is that such statements are often made after the woman in question has
been incredibly irrational herself.

However, if you as a man are to make one wrong step, to make one
statement that isnt totally sound in logic, you are immediately held at
gunpoint and this one faux-pas in comparison to her long list of logical
mistakes is held up as an example of just how illogical you as a man are.
How is this women admitting that they believe men to be more logical than
themselves I hear you ask? Well as usual, theyre communicating it via the
subtext, not with words. Theyre holding men to a standard where even one
sentence or idea uttered illogically is immediately picked up on and
condemned, thus they have the ability to identify irrationalism, yet ironically
they perpetuate their own irrationalism as gospel. Theyre holding
themselves to a lower standard of logical accountability than they do the
male party. Gotcha there, ladies.

A man is condemned for being illogical and immediately compared to a

woman for being so, yet the same woman who draws this comparison is the
same woman who will try to condemn you to save face using all the most
argumentatively illogical Machiavellian tactics in the book. Women KNOW
they are illogical, they know they are not fair to you in discourse, they push
all your buttons and drive you crazy with their irrationalism, and quite
simply, they dont care as long as it fulfils their agenda. They are undeniably
selfish and hold commitment to their personal needs higher among their list
of personal priorities than the diction of intellectualism. The only thing they
care about is feeling like theyre right and getting their ego stroked, not
actually discovering that little known thing we value called the truth.
Solipsism does not need truth, equally accountable standards of logic
applied to both genders however does need truth as the truth is objective.
The truth has the potency to be harmful to solipsism and the female sense of
well-being, and therefore, typically, the truth is an adversary of the female,
only an ally when she needs it to make someone else appear weak.

What theyre doing despite their lack of intellectual integrity is making

themselves look more credible than the straight-talking logical party, which
is typically the man, so that when it comes to saving face they win the game
of appearing more sophisticated. As sophistication carries a grace of
validity and credibility to it, this is what they are mostly concerned with in
the perpetuation of their thoughts. Women care about winning arguments,
not about being right per se. To a woman, being right is using whatever
underhanded tactic is required to get her own way and come out of the
conflict favourably, being right is not obeying the laws of logical objectivism
but spinning other peoples logic to make her look better than them whilst
offering up some weak arguments herself just to get the ball rolling.

There are a few ways that they can put spin on the argumentation at hand,
one of them is to shame you. By shaming you they can make you react
emotionally, once you react emotionally you have lost they will then make a
theatrical example out of your show of emotion and use it to condemn you.
Another way they put spin on things, one they favour greatly, is to play the
victim. All of a sudden all the verbosity of being equal turns into Im just a
girl and youre being mean!, water tears get worked and everyone looks at
you like youre the asshole. The fucked up thing is you will probably even
feel like an asshole too, even though youre in the right. Voila, she gets her
own way and thats all she wanted to begin with. There is no low too low for
womankind to steep to if it means she gets her own way and secures her
interests.

Women are very egotistical, because ego, like everything, is composed of

emotions, and emotions are that much more de facto dominant in women
than they are in men. Next time you argue with a woman, remember the
agenda at hand is to appear the most credible and maintain a superior
reputation in juxtaposition to your own. If she tries to bait you into reacting
emotionally (and she will, she is dependent on your anger to have a chance
at beating you to a pulp with your own words) do not take her seriously and
just laugh off her words, because really, they are nothing more than baseless
Machiavellian nonsense that will drive you to insanity should you take such
words seriously and attempt to engage them at face value.