(title continued) Militant gender feminism and patriarchy theory remains so powerful in the mainstream psyche precisely because it taps into these female in-group/male out-group biases. This is why self-victimisation is an effective strategy for women, but not for men. This is also why PPD debates are so turbulent and hostile, and may be why the MRM would fail.

I see a lot of hatred by bluepillers for the 'rationalisation hamster'. They use it as a wallpaper for TBP to illustrate TRP dehumanising women, and they go out of their way to show evidence of men losing frame and man-hamstering themselves.

I think that we don't completely understand what it is. The rationalisation hamster is but a pejorative name to provide visual imagery (mental gymnastics, like a hamster spinning a wheel quickly to run away) for a very common cognitive distortion; [emotional reasoning] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_reasoning)

Emotional reasoning is a cognitive process that occurs when a person believes that what he or she is feeling is true regardless of the evidence. For example, from a feeling of jealousy concluding that one's spouse is being unfaithful. [Othello]

Emotional reasoning amplifies the effects of other cognitive distortions. For example, a test-taker may feel insecure about their understanding of the material even though they are perfectly capable of answering the questions. If he (or she) acts on his insecurity about failing the written test he might assume that he misunderstands the material and therefore might guess answers randomly, causing his own failure in a self-fulfilling prophecy. [act on a hunch your spouse is being unfaithful; ruin relationship with false accusations of cheating]

edit: Somebody correctly pointed out that 'hamstering' specifically refers to post-hoc. rationalisation via emotional reasoning I [II] (http://www.iva.dk/jni/lifeboat/info.asp?subjectid=331)

As a dude unfortunately troubled with anxiety disorder, I am guilty of this a hell of a lot more than the average guy, so would consider myself an unreliable narrator.

But when we constantly say 'this is a gender neutral phenomenon', we again obscure gender dimorphism and return to our blank slate fallacy where men and women are the same, except where women are conveniently oppressed and men are conveniently oppressing...

[So without further ado, another excellent talk by the wonderful Karen Straughan] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5Uh3wowSU0)

Cliffs

  • Karen points out, as mentioned, that women have evolved an instinctive genetic predisposition to be more sensitive and fearful of environmental threats than men have. This is because children, and child-bearing women, need protection; men do not.

  • This is basically why women find omega insecurity a turn-off in men and like risk-takers, and (controlled) aggressive behaviour. A man who's willing to put his life on the line is going to get laid; a man who looks after his own interests first is not.

  • This is also why women can claim that vulnerability is attractive and that feminists of the 70s campaigned for a sensitive man...but in practice, it's not. When a man is too sensitive, he must be relegated to beta orbiter or omega status through pejoratives such as 'man-child', 'whiney neck beard' or (ironically) 'pussy'

  • We have a a capacity to adapt some of our instinctive conditioning, as observed through research into neuroplasticity. Indeed this is one of the most stressed points of blank slate theory; that nurture, not nature, determines the majority of our developmental psychology.

  • Feminists claim that NLP et. al. can empower women to escape their ostensibly historically oppressed and submissive role, and become 'strong independent women' free of their traditional gender role. With great power comes great responsibility. Some of the more recent branches such as liberal feminism and inter sectionalism achieve this to some degree.

  • However, in practice a lot of their theories just reinforce women's instinctive emotional reasoning that 'I am in danger'-especially patriarchy theory which constantly asserts that women (and minorities) are oppressed victims of the oppressive hegemonic masculinity of the white cis male. More extreme feminists extend this to all men, rich and poor alike. Indeed, 'privilege theory' determines that a man can be privileged by being white and straight, even if he's poor. But I digress...

  • For this reason, people are likely to believe bullshit stats like '1 in 5' or even '1 in 3 (!) women on campus experience systemic gendered violence and sexual assault, harassment or even rape' despite contradictory evidence. This is because to our instincts, 'if it feels like I am in danger, I must be'. All this, despite data showing men are at greater risk of street violence than women. [I] (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3310235/Would-intervene-saw-woman-slap-boyfriend-Shocking-video-shows-strangers-ignoring-domestic-violence-street-rush-help-female-victim.html) [II] (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/10752232/Our-attitude-to-violence-against-men-is-out-of-date.html)

  • White knights are so easily duped because of the same male out group bias/instinctive tendency to 'like' (value/protect the interests of) women and children over themselves and other men. Personally I don't believe that all male feminists are just out there to get laid; I do believe that most of them have women's best interests at heart and are seeking a more egalitarian society. I think some of the more recent initiates are naive to the realities of gender politics, however.

  • [This is also how manipulative women can so easily tug men's heart-strings with crocodile tears.] (http://therationalmale.com/2013/02/26/the-crying-game/)

  • One could argue that this is the essential emotional reasoning of ['Nice Guys are manipulative monsters', as Karen points out in another video. "I don't feel like he's a safe option to sleep with…he must be dangerous, he must be lying and have nasty ulterior motives!] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9XDb0nxSO4)

  • My personal belief is that this is why the MRM receives so much shit. People just do not like men prioritising their own interests; it's OK when the victim class are happy to be categorised as children by women and society, i.e. the needy and vulnerable. But MRAs are mostly adult males, often approaching middle age. I have made several threads lately about [the hierarchy of love] (http://therationalmale.com/2014/05/06/intersexual-hierarchies-part-i/), and how it's not quite accurate to say that women hate low value men, but they sure as hell do not respect them on the whole. Rather they regard them as one of their vulnerable offspring at best.

  • We see examples of this on PPD on a daily basis. A redpiller will say 'here are the stats showing men are disposable' and a bluepiller will immediately get defensive saying 'these stats are faulty, actually XYZ ergo men are not disposable/women are more victims'. Yet when a bluepiller starts with 'women are primary victims' and redpillers reverse to say 'no here are the stats', the men are engaging in Oppression Olympics. At this point, ad. hom.s are thrown out, albeit with greater subtlety than the Internet at large due to our being knowledgeable about the shaming tactics involved.

Discuss and CMV.