Here’s the famous dialogue between a man and his wife.
She: Would you like to go out to a movie tonight.
He: Not really. There’s a game on.
She: But it’s Friday ...
He: Yeah. It’s been a hard week. I’m tired. Going out is too much fuss.
She: But you NEVER take me out …
He: What are you talking about? We went out twice two weeks ago!
[Fight ensues]
John Gray (of “Mars and Venus” fame) points out, and Deborah Tannen (PhD feminist) agree that women do not use language in the same way as men. A woman’s use of certain adverbs and adjectives is emotive, not factual, they say. Tannen says women focus on the “metamessage” level, on what it means to the relationship, whereas men focus on the “message” level, the literal information conveyed by the words and its real-world accuracy. If they’re right, then the cause of the fight in the above dialogue is that the woman was trying to convey her sense of frustration by the very hyperbolical use of the word “NEVER” and the man was miffed by the literal untruthfulness of its content and consequently defended himself. The woman then perceived this as unsympathetic, the man interpreted her language as dishonest and insulting, and so they got into it.
And the women I’ve talked to about this agree entirely. They say, “When we say, ‘You never…’ you’re not supposed to understand ‘never’: you’re supposed to understand we’re expressing how we feel at that precise moment and become sympathetic to our feeling about the situation. We don’t mean ‘never’ literally, we mean that emotionally it seems much too long since it happened. If you’re sensitive and listening, you’d get it right; and it really would be insensitive of you not to give us credit for being more truthful and honest. We haven’t forgotten the past. We’re talking about feelings, not about your facts. Don’t insult our intelligence.”
Well, let’s take that logic and run with it (although feminists insist logic itself is sexist, of course). If a woman’s “never” is hyperbolical and emotive, and at root untrue, and is targeted at expressing feelings and producing sympathy rather than conveying information, then what happens when a society becomes feminized in its style of public discourse?
Obvious: we lose control of the facts, and start to make claims that are focused on producing sympathy with our feelings about things. When we don’t get our sympathy, we get more and more shrill. We care less and less about the facts and we find the resistance greater; and we become more and more acrimonious that we are not managing to elicit the kind of heartfelt response we think we deserve. Eventually, we are making factually outrageous statements — outright lies, really — in a more and more desperate attempt to get the sympathetic support we feel we so desperately need from everyone. Truth goes right down the hole, and we stop caring at all about the relationship between manifest fact and our claims.
And eventually, of course, we fly into a hissy fit and capitulate to the women’s greatest fault, which is spite. Simmering spite is a woman’s greatest vice, just as violence is a man’s. If anything, the spite is more heartfelt, determined and long-lasting, though the violence may be more overtly and instantly damaging.
SJW’s are spite freaks. And it’s because they can never elicit enough sympathy to satisfy them, because in order to do so they must overcome a larger and larger body of obvious, contrary facts. Nowadays, our whole public discourse style is based on the exercises of emotive lie-telling, and a feminine distain for factuality.
SJW’s NEVER tell the truth. That’s man language. A woman’s is emotive hyperbole.
~ archived since 2018 ~
