This is the mind of the beast, gents.

I was bored and reading Facebook yesterday evening after my run. A girl I used to date / bang shared a question she saw somewhere else asking if a woman should be offended if a man doesn't pay on a first date.

Arguing with women is like playing chess with a pigeon, but sometimes watching the pigeon's antics can be amusing to me. The whole 100+ comments were women railing on about "manners" and "etiquette" and "normal dating practices". Not one could name a reason she deserved to be treated to a meal other than 'because, vagina'.

Some latched onto the "whoever asks should pay" rationalization. When I called them out that women don't normally ask and that "whoever asks should pay" is very nearly synonymous with "the man should pay"; they all had at least one anecdote of them or someone they know asking a man out.

I've been thinking a lot on the subject of women's failure to grasp the concepts of analogies and generalizations. I now believe that in their conscious experience 1 exception in a trend of 1000 defeats the trending rule.

They literally believe that a single exception invalidates any pre-developed trend.

So, "whoever asks should pay" is a completely whole and logical thought process for them. Themselves or one or two of their friends asked a man on a date and they draw the conclusion that both men and women initiate romantic encounters at the exact same rate. You cannot change their mind about this because their reality is set. It would be akin to someone trying to convince me that my wooden desk is made of iron.

They get offensive about someone pointing out logical trends and using appropriate generalizations because their reality is completely different.