Beavers & Hamster Warp Drives: The Female Decision Making Process

Aight, here we go. In the ‘Manosphere’ the concept of the female rationalization hamster has long since been discussed and analyzed. Bluntly phrased, women are emotional creatures and these emotions determine their reality. Right. So first you have the emotion. Anger, lust, envy, penis envy, P.M.S., stress, gina tingling…whatev. Then this emotion compells the woman to action. It is at this crucial point that the hamster drive is activated. Notice how female decision making by and large takes place before critical mental analysis. That is not so say there is no intelectual activity whatsoever involved. A woman will spin all kinds of devious, elaborate schemes, gyrations, justifications and mental gymnastics at the tactical level…but only after the fundamental issue has been decided upon (by her emotions).

Righty right. This is the hamster. Imagine a hamster in a hamster wheel inside the head of a woman. This hamster wildly spins in its hamster wheel and rationalizes and rationalizes and rationalizes…even the absurdest of notions (ok, I had sex with about 4954823452 badboys last night but I’m not a slut because we had this wonderful emotional connection and it just happened and I was drunk so it doesn’t count, you cunt,…and anyways…exploring my sexuality is empowering, you sexist man-pig. I’m the victim here!). So far so confusing? Hell yeah! But wait…there’s more…’cause do you truly believe we’ve delved deep enough?

Bubba, the hamster is not in command. It’s just an executive public & interior relations agent of sorts. And the woman herself is also most certainly not in command. So who is? In a nutshell: the beaver. If the gina tingles and the beaver jingles a cascade of emotions errupt in the female brain and thus a mental rationalization chain reaction ensues (woman looking at ‘douche it to the max’ meathead walking by with his girlfriend. Beaver: Wow, that guy is hot. I want some of that ass! Hamster: Beaver you are such a crude and unromantic brute. I’m sure he’s a special guy, all sensitive and gentle behind that strong and manly facade. We should talk to him and save him from that terrible ugly slapper of a girlfriend of his. She doesn’t deserve him, he and me…it was simply meant to be, destiny! Woman (walks to the meathead, shows cleavage): “Hi my name is Sally, I was wondering…blabla“).

You got it? No? Well then think about Star Trek. Picture the Warp Drive. One moment the pink coated F.S.S. Love-You-Long-Time is chugging along merrily through normal space. Everything is just relaxed and groovy when suddenly some sinister, patriarchal and quite possibly sexist Klingons arrive.  So what does Captain ‘Jingle-Bells’ She-Tard do? She fires up her Hamster-Warp Drive and the next thing you see are flashes, weird doppler effects and you find yourself in hyperspace with space-time all distorted and jumbled. You’re light years away from rationality and those evil, eeeevily judgmental Klingon caveman sexists. And it all makes sense. Because rationality is man-kind’s playing ground while femotional hyperspace is scary, alien, bizarrely schizophrenic and thus incomprehensible to the average dweeb. It’s hamster territory and without the proper skillset and instrumentarium you venture there at your own peril.

Bottomline: Men think with their penises, ok we already knew that. But women think with their beavers. This combined – time and again – leads to confusion, mutual loathing, fascination, ambivalent assholery, attraction, sweaty & passionately dirty trysts flowery intercourse and, sometimes, relationships. I’m not entirely sure how fast these Hamster Drives go (how much rational space they can distort) once spun up but let’s say for the time being I’m going to posit the known speed limit (to man) is 1 Chels on the Hamster Scala.

Concluding question: does this all make women brilliant tacticians yet/and/or strategic imbeciles?

Res ipsa locquitor.

Advertisements

13 comments on “Beavers & Hamster Warp Drives: The Female Decision Making Process

  1. Umslopogass, that was hilarious. I haven’t read your writing before besides comments I’ve come across, but I love the culture reference.

    Sadly, its all too true. And scary. Avoid accidentally following a hamster too closely as it makes it’s jump to warp drive. You’ll be stranded in a scary place with nothing to mark your way back into rational territory.

    • umslopogaas says:

      @Leap:

      Heh, indeed. If you get caught up in its wake you’ll get sucked into its ‘Einstein-Rosen-Bridge’. Thus you risk total braindamage, wickedly insane mental diarrhea…and essentially forever floating in femotional hyperspace between the shattered remnants of your erstwhile rational brain.

      We can’t stop here. This is hamster country!

  2. Suz says:

    Answer:

    And.

    We are brilliant plotters. We’re adept at predicting responses, and at manipulating those responses to attain further responses. Think chess, except we cheat by trying to influence our opponent’s next move. We are capable of a frighteningly precise sort of logic.

    We’re also good at hiding it, from ourselves as well as from everybody else. This is necessary because addressing our logic would require analyzing our goals AND the motivations behind those goals. We can’t bring ourselves to admit that the beaver even exists, let alone that we actively pander to it. And if we could admit it, we’d have to be ashamed of the self serving, mercenary, narcissistic things we do to appease the “thing of which we don’t speak.” We end up winning battles, but losing the war because we find ourselves miserable in our “victory.”

    The fact that this is a waste of potentially awesome brainpower, is immaterial to us. We don’t need to use our wiles to keep food in our bellies, so we use them to make our lives more interesting, more enriched. We see this as an accomplishment, something we can be proud of. Out there in some other dimension.

    Great post!

    • umslopogaas says:

      @Suz:

      We are brilliant plotters. We’re adept at predicting responses, and at manipulating those responses to attain further responses. Think chess, except we cheat by trying to influence our opponent’s next move. We are capable of a frighteningly precise sort of logic.”

      Indeed this was what I meant with brilliant tacticians i.e. very effective winning the battle / controling men.

      We’re also good at hiding it, from ourselves as well as from everybody else. This is necessary because addressing our logic would require analyzing our goals AND the motivations behind those goals. We can’t bring ourselves to admit that the beaver even exists, let alone that we actively pander to it. And if we could admit it, we’d have to be ashamed of the self serving, mercenary, narcissistic things we do to appease the “thing of which we don’t speak.”

      Bingo. Rollo Tomassi has written an excellent article about this very state wherein he explaines its reasons etc. rather adeptly. You are eloquently confirming his findings:

      http://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2011/10/03/war-brides/

      The fact that this is a waste of potentially awesome brainpower, is immaterial to us. We don’t need to use our wiles to keep food in our bellies, so we use them to make our lives more interesting, more enriched. We see this as an accomplishment, something we can be proud of. Out there in some other dimension“.

      Heh, in a sense it is too bad, aye. A lot of ability misdirected. How about you women focusing on Foreign Policy? I think you’d do very well there. Mayhap there wouldn’t even be any more need for wars…you could checkmate national enemies by simple intrigues and mindgames.

      • Suz says:

        Ya knowwwww….If women were put in charge of foreign policy, wars might just grind to a brief halt while military forces collectively scratch their heads in befuddlement, trying to figure out WTF our game is.

        There it is. World peace, the dream of every beauty pageant contestant.

        😉

    • Mark says:

      Aww, that so cute. You’re like a tiny retarded baby.

      Umslopogaas: Oh the LOLz. You whine about us disrespecting chelsarr yet insult Suz (another woman) with a pointless, uncalled for and all out stupid ad hominem. /Facepalm

  3. Suz says:

    Tomassi’s article was eye-opening, and his theory makes sense. Our dual reality runs very, very deep. it must have served a purpose at one time.

  4. Rmaxd says:

    lol great blog umslopogass

    also lol Suz solves world peace by hamster, what next a hamster in the pentagon? oh wait … lol

    • umslopogaas says:

      @Rmaxd

      Many thanks.

      Heh, and I think if anything Obambi truly resembles a teddy bear. All cute and fluffy. Talk peace, cuddle with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and tell him that it’s all ok, Kumbajah, and he has a big dick even without nuclear missiles while John Lennon’s “Imagine” is playing in the background.

      It’s taking soft “power” to an all new level.

  5. umslopogaas says:

    @Suz:

    Yes quite so. I think Rollo even explains it rather succinctly…in an evolutionary sense. Women *had* to be able to disassociate from individual men, cultures and tribes…because in human history when one tribe conquered the other the consequences were usually not pretty.

    Aight. So Chief Biggus Dickus of the ‘Swamp Lovers’ says something about his rival’s mother. In reaction his rival, the King of Bongo-Bongo, calmly & intellectually connects his club to the Chief’s head…and dashes his brains out. So with the Chief conked out the King of Bongo-Bongo then rallies his men and they descend on the Swamp Lovers, administering the same treatment to all other men.

    So. With the men gone the women are taken. They have to adjust to an altogether new culture, tribe, bride etc. Hence massive trauma. Probably those women that were not able to develop this female inherent solipcism didn’t survive for long and thus were weeded out by evolution.

    At the same time, of course, the men – being dead – didn’t need to develop solipcisms of any kind…since they didn’t have to diassociate from anything…apart from, like, life.

    • Ray Manta says:

      So. With the men gone the women are taken. They have to adjust to an altogether new culture, tribe, bride etc.

      Even those that weren’t taken by force had to undergo a similar process. Humans are one of the few primates where the females disperse and the males stay with their extended family groups. The females that didn’t have the psychological coping mechanisms to handle it didn’t survive.

      Due to their mating patterns, it would be adaptive for women to have the following psychological attributes:
      (1) Solipsism. This would help her cope with the often unpleasant realities of her mating situation (being traded for the purposes of a tribal alliance, as a war party prize, or as a concubine).

      (2) A tendency to network with unrelated females to extract resources from men. This ability explains why feminism is prone to develop in wealthy cultures such as the Roman Empire and the western world.

      (3) Extreme deference to the female ‘herd’. In the pre-modern world, the approval of her female cohorts could mean the difference between life and death. We see the results of this today in women’s susceptibility to trends and fashion, and their need for external validation from their friends. It also explains why women’s contributions in the arts, sciences, and other fields has been so limited. Making new discoveries or developing something new almost always requires an ability to keep one’s distance from the madding crowd. Men are simply far better mentally equipped to do this than women.

      • umslopogaas says:

        @Ray:

        (1): Absolutely. No question about it. The female solipsism makes evolutionary sense. Still, it certainly is a rather unpleasant revelation for any man that once was a romantic. And it certainly disqualifies most women from key positions in society, imo.

        (2): Ah yes, the Roman Empire and Feminism. That in itself is a utterly fascinating topic. Do you have any information regarding it? I’ve been looking for research, articles etc. about this matter….but seemingly information is relatively rare.

        (3): That’s what maybe disgusts me most about modern western women. This ridiculous herd mentality combined with all the utterly moronic trends that are incessantly popping up. All the vapid, empyheaded consumerism, the loss of dignity with ever more slutty clothing (fashion) and in general the uncritical, conformist mentality that arises from the female herd mentality.

        They are like the Borg. Slowly assimilating us…haha…and is resistance futile? It just might be.

      • Ray Manta says:

        umslopogaas wrote:
        (1): Absolutely. No question about it. The female solipsism makes evolutionary sense.

        It gives them the psychological tools to blot out the past. An excellent fictional example of this is the mini-series Roots (Alex Haley made most of it up, but that’s a different issue). When Kunta Kinte was captured as a teenager there was a girl named Fanta he was attracted to who also was brought to America on the same ship. When he escaped about ten years later he sought her out and tried to take him with her. She screamed and cried that her name was now “Maggie” and refused to go with him. The way she spoke with him it was as if she had never seen him.

        Still, it certainly is a rather unpleasant revelation for any man that once was a romantic.

        Of course. It doesn’t help matters that we needed the Internet to rediscover truths that older societies understood well. Many them have evolved social mechanisms and customs to protect against the problems that can be caused by female narcissism and solipsism. Dowries are one example – if the wife flakes and leaves her husband, her family will have lost a substantial amount of money.

        And it certainly disqualifies most women from key positions in society, imo.

        Yes, since most do not have the capacity to be held to the same standard as a man.

        (2): Ah yes, the Roman Empire and Feminism. That in itself is a utterly fascinating topic. Do you have any information regarding it? I’ve been looking for research, articles etc. about this matter….but seemingly information is relatively rare.

        Here’s one source. It supports the observation that women were kept very strictly in line at the start of the Roman republic and then during the empire phase in particular there was progressive liberalization – they were progressively handed more rights and privileges. In the collapse of the western empire and resulting Middle Ages those privileges were scaled back.

        http://menz.org.nz/2010/feminism-and-the-fall-of-the-roman-empire/

        (concerning women’s herd mentality)
        (3): That’s what maybe disgusts me most about modern western women.

        In his writings, F. Roger Devlin has stated that the behavior he observed in young modern women could not possible be normal – humans would have gone extinct otherwise. He also said that many older, conservative men don’t have a clue as to how execrable and destructive they can be. That’s one reason why clueless white-knighting is so common with them. What may have been true of their generation isn’t at all true now.

        http://unfrozencaveman.wordpress.com/2009/11/08/f-roger-devlin/

        This ridiculous herd mentality combined with all the utterly moronic trends that are incessantly popping up.

        For better or worse, while men develop and maintain the technology, women are the drivers of the social landscape. In earlier generations, there were counterbalancing factors such as the risk of unwanted pregnancy and lack of social safety nets. Now there are far fewer, so now you have reality TV, female “empowerment”, and slutwalks.

        They are like the Borg. Slowly assimilating us…haha…and is resistance futile? It just might be.

        I think it’s something that may have to run its course. I’m also optimistic that technological advances will vastly reduce women’s socio-sexual leverage over men over the next few decades. This will be the key to breaking the back of feminism since women need men to acquire resources – they can’t do it themselves.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s