[Ovid]

Woman's baser impulse = "Ooh, he looks handsome, he's got tattoos and just got out of prison. I want to have sex with him. I better fire up my hamster to justify this because I know it's a bad idea in so many ways."

Restraining patriarchy = dad and older brother get shotguns and tell lowlife scum to clear out and not to let them catch him around their daughter/sister again, give girl a lecture and forbid her from hanging around men unless they approve them first.

--

Men's baser impulse = I think my position seems weak. I am going to send some soldiers to steal land from my neighbor. If I don't strengthen myself, I will be an easy target for invasion myself. Besides, that land used to belong to my grandfather so technically it ought to be mine.

Men's baser impulse = he insulted me and stole some land with his soldiers, I think I will do the same because if I don't he will just do it more. Let's go to war.

In neither of these cases does the hamster come into play. Both are rational decisions made with logic, the conclusion being that a war is the lesser of two evils, undertaken to avert perceived greater calamity. Both men could very well be acting in good faith.

Any wrong decision requires a certain amount of rationalization *if the one making it knows it is wrong.* In the case of the men, they act in good faith because their decisions are arrived at with logic. If they're wrong it's typically because they were misinformed about facts or taught wrong principles of action. The woman, on the other hand, knows perfectly well that association with lowlifes is going to be bad for her reputation, bodily health, and mental health, but she is caught up in the moment with emotion and acts on this, not her rational thoughts, and subsequently employs a hamster to try to make her rational thoughts accord better with hr emotions.

[jammer]

(02-06-2013 09:28 AM)Ovid Wrote:  

Men's baser impulse = I think my position seems weak. I am going to send some soldiers to steal land from my neighbor. If I don't strengthen myself, I will be an easy target for invasion myself. Besides, that land used to belong to my grandfather so technically it ought to be mine.

Men's baser impulse = he insulted me and stole some land with his soldiers, I think I will do the same because if I don't he will just do it more. Let's go to war.

In neither of these cases does the hamster come into play. Both are rational decisions made with logic, the conclusion being that a war is the lesser of two evils, undertaken to avert perceived greater calamity. Both men could very well be acting in good faith.

I would guarantee that the majority of wars throughout history were not for that reason. They didn't start wars out of a position of weakness. Look at the great military empires like Rome, Nazi Germany, Ottoman Empire, etc., they didn't start wars because they made "rational" decisions to take back land they believed was illegitimately stolen.

[Ovid]

Aye, but they all had a pretext, some better than others. International affairs get very complicated, very quickly. A man might know he is doing something which his peers will castigate as immoral and wrong, but he generally has logical reasons for why he has chosen to break from the mold. Women, on the other hand, tend not to think, but to act on their feelings. "If it feels good it must be right."

I believe this tendency is innate to women, but that is not to say that women are utterly incapable of self- mastery. They can learn to control their emotions and consciously make decisions based on logic, but their emotions and passions are merely hidden beneath the surface, and can be stirred up again more easily than can a man's.

[Duke Castile]

(02-06-2013 12:25 PM)Ovid Wrote:  

Aye, but they all had a pretext, some better than others. International affairs get very complicated, very quickly. A man might know he is doing something which his peers will castigate as immoral and wrong, but he generally has logical reasons for why he has chosen to break from the mold. Women, on the other hand, tend not to think, but to act on their feelings. "If it feels good it must be right."

I believe this tendency is innate to women, but that is not to say that women are utterly incapable of self- mastery. They can learn to control their emotions and consciously make decisions based on logic, but their emotions and passions are merely hidden beneath the surface, and can be stirred up again more easily than can a man's.

It appears to me there is some confusion about what is rational vs. what is logical.

Those two things have different meanings and are not always in alignment.

Example, it could be logical for someone that needs money to rob a bank, but that action is not rational.

[No Habit]

To sum shit up in a sentence: Hamsters rule the world.

[Ovid]

Men tend to use logic when deciding on a course of action. Women tend to use emotion. Logical decisions tend to be more rational because they are thought out. Emotional responses tend not to be rational.

Depending on how badly the man needs money, how few other options are available, and how weak the bank security is, logically deciding to rob it could be a rational decision.

If, on the other hand, the man 'needs' money because he really loves it and likes the feeling it gives him, so he decides to hold up a bank "because he's running low and the bank is close..." A male hamster would be obliged to step in in an attempt to rationalize the objectively-unwise and unnecessary act that was precipitated by emotion. And it's that sort of thing, those sorts of non-decision "decisions," that we associate with women.

[Jalouse]

I think a lot of men are still ruled by emotions fear being one of the biggest ones. If we are all Spock like logical beings things would be a lot easier.

What's so rational about spending up to twelve hours a day in some shitty office, getting fat, sitting at home watching tv, getting two weeks holiday a year then eventually at 65 when you're too old to enjoy it finally get your freedom?

[IRTdenialist]

The Rationalisation Hamster in it's natural habitat.

[No Habit]

Quote:

I think a lot of men are still ruled by emotions fear being one of the biggest ones. If we are all Spock like logical beings things would be a lot easier.

Fear is logical in a way that it's there to protect you, not get eaten up by a sabertooth you know. It just happens nowadays that your ego hijacks this shit to protect itself.

[Samseau]

(02-06-2013 01:49 AM)OkStudies Wrote:  

Look. Guys have "baser" impulses too. What makes the impulses of a man to dominate any less "base" than a woman to submit?

When men act out on their "baser" impulses it's called war. We've plenty of examples of this much more destructive impulse and it's devastating effect upon civilizations and societies.

My point is we are failing at grasping the larger picture here. We're making excuses and in a way (ironically) sounding eerily similar to the "solipsistic" women we malign here.

Humans have "impulses", but there is nothing inherently "masculine" about the ability to deal with logic, reason or common sense. Studies have shown women to be equally capable at math for example. However, they are susceptible to stereotype threat, which lowers scores across the board.

Don't you realize it is this same "feminist society" that tells them they can't do math. There are both anti-male and anti-female stereotypes and biases present in our society, in a totally random configuration. Why? Because most people have no clue what masculinity or femininity consists of. We live in confused times.

Masculinity is essentially just strength. Toughness. Aggression. It's a specific definition that denotes a specific quality, however many it's manifestations.

Now you could argue men are both mentally *and* physically stronger than women. But logic and strength are not the same thing.

This is probably one of the most incomprehensible things I've read on RVF.

Most men can overcome their hamsters. That is why they are different from women. Women will NEVER overcome their hamster, it is too ingrained into their psyche.

This means that most men can understand when they are doing something wrong.

Let's say a man cheats with his neighbor's wife. You could go tell him what he did was wrong. "Yes, but she was hot." See? No hamster involved. He admits his wrongdoing, and does not try to explain it away.

Put the woman in the same situation. "Oh, I cheated on my lousy good for nothing husband because he hasn't been paying attention to me."

"I saw him flirt with a cashier, I think he's cheating on me."

"He forgot to give my sister a birthday gift, fuck him."

Etc. etc. Women never admit fault, women do not like to think of themselves as bad, they will always, always, always rationalize their actions so they are in the right. That is what the hamster does, that is how emotions work.

Thank you sir and I hope I've cleared up some things for you.

[WestCoast]

Acting on emotion and rationalizing an action isn't the same.

Everyone on this forum has made a poor decision based on emotion be it in a relationship/work environment/school/friends etc.

Rationalizing ALL decisions is a heavily female trait. There was a thread on "male hamsters" as well on here but i couldn't find it using search, believe Roosh started it. Anyway, Some examples were rationalizing leaving a girl better off than she was before meeting you and not really causing harm to society.

(On a side note, don't think this is game related, should be in the EE side since it doesn't really help any of us get girls)

[Sargon of Akkad]

(02-06-2013 03:59 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

This is probably one of the most incomprehensible things I've read on RVF.

Most men can overcome their hamsters. That is why they are different from women. Women will NEVER overcome their hamster, it is too ingrained into their psyche.

This means that most men can understand when they are doing something wrong.

Let's say a man cheats with his neighbor's wife. You could go tell him what he did was wrong. "Yes, but she was hot." See? No hamster involved. He admits his wrongdoing, and does not try to explain it away.

Put the woman in the same situation. "Oh, I cheated on my lousy good for nothing husband because he hasn't been paying attention to me."

"I saw him flirt with a cashier, I think he's cheating on me."

"He forgot to give my sister a birthday gift, fuck him."

Etc. etc. Women never admit fault, women do not like to think of themselves as bad, they will always, always, always rationalize their actions so they are in the right. That is what the hamster does, that is how emotions work.

Thank you sir and I hope I've cleared up some things for you.

I doubt there's any reliable empirical evidence to back this up.

The only thing people who make these claims usually have to support them are vague anectotes about irrational women they've known in life. Most likely, this is subject to strong confirmation bias.

I'm sure you can come up with many anectotes showing me that men/women are inherently more/less rational than women/men, and I could probably come up with just as many examples of the opposite.

I realise this will probably make me sound like a prick, but there are quite a few claims being made here about neurology and human biology, among others, none of which (as far as I know) are accepted by mainstream science. Without actual peer-reviewed data, there's no real difference between the claim that women are biologically and/or socially hardwired to be less capable of logic than men and the claim that blacks are genetically hardwired to be less intelligent than whites, or that Jews are biologically hardwired to be greedy.

Anectotes and "life experience" can be used to justify practically anything as long as you want to believe it badly enough. The folks at Stormfront probably do this all the time.

Just my two cents.

[No Habit]

Quote:

there's no real difference between the claim that women are biologically and/or socially hardwired to be less capable of logic than men and the claim that blacks are genetically hardwired to be less intelligent than whites, or that Jews are biologically hardwired to be greedy.

Yea but it's accepted by mainstream science that I got a dick and bitch got not, you understand ? People should stop making everything the same. We are not stating women are bad and we don't hate them. We are stating that they are different than men. And they act different than men, and we try to peep this behaviour to get pussy.

[scorpion]

(02-06-2013 04:28 PM)Sargon of Akkad Wrote:  

I doubt there's any reliable empirical evidence to back this up.

The only thing people who make these claims usually have to support them are vague anectotes about irrational women they've known in life. Most likely, this is subject to strong confirmation bias.

I'm sure you can come up with many anectotes showing me that men/women are inherently more/less rational than women/men, and I could probably come up with just as many examples of the opposite.

I realise this will probably make me sound like a prick, but there are quite a few claims being made here about neurology and human biology, among others, none of which (as far as I know) are accepted by mainstream science. Without actual peer-reviewed data, there's no real difference between the claim that women are biologically and/or socially hardwired to be less capable of logic than men and the claim that blacks are genetically hardwired to be less intelligent than whites, or that Jews are biologically hardwired to be greedy.

Anectotes and "life experience" can be used to justify practically anything as long as you want to believe it badly enough. The folks at Stormfront probably do this all the time.

Just my two cents.

You need a study to confirm what color the sky is today?

Or how about whether or not it's raining outside?

Is your confidence in your own judgment really so lacking that you need a scientist to confirm what you see with your own eyes, and what the documented experiences of millions of other men relate on a daily basis?

To ignore issues of inherently different brain structures entirely, the fact is that women have entirely different hormonal profiles than men. These hormones effect their decision making and significantly increase the prevalence of mood swings in women, which makes them more prone to irrational thinking and behavior.

http://women.webmd.com/guide/estrogen-an...s-emotions

There's also the fact that women use antidepressants at 2.5x the rate that men do: http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/astou...1110203624

I could sit here and link shit like this all day.

On average, women are ruled by their emotions to a greater extent than men. In addition to being plainly true to any man with decent experience with women, that statement is no more scientifically controversial than, "The earth revolves around the Sun."

[Samseau]

(02-06-2013 04:28 PM)Sargon of Akkad Wrote:  

(02-06-2013 03:59 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

This is probably one of the most incomprehensible things I've read on RVF.

Most men can overcome their hamsters. That is why they are different from women. Women will NEVER overcome their hamster, it is too ingrained into their psyche.

This means that most men can understand when they are doing something wrong.

Let's say a man cheats with his neighbor's wife. You could go tell him what he did was wrong. "Yes, but she was hot." See? No hamster involved. He admits his wrongdoing, and does not try to explain it away.

Put the woman in the same situation. "Oh, I cheated on my lousy good for nothing husband because he hasn't been paying attention to me."

"I saw him flirt with a cashier, I think he's cheating on me."

"He forgot to give my sister a birthday gift, fuck him."

Etc. etc. Women never admit fault, women do not like to think of themselves as bad, they will always, always, always rationalize their actions so they are in the right. That is what the hamster does, that is how emotions work.

Thank you sir and I hope I've cleared up some things for you.

I doubt there's any reliable empirical evidence to back this up.

The only thing people who make these claims usually have to support them are vague anectotes about irrational women they've known in life. Most likely, this is subject to strong confirmation bias.

I'm sure you can come up with many anectotes showing me that men/women are inherently more/less rational than women/men, and I could probably come up with just as many examples of the opposite.

I realise this will probably make me sound like a prick, but there are quite a few claims being made here about neurology and human biology, among others, none of which (as far as I know) are accepted by mainstream science. Without actual peer-reviewed data, there's no real difference between the claim that women are biologically and/or socially hardwired to be less capable of logic than men and the claim that blacks are genetically hardwired to be less intelligent than whites, or that Jews are biologically hardwired to be greedy.

Anectotes and "life experience" can be used to justify practically anything as long as you want to believe it badly enough. The folks at Stormfront probably do this all the time.

Just my two cents.

Game has never been empirically verified by peer-reviewed research either, yet here you are on a game forum.

I personally can't stand it when people use science as the end-all-be-all of a discussion. It shows some strong ignorance of scientific history.

Just about every great discovery in the history of mankind was not scientific. Science only comes along later to verify what other men had been using.

Einstein and Bohr both made their theories before they tested them.

So did Darwin and Gregor Mendel. As did Copernicus and Galileo.

Every single great scientific discovery was a product of imagination or a complete accident (penicillin, anyone?).

The problem is that science is never separate from politics.

The reason we cannot conduct scientific studies to prove that women are prone to emotional rationalization is because the feminists will not allow such studies to be conducted. Feminists will block any funding at any attempts to do so, and feminists will claim sexism anytime anyone tries to do so. Feminists will do their best to get rid of any studies that prove women are inferior, and shut down anyone who criticizes women in any way.

The same is true of Stormfront. I bet you most members on this board believe there are genetic differences between races, just like they do on Stormfront. What separates RVF from Stormfront is a huge difference in morality; Stormfront uses these differences as justification to hate and punish certain races over others, while people here at RVF accept differences with a grain of salt.

Yet "mainstream science" (a bullshit term if there ever was one - groundbreaking science is never mainstream) will say there is no empirical differences between races, even though any attempts at conducting research in this area is blocked and subsequently labeled as racism or whatever.

It's the same as when the Church imprisoned Galileo and silenced Copernicus. Same shit, bigger shovel.

Another good example of scientific bullshit is the lack of studies surrounding testosterone replacement therapy. Despite countless examples of older men being revitalized from testosterone treatments, it has taken decades before any serious research was even attempted in this area.

Today's science is corrupted, and should not be trusted. Science only confirms what the more intelligent men (and it is always men) figure out before everyone else.

[Menace]

(02-06-2013 05:07 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Game has never been empirically verified by peer-reviewed research either, yet here you are on a game forum.

Actually, I think there is a subtantial body of science that demonstrates many of the precepts of game. There are numerous posts on Heartiste that discuss this topic, actually there is one today on compliance and attraction.

I think the difference between male hamsters and female hamsters is that male hamsters are a bug and female hamsters are a feature.

[Samseau]

(02-06-2013 05:12 PM)Menace Wrote:  

(02-06-2013 05:07 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Game has never been empirically verified by peer-reviewed research either, yet here you are on a game forum.

Actually, I think there is a subtantial body of science that demonstrates many of the precepts of game. There are numerous posts on Heartiste that discuss this topic, actually there is one today on compliance and attraction.

Not to rain on Heartiste's parade, but the studies he presents have such ambiguous findings that they could be interpreted in a hundred ways. I agree with that Heartiste shows some scientific findings which support Game precepts, but nothing of the "smoking gun" sort.

Nor will you for a long time - Game won't be scientifically verified until feminists are out of power.

[OkStudies]

(02-06-2013 03:59 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

This is probably one of the most incomprehensible things I've read on RVF.

Most men can overcome their hamsters. That is why they are different from women. Women will NEVER overcome their hamster, it is too ingrained into their psyche.

This means that most men can understand when they are doing something wrong.

Let's say a man cheats with his neighbor's wife. You could go tell him what he did was wrong. "Yes, but she was hot." See? No hamster involved. He admits his wrongdoing, and does not try to explain it away.

Put the woman in the same situation. "Oh, I cheated on my lousy good for nothing husband because he hasn't been paying attention to me."

"I saw him flirt with a cashier, I think he's cheating on me."

"He forgot to give my sister a birthday gift, fuck him."

Etc. etc. Women never admit fault, women do not like to think of themselves as bad, they will always, always, always rationalize their actions so they are in the right. That is what the hamster does, that is how emotions work.

Thank you sir and I hope I've cleared up some things for you.

Incomprehensible? You can't read?

Samseau, fucking nothing that you typed had a shred of research, science or evidence to back it up but I'm incomprehensible? When I gave two peer-reviewed references, you did'nt give jack shit. Just personal anecdotes and your own opinions, but your view is somehow superior to mine? Like assholes, everybody has an opinion. Bring some fucking facts.

Talk about fucking irony.

Men can "overcome" their hamster because it is in their interest to do so, their pain will be lessened. Not doing so won't help them get laid. It's the opposite for women. When it starts being dis-advantageous or uncomfortable for women to excessively rationalize and delude themselves, you will quickly see their behavior change.

^ That is precisely the environment "game" creates. It causes them to re-adjust their perceptions (i.e. see reality for what it is). This is in effect what is behind "negging", frame control, humor etc.

I'll say it again, there is nothing inherently "masculine" about rationality. Delusion is not an inherently "female" trait. It is inherently part of the human condition. Human consciousness *is* prone to delusion, male or female.

[scorpion]

(02-07-2013 12:14 AM)OkStudies Wrote:  

(02-06-2013 03:59 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

This is probably one of the most incomprehensible things I've read on RVF.

Most men can overcome their hamsters. That is why they are different from women. Women will NEVER overcome their hamster, it is too ingrained into their psyche.

This means that most men can understand when they are doing something wrong.

Let's say a man cheats with his neighbor's wife. You could go tell him what he did was wrong. "Yes, but she was hot." See? No hamster involved. He admits his wrongdoing, and does not try to explain it away.

Put the woman in the same situation. "Oh, I cheated on my lousy good for nothing husband because he hasn't been paying attention to me."

"I saw him flirt with a cashier, I think he's cheating on me."

"He forgot to give my sister a birthday gift, fuck him."

Etc. etc. Women never admit fault, women do not like to think of themselves as bad, they will always, always, always rationalize their actions so they are in the right. That is what the hamster does, that is how emotions work.

Thank you sir and I hope I've cleared up some things for you.

Incomprehensible? You can't read?

Samseau, fucking nothing that you typed had a shred of research, science or evidence to back it up but I'm incomprehensible? When I gave two peer-reviewed references, you did'nt give jack shit. Just personal anecdotes and your own opinions, but your view is somehow superior to mine? Like assholes, everybody has an opinion. Bring some fucking facts.

Talk about fucking irony.

Men can "overcome" their hamster because it is in their interest to do so, their pain will be lessened. Not doing so won't help them get laid. It's the opposite for women. When it starts being dis-advantageous or uncomfortable for women to excessively rationalize and delude themselves, you will quickly see their behavior change.

^ That is precisely the environment "game" creates. It causes them to re-adjust their perceptions (i.e. see reality for what it is). This is in effect what is behind "negging", frame control, humor etc.

I'll say it again, there is nothing inherently "masculine" about rationality. Delusion is not an inherently "female" trait. It is inherently part of the human condition. Human consciousness *is* prone to delusion, male or female.

Eagerly awaiting Samseau's destruction of your laughable, semi-coherent ramblings. I'd do it myself but since you called him out he deserves first crack. I don't want to take anything away from the rhetorical thumping you're about to receive.

But you can at least take heart that you've quite convinced me of the existence of the male hamster through the willful ignorance of reality you've displayed in this thread. Well done. It's almost so perfect it could be considered some kind of forum performance art...make a thread arguing in favor of the existence of the male hamster, and prove it not through the power of your argument itself, but through the sheer inanity of your own posting, which is so ridiculous as to leave no alternative that it could be anything but hamster-fueled.

[OkStudies]

^ One quick and easy question, which I'm sure you should be able to answer:

What *exactly* in any of my posts in this thread consisted of "ignoring reality"?

Be specific. If you can.

Thanks.

[soup]

(02-06-2013 05:28 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(02-06-2013 05:12 PM)Menace Wrote:  

(02-06-2013 05:07 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Game has never been empirically verified by peer-reviewed research either, yet here you are on a game forum.

Actually, I think there is a subtantial body of science that demonstrates many of the precepts of game. There are numerous posts on Heartiste that discuss this topic, actually there is one today on compliance and attraction.

Not to rain on Heartiste's parade, but the studies he presents have such ambiguous findings that they could be interpreted in a hundred ways. I agree with that Heartiste shows some scientific findings which support Game precepts, but nothing of the "smoking gun" sort.

Nor will you for a long time - Game won't be scientifically verified until feminists are out of power.

The science is in the results. I think you mean that game won't be pop/socially acceptable/recognized until feminists are out of the picture. And anyway, when do feminists really take science seriously?

I'd be curious to hear more of your critique on Heartiste.

[Samseau]

(02-07-2013 12:14 AM)OkStudies Wrote:  

Samseau, fucking nothing that you typed had a shred of research, science or evidence to back it up but I'm incomprehensible? When I gave two peer-reviewed references, you did'nt give jack shit. Just personal anecdotes and your own opinions, but your view is somehow superior to mine? Like assholes, everybody has an opinion. Bring some fucking facts.

Nothing you posted had any research either. You linked one article, and it wasn't scientific at all; it was just some reported findings that women are testing at the same level as boys are in math, at high school levels.

That's not science - do you even understand what science is? Science involves controlling as many variables as possible in order to determine a cause of a particular phenomena.

How many variables are unaccounted for in your pathetic study that you linked?

1. Have high school math curriculum's become easier in the past twenty years, allowing women to do better? Also, if everyone scores 100 then that doesn't show men and women are performing equally, it shows that men aren't allowed to excel because there is a ceiling on performance.

2. Are boys being drugged up on tons of drugs while young permanently damaging their cognitive function as they grow older? Boys are fed pills more than girls are.

3. Are schools biased in making sure the performance of girls are top notch while not giving a shit about boys performance? I.e. Are girls purposely receiving more attention and higher quality education than boys?

Really, if you think that article was scientific then you don't have an inkling of what science is.

Quote:

Men can "overcome" their hamster because it is in their interest to do so, their pain will be lessened. Not doing so won't help them get laid. It's the opposite for women. When it starts being dis-advantageous or uncomfortable for women to excessively rationalize and delude themselves, you will quickly see their behavior change.

You don't get it - even if it was advantageous for women to overcome their hamster, they wouldn't do it because they are incapable of doing so.

Try going to a young girl and telling her that 90% of her eggs will be gone by the time she's 30. Tell me if she decides to get married young because of that fact.

Quote:

^ That is precisely the environment "game" creates. It causes them to re-adjust their perceptions (i.e. see reality for what it is). This is in effect what is behind "negging", frame control, humor etc.

No. Game works by getting the female hamster to work in your favor. By exerting strong frame control you make her submit to the man, which in turn she then rationalizes via her hamster as feelings of attraction for you.

Fun fact - if you're trying to fuck a girl, and you don't fuck her, she tells herself that because she didn't fuck you she didn't like you. But if you were to go back in time and fuck that girl, she'll rationalize to herself that she fucked you because she liked you.

Until someone builds a time machine, we can't test this, but I'm 100% confident it is the truth. My experience with women tells me so; girls I fuck immediately have a more positive view of me than girls I fail to fuck.

Girls do not act out of principle or reason, they act out of emotions in the moment and then make up reasons afterwards to explain their actions.

Quote:

I'll say it again, there is nothing inherently "masculine" about rationality.

Other than the fact that 99% of all great inventions, books, and discoveries were done by men? You trollin bro?

It would be like if I said to you, "being strong is masculine", and then you said, "well some girls are strong therefore there's nothing masculine about being strong." Incomprehensible.

Quote:

Delusion is not an inherently "female" trait. It is inherently part of the human condition. Human consciousness *is* prone to delusion, male or female.

Delusion is the natural state of humans, but it is possible for men, and only men, to overcome it.

[WestCoast]

In all seriousness what was the point of the original topic?

If this is an argument that men rationalize just as much as women then this is a blatant