Category Archives: deborah tannen

Relationship has become a form of Asymmetric Warfare.


In this blog we are going to discuss the current state of relationship between men and women in this country based on shifting ideologies, socially created incentives,  views of sexes that are being reified, general properties of male and female perspectives, and natural instincts, strategies, and judgments of society and those sexes.

This is a difficult topic to discuss because unlike other countries that accept that men and women are different there has been a century long successful campaign in this country to blur the lines between men and women while at the same time marginalizing men and promoting women.  This means that we don’t have the vocabulary to discuss the topic, the topic itself is unfamiliar, and their is a social taboo on the topic itself, that topic being left for certain people to discuss in dark corners and by making back door deals and choosing what is good for everybody to be allowed think.


Relationship seems like a simple enough thing.  One man one woman, but we find that is not actually the case.  There is a playing field of public opinion and normalcy that is slanted in favor of the woman.  Western Society itself has a feminine bias which we are going to examine.

In cultures where survival is difficult masculine values dominate, in cultures where survival is easy female values dominate.  What are female values, you say?  Mercy and Charity.  Millions of years of Neural Myelination create the instincts of the female mind.  Nature has compartmentalized male and female minds to focus on two different subjects, survival (male) and Procreation (female). The female mind edits its consideration set to focus on the things that it likes, that make it feel good and it expands and increases it’s authority by usurping masculine authority in the form of reason.

Women are attracted to the most alpha man (they can control) in the largest group of people that they like.  This is herding instinct.  They feel safer because of the size of the herd and then upon starting a relationship with a man in good standing in that herd, they instantaneously have status and recognition in that herd.  But the female mind is more self interested in relationship, being that it’s instinct is to enter into relationship for it’s own benefit, not mutual benefit.  This happens because women need the surplus created by men to care for their children, they are weak when they are pregnant and the also need a safe environment for taking care of the children.  So the female mind has an incentive to have a child and then protect the child, to do this she needs the resources and participation of other people.  But the female mind is more sympathetic to the child and herself than it is to the man she is in relationship with.  So women are aggressive in relationship but also submissive to the herd.  From the woman’s perspective she is more part of the herd than she is part of the relationship and when she can’t get what she wants from the relationship she will go outside the relationship to enlist the peer pressure of others to put pressure on her male partner to give her what she feels she deserves or what she wants, when she does this she weakens her mates reputation in the herd.

Babies start out as whiny emotional creatures, completely Dependant on everybody to do everything for them.  They communicate no analytical data and only emotional data, for this reason the female mind was created to interpret the babies emotional data and communicate emotional data to the child.  From the mother’s perspective the emotional perspective of the child is valid, as it has to be for the survival of the species.  But this also means that the mother’s perspective itself is more emotional and less analytical which is why feminine reasoning appeals to emotions, makes certain logical appeals, throws histrionic fits to get its way and engages in other irrational behaviors.  The babies perspective, is completely delusional as far as the world is concerned because it would immediately perish on it’s own.  The mother’s perspective is slightly less so, still depending on the herd and her husband to protect and provide a surplus for her and an environment for her  with which she can take care of the baby.  The existence of the baby reifies the authority of the mother in the form of mercy and charity for the baby.  The female mind edits it’s consideration set to focus on things that please it and make sense to it.  Puppies, babies, kittens, relationship, poor people, victims, anybody that she can expand her authority over and usurp the authority of reason.

If men and women are the same, as some people argue, why are men thought of as bad for wanting what they want (sex) and women are thought of as good for wanting what they want (children)?  Why since this world is so massively over populated does society not think of women as evil for reproducing irresponsibly?  If men and women are the same, why is society so hostile to masculine opinions and so accepting of feminine reasoning and emotional appeals?  Why does society tolerate more violent and insane behavior from women then it will from men?  Why is society less concerned for the fate of men than it is for women?  Why is it that society is more concerned about breast cancer than it is for Veterans that have fought and bled for the country and risked their lives and their health?  Because Western Society itself has a feminine bias.


A brief description of female communication rituals is as follows:

  1. the conversation proceeds pleasantly and ends pleasantly.
  2. the conversation ends in the appearance of agreement.
  3. Women communicate sameness.
  4. If it isn’t pleasant you can’t say it.

The problem is the way this conversation style edits it’s consideration set and application set.  It is possible to lie, or to be passive aggressive.  The female mind being more psychopathic is less capable of detecting the psychopath because it defends against the sociopath (male mind) which can be demonstrated by masculine communication rituals and how women are hostile to male communication.

When a society forces political correctness, it counter incentivizes masculine thought and solutions, it also fails to detect the strategic behavior of psychopaths that are gaming society, by lying, concealing their true intention and motivation and manipulating others or stealing from them.

Women have double and triple standards.  Women are tacitly arrogant, in that they view femininity superior to masculinity.  Even though they depend on the surplus created by male minds they like being what they are, they don’t realize that the male minds and the herd have to be successful first before their is a surplus to satisfy their needs.  If a man uses female communication rituals a woman can interpret that as he is admitting that women are superior.  If a man tries to get a woman to speak as a man, she will either refuse to participate, lie, or try to communicate that she is dominant by being abusive, if he accelerates the situation to get her to submit at some point she acts like the victim and goes outside the relationship. Some women, tacitly believing in their superiority, frame male minds as childish minds, and try to manipulate men as a mother does a child.  Trying to get him to take a course of action and making him think it was his idea.  I call this jingling the keys.  The female mind tries to control the focal point of the conversation and then communicates emotional data to the male to control how he is in relationship with the topic emotionally.  This tactic is very effective on way too many males.


Millions of years of Neural Myelination have hardwired certain behaviors and strategies into feminine instinct.  Women want to appear submissive to the herd, so they adopt an intellectual camouflage in the form of agreeing with the social norms.  Whatever society thinks is true about black people, white men, women, Mexicans, Muslims, or what have you, women in general will adopt the most common perspective.  Not just women but psychopaths and female minds.  You see this every day in the form of the P.C. Police that presuppose their own authority to judge and punish anybody that doesn’t agree with the common opinion.  Champions of normalcy and enemies of freedom of speech and individuality.  You got the “Cool Honky” who thinks he is the only one who is down with the black people and tries to act as a mediator and an expert on the topic.  Or you have the “White Knight” who will police conversations between men about women.  They conversation block, or through histrionic fits, or make emotional appeals, or complain to other people in the herd to manipulate your reputation and standing in the herd.

Women/female minds/psychopaths are innate social climbers.  They enter into a large herd and try to climb as high as they can get using various strategies.  Since they have to get “up there” they have to push others down, so they will attack pre-emptively because they need to get “up there” as fast as they can and they have unwarranted, innate, feelings of superiority.  Instead of using a masculine, democratic, horizontal communication process, they use tyrannical, vertical, female communication processes.

mcr fce


Imagine for a moment that you have put together a fraternity of a successful group of people.  Everything is working out fine and then you decide to add a woman, nothing bad happens so you decide to add another women.  Because of the way women reason, relate and think this is what happens.


This isn’t an isolated incident, it happens all of the time.  A good looking woman goes to a grocery store, finds the biggest most pussy starved gomer that dotes on her and caters to her every whim and then complains that other team members are giving her bad service when they don’t treat her like he does.  And then Helga Unibrow shows up.


Women and psychopaths take advantage of the way things appear to game and manipulate society, and to win against reason.  Recently in Ferguson one advocate said, “it’s not enough that things are right they have to look right.”  This is an appeal to what I refer to as the female mind, Superficial, Aesthetic, Snap decisions without understanding or reason.  When we cater to the Aesthitics of the uninformed or stupid you unleash the Lowest Common Good, not the Highest Common Good that is released when people exert an influence on themselves to be reasonable.

When you scale a government down so that all of women’s needs are satisfied and given priority over men’s so that women don’t rely on relationship to satisfy them, what happens is that the female mind keeps editing it’s consideration set.  The psychopath and the female mind try to maximize the amount of return while minimizing their investment.  When you change the playing field to suit women that becomes the norm, which becomes the expectation, which is then taken for granted.  Women being natural social climbers, unconscious of their instincts and behavior and incapable of self discipline or self scrutiny will just raise the level of their expectations, as they are doing right now.  Women as a group are more inclined to reward only, and men to punish only.  For men the reward is that you did it right and you get to live, they expect you to be reasonable because it is about success and survival, this is not enough for women, they also have to have a support group and like children they have to be bribed with pleasant words and candy in order to do the right thing, and then they have to be encouraged afterward.

Women in western society treat men as if they are disposable, now that they make as much or more then men they still date men that can buy them nice things.  Now that women don’t need men, they show less interest and arousal for them.  Women act as though it is some manner of accomplishment to not be attracted sexually to men.  This is just a natural outcropping of society stigmatizing them and diminishing their role and constantly humiliating them.  Some women only date men who will let them dominate the relationship.  Some women only date men that chase them, compete with other men, and make them the center of attention.  None of this impresses me, what impresses me is a woman who has good taste in men and pursues one pointedly that which she wants.  What impresses me is a rational woman.


The other interesting thing is that while western civilized men are not allowed to exert an influence on their women because of societal judgments, Western Society turns a blind eye to cultures that are tribal and do control their women.  Black people as a culture are for more likely to view a Black woman dating a white man as a race traitor.  In the Mexican culture, males sons have a say in who their sister dates, and they are more controlling of their women.  The Muslim culture even in the united states still kills their daughters for having intercourse with Non-muslim men.  If it isn’t strictly frowned on it is downright forbidden.  But none of this enters the consideration set of the Western Female because she only cares about herself and getting what she wants.  And from the perspective of the western mind, this kind of behavior gets categorized as requiring charity and mercy, it falls into the protected category of children and women, it’s just part of their culture, they don’t know any better. . .

The Comparison Set in my Profiles.

Leonardo-da-Vinci-Vitruvian-ManWhen I am constructing a psychological profile on a person, which I do on everybody I am in relationship with, I compare the individual to the rational man, based on every exchange, action, and word.  I am sure that many people will react negatively to this idea, and that is a reflection of the impoverished state of reason and relationship which has become the norm in todays world.

It seems obvious to me that we would want to intimately understand the people that we are in relationship with, but relationships have deteriorated into superficial, personality addictions, we like someone not because of who they are but because of how they make us feel, based on the way they look or someone or something they remind us of.  People are playing characters, they aren’t being honest or authentic.  Nowadays both people in the relationship are acting like they are something they are not.

buddhaIn my psychological models, no action is necessary, so every action is meaningful. You eat because you want to live, etc.  Being that their are two types of behaviors rational and irrational there are also two types of minds, male and female or sociopathic and psychopathic.  Every interaction creates an end that is either sociopathic or psychopathic (based on how I define those terms).  Whereas, a rational person can remain consistently rational, a psychopathic person must act psychopathicly (irrationally) in order to do their will.  They think this makes them smart and unpredictable but just the opposite is true.  It is because they can’t behave rationally that they are predictable, they will try to take some unfair advantage, they will attack, they will not have a reason, and they will not warn that they are about to attack, of this you can be sure.

A reasonable person can only be defined in relationship, in relationship with reality, in relationship with other people, in conversation.  Shared states are participation, agreement, conversation, and understanding.  


Also, it depends on the environment itself, is the environment rational?  is the other person rational or are they being strategic.  To remain rational while the other person is being irrational is irrational because it is unsustainable.

A rational relationship has to be sustainable, it has to succeed, it has to create a surplus of value, not a deficit (which is to say it has to create more value than it consumes).  It has to allow all parties to do their will.  No person in the group can be given more value from the group than is sustainable based on their contribution to the group.  A rational relationship has to increase the value of the members and the members have to increase their ability to create value for the rational relationship.  This presupposes that in this rational relationship, which we eventually see is a philoish, or a philosophical family, people learn, they grow, they teach, they only relate to one another in a positive and educational way, not in a negative strategic way.  You increase the value of those around you.  You help them become rational and get better results in the world.  This is the relationship of all relationships, the original perfect idea of relationship.

Everything said can have value in one of 3 ways, it is true, it is useful, and it makes you feel better.  Of these 3 the least valuable is making you feel better, this is true of female minds including children, and they irrationally esteem this communication of positive emotional data over the other three.  Children are irrational, emotional creatures, so it is necessary to communicate to them positive emotional data that is not always true or useful until they get to an age when they are capable of being non-delusionally in relationship with reality.  This makes more sense to the female mind than it does to the male mind, because as Deborah Tannen says women ventriloquize, interpreting to the husband the emotional data communicated by the child.  Evolution compartmentalized the female mind to be more interested in and sympathetic with babies.  From the female perspective the emotional/irrational reasoning of the child is more valid than it is to the male mind which is more interested on survival.  But the end result of both instincts determines whether the relationship is rational or not.

When I build my psychological models, every deviation from reason communicates to me something about the person I am in relationship with or conversation with.  Does the person identify with reason?  If reason is their highest good, then reason informs their behavior and narrative.  How and when they deviate from rational relationship leaves traces, clues as to who they are, their psyche, their soul, how they are in relationship with the world and the individuals in the world, rationally or delusionally, authentically or strategically, psychopathicly or sociopathicly.