A philosophy for arguing with wives

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Duncan Butlin
Posts: 185
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 12:33 am
Location: Chichester, West Sussex, UK
Contact:

Re: A philosophy for arguing with wives

Post by Duncan Butlin »

Vegetariantaxidermy --- Are you sure this is not a ‘dating site’ of sorts? I for one enjoyed hearing about Kayla’s ass and being thought ‘cute’ by a couple of guys. If some lady found me and my ideas attractive I’d be over the moon. Back in 2008 it was several ladies and none of the men who endorsed some of my theories on this forum (led by ArtisticSolution) and I bragged about it to all and sundry. So come on ladies, how about a drink at the bar?
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9295
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: A philosophy for arguing with wives

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Duncan Butlin wrote: Wed Sep 12, 2018 9:40 am Vegetariantaxidermy --- Are you sure this is not a ‘dating site’ of sorts? I for one enjoyed hearing about Kayla’s ass and being thought ‘cute’ by a couple of guys. If some lady found me and my ideas attractive I’d be over the moon. Back in 2008 it was several ladies and none of the men who endorsed some of my theories on this forum (led by ArtisticSolution) and I bragged about it to all and sundry. So come on ladies, how about a drink at the bar?
I suppose that's the idea. I mean, it seems to be included in every post; how 'cute' she is, but 'hands off boys, I'm into chicks (even though men think I'm a cute lil thing and I frequently get hounded by Playboy to pose)' blah, blah.... It's just annoying.
User avatar
Kayla
Posts: 1217
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 6:31 am

Re: A philosophy for arguing with wives

Post by Kayla »

you get annoyed easily lol
IvoryBlackBishop
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:55 pm

Re: A philosophy for arguing with wives

Post by IvoryBlackBishop »

Duncan Butlin wrote: Mon Aug 13, 2018 11:55 pm Gentlemen, please stand down -- I must first speak to my lady readers. Forgive me, ladies, but I am not going to be paying much attention to you. I am more than delighted to have you as my readers, and you may very well be the key to my success, but you know most of what I am going to say already. Anyway, as you know, it is all men’s fault. Please do not feel too smug as I reveal the full horror of what men have been up to. I suspect that far more of you women than men will read me to the end, for men will be feeling very uncomfortable. Nevertheless, it is to men I must address myself. It is they who must change if things are to be put right. There is a summary for you at the end. Until then please stand back as I try to clear their minds.

Right, gentlemen, put your minds into gear. We men have far too high an opinion of philosophy and rational discourse. Women know better. A husband cannot use reason to confront his wife. If he fails to win a rational argument within ten seconds he is lost. He may argue forever, but he is never going to win. If he gets angry that is another matter, but that is no solution for a reasonable man. Not only is she far better than he at presenting arguments that appear logical, but at any point in the proceedings she is prepared to up the ante. Suddenly, if she is losing, he will find they are no longer going to have dinner together. If the tone of her voice rises, they are not going to have sex that night.

Philosophers in the past realised this and steered clear of the subject. A man’s most important argument is with his wife, and yet the arbiters of argument techniques shunned it. It is perhaps ten percent of all the arguments he will ever have. Surely one or two philosophers could have assigned ten percent of their time to the subject? A goodly proportion of that ten percent should have been ways to help the husband win. They could have listed argument techniques that proved successful in the past, counter arguments she might deploy, warnings of her tricks, and ways of coping with the inevitable defeat.

So how do our philosophers measure up? They are a total disaster. Not one single one in the whole wide world has ever written anything to help a man win arguments with his wife. Ways to ignore her, ways to criticise her, ways to demean her, yes -- but never, ever how to persuade her. Considering our philosophers’ hubris (and their sex), this is nothing short of treachery. From a man’s point-of-view. We will come to the women’s point-of-view in the end.

Unfortunately, as history progressed, philosophy’s performance in this regard deteriorated. True, some philosophers did boost men, but wives pay little attention to self-important husbands. Aristotle, who knew men should rule the world, had a special name for strong leaders: Megalopsychos -- proud, magnanimous man. This did not impress their wives. As a result, poor old Megalopsychos has been consigned to the scrapheap of history.

Cato the Elder in 213 bc made a splendid attempt to warn men: "Suffer woman once to be your equal, and from that day forth she will be your master". But, because he did not mention wives specifically, men missed the point. Unfortunately women did not: equality is now their key strategy for bringing men down. Quintus Tertullianus, Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Carlyle -- all damned men with faint praise.

Having thus far failed to rescue men, philosophers retreated. Instead of boosting men, they decided to criticise women instead. This, of course, is a total disaster for our benighted husband. It will only make her angry. Arthur Schopenhauer, Friedrich Nietzsche, Otto Weininger -- all failed to recognise women’s strengths, all made half-hearted attempts to criticise them, and all completely failed to confront them.

Arthur Schopenhauer, the most perceptive critic, shot himself in the foot. In the middle of his great diatribe against women (’On Women’), he advises that, in matters of difficulty, men should consult women. “To consult women in matters of difficulty, as the Germans used to do in old times, is by no means a matter to be overlooked; for their way of grasping a thing is quite different from ours, chiefly because they like the shortest way to the point, and usually keep their attention fixed upon what lies nearest … “. Traitor.

Friedrich Nietzsche, the most self-inflated critic, boosted men and criticised women, it is true, but then he directed men against the ‘slave mentality’ instead. That is no way to win a war. He did talk about the lowly status of women: “[Man] must always look on woman from the oriental standpoint:- as a possession, as private property, as something born to serve and be dependent on him.” But how to stop her rising up again? Nietzsche was silent.

Otto Weininger, the most unhinged critic, wanted to liberate women by changing them into men and stopping everyone having sex. Not a practical recipe for the future. Anyway, liberate women? Our poor husband will not even have an argument, let alone win it. She does not have to consult him when she is free to do as she pleases. “Man must free himself of sex, for in that way, and that way alone, can he free woman. In his purity, not, as she believes, in his impurity, lies her salvation. She must certainly be destroyed, as woman; but only to be raised again from the ashes - new, restored to youth - as a real human being.” Cato must have been turning in his grave.

Most ignominiously of all, having completely failed to engage women in any meaningful way, modern philosophers decided to appease women instead. I know it sounds crazy, but yes, they joined women in their fight against men. The husband is completely betrayed. His wife now has a plethora of male-generated arguments with which to berate him. Gilles Deleuze, Jacques Lacan, and Michel Foucault … and finally Jacques Derrida. The leader of the feminists until he died. His ‘deconstructionism’ was simply the destruction of men. His terms ‘phallocentric dogmatism’ and ‘phallocrat’ became key weapons in the feminist arsenal.

In 1997 I confronted him with this over the phone, and he agreed to read my diatribe. Over the phone again one week later, I asked if he had received it: “Yes, Mr. Butlin, I have.” “Well, do you see any merit in it?”, I asked. He went silent … and then, very slowly, he replied: “Mr. Butlin, you have disturbed me deeply”. He knew I had rumbled him, and he had no idea how to answer me. His treachery in the form of postmodernism has now undermined the Western world.

Poor husband. After two thousand five hundred years of male philosophy, philosophy has all but destroyed him. And where were all the female philosophers? They were the ones who so effectively redirected the male philosophers’ attention away from women. They defeated men before the philosophising began.

* * *

To speak seriously for a moment, I am sure you think the idea of men joining women to fight men (in other words to fight themselves) is a little fanciful. And anyway, you say, even if Jacques Derrida promoted it, it was only philosophy. It would never make it to the real world. Wrong. Just consider the case of sexual harassment.

Western man now skates on thin ice.  He does not even have to look at a woman to be accused of sexually harassing her -- his presence suffices.  A woman, on the other hand, can strip naked in front of him (in private), put on an erotic display, and smile at him triumphantly. In law, there is absolutely nothing he can do about it. He probably does not want to, but that is besides the point. He should have society’s support if he needs it. Yet, however outrageously she acts, in the eyes of the law she can do no wrong. That is what I call real sexual harassment.  What is more, over the internet she can do far worse.  She can display her whole body, particularly her genitals, to the majority of men on earth -- on a nightly basis -- enticing them to masturbate their lives away.  Sexual harassment on this scale has serious implications for the future of mankind.

Men and women have created this unjust situation, by pushing policy only from the women’s point-of-view: incredibly, we are both trying to protect defenceless women, from predatory men. No-one is looking after men’s interests. Just as Jacques Derrida intended. Do not get me wrong, it is right that women should be attacking men vigorously -- it is the nature of the sex war -- but it is quite wrong for men to desert and go over to the other side.

In fact it is an utter disaster. When men attack themselves it stops their brains functioning. Men are meant to put limits on women’s behaviour, not liberate them -- women are far too good at liberating themselves already -- but, mesmerised by female sexuality, they have forgotten their duty. Remember, this is the same woman who prevented all those male philosophers from doing anything useful, for two thousand five hundred years. It is the same woman who harasses a large percentage of men every night. It is the same woman who will not feel like sex tonight, if you make her feel the slightest bit uncomfortable.

But gentlemen, you need not feel discouraged. There is real hope for your salvation. In figuring out what has been going on, I have also come up with a solution. Unfortunately, there is no room to tell you about it here, so it will have to wait for another time. Suffice it to say I have discovered, after all, a rational argument that works with women. An argument that men can occasionally win. In the meantime I leave you with the following saying, which summarises the situation (I will summarise for women afterwards).

“When men have too much power a dictator or male elite rules, women have no say, behaviour is exemplary, and progress stagnates. In balance men rule, women complain, behaviour is acceptable, and progress is orderly. When women have too much power, the market rules, both men and women complain, behaviour is chaotic, and progress runs out-of-control.”

Please decide which scenario fits best. But do not take too long. I fear there is little time left.

* * *

Finally, the women’s point-of-view. Here I am again, ladies. I am sure I do not need to explain things to you, but for the gentlemen I will spell it out. It can all be reduced to husband and wife. If a woman’s husband does not stand up to her (as no man dares to stand up to women in public nowadays), she cannot boost his confidence by helping him. She would be confronting herself on his behalf. Apart from damaging her own sanity, his dignity would suffer. No, somehow she has to get him to stand up by himself.

All you women know what to do, of course -- you have had cause to resort to this strategy far too often. You must act so badly, so outrageously, that finally he has to do something about it. Taunt him, flirt with other men, insult him in public, propound crazy feminist views, renege on agreements … until, finally, he wakes up and puts you in your place. Just for a little while. What a relief for everyone.

In public this is what the feminists have been doing all along, and they have been trying very hard indeed. Well done. As you see, you have already been using this ploy in public for thousands of years. Unfortunately, up to now it has only made matters worse. But stick with it for a few months longer, and, with my help, mankind will be magically resurrected. You have been very patient. I am honoured to have had your attention for so long. Thank you very much indeed.

* * *

Copyright © 2018 by Duncan Butlin

This copyright notice applies to all text and images in this essay, no matter the original date of creation.  Permission is hereby granted free of payment, to anyone to copy all or any portion of the essay, in any quantity, to any media they like.  I am honoured if anyone reads my writing, and overwhelmed should anyone decide to share it with others.  Good luck, and thank you very much indeed.


my website: https://sites.google.com/site/suffrageurbutlin/
This is childish nonsense which belongs on Jerry Springer or Maury.

The purpose of an "argument" (unless it's just arguing, bickering, or fighting for the sake of arguing) is to resolve a conflict or come to an agreement about something; this isn't relevant to any 'serious' woman in any 'serious' setting (which are the only ones who matter), such as a woman lawyer or judge in a court of law with something akin to formal or standardized procedures.

(Much as there is no such thing as a "mathematically" perfect way" to communicate anyway, whether one is using spoken or written language, sign language, etc - miscommunication and misinterpretation is always possible; as far as philosophy of language itself, that's not something I'd prefer to get into at the moment, as it's a deep subject.

As far as language and communication goes, a lot of it isn't based on "what is said", but how it is said; there may be difference in how men and women tend to argue, but I don't believe that this is relevant to the more fundamental principles; much as how even if there are "masculine" or "feminine" aspects of language or communication (e.x. tenses in certain languages), I don't believe that in practice, they are completely specific to "men" or "women", but are just merely linguistic or communicative aspects that exist to some degree or another in most or all communicative settings.
PeteJ
Posts: 426
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 1:15 pm

Re: A philosophy for arguing with wives

Post by PeteJ »

Duncan Butlin wrote: Mon Aug 13, 2018 11:55 pm Gentlemen, please stand down -- I must first speak to my lady readers.
Here's a great answer to a roughly sim8ilar question. Someone asks a question about 'the wife of a friend' at 31.30 and receives a wonderful answer.

https://youtu.be/XXxAjoSaNjk
Post Reply