Towards A Sceptical Manifesto

If we want to know What Women Want, you say, we should ask them? Really? Would they take men’s word for what men wanted? No, so let us return the compliment.

It will no doubt be accounted both strange and offensive that a mere (boo! hiss!) man should write a Part entitled What Women Want. For current doctrine is that only women may make such generalisations, whether about themselves or anything else. Is it then a universal principle that all reporting must be subjective, so that the aims and desires of each sex may lawfully be proclaimed only by the members thereof? Would it not then follow that only men may pontificate about what men want?

Absit omen! All decent, civilised people (by definition) are obliged to hold that men must remain silent on the subject of women, except to respect them humbly and to agree with them sycophantically; further that half the social discourse should consist of women explaining they want, while other half consists of women explaining what it is that men want, in both cases providing only such answers as are most discreditable to men and most creditable to themselves. So accustomed have we become to this state of affairs that we are in the position of the proverbial fish that is ignorant of water. It has thus become almost impossible to consider female self-explanation in terms of a strategy for achieving particular goals, for example self-satisfaction and the right to take umbrage. Which makes a vast, cool and unsympathetic approach all the more necessary.

We have great numbers of analyses of male behaviour, including analyses of male self-explanations, in the complicated academic language of French deconstructionism and so forth. Now, nobody has anything against deconstructing men’s view of themselves, but why is the equivalent procedure for women so unthinkable?

Men, we are given to understand, report the state of their souls only in order to justify their vile oppressions, whereas women report the state of theirs only in the spirit of absolute truth and scientific objectivity. Researchers into human mate selection, however, know that responses are often more about officially approved characteristics than personal attraction. That is, the mendacious respondents are out to impress the scientist with their social correctness and virtue. Now, if what women tell their male colleagues round the water-cooler about the nature of the female sex, and what crusading newspaper columnists tell their readers about the nature of the female sex, were to be treated with similar caution, we might actually start getting somewhere. The main cause of celibacy, of probably of many other evils, is believing what women say instead of attending to what they do.

What women say they want is hard evidence solely for how they wish to be perceived, with a side-order of what will allow them better to berate the not-Self.

When discussing female psychology in general and female sexual desire in particular, we have two serious epistemological problems: firstly that lying about their own agendas is one of women’s primary sexual strategies, so bone-deep that they may not even realise themselves that they are lying; and secondly that an ancillary strategy is never to admit that any man has understood them correctly or ever will. Especially if in fact he has.

There still exist pockets of old-fashioned patriarchs, misogynists and mouth-breathers who have decided opinions on what women are really about, but whom decent civilised people (by definition) do not take seriously. Moreover, the existence of such retro specimens is continually exploited in order to silence any stirrings of dissidence or independent thought among decent civilised men, who fear being scornfully compared to the rednecks should they venture to differ with the hegemonic doctrine, that is, with whatever women find tactically useful to say about themselves.

Women cannot possibly be as powerless as they like to pretend, since they have actually succeeded in imposing the assumption that, if you want to ask what women are really about, you must ask the nearest woman, whereas if you want to know what men are really about, you must likewise ask the nearest woman. If we really lived under such a thing as “patriarchy”, then proclaiming what men are really about would be a man’s job. There is thus no mode of literate and learnèd discourse concerning what women are really about, other than those over which women have a hammerlock. Consequently there can be no question of attributing error, equivocation, spin or strategising, let alone game-playing, manipulation and blatant scamming, when women report on what it is they want. Cui bono?

Posted on June 13, 2012 at 11:31 by Hugo Grinebiter · Permalink
In: WHAT WOMEN WANT, The Copernican Revolution

Leave a Reply