This is funny. I got a tweet from Linky @LinkyGray saying
putting on an event celebrating & supporting women in science and media, called LogicGrrrl in Edinburgh, cld you spread word?
So I said sure and asked if she had any useful links and in the meantime I tried Google, which turned up nothing relevant but did turn up something from a Christian apologetics site explaining “Girl Logic.” It’s chapter 4 of something (a book? a manifesto?) called What does a Woman Want? A Real Man.
“Girl logic” is the label given to describe that series of semi-consecutive feminine thoughts that favored “cute things,” “soft things,” and cuddly little kittens and puppies. It causes girls to act in such strange displays of behavior that the average man is stupefied in useless attempts to comprehend. The smart man quickly abandons such ventures as he soon realizes severe head pain and vertigo follow.
Each and every man has encountered this highly illusive mental game of matching wits with a woman, most often to his confusion and demise. The average male thinks too clearly, too linearly, and, therefore, can’t figure women out at all. The strange marvel is that girl logic makes sense to all women.
There is, most probably, a genetic something that unites all females this way. I have seen groups of them act in behavioristic unison — as if driven by some common cosmic feminine force — when they encounter a jewelry department, a sale on clothes, or choosing the color of their shoes. This is all fine and dandy as long as men are excluded. But we aren’t!
Every man knows the unmerited agony of being dragged into a clothes store only to have his aesthetic senses crushed into ridiculed oblivion when he says that blue blouse goes well with that green sweater. I’ve seen girls almost lose their lunch and stare in pathetic disbelief at some poor shlup who got cornered in the women’s department and made the inexcusable blunder of commenting on how yellow and pink polka-dots go together.
There’s lots more. I think it comes from deep experience of watching tv sitcoms. What it has to do with Christian apologetics is anyone’s guess, but I’m not going to research any further.
Oh and spread the word about the event called LogicGrrrl in Edinburgh!
I read all I could – what I find worth noting is that it sounds almost exactly like various pick-up manuals that try to explain the way women are (emotional, irrational) but to give all the logical, rational guys clues for how to manipulate these emotional women before some other guy does.
I’ve noticed occasional positive views on pick-up manuals from proponents of Christian Patriarchy since, though they may not agree with the policy of doing anything to get laid, they embrace the same stale gender stereotypes.
The person who wrote that apparently doesn’t know any actual women.
The section on atheism is amusing, though.
http://carm.org/atheism
If you see a kitten and simultaneously think “infant Felis silvestris catus” and “awww, cute!” you’re employing Satanic androgynous logic.
This cutesy writing style of man-tryin-to-understand-wimmin was very much in vogue in the early-to-mid 20th century. I think it could have been lifted verbatim from a 1954 magazine article.
Years ago when I was in college a lecturing female professor projected a slide of a baby onto the wall. There was a loud and immediate chorus of oohs and aahs from the female students. She then rather scornfully pointed out that there was no real need for such a vocal reaction: what we had just experienced was a culturally ingrained habit, an overt public display of “femininity” meant to impress both males and fellow females. Men, she noted dryly, did not seem to have a similar trigger. Put up a picture of a football and there were no automatic shouts of approval to signal masculinity.
I immediately thought of another example, though. She should have put up a slide of a guy being hit in the balls. Yes, it hurts. But I suspect a photo of someone being punched in the face would not call forth the same aggressive moans of sympathy from a college crowd, meant in this case to convey male status.
Not sure if this was a lecture from an anthropologist, sociologist, or just a feminist. Too long ago. But I do remember that when that baby’s face went up on that screen I, too, gave a verbal reaction. And then realized, when it was pointed out, that no, it was not strictly involuntary. I don’t coo out loud when I see the same photo in a magazine and I’m by myself. How shameful. Think.
The writer of chapter 5 probably assumes the differences he notes are not only universal and desirable, but innate.
I tried to read it, but there was nothing in the first paragraph about dual overhead cams so my mind kept wandering to thoughts of my favorite hockey fights.
What’s it about? Ratchet sets or barbecuing?
Tada! Here is the full book for your further ‘enjoyment’: http://carm.org/how-woo-and-win-women-being-obnoxious-jerk
“How to woo and win women by being an obnoxious jerk” is the title of the full book.
The author Matthew J. Slick says “I wrote this while in Seminary. You see, I needed some serious diversion from the rigors of theological study. I mean it all in fun which is what I make fun of in both gals and guys.”
It contains 15 chapters.
1. Regarding the Wooing of Women
2. The Jerk Quotient
3. Making a Good Impression?
4. What does a Woman Want? A Real Man
5. Girl Logic
6. The Proper Use of Confusion
7. What Not to Say to a Woman
8. Being a Sensitive Man
9. How to be interesting
10. Using your face
11. Live to Dress or Dress to Live
12. You and Female Hormones
13. The Mothering Instinct
14. Conversation? What’s That?
15. Last Things
“What does a Woman Want? A Real Man” is the title of Chapter 4, but the webpage http://carm.org/more-stuff/even-more-stuff/what-does-woman-want-real-man is linked to for both chapter 4 and chapter 5, and the content on that webpage is actually Chapter 5, “Girl Logic”. So alas, the real “What does a Woman Want? A Real Man” is missing. (And the title of this blog post becomes amusingly ironic. 😉 )
Meanwhile Linky has tweeted a link to the website –
http://logicgrrrl.wordpress.com/
Any particular woman? Best find out from her. Women in general? Well, air, for one. Women fucking love air. Oh! Water, too. I believe these are things women, in general, all agree on.
Oh man Matt Slick.
CARM.
I used to post on CARM. I still am a member there (NateHevens), though I haven’t posted in a long time. Matt is a nasty character. He literally posts anti-atheist shit in the atheist boards just to bait atheists into breaking the rules so he has an excuse to ban them.
The guy is a grade-A moron. And his “side-kick” Diane, a “nurse”? She is a very nasty character. Not fun to interact with at all and very bigoted.
Overly linear thinkers don’t get context. Context is kind of important in life. Such thinkers tend to be conservative voters. Simple answers to complex questions suit them just fine, especially if those answers help them feel superior to others. Only a misogynist idiot would brag about being unable to think in more than two dimensions simply because society genders such thinking as “male.”
Sastra:
I suspect your professor was correct. If you’re one of those women who doesn’t melt into a puddle of goo at the sight of Teh Pweshus Baybee, damn, do you get the stink-eye, mainly from other women.
As an example of a non-gender specific reaction, I would suggest that live tv audiences in the US are culturally inculcated to applaud any time their city/state is named, even if it’s just in passing. I’ve never understood why, and I haven’t seen much evidence of it in other countries.
“Put up a picture of a football and there were no automatic shouts of approval to signal masculinity.”
Now put up a picture of the college team.
Regarding babies, I guess I’m one of those weirdos who doesn’t go “Awwww”. Babies hold no appeal for me. They are incredibly loud, they smell funny, and they produce copious quantities of odious bodily fluids which other people then have to clean up — I fail to see the appeal.
Oddly enough, however, a good friend and colleague of mine, a married man in his late fifties, instantly goes all gooey over Teh Pweshus Baby. He’s got two kids of his own and probably made a great dad. Go him.
“What does a Woman Want? A Real Man”
But this is excellent! Obviously a Real Man promotes equal rights and treats women as his equals.
@Suido 11: UK audiences sometimes cheer when their hometown is mentioned. This is less common with Londoners as the UK media is very London-centric.
A title that professes to know what “a woman”, meaning all women, wants coupled with the term “real man” is a complete non-starter in my view.
Canadian audiences cheer for mentions of their hometown too. Somewhat related: 10-15 years back when public language was more sedate/repressed, it was unusual for singers to go much beyond “damn” to convey strong emotions (yes, Country Joe was a notable exception). Anyway, according to at least one performer (Bruce Cockburn), US audiences tended to applaud his use of “fuck” in the middle of a song enthusiastically enough to disrupt the flow of the performance. Canadians, in contrast, did not.
gave the right to manufacture to other organizations The flexible nature of O-ring materials accommodates imperfections in the mounting parts This contrasts with the standard O-ring’s comparatively larger single contact surfaces top yet most engineered yet highly critical the permeability of the material makes point contacts quite useless backup rings