The Rationalisation Hamster: Crazy little sister of 'Frame'?

Any gentlemen here have a little sister? What's the verdict?
Best present Mum and Dad could give me?
Or...
Why couldn't the stork keep her?

:-)


It was only a matter of time before I was going to write about the 'rat ham'.

It is surely the most overused term in the Manosphere. There are so many references to the rat ham that it is quite the skill to navigate your way through The Manosphere minefield without accidentally stepping on one.



It does exist in a big way in most if not all women, I can vouch for this :-)
But is the 'rat ham' all that bad?
Can I even be objective about this beast being a woman myself?

Can I convince anyone that the rat ham can be a good thing?
At the risk of failing miserably, I shall try.

In the post about The lovable rogue I mentioned that some women have this knack of liking men in abundance. It seems to be a natural thing with them.
Yes I am sure it could indeed be 'natural', as can be all aspects of femininity.
And it sure helps to be around good men.
But in the absence of innate 'femininity', an entourage of good men and everything else which would enable a woman to 'see the good in men', a woman has one last piece of artillery in her armoury.
Her own imagination.

Otherwise known as her friendly Rationalisation Hamster.

Yes, it is this same animal that will enable her to believe that the heavily tattooed unemployed beach bum with the drug and alcohol problem really is husband material.
Totally self-delusional and therefore self-destructive.

As the owner of a rat ham, I can categorically state that sometimes it is a real hindrance, yes. Especially when it is fed by the wrong herd or society in general, if society is 'wrong' about a particular issue.
So sometimes it is a good thing for a woman to kill her own hamster or at least stop feeding it gourmet food. I get that.
I also understand that the Manosphere in talking about the rat ham so much is actually in the business of helping women get a very ugly monkey off their collective backs.
So in recognition of this, I do say 'Thank you'. It's nice to know the 'intent' behind every (even seemingly vicious) action.

But...and there is always a but!

If the hamster is dead, how can she rationalise that you are a lovable rogue?
There is a good and bad side to everything, no?

The question is, are men prepared to take the good with the bad, or are they wishing for the 'selective rat ham'?
Is this feasible?
Is this not 'pie in the sky'?
Does this woman with the selective hamster exist?
Can I meet her?
And if I do, I would like to know what colour Pill she is on...I don't think it would be red - it certainly won't be blue :-)

Leaving aside the 'rat ham' for now, I was thinking about a comment Bellita made under the post about Seal.
In response to my comment that Seal had felt 'privileged' that a beautiful woman like Heidi Klum wanted to be with him (nevermind that she was pregnant with another man's child at the time), Bellita made the point that the rationalisation hamster is indeed alive and well in men too.

I concluded to myself that yes, this could be so...at least in (all-)beta, supplicating type men that Seal was proving himself to be.

But somehow, I felt odd harbouring this belief.
This is where it gets all fuzzy for me.

Any help in decluttering my thoughts would be welcome.

From this point onwards, perhaps my own rat ham will be doing fancy somersaults on the ferris wheel, so bear with me :-)

Is the 'rationalisation hamster' not just a woman's (perhaps desperate) attempt to create a 'frame'?
With one important caveat perhaps.
That she is working rather 'hard' to create this 'frame'.

In other words, is a man's 'frame' something he perceives quite effortlessly, and is in many ways 'outcome independent' (he doesn't need to work so hard to maintain this frame - he either believes it or not) whereas a woman has to work hard to keep the 'frame' going and as such, her 'behaviour' regarding this 'frame' belies said effort?

In the post 'And I am not ashamed to say it', I make mention of the 'Single and happy' (mostly) female crowd and how their repeated and often loud assertions to this 'fact' make it quite suspicious that some serious work is being done to keep up the 'pretty lie'.
At some point, one really has to stop and check to see how much effort it is taking to say something.
Because too much effort implies that what is being stated may be unture, even to the speaker.

Another feminine example I have come across is in the realm of the 'reluctant bride'.
If a woman is having to convince herself/rationalise away that a particular man is the right choice, then perhaps he really is not?
And then it all comes out in the wash a few years later...
Buyer and seller beware...


Do men ever really convince themselves of something? Do they have to?
Did Seal really believe that a pregnant woman, no matter how beautiful, was the absolute best he could have?
Or did he rationalise away that despite the possible 'negative' (sure, a pregnant woman is not every man's 'negative' in the dating world, but I imagine there would not be too many takers for a currently-pregnant woman in the SMP/MMP), this woman was worth sacrificing his freedom for?

If 'frame' and the 'rat ham' are simply the different ways men and women 'perceive' and 'process' their thoughts then surely 'frame' and the rat ham share the same parentage, no?
They are brother and sister.
Except that in the male mind, 'frame' is the gold standard, and 'rat ham' to quote many a Manosphere citizen, is 'b*t sh*t crazy'.

:-)

Is this a fair assessment of an important feature of the female psyche?
Or is this the proverbial stick men are using to bash women everywhere simply because they do not like this aspect of their psychological make-up - at least when it is not working for men?

Can I even use the word 'fair' here?
Will a man respond 'deal with it' in the same way he is asked to 'deal with' a woman's hypergamy?

I have another question on this topic:
If the rat ham is sans logic, as is often the accusation lobbed at it, is 'frame' the epitome of logic?

Actually, another huge question:
If 'frame' can be taught, as in PUA technique, then does it not turn into just another form of the 'rat ham'? In which case, it doesn't deserve to be called 'frame' anymore? Because 'frame' should be something that is intrinsic to a man's thinking, and should not come from outside of him, no?
I am going here by the following definiton of 'frame':

A steadfast belief that is unshakeably entrenched in the sensory apparatus of a man. Something he perceives and both his conscious and subconscious minds are in agreement that it is indeed as is.

Is this an accurate definition?


If there were to be a debate on this issue, any suggestions as to the perspectives of the respective genders?

Would this be a good example?

Male perspective: This house believes that the rationalisation hamster is a seriously deranged evil little monster that does not deserve oxygen let alone food and water.
For: Manosphere authority on all things female.
Against: Unsurprisingly, rationalisation hamsters and their flighty owners.

Female perspective: This house believes that the rationalisation hamster is a healthy part of being a normal, well adjusted and feminine woman.
For: Planet Woman Snowflakes.
Against: All you who just don't understand...

:-)

...And I am not ashamed to say it!

There is something odd going on...

Forgive me if I have just 'twigged' onto this phenomenon.
It is one of those things that creep up on you. Very slowly.


My attention was brought starkly onto this trend by a conversation I had with a relative stranger recently.
The content of the conversation is irrelevant as it happens.
But it refreshed my memory on the fact that I have never heard a man say 'I am (insert less than desired trait) and proud'.
At least not using these exact words.

This is God's honest truth.
I have never heard an unemployed man say 'I am unemployed and proud'.
Or 'I did somethind outrageous and I am not ashamed to say it'.
Never.
Which surprises me strangely.

But, it appears to be all the rage for women to say things like this.
'I am a b*tch and proud'.
It is even a popular 'Jerry Springer' type talkshow title.

Why is this?

It is not so much the behaviour that interests me as the 'buzz-word' that gets flung about in association with said behaviour.
I am interested as to the background of this relatively new sighting in the world of womanhood.
Since I live there, it is useful for me to know not just the regular neighbours, but also any visitors, welcome or not.

Where did this whole catchphrase come from?
Not every woman does this, of course.
In fact, I dare say, it is just a minority.
But this minority is highly vocal and ubiquitous, giving the distinct impression that this disposition is the fashion on planet Woman.
It is not. And it should not be.

Women are becoming more and more encouraged to promote certain bad behaviours in a way that seems to far supersede any such trend in men.
Is this a public relations move?
And who is pushing those buttons?
I ask this because I heard that in certain 'reality' TV shows, people are goaded into misbehaving in ways that are not typical for them purely to boost ratings. These 'guinea pigs' later regret having participated in a public self-humiliating exercise.

Quite how I got to waste a whole thirty minutes of my life on this programme, I'll never know, but I watched a documentary about British teenagers on holiday abroad...(note to self: big mistake - don't do this again).

The personalities featured were the 15-20 year old crowd. Gregarious bunch, nice kids.
But what I couldn't help noticing was that whilst the boys (mostly) appeared to be ashamed of some of the stuff they were getting up to (one boy even joked that he hoped his mother would not see the programme), most of the girls (except one) were intent on outdoing each other on who was the 'baddest'. In typical 'Jersey Shore' fashion, they were vying with each other to see who could rack up the most 'numbers', with particular emphasis on beating the boys at this game.
Fair enough, nothing wrong with a bit of 'competition', I rationalised.
Except that when it came to doing something relatively positive, somehow the competitive spirit seemd to disappear amongst the girls.
What's more, the phrase 'And I am not ashamed' seemed to crop up more often than was warranted.
It seems to me that this was the 'fix-all' phrase that these girls were using to exculpate themselves from self-introspection.
I am not saying the boys were angels. But at least they had the semblance of shame about them.
This was totally missing in most of the girls.

This is a striking and somewhat worrying trend among young women.
Because whatever we say to ourselves becomes our mantra.
Self-talk, I have noticed, is rather powerful.
If one exculpates oneself of something which does require correcting, one never arrives at the required self-correction phase. Because one's mind is derailed by the self-talk of the exculpation.

I have noticed that it is increasingly prevalent that a woman 'comes out' and declares that she had an affair with such and such a prominent (famous) man X years ago 'and she is not ashamed of it' disregarding completely the feelings of said man's wife, children and other associates (who cares about the man himself in this context - no sympathy from me).
What is interesting is that said man is usually suitably humble about his misdeeds - is this just a 'show' for the cameras, I wonder? What someone I know would call 'crocodile tears'?


"I am a (negative trait) and proud..."
Are these female words?
I doubt it. My grandmother and her friends never used those words except when they were referring to something actually positive.



These words were packaged, wrapped up and delivered to the modern woman by a beast by the name of ...you guessed it...feminism.
These words were dressed up as empowerment. Just like the whole sex-positive thing.


Thanks but no thanks.
Women today can do without that kind of empowerment.
Real empowerment is a good thing for women. There are lots of good women out there fighting for empowerment for other (less privileged) women in positive ways. Hijacking the word 'empowerment' is equivalent to muddying the waters these great women are working so hard to clean up. It is not fair on them.


Just last night, I found another example of this phenomenon. I wasn't even looking for corroboration of my previous observations, but these gems seem to come my way whether I like it or not.
Nadya Suleman is the woman who gave birth to octuplets in 2009, having previously had 6 children. Although not directly relevant to this post, her background might be of interest:
Married in 1996 at age 20, she first started IVF at age 21 (I don't know why, and am inclined to believe it was for a medical reason). Husband appears not to have been in agreement with the conceptions of the 6 children who resulted from this treatment, none of whom are biologically his. At the time of the birth of the octuplets, Ms Suleman was a single (divorced) Mum with 6 kids. The reason she gives for undergoing the treatment resulting in the octuplets is that she did not want the eggs from her previous 'harvest' to be destroyed. (Fair point, I believe in the sanctity of life too, even if we are talking about unfertilised eggs at this point).

But I digress.
Suleman recently posed nude for a women's magazine.
Yes I agree that the fourteen kids need to be fed somehow.
But I am sure there are other ways to feed a family.
Each to his own however.

What I find fascinating is those words again...right there at 1.28 in this video:
I have no particular opinions on her actions. Until I have 14 kids, I guess I cannot touch her decisions/actions.
I am however interested in those words...'I am not ashamed of it'. It's like this is the new script for the theatricals of woman-ville.

Here is the video.


Women are being aided and abetted into self-destruction by this alternative view of 'empowerment'.
I discuss it here because it may be one of the strongest factors holding some women back.
Herd mentality at its worst.
The women who are enabling their friends in non-productive behaviours are doing them a disservice. It may be inadvertent, I don't know. But it sure ain't helping.

My grandmother's generation did not feel the need to be like this. And yet they were by all accounts very powerful women. What has gone wrong?

I honestly do not believe in shaming someone publicly. (But I accept that my opinion (if negative about them) would appear to do just that. That is however not the intent).
But I really admire those who do the self-shaming thing all by themselves. So I don't have to do it for them :-)

Is this abnormal?
Why do I appreciate introspection in someone else so much?
And why do I shirk from people who have zero introspection?
Is this part of the whole Red Pill/masculine woman mindset?
Or am I just a mea culpa junkie because I am Catholic?
I dunno.


If as a woman, you know within yourself that you are way too heavy for your own health, admit that to yourself and make plans to change things. For your health. No-one is saying you should beat yourself about the head with a stick. That is unproductive too.
But don't listen to your fat friends who want you to remain as fat as they are. Remember that sometimes 'the herd' is not your friend.

If as a woman, you would really like to be in a relationship with a good man but as yet, you haven't got there, don't jump on the 'single by choice and proud' bandwagon and make a loud noise about how you really love the single life.
It's called self-deception. It leads to cognitive dissonance.
I am not saying to get all depressed about it either. That would be unhelpful.
But develop a mindset that will help you get to what you really want.

If as a woman, you have any other not-so-positive-trait/event you yourself have had the insight to recognise as such, either accept it as such, or if at all possible, if you feel there is a chance it can be rectified, do that.
There is nothing empowering about rationalising something bad into something admirable. It does not work, at least not in the long run.


Having said all of the above, I would however be the first to declare that making the best of whatever situation one finds oneself in, is one of the best policies of life.
But this should not mean celebrating with forced vigour a negative and making it seem like it is a positive.
That's called 'false advertising'. It is disingenuous and is easily spotted by the discerning.


I do believe that the rationalisation hamster can be a good thing for women, despite what some Manosphere bloggers say.
Afterall, without it, a woman would never be able to 'turn a blind eye' to some of the atrocities that men commit that are quite unforgivable.
Oh yes, the 'rationalsation hamster' can be your friend, gentlemen :-) Don't knock it.
It is what can allow a woman to be a woman, forgiving, compassionate.

But this same rationalisation hamster should not be used by a woman to enable herself to wade in the mire of self-delusion in the false guise of 'empowerment'.