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...

:-)

She made me a better man

Poor old Seal. He has turned all beta 'mushy' lately, gushing to anyone who would listen about his love for his wife and children.

It came as a total shock to me when I heard that he and Heidi Klum had split up.
This was one couple I always believed would make it to the very end.

As an eternal optimist, I hope this is not the end of 'Team Seal' though.

They renewed their wedding vows every year, they seemed in love with each other. He in particular seemed to be very expressive in the way he felt about his family.

And yet, they split.

But...was the writing on the wall all along?



I come from a family and a social group of  'quiet men'.
I too am 'quiet' in real life.
I do however talk a little bit more than the men in my entourage. Like at least one word per day more :-)

Given my background, I find that I am 'allergic' to men who 'talk too much'. I have female friends for that!
I have become used to the 'strong silent' type, so for me personally, 'quiet' is my particular hallmark of masculinity.

So, hearing Seal gush forth after the breakup of his marriage, I was not surprised to note the familiar hives starting up all over my skin.
In particular, I note the 'quietness' of Heidi Klum.
This is a role reversal I don't see very often.

So naturally, it has elicited my curiosity.


Seal is an extremely well-spoken and eloquent man (we Brits are suckers for each others' accents).
Moreover, he appears to be the very epitome of masculinity, whatever criteria you use. He has been described as 'alpha' by some men in the Manosphere, using various yardsticks.
Even the scars on his face add to this phenomenon.
Heidi Klum had said before how tall he was. Apparently he is 6ft 4 or thereabouts.

He had a hard childhood but overcame all to become one of the most famous men in the world.

So top marks for fulfilling his potential.

And yet, watching him, I was reminded of an incident with Wanda Sykes (the american comedian and actress who is so funny, one look at her and laughter is immediately induced. As the sidekick to Jane Fonda in 'Monster-in-law', for example, she is absolutely hilarious).

Sykes was being interviewed in London many years ago, and the topic of Prince Charles leaving Princess Diana for Camilla Parker-Bowles came up.

She looked straight at the camera in a way only comedians know how and said, "Chucky, yer doin' it wrong, honey, Yer doin' it wrong! Yer supposed to go from the older woman to the younger one, not the other way round, stupid!"

I still laugh out loud when I remember that.

My first instinct was to scream at Seal, "Yer doin' it wrong, brother, yer doin' it wrong!"

But no. Let him show his soft side. Let him be 'beta' as long as he chooses.
With any luck, Heidi Klum will return the favour one day and 'chase him back'.

It should be a dance of Tango.


One thing he said however, which made me think is this:

"Heidi made me a better man."

Can a woman make a man 'a better man'?
Like a man can make a woman a 'better woman'?

Does a man need a woman to make him a better man? Or is it just nice to have?

Can a man who has encountered such a woman ever let go? Is this why Seal is so helplessly 'mushy'?

It is highly publicised that when Seal met Heidi, she was pregnant with someone's baby.

Some men (and women) might find it incompehensible that he didn't run fast in the other direction.
But I don't, in this case.
Afterall, Seal was not deceived. He chose to take this woman on fully knowing she was pregnant.
This woman who 'made him a better man'.
(In any case, it would have been hard in this case to convince Seal the baby was his, had any attempt been made to deceive him. He would have had to be Michael Jackson to believe this :-)



There must have been something special about Heidi Klum.
Any suggestions?
Is it just because she is a beautiful woman? Somehow I think not. Because the world is full of beautiful women.
But I am willing to be corrected on this if indeed this is the case.


Did Seal get it horribly wrong?
Did he fail to spot a 'reluctant bride' all along?

Despite all his external 'alpha' traits, is he deep down just another 'beta' dude who just happens to be rich and famous?