Manosphere dudes, as readers of this blog are well aware, love talking about women and their “rationalization hamsters.” As one douchenozzle defined the term:
The rationalization hamster is an analogy for the thought processes used by women to turn bad behavior and bad decisions into acceptable ones to herself and her friends. When a woman makes a bad decision, the hamster spins in its wheel (the woman’s thinking) and creates some type of acceptable reasons for that bad decision. The crazier the decision, the faster the hamster must spin in order to successfully rationalize away the insanity.
When the hamster rationalizes successfully, a woman can divorce [yeah, I meant to use that verb] herself from the consequences of her bad decision or behavior.
He’s got it backwards. Women don’t have “rationalization hamsters.” They have “hamster rationalizations.”
Example: “I’ll just eat one hamster. It won’t spoil my meal.”
Of course, that’s impossible. Hamsters are like potato chips, only furry and squirmier. Everyone knows you can’t eat just one!
Silly women and their hamster rationalizations! No wonder they’re so fat.
I’ve got this image inmy head now of DKM and his dolls all lined up to salute his hamster as it sails off into the sunset… Well, until it hits the other end of the bathtub.
Do you think he smooches his rubber duckies too? Maybe puts them in cute little modest Victorian swimming costumes and assigns them personalities?
LOL! Oh, totally…
HTML fail 🙁
Hamster-powered lizard brains.
@Pam
You beat me to it. You must be one of those bigger lizards that are whispered about around campfires.
Actually does anyone remember the sexy but scary lizard lady from the original V series? The one with the dark hair? I keep getting the impression that that’s the image that most MRAs have of women. Sexually enticing, but will invade your planet, pretend to be your friends, and then kidnap you for use as food.
Diana. She also played the mother of Anna in the new (failed) V series.
BWAH AH AH AH AAAAHHH!!!
I still remember when the Diana character ate an hamster in the original V serie
Maybe it’s why MRAs are obsessed by hamsters.
I really think it made quite an impression on them. Most of the bigger name MRAs are about the right age.
NMMNG – That’s a guinea pig!
I love guinea pigs and they always seem to be the victim of misidentification. They’re much bigger than hamsters, much “squarer” than rats.
Oh the original V!! I remember being a kid and having my WTF moment when I saw that scene. Come to think of it, it was the same type of WTF moment I had when i watched Witches
@ Shadow
You remember the little scaly green baby being born, right? That scene was balanced right on the edge between horrifying and comical.
@Cassandra
It’s kinda ringing a bell. I was about 7 or 8 when I watched it, so my memories are more about crowding around the TV with my siblings and watching this “adult/big kids” show than about the show itself loll
Cross between a lizard and a hamster. Limster or hazard?
I’ve generally deprecated what might be called the “rationalization hamster” (e.g. “No, I shouldn’t sell the truck because it’s safer in winter weather” when in fact it is not and I don’t particularly care but my interlocutor does, and hence it makes a good excuse that they may accept) in favor of “executive fiat” (e.g. “It’s my name on the title. Thing will not be sold.” when the matter is basically an aesthetic decision that isn’t any business of the person pressuring me).
Somehow I’m thinking this is not what the MRA crowd is looking for.
This is kind of related to the whole “haha use of logic is now abusive, lookit the misandry” thing from awhile back. Logic, properly speaking, tells you things like “If I want A and doing X is the only way to get A, then do X” — reasoning from premises. The premises, though, come from somewhere else and are subject to manipulation — it’s quite common to see “doing X is the only way to get A” when this is likely to be untrue, or even “You want (or should want) A” when this is likely to be untrue, in order to inappropriately browbeat another person into following some sort of vested interest (oh shocker, it seems that the entire universe is constructed as to make your sleeping with me inevitable).
If they’re not quite mature enough to recognize the game for what it is and quit it entirely, and not quite immature enough to accept that they just like the wrong things and should work on that fault, then the person being treated this way is in fact rather apt to engage in tappy dancing that involves acceding to at least some of the dubious premises being forced on them, but sticking their own thumb on the scale somewhere in an attempt to make the actual result end up in accordance with their actual values.
I tend to believe that the nuclear tetsuji is the right tactic for this one, as I alluded to above.
Feminists are the dirty ones, not all women……..
EN… could we have some sort of sequitor? It’s possible, I suppose that you are trying to emulate AntZ, but it’s a bit soon for the student to be surpassing the master.
It’s true! How do you know, EN?? I do need a shower, but it will have to wait a few more hours because I’m going to be even sweatier.
Whereas non-feminist women, of course, never shower. I’m pretty sure they clean themselves like cats. Is this right, Explore Nature? You seem to be the expert.
The funny thing is, considering how word salad-dy his posts are, I’m not too sure EN really understands the posts. Maybe he tries google translating or something!! I hope he has better luck with good English-Sinhala translation than people do with English-Tamil translations.
HAHAHAHAHA.. you guys have to check this video out on his site!!! http://spiritofnature99.blogspot.com/2011/10/how-feminism-destroys-natural.html. Particularly love the nature of gender!!
The funny thing about “The Private Man… well, there are many funny things about him, but I’ll take ’em one at a time… is that he’s a champion rationalizer himself. For example, he calls it “flaking” when a woman breaks off contact with him (implying flightiness and irrationality) when the actual reason is probably far more obvious (but the obvious reason reflects badly on him, so…).