The Rationalization Hamster Is Now Immortal

The Manosphere contains many, many words regarding a woman’s rationalization hamster because it’s such an effective and amusing way to describe how a woman thinks. Occasionally it’s necessary to re-educate Manosphere readers to the nuances and details of how the rationalization hamster operates.

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. Here are some examples:

Bad Decision:
“I’m going out and getting drunk with my friends.”

Resulting Consequences:
Drunken and unsatisfactory hookup sex with a stranger.

Hamster Processing Result:
“I was drunk and he took advantage of me or maybe even raped me! Maybe it was a date rape drug!”

Final Result:
“It’s not my fault.”

Bad Decision:
“I deserve only the most attractive and successful man despite the fact that I don’t have much to offer in the context of dating and relationships.”

Resulting Consequences:
Can’t find any man for dating or a relationship or only has one-night stands.

Hamster Processing Result:
“There are no good men” or “Men suck”

Final Result:
“It’s not my fault.”

Bad Decision:
“I have such chemistry [vagina tingles!] with this guy so I’ll ignore the obvious red flags regarding his character.”

Resulting Consequences:
The sex is great for a short time and then the guy dumps her.

Hamster Processing Result:
“All men are players”

Final Result:
“It’s not my fault.”

Bad Decision:
I want to have a baby but I don’t have a man.

Resulting Consequences:
8lb bundle of “joy” through dubious means and resultant loss of career opportunities because of time management issues.

Hamster Processing Result:
“I’m a strong and empowered woman fulfilling her own needs but who has an employer who doesn’t support my lifestyle decision.”

Final Result:
“It’s not my fault.”

Note how the final result is always the same.

The vast majority of women simply won’t understand the concept of the rationalization hamster. This makes the hamster immortal. Sure, it can be slowed down, but it always lives on. Hamster wisdom is now passed on to the younger generations of women with messages of “you deserve anything you want” or “you’re a special snowflake”. The hamster has become an integral part of our social fabric.

There is a social expectation that women cannot be faulted for their decisions and behaviors. Mark Rudov calls it the 11th commandment – Thou shalt not criticize women. This means that our collective folklore has “liberated” women to act on their worst motivations and behaviors without consequence. This will be for generations to come.

About these ads
  1. #1 by The Geographer on December 12, 2011 - 10:03 PM

    My craziest ex-girlfriend’s favorite quip was “No regrets!”

    • #2 by P Ray on January 11, 2012 - 6:07 PM

      Did she also use this as her motto?
      “I’m selfish, impatient and a little insecure. I make mistakes, I am out of control and at times hard to handle. But if you can’t handle me at my worst, then you sure as hell don’t deserve me at my best.”

  2. #3 by just visiting on December 12, 2011 - 10:18 PM

    Guilty. Damn hamster fell of the wheel and was passed out by the time I decided to divorce. (Yeah, sometimes it works the other way and you stay in a situation when things have turned bad.)

  3. #4 by allie on December 12, 2011 - 10:59 PM

    Any way I can kill mine?

  4. #6 by Odds on December 12, 2011 - 11:27 PM

    I’ve known two, maybe three women in their life with a terrible congenital defect: lack of a hamster. It made it very difficult for them to socialize – they felt that everything other girls said was nonsense, and understood that male friends were, in fact, beta orbiters (even if they did not know the term). Poor girls had rough social lives even with their responsible long-term decision-making.

    Two are now happily, faithfully married. The third, the questionable case, is engaged.

    If we choose to deliberately conflate cause and effect, I’d say the most effective hamster-poison is this: do not, under any circumstances or for whatever reason, take any advice from female friends or beta orbiters. Assume that their words are an equal mix of lies designed to hurt you and truths designed to lull you into a false sense of security, with no way of discerning the two. Use internal sense to determine the course that gives you maximum personal responsibility (and therefore, maximum personal control), then follow that course, correcting as new data is acquired.

    Should at least suppress the little beast.

    • #7 by Blissex on December 13, 2011 - 1:39 PM

      «I’ve known two, maybe three women in their life with a terrible congenital defect: lack of a hamster.»

      I haven’t been that lucky, but I have met roughly the same number of women who did not objectify men, which perhaps is much the same.

      In general however my impression from vast experience is that the women less driven to wishful thinking are those who have been exposed more than other to the reality principle, without being able to use their pussy/womb pass.

      That for example means girls from social traditions where women run farms, shops, businesses, or other cases where you cannot always buy your way out of bad consequences with a pussy/womb pass.

      Or sometimes women who have been socialized more harshly than others for example in female-only schools during adolescence where they were not in the “top bitch” layer of bulliettes (men often do not suspect how much brutality and bullying occurs among women, e.g. “dunking”).

      Also, I am told that women from more egalitarian places, where all men have somewhat equal worth and are mostly natural alphas, or sometimes prefer each other :->, because in those places most men get access to pussy and womb and thus the pass is not that highly rated and cannot pay for harsh encounters with the reality principle.

      I remember a popular psychologist Eric Berne perceptively ascribed most maladjustement to misunderstood (grand)parental influence, and to the lingering of the baby delusions of omnipotence, irresistibility, immortality (given by the ability of babies to trigger protection from their parents as the parents are so invested in the baby).

      The rationalization hamster seems to me a similar story, and circumstances that do not shield it from reality via the pussy/womb pass kill it.

      • #8 by scottmac56 on December 13, 2011 - 3:05 PM

        “Where you cannot always buy your way out of bad consequences with a pussy/womb pass.”

        Spot on, Blissex.

      • #9 by just visiting on December 13, 2011 - 3:13 PM

        Sorry, even the most logical and rational of women have the hamster. It might be diminished, or better managed, but it’s there. It’s wired. The function isn’t wishful thinking, but it can devolve into that. Killing it isn’t an option, but managing it is. Sorry, there’s no cure.

        Harsh socialization can actually produce an iron clad hamster. Though it’s pretty good at controling the effects. Temporarily.
        I can’t speak of girl school’s, but I suspect that males actually have a civilizing effect on females.

        Socializing women like men doesn’t kill the hamster. It’s part of the problem..

  5. #10 by xsplat on December 13, 2011 - 12:42 AM

    A+ post.

  6. #11 by tspoon on December 13, 2011 - 3:32 AM

    Once upon a time there was a great religious tradition which enshrined the knowledge of the hamster in the very first part of it’s religious document. Only they called it a snake. Which to be honest is probably a more accurate metaphor…

    • #12 by scottmac56 on December 13, 2011 - 12:50 PM

      What he said.

    • #13 by primallykosher on December 14, 2011 - 1:07 PM

      Adam and Eve interpreted through evolutionary biology would be a very interesting read.

      • #14 by just visiting on December 15, 2011 - 1:55 AM

        Then perhaps the old Jewish tradition would be more apt. It’s disputed, but I’ll put it out there any way.

        Adam’s first wife, Lilith was made from the same elements as him. She was his equal in every way. This caused some marital difficulties and apparently she liked to be on top (Hey, I’m just retelling) and this irked Adam to no end. Submitting wasn’t something she was going to do. In the end she left Adam for the ultimate dominant bad boys of the time, a bunch of fallen angels outside the gates.

        Eventually arch angel Michael was sent to collect her and send her back to her husband, but she wasn’t having any of that. When he threatened violence on her, she threatened to reveal one of the names of God. (Apparently this would give her power over the creator.) It isn’t revealed how she got this knowledge, but it was taken seriously.

        Negotiations began. She would be left in peace, but her hybrid offspring would not. Not only that, but all the souls of Jewish babies who died before they were eight days old would belong to her. In heavenly currancy, that’s quite a settlement.

        So you see, even the creator found himself in legal dealings with a woman bargaining with his secrets.

        Interestingly, she was never cast out of Eden and was free to return. She also wasn’t cursed in the manner that Adam and Eve and their decendents were. Her days were not numbered, and she and her daughter lived until Solomon had them put to death.

        Another wife was created, but since Adam had seen her creation he was too grossed out and would have nothing to do with her. Lesson learned – A woman should retain a little mystery.

        Finally, female 3.0 was made by putting Adam to sleep, cutting out a rib and extracting whatever dna was required.

    • #15 by primallykosher on December 15, 2011 - 4:02 PM

      Who was the second wife that freaked him out? I’ve read about Lilith before I always though she was the one that took babies away. But I do remember the story of her being the first woman. Than she somehow gained supernatural powers, probably though divorce courts of the time. ;-) I think she is from Talmud or oral law as opposed to traditional Torah. Great post just visiting.

      • #16 by just visiting on December 15, 2011 - 4:58 PM

        The second wife was named Eve as well, but I don’t know much about her.

      • #17 by just visiting on December 15, 2011 - 5:05 PM

        And you’re right about Lilith taking babies away. Amulets were made in hopes of warding her away.

  7. #18 by NMH on December 13, 2011 - 7:41 AM

    Excellent post. You clearly and succinctly codified “the hamster”. Every time this phrase is used it should be hypelinked to this post.

    One of the very shameful things I used to do when I was a dateless omega was feed a girl’s hamster to “be supportive”, thinking this would make her romantically interested in me. This is one of the worst things I did during my omega years. However, if you challenge the hamster, it will attack.

    Ironically, this will more likely to get you laid then feeding the hamster.

    Is it any wonder why men, once the testosterone haze lifts, go MGTOW? You need to be in a drugged induced haze to put up with this insanity.

  8. #22 by Blissex on December 13, 2011 - 1:13 PM

    I have a slightly different take on the “rationalization hamster” story (and the “alpha man” story too, but not here to discuss).

    All the rationalization hamstering is self-hurting, because it leads to underweight the consequences of poor decisions.

    The phenomenon is called more commonly “wishful thinking”. Men are a lot less prone to wishful thinking, even if some men do engage in that.

    The basic problem with wishful thinking is the so called “reality principle”, which says that when your wishes conflict with reality, the latter usually wins, and you get bruises or broken bones.

    The impression I get is that most women engage more freely in wishful thinking because they can afford it much more so than men can, or at least they think that they can.

    I have met male people who engage in higher level of wishful thinking than others and usually they think that they can get away with it because:

    * They are children who haven’t fully acquainted themselves with the “reality principle” yet, usually because their parents shield them, as they must up to a point.

    * They are rich or powerful, and therefore they can pay or make someone else pay for reality to conform more to their wishes than most other males. Usually the born rich or powerful are the worst because those who become rich or powerful usually remember their bruising exchanges with reality.

    * They are simply deluded, and bruising or even bonebreaking exchanges with reality don’t impress them as much as they should.

    In the realm of relationship wishful thinking usually is cured by “socialization”, that is having to adjust to that part of the reality principle that one has to get along with other people without pissing them off too much.

    All this said I suspect that the “rationalization hamster” or “wishful thinking” affect women, and in particular in their relationships with men, because:

    * Many women are poorly socialized with men; men try too hard to be nice to them (at least superficially). Women have a completely different attitude to other women, as they get socialized pretty fast and harshly by inter-female competition.

    * Many women think that they are “rich” and/or “powerful” so that they can pay or rather make others pay the consequences of their wishful thinking, because they (think that they) can always use their pussy as an “inhexaustible” credit card.

    Both reasons boil down to the same point: wishful thinking by females is funded/permitted by the fact that they think that they can get away with it.

    And to a large extent that has been right: a fertile womb has always been a very important and expensive resource, and the bearer of a fertile womb can hold it as hostage or bait and get away with a whole lot of the bad consequences of their wishful thinking because men and other women will protect the fertile womb despite the stupid behaviour of its life support system.

    Sure women can be rather more than the life support system of their wombs, but that is what makes them really precious, in all both senses of the word.

    This is what has been going on for literally hundreds of thousands of years, except that some very big details have changed very recently, and we are in a huge transition phase with lots of confusion.

    Some more details:

    * Both men and women usually think that it is the vagina that is the coveted resource, and therefore that women are the gatekeepers of sex. That’s really wrong, it is the womb, and men are the gatekeepers of sex. Women are the gatekeepers of procreation. In some countries there are sayings like “she thinks that her pussy is studded with diamonds” (translation: “her rationalization hamster is well strong”). They are misleading, it is her womb, not her pussy.

    * The mistake happened because for hundreds of thousands of years sex resulted in procreation in many cases and procreation was very risky and extremely expensive; so sex was equated with a huge investment in procreation and viceversa.

    * Currently the risk and costs of procreation are much lower than they used to be, and very largely invoiced to men; and women have the option to completely break the link between sex and procreation by becoming sterile (pill, plan B, surgery), at least temporarily.

    So, women can afford to have a rationalization hamster because of the lingering tradition of a pussy pass. But it was really a womb pass, and they have essentially given that up, and what we see nowadays is just social behaviour not having caught up yet with enormous changes in the human condition.

    The future holds some vast consequences of those changes, one is that right now since only men in practice risk paying the costs of involuntary pregnancies, and women control utterly their fertility options, men will become very reluctant to have sex without serious emotional and legal commitment from women, and the “game” and MGTOW lifestyles are the first signs of that.

    Much worse, in 10 to 30 years there will be the first mass wave of entitled, hamstered, barren women reaching old age, with no children or grandchildren, and with most men their age dead of work related stress and exhaustion. The terrible loneliness and despair of those hags will cause their widespread insanity and terrify generations of women to come.

    Probably in the longer term only women who have a very strong cultural or genetic reproductive drive will have children, and thus descendants, and the pool of women who choose to avoid investing in reproduction will sink down rapidly (in a few generations) to the single digit percentages of that other category of non-reproductive humans, homosexuals. Feminism as practiced by many of its advocates is basically about weeding out from the human race all women who are not obsessed with having children at any cost.

    In the meantime the rationalization hamster, fed on the lingering credit accorded to fertile womb carriers, and on the ability to choose to avoid fertility, having it both ways, will continue to run and run.

  9. #23 by Blissex on December 13, 2011 - 3:29 PM

    «Much worse, in 10 to 30 years there will be the first mass wave of entitled, hamstered, barren women reaching old age, with no children or grandchildren, and with most men their age dead of work related stress and exhaustion. The terrible loneliness and despair of those hags will cause their widespread insanity»

    This will have terrible consequences. As I often point out currently first-world countries are dictatorships of middle aged middle class women, because they are the largest mass of swing voters who decide elections, and politicians pander to them without limits.

    Now as a rule women outlive men by a pretty significant number of years. This also means that:

    * most property eventually gets owned by women who inherit it from their husbands either at divorce or death;

    * since the right to vote has a minimum age but no maximum age, there will be a pretty large boost to the female vote coming entirely from widows not matched by their dead husbands.

    The political consequences of a large chunk of swing voters being wealthy old women driven crazy (or crazier) by loneliness and despair could be pretty scary.

    I sometimes call it the future dictatorship of crazy old spinster aunts. It will be a combination of ferocious retail fascism and mindless petty sentimentality. Expect funding for police and prisons and cat shelters to increase substantially.

  10. #24 by just visiting on December 13, 2011 - 4:05 PM

    Depends. Do childless non breast feeding women live longer than men? I’m wondering if the old adage of use it or lose it applies. I’d be curious to know if their cancer rates are higher.

  11. #25 by Bronan the Barbarian! on December 14, 2011 - 12:55 AM

    I really want to create a flow chart for this article, similar to my Walmart fattie shaming post:

    http://bronanthebarbarian.com/2011/02/04/are-pants-necessary-in-walmart/

    Every possible outcome would be “It’s not my fault.”

  12. #26 by primallykosher on December 15, 2011 - 5:56 PM

    One thing I would like to be more aware of is the beta rationalization hamster in men. Does it work in the same way, can it be killed, severely wounded or is immortal as well? I think understanding this better would help with say business game and dealing with most guys.

    • #27 by P Ray on December 18, 2011 - 11:21 PM

      The beta rationalisation hamster only gets killed in men when they understand that the players, while considered by normal society as a plague … are actually only really dealing with women who want to be with them. (Many of these relationships consist of the player, the woman, and the woman’s emotional tampons, with the idea that the woman goes to the player for her sex and physical needs, and goes to the other men for her emotional needs. One thing to recognise about women with players is that they have every excuse for his behaviour, but won’t tolerate a dissenting opinion from the guys she wants emotional support from.
      Once these guys understand that they can get over their (ill-considered) one-itis, which ironically, puts them on the path to becoming players, or MGTOW.
      There are not enough players to feed the gina-tingles of every woman … but every man has the choice to say no to a woman whom he doesn’t know well enough to commit to, and who brings very little to the table.
      I’m pretty sure the mothers of men (who are also women) … would agree that a bad wife is not a good match for any man … is this the bit where women can get around to saying they are oppressed by other women? I can’t wait for that day :)

  13. #28 by Perhaps on December 16, 2011 - 8:11 AM

    I have thought about it and there is a very important flaw to this post, which some rereading some previous comments about wishful thinking triggered:

    The rationalization hamster is not the same as wishful thinking, it is strictly speaking a narrow special case

    In other words most of the examples in the blog entry above are not examples of rationalization hamsters spinning the wheel, they are examples of simple wishful thinking.

    The rationalization hamster really is about just this case (my interpretation of the Heartiste previously known as Citizen Renegade):

    1: Almost all women are tingle whores, in the sense they will usually fuck anyone who tingles their gina and won’t fuck those who don’t (“attraction is not a choice”).

    2: After they whore themselves to whoever gives them their tingle fix, they realize that their behaviour has not matched their delusional self image, therefore they need a rationalization hamster to to spin and spin some self-hypocritical story in which they did not whore out for a tingle fix, but … (the hamster fills in the blanks).

    So the rationalization hamster is (after-the-fact) wishful thinking strictly only in the case where they have fucked some tingle dealer and they need to make-believe it was not whoring for tingle.

    Their regular, less intense, powers of wishful thinking apply instead to other aspects of their lives.

  14. #29 by Kane on December 16, 2011 - 5:16 PM

    Anyone unwilling to take responsibility for their own actions does not deserve to be considered an adult. Anyone who has not progressed to the mental level of an adult does not deserve the right to vote.

  15. #30 by Doug1 on January 11, 2012 - 3:00 PM

    Excellent post.

  16. #31 by Black Man, Red Pill on June 26, 2012 - 9:42 AM

    “The rationalization hamster really is about just this case (my interpretation of the Heartiste previously known as Citizen Renegade):

    1: Almost all women are tingle whores, in the sense they will usually fuck anyone who tingles their gina and won’t fuck those who don’t (“attraction is not a choice”).

    2: After they whore themselves to whoever gives them their tingle fix, they realize that their behaviour has not matched their delusional self image, therefore they need a rationalization hamster to to spin and spin some self-hypocritical story in which they did not whore out for a tingle fix, but … (the hamster fills in the blanks).

    So the rationalization hamster is (after-the-fact) wishful thinking strictly only in the case where they have fucked some tingle dealer and they need to make-believe it was not whoring for tingle.

    Their regular, less intense, powers of wishful thinking apply instead to other aspects of their lives.”

    Good points..

  17. #32 by doug on June 29, 2012 - 5:12 PM

    This is great. Another inane rationalization being thrown around for the last few months is YOLO.

    Bad Decision:
    I got wasted at the bar and got home and ate three pounds of macaroni and cheese and a pint of Ben & Jerry’s.

    Resulting Consequences:
    Slightly overweight, chunky amorphous upper body.

    Hamster Processing Result:
    Guys just don’t see my inner beauty. Plus, YOLO!

    Final Result:
    “It’s not my fault.”

  18. #34 by the audacious amateur blogger on December 13, 2012 - 4:31 PM

    Read this to gain a more in depth understanding, really wrap my head around the term “hamstering”. It def provided that. Use of examples, always a great teaching mechanism.

    Only “critique”, not really, more an observation/statement.

    Rationalization is not exclusive to woman, is there a term for male rationalization on why he can’t get a girl or isn’t built enough or whatever?

    Secondly, rationalization is actually an evolutionary device to help us cope with situations that, if we truly acknowledged could drive us bat shit nuts. I mean the “crazy genius” probably rarely rationalizes, detects every nuance of his or her own inadequacies, see’s how other people interpret or judge him for them and eventually drink, drug or gun themselves to death bc sometimes – NOT ALWAYS – ignorance is bliss. Rationalization can also be dangerous, lead to continued drug addition, any addiction and self destructive behavior.

    I think one is meant to learn from rationalization, to recognize, if not subtly, her poor choices have led to negative results and then change that behavior – hence “no regrets”.

    I find regret to be a waste of time, emotion. You can’t change what already happened, take from it what you can, learn, don’t do it again and move on. No point on focusing on what you can’t undo. That’s just my take on that anyhow.

  19. #35 by Yep It's Me on July 16, 2013 - 4:03 PM

    I’m so glad that you don’t close out the comments.

    One of the most wonderful things about the Hamster is when two women can get their hamsters to run in sync – my STBXW was lucky enough to have a young woman therapist who told her “It’s not your fault” – in reference to her marriage/relationship with me.

  1. Fat Woman Says “Men Prefer Fat Women” | Fat Girl Jihad
  2. Rationalization hamsters … or hamster rationalizations? « man boobz
  3. The Rationalization Hamster!
  4. Men Have Rationalization Hamsters Too « Starting Young & Aiming High
  5. God Save My Hamster, Part 2: God Loves Frivolous Divorce | Christian Men's Defense Network
  6. Jack Donovan, "Masculinity and Master Morality" | Counter-Currents Publishing
  7. Masculinity and Master Morality
  8. Deconstructing a Facebook Photo « morganthewriter
  9. Disconnect Culture | realitydoug
  10. Sensual Sunday’s: last single one standing « I Am an Afterschool Special
  11. Sensual Sunday’s: last single (wo)man standing « I Am an Afterschool Special
  12. Rationalization Hamster, part 1 « the Life of Liz
  13. Rationaliseringshamster « Yasers hörna
  14. Kvinnlig rösträtt | Yasers hörna
  15. The True Proverbs 31 Woman | The Society of Phineas
  16. Google Translate does not offer English-to-Hamsterese, so Deti is here to help you out. | Sunshine Mary
  17. The Cult Of The Victim | The Society of Phineas
  18. You’re amazing! | The Pillars of Hercules

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,500 other followers

%d bloggers like this: