Notes on Feminine Logic
© D. V. Beklemishev
3rd edition, revised and expanded.
Foreword
In our age exact knowledge is conquering ever new domains. One such domain is feminine logic. Its rigorous exposition is still in its infancy. Ordinary masculine logic passed through that stage more than two thousand years ago, but feminine logic is still waiting for its Aristotle. To our descendants falls the great and honorable task of creating a systematic course in feminine logic, carrying out its axiomatization, and building computing machines that operate according to feminine-logical schemes. For now, we shall have to content ourselves with the present notes. Their task is, as far as possible, to make up for nature's oversight in depriving men of the innate ability to use feminine logic, so necessary in many of life's situations. One can foresee the reproach that our own exposition is itself based on feminine logic. This reproach must be recognized as entirely out of place: a demand to expound Aristotelian logic by means of feminine logic would sound no better. Why is this even perceived as a reproach in the first place? At bottom lies a mocking, condescending, philistine attitude toward feminine logic. This attitude is not too surprising: it is, unfortunately, a common reaction on encountering something alien and inaccessible. In just the same way the naked islanders may at first have laughed, pointing their fingers at Captain Cook's clothed (and armed) sailors... As for the author, he takes his subject entirely seriously and respectfully — far more seriously than a cursory reading of this work might suggest. On the basis of his own sad experience, the author advises the beginner not to enter into conversations with women without having thoroughly studied the present guide. It is best first to acquire some preliminary training on special courses in this subject. Students of such courses, besides the main sessions, are recommended exercises aimed at increasing lung capacity and strengthening the vocal cords. Unremitting attention should be paid to general physical conditioning and hardening of the organism. Constant medical supervision is very important.
GENERAL REMARKS
Perhaps not the main, but the first thing that strikes the eye, is the difference between feminine and masculine logic in that the former is always applied to argument. Masculine logic can be applied both to argument and to abstract reasoning. Feminine logic is more specialized: applying itself in a narrower field of thought, it delivers results far exceeding anything Aristotle could have dreamed of. Masculine logic deals with disputes that arise because two people, starting from common premises, arrive at different conclusions. Since the rules of inference are unambiguous, one of them is right and the other has made a logical error, and who is right and who is not can be determined without regard to persons. Feminine logic applies to any dispute, and so it may well happen that each disputant is right. There is even a special expression for this situation: You're right in your own way. Such a state of affairs, of course, cannot occur if the rules of inference are unambiguous. The words you're right in your own way should be understood as: applying the rules of inference the way you do, you turn out to be right, or from your premises you draw the conclusion correctly, but mine are different. Given the present state of science we cannot answer the question of who will prevail in a dispute grounded in feminine logic. The present edition, we hope, will help future researchers find a formulation of the answer, if one is in principle possible. Let us begin by considering the following example.
Liza is six years old, Vanya is four. Despite this tender age, they already make use of feminine logic.
Liza: I'm going to Uncle Kolya's, and I won't take you!
Vanya: I'll go by myself, without you!
Liza: Then I'll tie you up in the room with a rope.
Vanya: Then I'll tear the rope and go.
Liza: Then I'll lock the door!
Vanya: Then I'll break the door!
Liza: Then I'll make the door out of iron!
Vanya: Then I'll climb out the window!
Liza: Then I'll seal the window with iron!!!
Vanya: Then I'll break through the wall!!!
Liza: Then I'll lock you in an iron room!!!
Here Vanya could only have objected in terms of feminine logic by shifting to another plane (see the corresponding section), but he doesn't know how to do that. All that's left for him is to burst into tears, which is exactly what Liza was after. But why did Vanya end up in such a hopeless position? Notice that the course of the conversation was determined not by what the interlocutors disagreed on, but by what they agreed on. Namely, Liza allowed that Vanya could break any non-iron object, while reserving for herself the ability to create any iron one. Although this was never stated outright, Vanya accepted it and proceeded from the very same assumption throughout the conversation. This side of feminine logic is discussed in more detail toward the end of these notes.
Let us give a few simple rules of a particular kind, with the help of which one can, in many important cases, find out who will turn out to be right in a dispute grounded in feminine logic.
* An assertion left without objection is thereby proven.
It does not matter for what reasons the objection failed to come. For example, if you utter 5 to 10 propositions in a row at high speed, you can be sure that some of them will go unanswered. If an insult follows a proposition, the reply is usually addressed to the insult rather than to the proposition, which thereby becomes proven — unless the return insult is stronger than the original one. From this it is clear that the force of the arguments employed must keep increasing. (Below we shall have occasion to examine this question in more depth.) One can leave one's own statement unanswered by dashing out of the room in time, or, failing that, by covering one's ears. The latter gesture must be performed clearly enough. If, say, you have previously stopped your ears with cotton wool, your interlocutress will consider that her arguments reached you and went unanswered. And she will be right in the dispute.
An interesting question concerns disputes in which the interlocutresses do not listen to one another at all. Presumably each of them is right in her own way.
The reasoning given is enough to form an idea of logical arguments of this type.
Silence may be interpreted as agreement, so a quick answer is almost always better than a considered one. All the more so since, as we shall see below, one should not overrate the role of the content of the answer.
* The disputant left with the last word wins the entire dispute outright. For this reason objections are always directed against the opponent's last statement. Indeed, if it is refuted, it suffices to stop the conversation. Though managing to do so may prove no easy matter.
The second reason one should concentrate one's attention exclusively on the last statement is that refuting the second-to-last statement makes no sense: your opponent can always disown it or distort it beyond recognition. No one can step into the same river twice. Just so, in a conversation with a lady one cannot return to what was said earlier.
Here an interesting consequence arises, namely: no proof can be longer than a single sentence. Longer proofs are not applicable in practice. Reasoning of several sentences is used when the interlocutor is deprived of the possibility of answering you: is confused, slow-witted, or in a position of dependence on you. In the latter case, logic prescribes inserting, from time to time, the phrase "Be quiet when I'm talking to you!". In all these cases, however, your rightness is assured.
Yet logic would not be feminine if even the fundamental rule of the last word could not itself be called into question. One lady in Bernard Shaw says: "I'd let him have the last word, my dear. The main thing isn't to have the last word at all, but to get your own way."
* In feminine logic every assertion can be not only refuted, but also rejected. To reject a statement is to declare it meaningless and leave it without attention. If you reject your interlocutress's last statement, your own second-to-last assertion remains unanswered and thus becomes proven. For instance, the most well-founded considerations can be rejected with the words "So what?" or "Couldn't you think of anything better?".
In one of the following paragraphs we shall try to show, by example, how arguments are rejected. Here we shall only note that statements by an interlocutor based on obvious facts must be rejected, since even in feminine logic they are difficult to refute. Facts... not all of them are to our taste, but denying them is a sign of poor qualification. It is astonishing how little needs to be adjusted to turn a fact from an enemy into an ally.
To sum up, note that for a lady the content of her interlocutress's answer does not matter — what matters is only the fact that she answered. And this fact is outrageous.
Problems of semantics
One must bear in mind, and constantly remember, that ladies' statements are multi-layered. In analyzing any statement by a lady, one must answer at least three questions:
1) What the lady said,
2) What the lady wanted to say,
3) What she actually said.
Next come the second-level questions:
4) What she wanted to actually say,
5) What she actually, in fact, said,
and so on... There may be many levels. Given the elementary character of the present guide, we shall confine ourselves to first-level questions. To illustrate, let us imagine the following scene:
Santuzza, accompanied by the young Duke, is walking in the park and unexpectedly (to him) asks her companion to tie her shoelace. The Duke is embarrassed:
- But it's tied! -- he says.
- Idiot ! -- Santuzza replies.
The Duke is stunned and offended:
- But how have I deserved, mademoiselle...
- Leave me alone !
The Duke leaves, brooding to himself over his lady's incomprehensible whims and the complete absence of logic in women's behavior. ("I knew he was an idiot, but I could never have imagined he was that much of an idiot!" - Santuzza will later tell her confidante.) So then, the first statement was a request. What the lady wanted to say the Duke never guessed (we leave it to the reader to guess), and so, in fact, she said only what she said. With her second statement Santuzza did not mean to offend the Duke, but only to point out his mistake. Had she not given vent to her (quite understandable) vexation, she would have expressed herself more gently. But the Duke took her literally, and so, in fact, she simply offended him. One may suppose that with her third statement Santuzza wanted to say: "You understand nothing! As if I could tell you outright..."; whether it was her intention to be left alone we do not know. But, once again, she was taken literally. To give the reader an idea of second-level questions, let us suppose the whole scene was staged. Imagine that before it began Santuzza noticed her cousin Francesca standing on the balcony, and wished to demonstrate to her — perhaps what did not happen owing to the Duke's idiocy, or perhaps what actually did happen. What, then, and to whom, did she in fact actually want to say when she asked the Duke to tie her shoelace? Moreover, she could not fail to take into account that everything seen by Francesca would immediately become known to old the Marquise... Surveys show that among the chief virtues expected of a life companion, ladies list understanding on his part. However, nowhere is it specified to what level this understanding must extend. In this work we shall not delve into the complex problems of feminine semantics, but shall understand every statement as it sounds.
General propositions and refutation by example
In feminine logic, as in Aristotelian logic, there exist general and particular propositions. However, the rule according to which a general proposition can never be proven by any number of examples, but can be refuted by a single contradicting example, does not hold.
If one example does not always fully prove a general proposition, then two examples prove it in any case. Similarly, a contradicting example proves nothing, since it is only one, and one example says nothing at all.
These laws of feminine logic contradict the standpoint of masculine logic, but that means nothing; they are both valid.
The negation of a general proposition is, naturally, likewise a general proposition, and not a particular one. Consider, for example, the following exchange, which repeats from generation to generation but retains its freshness for the disputants:
Mother: All you ever think about is yourself!
Daughter: And what do you want, for me to always think only of you !?
Let us illustrate what was said about refutation by example, with the help of the following dialogue.
Lillian: Ever since I married you, you never give me anything!
John: Forgive me, dear, but for the First of May I gave you a gallon of perfume.
Here Lillian has several possible responses to choose from:
1st variant:
Lillian: Big deal, some gallon of cheap perfume! You give a present once a year and even count it to your credit!
2nd variant:
Lillian: You never gave me anything, you probably gave that perfume to some little singer. Oh! You're capable of that!
3rd variant:
Lillian: I don't remember any perfume! But even if you do give me some trifle once a year, how can that compare to the care other husbands show!?
In connection with the question under discussion, one must mention the well-known law of feminine logic according to which the exception proves the rule. This law makes it possible to reject contradicting examples without lengthy deliberation.
The logical figure described below is known as Cleopatra's turn, though it was no doubt already in use in the Stone Age. It consists in demanding confirmation by example, and then accusing the other of pettiness. Let us see how this is applied in practice:
Lidia Ivanovna: As long as you've worked for us, you've always been rude!
Larisa: Well, when was I ever rude to you, honestly!
Lidia Ivanovna: Yesterday, when I sent you to the office, what did you say to me?
Larisa: And what, is it my job to run to the office! And you have no right to send me anywhere!
Lidia Ivanovna: Or on Friday, when I opened the window... well, granted, you had a cold — but was that any way to talk?
Larisa: Well, Lidia Ivanovna, you're always picking on some trifles from ages ago! There's just no living with you!
Repeating an argument
In masculine logic we are used to the fact that the demonstrative force of an argument does not change when it is repeated. If a theorem is proven, then no matter how often doubts arise, repeating the proof dispels them. In feminine logic, the demonstrative force of an argument changes with repetition according to a rather complex law. Most often it grows, but sometimes it collapses catastrophically. When repeating an argument, one should give it a new verbal formulation each time. It is especially important that the insults and curses — without which, as is well known, a logical argument is like dumplings without sour cream — be fresh each time. If you fail to observe this rule, be sure that after the second or third repetition your argument will be rejected: Oh here he goes again, harping on the same thing!. However, only green novices are liable to make this mistake.
Let us illustrate this with a scene performed (after the manner of Aeschylean tragedies) by two soloists and a chorus.
Citizeness: My glasses! My glasses! Stolen! What a disaster!
Chorus of passengers: Look for them yourself, who'd want to steal them!
Citizeness: This one here stole them! Just look, what a face! Give back my glasses! And how he's dressed!
The lad: But I was standing over there, not here.
Citizeness: Of course he stole them! Look how he's staring!
Chorus: No, he wasn't there, he was only standing over there!
Citizeness: And he's blushing! Prison's too good for the likes of him!
Chorus: Well, what of it! Maybe he simply took them?
The lad: I was standing over there, I wasn't here at all!
Citizeness: Who else could have stolen them? He's the thief, clearly!
Chorus: Give back the glasses, and let's end this talk!
The lad: I wasn't here, I was standing right there...
Citizeness: There's the thief, the pickpocket! It's clear, he stole them!
Chorus: What can one say! He just keeps repeating it, like a parrot!
Citizeness: To the police! Why are you all standing there so timidly!?
Chorus: To the police! And we'll all confirm it,
That he stole the citizeness's glasses!
Disputes in which each side repeats its own arguments are called cyclical. In time, the dynamic theory of cyclical disputes will grow into a most fascinating chapter of feminine logic, rich in ergodic theorems and asymptotic estimates.
QUANTITATIVE ESTIMATES
Even in masculine logic, relatively few propositions are absolutely true or false independently of quantitative estimates. When a man trained in logic says that a shoe is black, that man as a rule does not mean that the shoe absorbs all the rays falling on it. But in making such a statement, the man considers it his duty to define what he calls black. Such investigations, not properly belonging to logic, are usually subtle and laborious. They greatly slow down the process of reasoning. Feminine logic is more flexible and knows no such difficulties. Whether or not to recognize a given color as black is entirely determined by the goal at hand. Let us illustrate this with a small example:
Raisa: Senya, your collar is simply dreadful! Take off your shirt, I'll send it to the wash!
Semyon: It's still fairly clean, Raechka. I only put it on yesterday
Raisa: Just look at the collar! It's completely black.
...
...
Aunt Sasha: Raisa Markovna, if you keep giving me such worn-out shirts, I'll start charging you extra per piece! One wears out one's hands scrubbing them!
Raisa: Semyon Matveyevich wore it only one day. And look at the collar — it's perfectly white.
As an exercise I invite the reader to decide what temperature (in degrees C) perfectly cold tea has: +80, +40, +18, 0, -273?
Notice that Senya's collar is absolutely black. Feminine logic knows no half-tones: any doubt, any uncertainty is a weapon in the hands of the opposing side. In a properly constructed phrase everything must be sharp and contrasting, carried to an extreme. For instance, the daughter in the dialogue from the section on general propositions thinks always and only of herself. Listen also to the following monologue, interesting in this same respect.
"I absolutely have nothing to wear! This one can't be worn — nobody ever goes around like that. And this one!? Do you think I can go out in this — absolutely everyone, everyone wears exactly that! And this one I already wore yesterday... That's it, there's simply nothing left at all!"
SHIFTING TO ANOTHER PLANE
This paragraph is devoted to one of the most important abilities of feminine logic — the shift to another plane. It is this that is meant when it is said that in feminine logic two times two is a stearin candle. The essence of the shift to another plane consists in changing the subject of the argument as imperceptibly as possible. Naturally, you must choose the new plane so that in it you can more easily prove your case. Having done this, you automatically win the entire dispute, including in all the planes you have abandoned. In its most primitive form, the shift to another plane takes the shape of what the Romans called quaternio terminorum, and what the Russians denote with the proverb: onions in the garden, an uncle in Kiev (a non sequitur). In a more developed form, in place of some highly disputable assertion, another — indisputable — one is brilliantly proven to you. Just try to object! To do so you would have to return to your interlocutress's long-faded words, which, as we have seen, is impossible. It should be borne in mind that the whole variety of the method of shifting to another plane can in no way be reduced to the types of reasoning described in Aristotelian logic as fallacious. We already met one example of shifting to another plane in the dialogue between Lidia Ivanovna and Larisa. Larisa replaced a discussion of the form of her answer about the errand with a discussion of its content. Let us consider one more example:
Anna Ivanovna: Lieutenant Pronin is not a womanizer at all!
Lyuba: Oh please! Yesterday I watched him, he spent almost an hour talking with Nyurka the buffet girl!
Anna Ivanovna: Well, and so what, big deal! He talked with Nyurka, and not an hour but five minutes, I watched too — and already he's a womanizer!
Here Lyuba, sensing that Anna Ivanovna is right and that her own arguments are weak, shifts the conversation to another plane, for example, like this:
Lyuba: Some five minutes! Aunt Grusha managed to fetch water and feed the calf, and they were still standing there.
Anna Ivanovna: Their well is right nearby, and the calf hadn't finished drinking anyway...
As we see, Anna Ivanovna does not give up, but the shift to another plane has succeeded. Now Lieutenant Pronin's reputation depends on whether the calf managed to finish drinking.
The shift succeeded, but it might not have. The opposing side can decline the proposed shift to another plane — and object to you in the old plane. Now you can choose: go back and object in the old plane, or go on developing your thoughts in the new one. This is how a situation can arise in which each of the interlocutresses, ignoring the other's statements, talks about her own thing. It is important to understand that such disputes are no worse than any others and are subject to the general laws. It should be noted that the plane in which the dispute is conducted sometimes changes at a considerable speed. The speed can be so great that a man without special training cannot understand at all what is being discussed. The author, by means of prolonged observation and reflection, has uncovered the nature of this phenomenon. The purpose of such a dispute is to find out who is right and who is not right in general, rather than on some particular matter. Therefore the subject of the dispute holds no interest whatsoever for the disputants and is easily lost. Thus, for example, it may easily turn out that the most logical response to the statement "... but in Bulgaria, on the Golden Sands, the sand is twice as hot!" will be the statement "But my HUSBAND and I were in Bakuriani in winter, and there it's nothing but foreigners..." Essentially reducible to the shift to another plane is an important method of feminine logic that we may call taking in parentheses. It consists in the following: suppose your interlocutress has an important and convincing argument that you cannot refute, and which is not easy to reject either. What is to be done? Agree. Yes, however paradoxical it may sound, agree briefly and decisively. Immediately after agreeing, you must say "BUT" and, without pausing for breath, set forth your own considerations, shifting to another plane. Your interlocutress finds it hard, and has nothing left, to insist — you already agreed. She will be forced either to shift to the new plane or to repeat her argument. In the latter case it will be much easier to reject. Or you may agree again and go on with your own line. An argument correctly taken in parentheses hangs, as it were, in a vacuum, and in the end is either rejected or simply drops out of the conversation. It is very useful to take in parentheses the interlocutor's merits and your own shortcomings: "Yes, I know I'm a useless mother, but you never think of anyone but yourself!" or "Of course, you earn a lot, but think of me: I'm alone all day, and in the evening you come home tired and have no time for me. One could just hang oneself from a life like this!" Here is a more elaborate example:
Natalya Sergeyevna: Well, what have you been doing here while I was out? Watching television the whole time, I bet?
Masha: I washed the floor, Mama.
Natalya Sergeyevna: I can see you washed it: all the chairs pushed about anyhow, now I have to clean up after you again! My hands ache from morning, and all you know is how to watch television!
Masha: I was washing the floor, not watching television.
Natalya Sergeyevna: What's all this about your floor! I'm not blind. I've had it up to here with that television of yours! If I ever see you in front of it again, mark my words, you'll get it!
Natalya Sergeyevna will go on for a long time yet — not until she has fully convinced herself of her own rightness — but it will be a monologue: Masha's argument has been firmly taken in parentheses.
The method of escalation
A correctly constructed logical argument should not resemble a listless squabble. Although, in principle, one can (and sometimes must) repeat one's arguments, it is better and more effective to find new ones. Your logical argument must be dynamic and correctly built up dramatically; the force of the arguments used must keep growing.
Here it should be noted that arguments of any strength cannot be applied on any occasion whatsoever. Can a grown girl, for instance, burst into tears if she is bought the wrong kind of candy? Hardly. That would be improper even for an eight-year-old. But what if her admirer is utterly indifferent to which candies she likes, and pays no attention at all to her tastes ? Here a little crying is quite in order. And what if she is not loved at all, absolutely not ? Torrential tears are practically obligatory.
We thus see that the strength of the arguments must be increased by shifting to a plane in which those arguments will be not merely logical but also appropriate. This is precisely what produces the dramatic rise in tension in the conversation: what we call escalation takes place.
When applying the method of escalation it is important to forget entirely the original plane — where it all began. If you fail to do this, at some point you will glance down from the heights, the original subject of the dispute will seem petty from such a distance, and your head will spin: could this trifle really be worth all this? At that point you have lost! In escalation, whoever fails to hold out, fails to accept the move to a new, higher level of tension, is in the wrong. Striving for the shining heights, never look down and never stop. Victory at any price, and nothing else!
Yet victory, as noted, goes to whichever of the interlocutresses manages to end the conversation at the right moment. Here a phrase known as Xanthippe's argument can help (True fame, incidentally, was brought to Xanthippe by an entirely different argument, one purists would hardly recognize as logical. In the author's opinion, this only proves once again that great discoveries are made at the junction of disciplines.)
"Well, I never — I won't talk to you in that tone!"
It is often useful to steer the discussion deliberately toward a squabble purely in order to pronounce this phrase. Your interlocutor will not only concede that you are right, but will also feel guilty.
One more piece of advice: walk ahead, and let your interlocutor scramble after you. This demoralizes him. He barely catches up and answers something at the new level. Don't listen to him! What does that have to do with anything? Skip a level and treat him to an argument he could never have expected from you. The result will not be long in coming. Let us quote Akhmatova:
How could I forget? He walked out reeling,
His mouth twisted in agony...
The poetess does not specify by what methods her lyrical heroine achieved such an effect, but the eye of an experienced observer will unmistakably determine that escalation played the leading role here.
To some extent escalation arises in any conversation, but it takes on a pronounced, dramatic character only given sufficient energy, persistence, and intransigence on the part of both interlocutresses. Of course, a victory achieved by the method of escalation may come at a rather high price, but one must never allow defeats, still less grow accustomed to them. Besides, a word once out is not a sparrow you can catch again — and yet a word that has flown out can, in fact, often be caught, or, in the last resort, taken in parentheses: "Yes, of course, that's what I said. So what?". By the way, a word differs from a boomerang too: a boomerang comes back only when it misses, while a word may come back even after striking its target. Let us continue the quotation:
I ran off, not touching the banister,
And ran after him to the gate.
Gasping for breath, I cried out: "It's all
A joke! If you leave, I'll die!"
Some joke indeed! But let us turn to an illustrative example.
Regina Yuryevna: Excuse me please, would you mind moving your little suitcase ?
Margarita Lvovna: No, I won't move it. Why should I have to move it?
Regina Yuryevna: But it's so cramped! You've taken up half the bench with your suitcase!
Margarita Lvovna: Eat less. Lose some weight and you won't need so much room.
Regina Yuryevna: Why so rude? What has everyone become so rude for, it's simply impossible to get on the commuter train!
Margarita Lvovna: You're the rude one!
(A classic shift to another plane -- moving on to discuss the interlocutress herself.)
Regina Yuryevna: Who's being rude to whom!? I said plainly in Russian, move the suitcase!
Margarita Lvovna: So now you're being familiar with me too! On principle I won't move a thing now!
(A shift to principles -- the standard method of escalation. Persistence over trifles is stubbornness, but on matters of principle no concessions are permissible.)
Regina Yuryevna: Some principled lady you are! Just look at yourself: all made up, and your hair a mess — I bet you haven't combed it in a week! (Now we move on to personalities.)
Margarita Lvovna: You... A boor, a plain boor, that's all you are! I won't even talk to such a boor. All dirty yourself, reeking, but doused in French perfume so it won't show!
It is unlikely that the two disputants, for all their eagerness for victory, will resort to obscenities, and without them their possibilities for mutual insult are limited: they don't know each other at all. It is a different matter when close acquaintances converse, each of whom knows the other's scale of values down to the depths... In the dialogue given, the tempo of escalation slows, and the audience, who until now had been following the exchange with tense attention, feel the need to intervene in order to keep the spectacle going. Here we shall leave them.
Syllogisms
One of the peculiarities of feminine logic is the absence of syllogisms. This testifies not at all to a weakness of the fair sex's mental faculties, but rather to the strength of these faculties. Indeed, the point is not at all that a woman cannot draw a conclusion from two premises, but that she knows her interlocutress will draw that same conclusion no worse than she can. And rest assured that if the conclusion does not suit the interlocutress, the latter will manage to disown, in time, both the major premise and the minor one, and indeed whatever else is required. And if the conclusion does suit the interlocutress, then one must, losing no time, disown it oneself. Since all this is known in advance, syllogisms are simply not used. If a man tries to apply them, the lady need only note that one should not agree with the premises unconditionally, but conditionally, saying, for example, "suppose" or something of the sort. Here is how this looks in practice:
Ivan: If I did have a bit to drink, it's because good people, friends -- you understand -- friends treated me!
Tatyana: You're lying through your teeth, you wretch!
Ivan: Don't I bring you my whole pay?
Tatyana: Well, let's say, all of it...
Ivan: So I've got nothing to drink on?
Tatyana: That's just what I'm wondering — what do you drink on?
Ivan: And whoever has nothing to drink on, his friends treat him!
Here Tatyana, with truly feminine perceptiveness, anticipates the conclusion "so it means the friends treated me too" and moves on to denying the premises:
Tatyana: And you brought home only 60 farthings of pay, and your friends are all alcoholics, I can't bear the sight of you, you drunken mug!
It must be firmly emphasized that when it is necessary to draw a conclusion from two premises, it must be drawn according to the rules of feminine logic. Indeed, consider, for example, the following phrase: "All my acquaintance A.'s friends are scoundrels and crooks." From the two statements it contains it would follow that the speaker himself is a scoundrel or a crook. In feminine logic such a conclusion is invalid, and any lady will utter such a phrase with a light heart, and some, indeed, may even produce a real gem from the author's own collection: "You son of a bitch! Why, I'm old enough to be your mother..."
THE ABSOLUTE
All that has been said confirms the ambiguity of the rules of inference in feminine logic. A man without special training is unable to foresee which of several possible conclusions ought to be drawn. How, then, do women manage? Masculine logic asserts that every proposition is either true or false. To distinguish true propositions from false ones, men make use of the natural or the humane sciences, but since the days of Adam they have not advanced very far in this respect. Feminine logic distinguishes propositions that are true, false, and not worthy of attention. And every woman, with complete ease and even greater confidence, will assign any statement to one of these three classes. How is this done? The author's fundamental discovery consists in the introduction of the concept of the absolute. Naturally, the absolute already existed in Eve's time, though the concept was, of course, never formulated by her. The absolute is a collection of statements used to test the truth of other statements in the following manner: a statement is true if it agrees with the absolute, false if it contradicts it, and unworthy of attention if it has nothing in common with the absolute. A consequence of this method of testing truth is the law formulated by A. N. Kolmogorov: (Kolmogorov in Recollections, ed. A. N. Shiryaev, Moscow, Fizmatlit, 1993, p. 377) "If from statement P follows Q, and Q is pleasant, then P is true." The absolute, as a rule, contains statements that are contradictory from the standpoint of masculine logic. From the standpoint of feminine logic, all of them are true by definition. It may happen that a statement will be accepted while its consequence is not. Try telling a lady that the existence of the immortal soul has not yet been proven. In all likelihood this will be met with complete indifference (the statement is not worthy of attention). Then say that the existence of a soul in women remains in doubt to this day, and compare the reaction. Naturally, every lady has her own absolute. This explains the meaning of the expression "What strange logic you have!". At first glance one might think the speaker believes that everyone has their own logic. In fact she is simply condemning the absolute of the person she is addressing. And if she is addressing a man, then, naturally, she is speaking of masculine logic. The absolute is not constant. It can change chaotically and abruptly. A woman whose absolute has a constant part is said to be a woman of principle. The remarks given are enough to show that feminine logic cannot be treated as a simple many-valued logic. With all due respect for the research of L. Zadeh (L. Zadeh. The Concept of a Linguistic Variable and Its Application to Approximate Reasoning. Moscow, "Mir", 1976.) and his followers, the author cannot regard their attempts in this respect as promising. Fuzzy set theory, apparently, could be applied differently. It is very tempting to regard the absolute as a fuzzy set. We shall not, however, go deeper into these specialized questions. Let us demonstrate the working of the absolute with the following dialogue:
Olga Petrovna: Misha! Come here! Who gave you permission to play football? Look how sweaty and dirty you are!
Misha: But all the boys play football...
Here Olga Petrovna anticipates the syllogism and proceeds to deny the conclusion, since denying the premises is not an option: Olga Petrovna: And if everyone went off to steal, would you go too, is that it? In Olga Petrovna's absolute (in its constant part!) there is the statement "one must not steal", and she uses a fictitious example, in which all the boys from the courtyard cheerfully go off to steal, in order to reject the line of reasoning that, in her example, would lead to a contradiction with the absolute. Olga Petrovna's last statement, by the absurdity of the assumption underlying it, paralyzes Misha's thoughts, and he fails to hit on the one reasonable objection — that he did not mean "if everyone does it, I can too", but "if everyone is allowed to, I'm allowed to too". As a result the last remark goes unanswered, and this settles the matter. One more example:
Citizen Mikhaleva:... all this week hasn't spent a single night home, we don't even know where she's dragging herself off to! And at night she throws drunken parties with dancing, such a racket you'd think it was Judgment Day, though I'm an unbeliever myself, ever since I got married. Take just yesterday: I couldn't fall asleep till four o'clock -- she brought some men over, they got drunk and sang songs ! (Citizen Mikhaleva means, of course, her neighbor, not herself.) There's simply no living with her!
The district officer: But you said Petrova hadn't been home for a week.
Citizen Mikhaleva: Why are you defending her? I didn't call you here to defend her! She's a parasite, plain and simple, though she's got plenty of defenders, Lord forgive me, though I'm an unbeliever, and my late husband, God rest him, was the district atheist...
Had Citizen Mikhaleva been not merely a practitioner but also a theorist of feminine logic, she would have said: the statement "Petrova is a parasite" belongs to the absolute. Therefore both accusations are true. Their apparent contradiction matters only to men, who view truth far too crudely and straightforwardly. Truth, for a woman, as Jean Anouilh said, is something so fragile, so shifting, so many-sided...
"Well, of course I'm right! There's nothing even to prove. But if he needs some kind of proof, what difference does it make what I tell him -- as long as he finally leaves me be!"
It should be emphasized that the propositions of the absolute have only logical significance and no other, moral for instance. Thus for Olga Petrovna, mentioned above, despite her absolute, it costs nothing to pocket from the workshop where she works not just a couple of spools of thread but something rather more substantial. (And she will justify this, should the need arise, precisely on the grounds that "everybody" does it.) The only important thing is to call one's own act by a different name. Let us listen, in support of this idea, to a lady in whose absolute it is written in letters of fire that lying is repulsive.
"How on earth did I deceive him! I never lie, ever! I just told him that on purpose, so he'd think she hadn't arrived yet. And to tell her that he'd left and didn't say to pass anything on. See how cleverly I arranged everything! You'd never have guessed."
Let us use the concept of the absolute to work out what a woman can be persuaded of, and what she cannot.
Some believe that a woman cannot be persuaded of anything, while others hold that women are easily susceptible to suggestion. It should by now be obvious to us that a woman can easily be persuaded of a statement that is not worthy of attention. And it is utterly impossible to persuade her of a statement that contradicts the absolute. This is comparable to the impossibility of persuading a sensible man that, from the fact that every herring is a fish, it follows that every fish is a herring. This is not logical, and only extraneous considerations could make him temporarily agree with it in words.
How to talk with men
The art whose name serves as this heading is, without doubt, necessary for every woman, and every woman masters it by the appropriate age -- for many, by about age three. I do not know whether there has ever been a man who mastered this art. In any case such people are no more common than brilliant scientists or artists. Of course, our modest notes make no claim to a complete, or even an initial, exposition of this subject. Let us offer merely a few considerations. Your feminine logic will fit his masculine logic like a key to a lock, if you can get him to accept the truth of the propositions from your absolute necessary for the dispute in question. If, on the other hand, this cannot be managed, the conversation should be broken off. I very nearly wrote "admit defeat", but that is exactly the one thing that must never be done. In this latter unfavorable case, one must recognize that the outcome of the conversation reflects poorly on your interlocutor: "it is simply impossible to talk with him". This clarifies the meaning of a phrase, obscure to the uninitiated, that one often hears: "I talked with him for two solid hours... It's simply impossible to talk with him!". Your task is made easier by the fact that men, as a rule, have no notion of the absolute whatsoever, hold a deep respect for Logic, and readily agree with anything that logically follows from something, without troubling themselves too much about what exactly. There is no need to explain at length that one's absolute should be offered with intelligence and tact. These men react rather strangely to everything. Sometimes you simply cannot know what to expect from them. Thus the presence of contradictions within the absolute, its overly rapid change, or other trifles can spoil the whole affair. Let us consider the following dialogue.
Nelly: Oh, Kitten, I happened to drop into the department store today, completely by chance, and there they had THESE SHOES... and only 50 doubloons!
Sergei: Only 50? And what are we going to buy coal for the winter with?
(So much for the vaunted masculine logic! I'm telling him about shoes, and he's on about coal. Completely beside the point!)
Nelly: Well I knew you'd always begrudge me the money, so I wasn't even planning to buy them. But listen, what shoes! All grey, but here in front, near the toe -- beige!
(When offering your absolute, it is sometimes not at all a bad idea to show off a bit of leg.)
Sergei: And how did you end up at the department store?
(Oh, here he goes again! It's simply impossible to talk to him! "Simply", but not "utterly", fortunately.)
Nelly: And by the way, you have no decent warm boots for the winter. You can't keep patching up the ones you wore last year!
Sergei: Yes, I suppose they could go unpatched...
(Keep agreeing, keep agreeing...)
Nelly: And I don't have anything either.
Sergei: Well! Really?
Nelly: Yes, of course, I'll just go around barefoot, while he won't even fix his boots from last year!
(The ancient Spanish gambit.)
Sergei: No, Nellie, but I... Ah, what a girl you are...
Nelly: That's just how you always are! So then, we both need new footwear for the winter.
Sergei: Well, I could still patch mine up.
Nelly: Do as you like. You always do things your own way. But I think we should dress ourselves first, and only then think about the coal.
Sergei: Yes, probably...
(And so Kitten has accepted the absolute. What follows is left to the reader's imagination.)
It is often very convenient to separate the imposition of the absolute from the reasoning itself. Sometimes it is enough merely to impose one's absolute on him. Men cannot be denied a certain shrewdness, and they draw the simplest conclusions themselves. I shall not give examples. Every reader has, of course, heard phrases like the following: "I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Do as you see fit. A man should always decide for himself. I only want to explain to you how things stand, since you're simply not up to date..." The world is ancient, and logic is eternal. You will, without doubt, hear something of this sort again. But now at least you know what it means.
Author: Dmitry Vladimirovich Beklemishev ,
professor of the Department of Higher Mathematics
at the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology.