Chick Logic (Disclaimer: not a misogynist rant)

(Second disclaimer: to be taken with a grain of salt, not all women or men comport themselves or process the world and their interaction with it according to how I describe below, nor is either gender restricted to one set of stereotypical behaviours and reactions. We all have a bit of each other and everyone in ourselves. That being said, I think most people can identify these types of phenomena even if the correlation is not a perfect 1)

Years ago, prior to my MDMA use and its revelatory lessons, my understanding of Chick Logic was identical to any red-blooded heterosexual cis-male: any humorous description hyperbolically expounded by the stand-up comedian du jour. In other words, the expression was oxymoronic, as there seemingly was very little rationality involved. I have come to learn that it does indeed possess a logical flow of ideas and thoughts, though little of it is ‘masculine’ in nature (for lack of a better term).

Chick Logic is at the epicenter of incredible amounts of male-to-female relationship strife, whether intimate, parental, or otherwise. It leaves the man dumbfounded (or just dumb in the woman’s eyes), and the woman frustrated. What then ensues is the man attempts to ‘fix’ (his words) the ‘situation’ (still his words), using the same emotionally restrictive tools and models at his disposal: ie, not much. He will use dry facts and dry words in a spiritually roundabout way to change the woman’s ‘mood’. Viewed from a strictly male perspective, this makes sense: he loves or cares for her, and therefore wants her to be happy. Viewed from a feminine, or ungendered, or even metaphysical perspective, one sees clearly that using dry words and dry facts to change mood is madness. It is akin to seeing that the lawn grass is tall and ready to be mowed, and then grabbing a Dutch Oven to fix it.

I will not address the pitfalls and drawbacks of Chick Logic, as this has previously been hammered out by the aforementioned stand-up comedians. Rather, I will delve into the masculine shortcomings of such encounters, as well as its ‘remedies’. Also, bear in mind that the following is applicable to all male-female relationships, and not just those that are romantic in nature.

First, the attempt to ‘fix’ an incident already demonstrates an inadequate frame of mind: we men are not relationship car mechanics. We are arguably less competent to be such things in comparison to the fairer sex, so what hubris and arrogance allowed us to think otherwise?

Second, and still sticking with the issue of the ‘fixing’ mindset, is this really a problem with negative connotations? Or is it an opportunity that is presenting itself to both of you in order for you to grow, because maybe the Universe suspects you might be ready? Ironically, yet logically, if you fail to grow in this regard, the Universe will keep offering you the same problem — sorry, opportunity — for you to evolve beyond it.

Third, most men consider the outwardly expression of mood as the final end point, and not a mere surrogate marker of what lies beneath. As Rose Dewitt Bukater once said, ‘’A woman’s heart is a deep ocean of secrets.’’ Thus, many men happily trade for the instant gratification of a woman’s glossed-over half-smile at the expense of: long-term suffering, and lack of growth beyond the present issue. I can already hear the men who say that they can’t stand to see the woman sad/mad/etc, and who mistake their own reaction as loving empathy. While I do not doubt their love, I do have one question: For whom can they ‘not stand’ their woman’s sadness or anger? Is it for the woman? Or is it so that you can move about your day merrily without having to bother with such feminine inanities (his words)?

If then such external emotion is not an end unto itself, then what is it? It is but the surface manifestation of whatever emotional complex has stirred restlessly deep inside her. Granted, the younger the woman, the faster and harder it stirs. And contrary to what Dane Cook may say, an intelligence lies there, a sentient depth unbeknownst to most men.

This intelligence seeks to sharpen the masculine, offering a more-than-once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to evolve. What many consider to be nagging is often merely the same opportunity, presented for the 278th time. It does get a bit annoying (for the woman, FYI) after the 277th time, and this annoyance comes across in vocal tonality as ‘nagging’.

Fourth, I reiterate the initial flaw in logic (ha!) that somehow using dry words and dry facts can change moods and emotions. A fair question then would be: well how do you address this problem-opportunity? This is where my one-time illicit drug use and observation of truly loving relationships helped bestow upon me the ‘’woman’s perspective’’ (for lack of a better term). If you want to investigate the deep emotional complex at play in the incident, then you need to get on that emotional level. Two issues: 1) It is very hard to explain in writing or even in person, and 2) it is very difficult for most ‘bros’ to understand or even conceptualise, let alone carry out in real time.

The best way to illustrate this is to imagine the issues raised by Chick Logic as a fluid, circular, magma. Men’s thinking and emoting tends to be more rigid, linear, dry, and cold. Imagine one were to fudge up those rigid lines into a semi-solid mass. Objects that are ironclad-stiff are difficult to undo; semi-formed, fluid states are consequently much more amenable to change. If one wants to ‘fix’ something, then achieving this fluid state is evidently desirable.

The question all ‘bros’ want answered is then: how do we achieve this fluid state? In my case a one time, directed, and intelligent use of the massively empathogenic drug of MDMA along with the ensuing deep conversations and observations did wonders, but the short answer is the corny one: love. Channel your deep love for your wife, mother, daughter, or colleague in the moment, and you will find yourself in that ‘zone’, the fluid, empathetic, loving state that most women can access at a moment’s notice, yet whose existence men sometimes even fail to acknowledge. From there, all things are possible, including evolving beyond the ‘problem’ raised. A more loving relationship with the women in your life usually ensues as well.

A superficial rebuttal to my description of Chick Logic might be that it appears merely to be emotions, and debasing to women who would therefore be incapable of more rigid, rational thought. My first rebuttal would be as per my second disclaimer, I re-state that women are not restricted to ONLY Chick Logic, and nor is it gender-exclusive to them. The second rebuttal would be that the issues being brought up by Chick Logic are generally very valid, and often (though not always) seek to address important and significant deficits in empathy, compassion, attention, love from the male counterparts. ‘Bro’ might think that his wife is constantly nagging about his reticence to cleaning up the place before her parents arrive, but what most women and emotionally sound men see is simply a douche who doesn’t respect and love his partner enough or the people who birthed and raised her to take 30 minutes to make his house welcoming for emotionally important guests. When put that way, who seems more in the right?