Gentlemen, here’s a learning opportunity. Notice how she commented on an article, but never once referenced what I wrote. Instead, she used it as a platform to start an auxiliary argument, went off on a tangent using feminist rhetoric, and somehow managed to pull unrelated topics into the mix. The point isn’t her outrage, but rather the pattern—it’s a strategic diversion meant to shift focus from logic to emotion, and men often fall for that trap without even realizing it.

When you argue with a woman, you’ll either be imparting wisdom to someone too dumb to understand it, too solipsistic to receive it, too emotional to practice it, too bitchy to deserve it, too ugly to be worth it, or a combination thereof. The principle stands as a warning rather than an insult—it cautions men about wasting effort where reason has no purchase. If someone cannot listen, change, or improve, then continuing to lecture them is a form of self‑abuse rather than instruction.

There’s been enough written in the manosphere on the subject of “slut” to fill a library, with writers exploring every angle. Some merge data with philosophy, others challenge double standards in culture. Hypocrisy, as defined, is claiming virtue while living vice. I do not shame promiscuity itself; I call out the denial of it. Pretending purity while practicing excess is deception, not empowerment, and men deserve honesty in dealing with it.

When it comes to gender relations, valuing traits one doesn’t possess isn’t hypocrisy. A man may revere maternal warmth or feminine grace without being able to embody those virtues himself. Likewise, women value masculine strength and success though their lives differ greatly. The University of Man writes for men seeking truth, not approval. Understanding this distinction keeps discourse focused on clarity, not concessions, and helps men align their choices with what they actually want.