Pages

Unicorn

Extract from https://illimitablemen.com/2015/12/16/the-awalt-misconception/

What is AWALT? Superficially, it’s an acronym that stands for “all women are like that.” Psychologically, it’s a heuristic for evaluating female mating behaviours. How is a heuristic defined? Well according to “the free dictionary” it’s:

“a usually speculative formulation serving as a guide in the investigation or solution of a problem”

This is exactly what AWALT is, a speculative formation serving as a guide in the investigation of female behaviour. The pseudo-intellectual takes immediate issue with the word “all”, and in their grand pedanticism, immediately ceases investigating the utility of the heuristic.

AWALT does not claim that “all women are the same”, this is patently false, and is as such an absurd claim to make. Rather, AWALT presupposes that women are collectively governed by a set of underlying principles which drives their behaviour. It then alludes to the principles, as well as the behaviours which result from said principles whenever they become relevant in discussion.

For example, hypergamy, solipsism, Machiavellianism and immaturity are principles which make up the AWALT umbrella. Behaviours resulting from those principles would be branch swinging, blame shifting and emotional impulsiveness, among others.

This does not mean all women act on these behavioural drivers in the same way, or that said behaviours manifest to the same degree or frequency. The degree to which, and the frequency of which AWALT traits manifest certainly differs from woman to woman, but that is all that differs, the degree and frequency of behaviour, not the type of behaviour.

So while women may be different in personality or hobby, they are still women, and therefore in matters of mating, prone to specific behaviours. For example, one woman may branch swing often, another may branch swing rarely, but both will at some point, branch swing. This is just something women do. AWALT identifies this and accepts this. AWALT broken down to the most basic level is simple acknowledgement of aspects relating to female nature, no more, no less.

When a red pill man says “women branch swing, AWALT” what does he mean? He means women don’t leave relationships until they have a new one lined up. Just because one woman has had ten relationships in the past two years, and another has had two relationships in the past ten years, the difference in frequency of behaviour does not alter the underlying nature which causes the behaviour to manifest. A woman is a woman whether she is very hypergamous, or a little hypergamous, consciously Machiavellian, or subconsciously Machiavellian.

People who believe NAWALT (not all women are like that) reject the notion there is any such thing as “female nature”, and that such a nature dictates women’s mating behaviour. They would for example, point to a woman who has been in a relationship for the past five years and say “see, she doesn’t branch swing, NAWALT!”

Not only is she the exception that proves the rule, but were she to look for another relationship, she would in all likelihood cease to be the exception. If she didn’t branch swing on that one occasion, she may on another. If she never branch swings, she merely becomes the exception in regard to one aspect of AWALT. A woman consistently refuting one aspect of AWALT does not refute it in all aspects, she only refutes the aspect of the heuristic she does not represent.

A woman who refutes all aspects of AWALT is known as a unicorn, mythologically named, because such things do not exist. Just as mythology is fiction, so is the woman who refutes all aspects of AWALT. Outlier women and self-aware women who work to mitigate their nature will behaviourally refute some aspects of AWALT, but most women will refute none.