Re: her protocol was net, optimistic, and awaits onto the platform

was
engaged when talking to women.

For the first while, I couldn't figure out what was wrong.

I'm usually a --quick study-- when it comes to a given subject -- the
--high altitude mapping-- as Alan Moore called it in our --Dialogue:
From Hell-- a few years back. It's really what writing is made up of.
Ask the hard questions, narrow the list of possibilities and work with
the resulting template. As it turns out, nothing in the feminist psyche
conforms to this model. All women are feminists and all feminist
evidence is anecdotal. Ask them a question and they will tell you a
little story. Ask them a question to clarify what you infer is the point
of the story and they will tell you another story. When they do attempt
to draw a conclusion or a larger inference from an anecdote they will
often ask, --Does that make any sense?-- And the answer, of course is
(almost invariably) no, it doesn't make any sense. And since I wasn't
trying to get any of them into bed, I would say so (if you're trying to
get them into bed, you always say --yes, that makes perfect sense-- or
manufacture some sensible interpretation that has nothing to do with
what they said). Telling them that they don't make sense, I found, is
like telling them that not only do they not win the trip to Hawaii, they
don't even get the Samsonite luggage. They become forlorn and
uncommunicative. That was when I realized that it was impossible to
engage them on an intellectual, reasoning, --writerly-- level -- that is,
in a purely matter-of-fact fashion. I had to act, had to portray myself
as being happy, sympathetic, interested and cheerful in order to
maintain a level of . . .

. . I don't know what you would call it. It wasn't communication in
any meaningful sense of the term as I understand it. It was a kind of
--emotional badminton.-- I acted happy, sympathetic, interested and



.

Quantcast