Vox Day responds to Susan Walsh’s skepticism of female solipsism in his current post at Alpha Game. Susan poses the question:
What evidence can you offer that “female solipsism” is not just another manosphere circle jerk?
A bit later she elaborates:
I have made a habit of digging into the source of certain claims in the ‘sphere, and what I usually find is a complete absence of intellectual rigor. Instead, there is a sort of high-fiving among male bloggers on principles that are completely unsubstantiated.
Unless someone can offer me some rational explanation for saying that women are especially solipsistic, I don’t accept it.
I can empathize with Susan wanting to see hard data on this, and I would be very interested in seeing a rigorous study on this question. Unfortunately I’m not aware of any, and a quick web search didn’t help. If you know of one, please share it. Susan, Vox, and I will all be in your debt.
I see two areas where female solipsism is most obvious. The first is the tendency of women to think anything being discussed is about them personally. This can be truly ridiculous, as occurred in an exchange between my wife and another woman a few years ago at a gathering of Christian mothers. My wife mentioned reading about a school assigning inappropriate books to middle schoolers, and the other mother was very concerned about this until my wife mentioned one of the titles. It was The Electric Koolaid Acid Test, and when my wife mentioned the title the woman became very upset and said:
But I read that in college!
The woman responded emotionally as if my wife was judging her for having read the book years ago (how could my wife even have known?), and physically recoiled away from my wife. She simply couldn’t process that it wasn’t about what she personally had read 20 years ago in college and was about what schools were assigning to Jr High students today. This was in a group of women who filtered everything through whether it was “Christian” enough. Once a field trip to the local opera was discussed and deemed inappropriate because the opera didn’t have an explicitly Christian message.
The other example I see very often is the amazing lack of empathy women have for men. I’ll use an example many here are familiar with. No fault divorce and the accompanying family court process is designed to punish men who egregiously break their marriage vows. Academics admit that it is designed as a punishment for men meant to be used as a threatpoint to give wives power. Women acknowledge this at one level, because whenever a husband misbehaves the instant chorus is Take his kids and his money. That will teach him! Yet when men point out how unfair this is given that the system treats all men as if they abused/abandoned/cheated, women want proof that this isn’t fair. They can’t understand that a system which always punishes a man as if he committed something egregious is inherently unfair. Because of this, they demand proof that the amount of child support is excessive, and that the men complaining about the process don’t really deserve to be punished.
This is especially noteworthy given the differing opportunities for men and women to commit divorce theft and how our society has responded. Everyone knows the male version: Use up her youth and then divorce her and marry a younger woman. Alternately he could take on a mistress when his wife is older, making his wife the one to file for divorce. Either way the wife is most vulnerable when she is older and her husband’s SMV/MMV is relatively higher. The preferred model for women is to use a man for status (get the wedding), legitimacy (get knocked up within wedlock), and early parenting help (get the kids weaned and out of diapers), and then kick him out to collect cash and prizes while she is still young and attractive.
Given the differing strategies for men and women to commit divorce theft the timing of divorce tells us much about who is really sticking it to whom. If men are sticking it to women, we we would expect divorce rates to rise as wives entered and passed middle age. If women are sticking it to men, we would expect divorce rates to be highest when the wife has the best remarriage opportunities and to drop with her chances to remarry. We might even see a spike in divorce 5-10 years after the wedding, leaving just enough time to get junior born and out of diapers. If both men and women are sticking it to each other, we would expect to see indications of both patterns, with divorce rates dropping through a woman’s thirties before climbing again starting around age 40 or so.
The actual stats in the US and UK show that divorce is highest when the wife is young and declines the older the wife gets. Women are clearly taking advantage of their opportunity to commit divorce theft in large numbers, but almost no men are. Looking at the UK historical data, while divorce rates have exploded across the board this age based pattern was as true in the 1960s as it is today:
A somewhat different data pull demonstrates the same basic pattern for the US. While the US data in the chart below includes marriages ending due to death of the wife as well as divorce and doesn’t show the age of wife, obviously the wives are getting older as the marriage progresses (see this post for a full explanation of the chart):
Note that in the US marriage endings are most common in the second five year period. This leaves just enough time to have the kids, get them weaned and out of diapers, and discover she isn’t haaapy while she still has as much of her youth as possible. We see a similar bump in the UK divorce rate data by age above, although US divorce rates by age drop continuously both now and in 1990.
Putting this in perspective, women complained about men committing divorce theft (trading an older wife in for a younger model). Even though statistically it was extremely rare, men empathized and reworked the entire divorce process to counter just that risk. Now that men are being brutalized by that process with great regularity men are complaining to women. But women in general don’t care; if you raise the issue, all they can think of is how a man might one day do something to them. They respond emotionally, demanding proof that the men being punished don’t deserve it:
Provide stats for this or shut up. Men cheat more than women do. How do you account for that in divorces initiated by women? He breaks the contract, she files. Sounds fair to me. Yes, there are frivolous divorces, but I’d like to know what percentage of female-initiated divorces they are. I think this theme is exaggerated and overblown in the manosphere echo chamber.
“Provide stats for this or shut up… Men cheat more than women do”
Is it just me or are women’s attention spans getting shorter and shorter?
Interesting article Dalrock. Thanks for posting. That is a fascinating observation. Women think in terms of how something will effect them.
Those divorce stats are interesting as well.
In answer to the last little bit, “Men cheat more than women do. How do you account for that in divorces initiated by women? He breaks the contract, she files. Sounds fair to me. Yes, there are frivolous divorces, but I’d like to know what percentage of female-initiated divorces they are.”
Actually i’d be fascinated to see data broken down like that as well, along with data showing how regular sex is prior to the man cheating and so on. I suspect the data would be impossible to gather, but it would make an interesting test of “manospheric” contentions. I guess i’d really just like to see comprehensive divorce data and the reasons for the divorce that are probably lost due to no fault laws.
An unrelated thought. Does data exist on pre no-fault reasons for divorce and how does that shake out?
Actually, to correct Susan, women cheat more than men do. They’re just better at lying about it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1211104/Think-men-unfaithful-sex-A-study-shows-WOMEN-biggest-cheats–theyre-just-better-lying-it.html
Perhaps a better case could be made for narcissism than solipsism. Solipsism would have a woman denying the existence of anyone other than herself. Womyn may act as if men are inconsequential; they do, however, at least acknowledge men’s existence in their desire to punish men and obtain cash and prizes from men.
Narcissism, conversely, would explain much of what goes on here.
1) Unrealistic views of one’s own value in the SMP/MMP. The hamster is the perfect narcissist. It believes in its own beauty despite a BMI of 666 and razor stubble for a hair style. This belief is reinforced by other hamsters, all of whom engage in mutual assurances of beauty, each knowing that it is lying to the others, yet somehow self-assured the others are being truthful to it. Pure, unadulterated narcissism.
2) Sees others only as useful tools for its own pleasure. Deep in its dark little heart the hamster knows what it is doing is wrong… but it doesn’t matter, for the end justifies the means. It knows that the havoc wreaked not only upon its spouse, but also upon its own offspring is brutal… yet the hamster will find a way to justify its violence against its own kith and kin. Why? For the sake of its own “happiness,” however that may be defined at the moment.
3) A failure (often willful) to perceive the long term consequences of current actions upon either others or itself. The hamster cannot be bothered to consider either the poorer circumstances or even physical danger to which it exposes its own offspring. The hamster, in its unrealistic belief that the SMP/MMP sees no difference between a HB8 25yo and a BMI 666 40yo fails to consider its own impending spinsterhood as it wreaks its nest. Failure to consider long term ramifications of one’s actions on oneself and others is another classical sign of narcissism.
Well, I’ve hijacked the thread long enough, perhaps some lolz would now be in order.
Cordially,
Okrahead
@Okrahead,
Alphagame noted this in their comment that Dalrock is mentioning. I think he made a good case for the appropriateness of the world solipsism.
http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/susan-challenges-concept.html
Well my own anecdotal evidence from my family and friends is that within the 30-40 age group, women seem to be having affairs like mad, my stats from 16 divorced couples :
Female initiated separation\divorce 88%(14), of those 79%(11) females were having affairs., only 1 male was.
Seems mostly the bored\ unfulfilled wifey syndrome I think, most marriages probably had hit a major downturn anyway, with the men buried in work, and the women searching for fulfilment\better life somewhere else I guess.
I would say all the men came off pretty badly (emotionally and financially), the women seemingly launched themselves into a ‘new life’ within a matter of hours of the event taking place minus all regret.
I really wonder why it is seems far more difficult for men to recover and move on even emotionally, the elusive female solipsism I wonder ??
Case study for those of you in long term relationships/marriages.
Tell your SO that you should trade off saying the favorite things that you like about each other. I guarantee you that virtually all females will fall into the trap of “I like how you make me feel….(insert emotion)” or “I like how you …(insert action), it makes me feel ….(insert emotion)”
Rarely will you get a serious answer that will be a physical answer (i.e. “I like your penis..LOL!”) or one that actually is a compliment about you. It will almost always be about how you make her FEEL.
Note: I don’t reccomend beating yourself up over this or getting angry. It’s just in their nature and western society is awful at opening a xx’s eyes to seeing anything outside of themselves. The vast majority of females are and will be emotionally stunted, narcisstic beings. You can hate and be angry or adjust and not let it bother you (i.e. use game).
@Okrahead
It seems to me that low levels of the Dark Triad traits are indistinguishable from solipsism.
Using logic, facts, and reason in an arguement with women is like bringing a knife to a gunfight. And some women doesnt see the problem, so what? Women are so pedalised and protected in society it’s farcical. We can’t prove any thing to them, the hamster is to powerful. What can be done, and what i’m glad Dalrock and others are doing is showing men, young and old, the nature of the beast and the dangers facing men today. Game or MGTOW, just don’t engage them in the way they want to play.
Just wanna hide.
Where is Detis hamsterlator?
I don’t understand why people are trying to use the word “solipsism” when they mean narcissism. Maybe we should use older terms – “selfish and irresponsible.”
Narcissism is extreme self-interest, lack of empathy, inability to understand that another person exists in their own right.
I am also puzzled why some people speak of the “Dark Triad” as in some way being admirable for men, whereas when women show it, it devastates relationships. There are very popular sites, such as Shrink4men and Dr. Helen, which counsel men whose lives have been badly damaged by being involved with these Dark Triad women. So I can only conclude men who shows these traits are incapable of having a long-term relationship with a woman.
I’ve had people tell me, how, that’s how men have sex with lots of women, because so many women are supposedly attracted to these men. As if the being a narcissistic predator is a recipe for a good life. even if a fair number of women are attracted to them.
Susan Walsh: “Are you going to believe me or your lying eyes?”
The posting by Walsh is in and of itself is an example of solipsism.
Therefore, the simplest demonstration of “female soiipsism” for Walsh can be found in the nearest mirror.
Narcissism is seeing the world as it is and seeing yourself greater than you are in it. Solipsism is seeing yourself as you are, but seeing the world around you as being much lower than it is. To a narcissist, the people around him are who they are, he is just better than them. To the solipsist, she is a normal person with thoughts and feelings, while the people around her are merely characters, not full fledged, thinking and human, as she is. Solipsism as viewed this way explains also why male strippers who play a character make more money than those who don’t. Surely a solipsistic woman doesn’t intellectually recognize that she believes that she is the only mind in existence, and that no one else has really thoughts and feeling but her, but she doesn’t have to. She just lives lives that way. She doesn’t care about your thoughts and feelings, because you’re just a character, not a person.
John2.0: “…the women seemingly launched themselves into a ‘new life’ within a matter of hours of the event taking place minus all regret.”
I have a middle-aged female acquaintance that dumped her hubby because she wasn’t haaaaaapppy. She bought a new car and had vanity plates that said that – almost verbatim. I swear, she is a walking cliche of just about every hyperagamous trait discussed in the manosphere.
I imagine the way to “prove” this point (though Susan probably wouldn’t accept a historically valid “preponderance of evidence” standard, which makes this really a pointless exercise) is to show women accept the Apex Fallacy more readily than men. Which might actually exist in the social research data. Since that’s what is really meant by the “solipsistic” nature of women: the general inability to see things outside of their own direct view. Which is a bit more than just being narcissistic. You can be blind to the plight of others yet not be narcissistic about life.
I think Reality TV can be used as conclusive proof of the Rationalization Hamster existing, so that also might be a place to start.
@ Alpha Mission,
“Narcissism is seeing the world as it is and seeing yourself greater than you are in it. Solipsism is seeing yourself as you are, but seeing the world around you as being much lower than it is. To a narcissist, the people around him are who they are, he is just better than them. To the solipsist, she is a normal person with thoughts and feelings, while the people around her are merely characters, not full fledged, thinking and human, as she is.”
Narcissists are incapable of seeing reality clearly, which is why it’s a mental illness – Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Solipsism is a philosophic position, related to subjective idealism. Confusing solipsism with narcissism is going to do nothing but confuse people.
Narcissists see people as things. An extreme narcissist is a psychopath, who don’t see people as human at all. The worst psychopaths are the sexual/sadistic serial killers.
Trying to alter definitions and come up with new ones to replace older, accepted ones is the sign of a cult.
If you’re going to deny that your sex is solipsistic, it’s best to do it without referencing yourself 4 times in 3 sentences while implicitly setting up what you “accept” as some sort of standard that anyone else should care about.
A question about female solipsism – for the moment, let us accept that women are at this time quite solipsistic. Why are they so? Is this a modern tendency born of the self-esteem movement? Is it another evil consequence of feminism? Is it how God (or evolution if you prefer) created women? If it’s the last one, then we should just note that women are hard-wired this way without getting upset about it (“It is what it is” – one of my least favorite sayings, but maybe it fits here). If it’s one of the first two, then it’s worth getting in a bother about.
not just another manosphere circle jerk?
And the definition of a “manosphere circle jerk” is? Anything Giggles does not agree with. After all, she “has her own truth, and we have no right to judge it.”
Unless someone can offer me some rational explanation for saying that women are especially solipsistic, I don’t accept it.
This is duplicity at its best, as it has been repeatedly shown that Giggles attacks and then bans anyone who persists in giving a rational explanation to something that upsets her echo chamber of that she personally doesn’t want to accept.
As for proof of gender-based solipsism, I suggest looking at voting statistics: In general, men tend to vote for justice/principle, even when it disadvantages them, and women tend to vote for ‘fairness’ or ‘equality of outcome’, especially when it advantages them. Single women tend to vote for the state and socialism as protector and provider of resources they don’t have or have difficulty getting on their own, whereas women married to providers tend to vote conservatively to protect the resources they already have within their grasp.
Translation: It’s all about them.
SSM: Fourth option: Is it part of women’s corruption by the Fall?
@sunshinemary,
At a guess i’d say it is all three. Although i’d contend that the observation that many modern women are “basically feral” is quite accurate. This just seems to be an outworking of that feralness.
Women do seem to be more “feeling” and “relationship” oriented. I agree that they are made that way. But what we see with this observation about solipsism in many women is that natural and even beneficial tendency going wildly off the rails as the negative aspects of it are indulged and encouraged.
Is it really a surprise that decades of “you are a special little princess”, “you can do anything you want” and all the rest of it has resulted in raising a generation who believe this drivel and the ludicrous entitlement mentality (which is what the whole “i’m not haaaaapy” thing amounts too) it fosters?
The guys are probably not as bad mainly because it is not fed to them as strongly.
One of the most horrific things about divorce courts when it pertains to children, is that the parent whom child support funds are allocated to, has zero accountability to actually use those funds for the children.
@aneroidocean,
That is lunacy isn’t it. I am watching my sister and he husband have to put up with this idiocy right now with his bat shit crazy ex-wife. Why is it unreasonable to expect the women to actually show how they spend the child support if requested and demonstrate that it is used accordingly.
You could provide all the stats and data you want, it will do absolutely nothing to sway female opinion as it isn’t emotional. Women make up more than half the collegiate population, yet any attempt to enact affirmative-action style measures to increase the male population is met with extreme resistence. There’s hard data that backs that up, yet, it has done nothing to sway female and feminists to the side that men aren’t fairly represented in the educational system despite the fact that similar arguments were made in the late 60’s to “prove” discrimination against women in that same educational system.
Like anything else, hard data is evidence that females use only when it supports her position, and is discarded and riddiculed when it does not.
There are numerous examples of this besides just divorce. When I was in college I took this class called “Sex Roles”. It should have called Gender Roles. But no guys would have mistakenly enrolled in it like I did. It could have called “Why men suck”.
The first section of the course was about Purdah, the Islamic sequestration of women. It was very apt and pertinent in a class at the University of Texas with a bunch of coeds who had never experienced anything other than having their asses kissed by their fathers and all men in their life and had never so much as experienced any prejudicial treatment other than some construction workers hollering “Hey baby” at them when they walked past. But it set the tone for the rest of the semester. Men are fuckers unless women fight back.
The next section was about division of labor in the home. The professor, Doctor Susan Fletcher, how looked very similar to Elizabeth Warren, the candidate for Senate in Mass., divided a large blackboard board into halves. She listed Women on one side and Men on the other and commenced to write all these tasks, laundry, cooking, child care, cleaning, shopping, driving, on and on. She filled the board. Then eventually she went to the side for the Men and wrote “Outdoor cooking” meaning BBQ. A ooooohhhh went through the girls. The men in the room kept shooting up their hands saying “My dad wasn’t like that. He did X and Y and Z.” And Doctor Susan Fletcher would say “Despite your local situation, EMPERICAL EVIDENCE shows X and Y”. So one could have inferred that men that were successful enough to have sent their sons to college, to have participated in the preparation, to have earned enough money to pay for it, to have developed sons with the character to gain entrance to one of the most difficult universities in the nation were NOT LIKE THAT. But all men had to be painted with the same brush. They all had to be burned at the same stake. That all wives had to go into marriage with this same preconception that men just didn’t carry there load and this lazy scum she was married to was just like all the other men. He could work 50 hours a week at a vicious, competitive, mentally taxing job (making much more money that her with associated stress with it) , commute for 10 hours, aid with child care, shopping on the weekends, and various other activities in conjunction with running a house, but she had a preconception that men weren’t doing enough because he didn’t jump right in to her definition of what should be done. There was s recent Time article recanting this, claiming that men do their part, and still that New York Times post-wall chick that Roissy is at war with, Hannah Rosin, had a recent commentary, one of those same Men are lazy slackers that don’t do their part. Fifty studies could come out refuting this old claim and one post-wall yentah can send them all to the trash in the minds of women.
The next section in the class had to do with Battering with stat upon stat about violent men. I personally have never known a man who was even close to being someone like the men, the jealous, possessive, controlling men that beat their wives. I have know couples that had a violent fight once. I have know couples where she was consistently violent towards him and one time he retaliated but I have never known a couple where the woman went around consistently abused by the man. Other people might but I never did. Not one. Maybe it is the circles I live among. But according to that Gender Roles class and the behavior of the police when they come in the house, all men are violent abusers. And all men should be treated in the same manner, all have their dignity and rights stripped merely because the woman placed a call, no matter how vindictive, how false her reasons were for making the call.
My sister is an evangelical and you want to see solipsism at work, circular logic, rationalization, just bring up any of these topics. She will immediately turn a statement that is general and backed by statistics into her own particular situation and disavow anything that differs from her own experience. She truly will cite the general case, the femcentric view, literally something like saying “These man are leaving their wives for younger models” even though she has living proof in front her eyes, (Me), that something different is going on. When you force her into a corner, she just says “I don’t want to talk about this any longer”.
Mens rights will never be won at the ballot box. It will only possibly, and I say remotely possibly with a miniscule possibility, in court decisions much like Civil Rights. Any man that would stand up and speak is immediately branded a “Loser, bitter man, who no one wants and are not real men”. Even in the manosphere, Mens Rights are vilified as whiners, crybabies. I even do it. I often say accept reality, learn game, pump women, dump women. Teach young boys the truth. Avoid women and be happy. This die is cast and there is nothing can than be done. All the women and half the men are against you. Accept that the postmodern is here and live within the new reality.
Get it through your head. You can’t win this war. Read Dalrock to learn the truth, but read Roosh to learn how to deal with it. The PostModern is here already. Get on the winning side or else you will be on the losing. Never marry, Pump them, dump them, leave them.
@sunshinemary
Search wikipedia for “Scold’s Bridle” – women were forced to wear masks that pinned their tongue. Why? Gossip. Circa 1500s.
I would argue that solipsism has always existed (gossip is a sin in the bible circa 200ad), but men have retired completely from trying to control it, hence the explosion.
I love this point in the argument because women are prone to think, “See! Its not my fault. I’m born that way! Blame men for not controlling me!” Hence proving the level of solipsism.
@Bob, the reason extreme narcissism is declared mental illness and extreme solipsism is not, is because narcissism is masculine, and its perpetrators are guilty of the ultimate modern sin: being male.
“manosphere circle jerk”
Ah, yes, the classy, ladylike American woman. A byword around the world.
I know it’s not scientific, but the Serpent’s promise to Eve was for her to be the center of her own existence (to be like God). This was the temptation of Eve, not of Adam. Adam’s temptation was to follow Eve in her solipsism. Look at the world and realize the truth of the Bible in this regard.
A tangent here, but have you noticed how kid glove Vox is when he disagrees with giggles? (as he did on this topic of alpha game)
A direct quote of Vox: “And, given the current state of hostilities on the part of various parties, I should underline that this is not a criticism of Susan, but rather a defense of an articulated concept. One need not always agree with someone to respect and be on good terms with them.”
He regularly states when he is disagreeing with her, that he “still respects her” or some other nonsense. I have never noticed that kind of treatment for anyone else.
It makes me wonder if the “cruelty artist” is trying to prevent the inevitable “break up” between the two of them that regularly occurs between giggles and the men that get involved with the Queen of the HUSsies.
It almost looks like beta appeasement.
Actually TFH I do know one from the past. Ninon De l’ Enclos.
TFH: People who eat steak don’t think that much about the suffering of cattle. Assume that female interest in male suffering is about at the same level.
Gold
The concept of solipsism became completely clear to me while attending my grandfather’s funeral.
My uncle’s eulogy was all about how great of a father, husband, golfer, career man and was well liked and well respected by most who knew him.
My aunt’s eulogy was all about she had loved him, and was really greatful that she had a chance to travel and spend a lot of time with him in his last year of life, and how she had great conversations with him and how she never really knew him her entire life until she spent all that time with him as he was slowly dying. She regretted all that lost time and wished she had spent more time with him when he was younger.
Now replace all the “she’s” in my last paragraph with “I’s”, and that was essentially her eulogy, mixed in with tears at the appropriate moments.
“My biggest regret was that I never spent that much time with him when he was younger and I was so busy with my own family…”
I was sitting in the front pews of the church during the funeral, and I was grieving and mournful….and listening to her self-absorbed eulogy made me laugh inside. I remember thinking to myself: “Now THIS is what the eternal solipsism of the female mind looks like!”
The comment from Alpha Game by the commenter Heh was right on the money:
Lots of female bashing lately in the man-o-sphere.
“Women can’t handle rejection well” and “women don’t have sexual self control” at the Chateau, “Women are not independet” at Paradigm Shift, “She’s not happy”, “Hamster of the month” and “You just can’t argue with broads and gods” at UMan, the readers cheering along in the comments.
Seems like there is still a lot of bitterness. Get over it guys.
I suspect that Susan Walsh is merely angry that she could never be part of a male ‘jerk circle’ – unless she was the centre of attention – which would then be something rather different. I believe I smell a not particularily rational hamster.
When adam carolla (sic) got the evil eye from the msm, some female blogger did a great response about why women actually are not funny. Her post involved comparing 10 male and 10 female comedians, then analyzing their subject matter. Men ran the full gamut; women talked about themselves for 9/10 jokes. Not science, but it’s a start.
Have seen it and it wouldn’t confirm your argument if I hadnt.
I was outside and I just got to thinking about the woman that thinks all the conclusions reached by men have no basis and we all just hear one and high five each other. They continue to write off all conclusions, even when backed by data like this one, as the male version of “Just so” stories.
I have used this metaphor until I am bored with it, but it holds true for me and probably others.
The writings on this blog and the other key Men’s blogs strike a chord with men because they resonate and explain experience common to many.
It is like the Law of Gravity. All your life you see things fall. You know that things can remain higher than the ground if you provide ample support. You can even come to a rough approximation and understanding of the rate of acceleration of gravity. Then when you take a physics class and have the Law of Gravity quantified and explained from an academic nature then you naturally accept and further understand the nature of gravity. No one need “prove” gravity to you. You have experienced it; you have seen it, and even felt it when you fell.
Solipsism of Females is exactly one of those “gravity” concepts. Men intuitively know it exists. Yes, solipsism was a new word for me, but it was one of those “aha” moments that can likely lead to one of those “high five” experiences she details. It even exists in the culture in the form of “it is all about me” moments that men experience with women. I never questioned that it exists, it needs few examples. I have enough personal examples already to grasp the concept.
It is said that “Belief comes first; explanation comes later”. Ok, fine, many men want to believe the worst about women today. But I ask “Why?”. I know why and the question is a rhetorical question. But I would hope that maybe some day in the face of all the hate and animosity that is beginning to brew from men towards women that they might begin to ask “Why?”
But Solipsism predicts they will not.
Opus, Roissy had a funny line about a women’s circle jerk, involving rubbing and frantic pelvic thrusting. Maybe Susan could join one.
Mark, most advances in social science are about naming something so that it can be identified. It is pattern-spotting. If a new term sticks, it probably reflects reality. Terms like hypergamy, Team Woman, female solipsism, Red Pill, and so on will continue to be useful as long as they reflect reality.
Women reject things with some version of the following line:
“Thats not true, my sister and 2 of my friends are divorced and none of those are frivolous”
That is both solipsism/logical fallacy generally.
Smoking is bad for you
No, that’s not true, my uncle smoked 4 packs a day and lived healthily until he was 95
Most people are right handed
Not true, I have 2 left handed brothers
These are silliness run amok, they display an utter inability to communicate in a group about things outside the group.
Solipsism is narcissism is solipsism. All who are solipsistic are narcissistic, the converse is not, however, necessarily true.
This reminds me of Starviolet “I need to see the evidence” and “the average child support is 5 dollars” etc etc.
Sunshinemary
Solipsism is normal and natural. Due to civilization and society it is kept in check. It is hard to be christian and solipstic. The whole idea of feminism was to remove all checks on natural female tendencies “being true to herself” so we have feral women we have today. It is normal and always has been what is different is society has made it part of civilization through the female vote. Feral and civilised does not go together. One of the things done was to change the christian church to churchianity ,churchian and solipstic now they do go together. What behavior we see from women today is purely based on her self interest and not from any empathy even for children”I wouldn’t what any one to think I wasn’t a good mother” You can take that to the bank. Have faith christian men a woman for selfish reasons wants to label herself as christian will selfishly behave as a christian if she is churchian and will be kicked out of the christian church for it.
Once game or the nature of women is truely understood civilised society can then be a place to keep that in check. The big fear is it may take a real civil war with real death and destruction. (the web site here is bad but you can get a good idea of what civil unrest and war looks like http://theync.com/warning.php?redirect= )
I think Dalrock’s work above is a more visible example of what is at the root of the manosphere’s charge that women are solipsistic.
Women judge and value men and other women for their utility, for the role they can play or work they can contribute to their world.
It is their world. How does this person fit into their world?
The PUA community see this phenomenon and talk about “qualification.” The MGTOW see this and say, “I have value to myself, thank you very much.” The MRM community says, “Tell us something we don’t know.” When a person cannot truly empathize with others, she views the people and the world around her as extensions of her ego. As Dalrock noted, every conversation oviously involves her on a personal level.
That said, it’s not as if men are incapable of the same mental deception. However, the roles society placed on men (guard, laborer, cannon fodder) went a long way to culturing away any thought that men are snowflakes.
I think Bob Wallace raised a great point about the definition, but I think Alpha Mission does a better job of clarifying the distinction.
Narcissism, From DSM-IV:
A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:
Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
Believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
Requires excessive admiration
Has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
Is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
Is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her
Shows arrogant, haughty behavior or attitudes.
————————
Bob, nowhere in there is how they perceive the outside the outside world, in the sense of having a warped perception. It shows the warping is the value of the individual in comparison to a world (that the narcissist may be viewing as it actually is).
I think Alpha has a point when he mentions that women may see themselves as flawed, but still think the world owes them perfection. They will say, “I’m a mess, but I deserve the best!” A narcissist will not have that type/level of self-doubt. Really, his definition doesn’t re-define narcissism and provides a succinct distinction between the two.
greyghost wrote:
I would tend to agree with you here ‘though I’ve no data to back it up. My subjective assessment is that women have a certain degree of inborn solipsism (whether this is because God created us this way or because of the fallen nature of humanity, I don’t know). I wrote here once before that I have to make a conscious effort to consider my husband’s point of view and preferences – it’s not my default setting to do so (I got criticized for saying so, but I’m not concerned with making people like me; what I’m interested in is trying to get at the truth of the matter). However, it makes sense that a civilized society reins in the worst tendencies of its citizens. Since women’s extreme self-centeredness is no longer punished, it’s grown like a cancerous tumor.
Well, of course, there is this solipsism, narcisism, you name it.
I can’t count the times some poster in the manosphere says: “Women are X” and a women appears saying: “No. It’s not true. I’m not like that and my friends aren’t either”. I feel like screaming at them: “We are talking about women in general. We are not talking about you, you f*cking narcissist”.
Another occasion where narcissism is evident is when women accept theories depending on whether they like these theories or not. Susan Walsh is a living proof. She accepts whatever tenets of the manosphere she likes without proof. But, when she doesn’t like a tenet, she demands complete scientific proof. Even if there is scientific proof, she refuses to accept it (We have seen this in her discussions with Dalrock). This way, she can build the ideology she likes, accepting what she wants and rejecting what she wants.
A man reasons like that:
“The world is X. I don’t like it but it is the ugly truth”.
A women reasons like that:
“I don’t like the world is X so it isn’t. There is no proof about that and if there is a proof, it is faulty”
“The big fear is it may take a real civil war with real death and destruction.”
Actually, for some of us, it is a big hope.
Closely related to solipsism is projection; solipsism is giving undue primacy to your own perspective and interest. Projection is attempting to give attention to another person’s perspective/interest, but substituting your own perspective and value system and thus assuming that their brain is the same as yours.
One classic blue-pill projection is a woman telling a man he’s “relationship material,” thinking he’ll see that as some kind of superlative compliment. This is what’s going on when women tell men “oh you’re such a great guy, you’ll make some lucky woman [not me] so happy!”
Men don’t want/need to be judged “relationship material,” they want (and need) to be judged to be bangable. Women think that the man they’ve judged relationship material is higher value than the man they had a short-lived but wild sexual fling with, but in point of fact, the man she had quick sex with was higher value because the cost of entry she established was lower and thus his intrinsic value was sky-high.
Women need to understand how men feel about this (yes feel, it’s a visceral thought process): sexual access is the highest compliment you can give a man. The idea that “well you get MORE of me if I give you relationship value” is just projection from what women want men to give them (tingles + couply comfort).
imnobody, Another way that a woman reasons is to say, “Well maybe the world is like that, but it SHOULDN’T be. We must change everything to accommodate me.”
@sunshinemary
A question about female solipsism – for the moment, let us accept that women are at this time quite solipsistic. Why are they so? Is this a modern tendency born of the self-esteem movement? Is it another evil consequence of feminism? Is it how God (or evolution if you prefer) created women?
It’s a mixture of everything. The fact that there is a excess of men (you could kill half of the male population and all women will still be able to reproduce) makes women solipsistic. I have seen this in Europe (where I am from) and Latin America (where I live). Women don’t usually give a damn about things that don’t affect them.
However, a thing is being solipsistic and another thing is being insanely solipsistic. In the States women are the latter. Two centuries of pedestalization in the American culture and religion and forty years of American feminism have made that most American women think they are the center of the Universe and that they sh*t gold. You don’t see this in other parts of the world.
If it’s the last one, then we should just note that women are hard-wired this way without getting upset about it (“It is what it is” – one of my least favorite sayings, but maybe it fits here). If it’s one of the first two, then it’s worth getting in a bother about.
Yes, we can say the same about men being promiscuous and polygamous. We are hard-wired this way so please stop complaining when we are adulterous. There’s nothing to be upset about: after all, we are hard-wired to want new pussy.
@RTP
Women are prone (heh) to this position by design. I think it is supposed to inform them of
1) How much they depend on men, and God. Their safety and even existence depends upon both.
2) Where and how they can fulfill their role as helper.
Sin mangles all this, though, and they’ve largely lost their ability to see their dependence, and their desire to fulfill any role they do not personally find pleasure in.
It’s a good point that women judge both men and women from this perspective. Men judge others not by utility, but by accomplishment. Very different.
Pingback: We Hold This Solipsism as Self-Evident « Things that We have Heard and Known
Sorry for the bad markup. Second and third paragraph should NOT be in italics.
@sunshinemary
Another way that a woman reasons is to say, “Well maybe the world is like that, but it SHOULDN’T be. We must change everything to accommodate me.”
Agreed. I have seen this around the world. But there is a difference:
– In other parts of the world women complain (men can also complain, for example, about their boss). But this complaining remains in private discussion.
– In America, once women complain about anything, men rush to change the whole society in order to please them (which is an impossible task).
It seems to me that American men have Mommy issues. The deference with which treat American women is not normal. This is the product of two centuries of pedestalization. American women are this way because men let them be this way.
This was too good not to share here. Pulled this from Vox’s comments:
Aunt Giggles has never been an authority on anything. All she wants to be is the girl in the center of the manosphere’s bukkake video.
ssm wrote: If it’s the last one, then we should just note that women are hard-wired this way without getting upset about it (“It is what it is” – one of my least favorite sayings, but maybe it fits here). If it’s one of the first two, then it’s worth getting in a bother about.
imnobody responded: Yes, we can say the same about men being promiscuous and polygamous. We are hard-wired this way so please stop complaining when we are adulterous. There’s nothing to be upset about: after all, we are hard-wired to want new pussy.
My comment was poorly worded – my apologies. I didn’t mean that we shouldn’t get upset about it in the sense of not wanting to do something about it. What I meant was we should have a dispassionate discussion about how to rein the tendency in. Perhaps women are hard-wired to be self-centered in the same way that men are hard-wired to seek mating opportunities with as many females as possible; if so, we needn’t be emotionally upset about these traits, but rather just recognize that they are bad for a healthy society and that we must curb the expression of these traits.
@Rollo Tomassi
Examples abound. I remember an article bemoaning the fact that old women cannot have choice in romantic partners because men die younger. The article was called “The other gender gap”.
Isabel Allende praised women in a TEDtalk telling that they were victims. She put the example of an African woman who saw her husband die because of war. They killed the husband before her eyes. It never dawned on Ms. Allende that the husband had had it worse. Go figure
@sunshinemary
Yes, I agree. A dispassionate discussion is the best. My comment is not about you, in fact. I think the new development in gender situation in America will be using evolutionary psychology to benefit women.
The equality myth has outlived its usefulness. Expect hearing arguments like that the following years:
– Of course, we need alimony and child support. We are the gender that it’s more biologically valuable. In all animal species, the male bring resources to the female so why shouldn’t it be this way with humans?
– It’s not my fault that I banged with the boss: it’s the hypergamy is hard-wired in me.
Meanwhile, men would be insulted for following their biological instincts. “All men are dogs. They are always thinking about the same”
“It seems to me that American men have Mommy issues. The deference with which [they] treat American women is not normal. This is the product of two centuries of pedestalization. American women are this way because men let them be this way.”
Very obvious and disturbing to outsiders.
“Women are always the worst victims of war. Women lose their husbands, sons to combat.”
If Hillary Clinton really said that, she is a total moral moron.
SW
“manosphere circle jerk”
David Collard
Ah, yes, the classy, ladylike American woman. A byword around the world.
Perhaps she’s proving to herself that she’s “just one of the guys” with this remark. It’s rather pathetic sometimes to see women in STEM trying to be “one of the guys” by deploying a potty mouth. Even more so in business; the tailored suit, manicured nails, carefully done hair all comes to naught with a few choice “f*8k this” or “sh**” that”, regardless of the age of the woman in question. it’s discordant. And generally, the women with the biggest potty mouths are the ones most likely to take offense at such words, when it profits them to do so. In my experience (which means nothing in the solipsi-sphere, to be sure).
It reminds me of some of the late Lucille Ball’s gags where she’d put on an obviously fake beard and pitch her voice lower (to, oh, alto level…) in order to pretend to be a man for some scheme. No one would ever be fooled for very long. Of course, Lucy was a comedienne of the highest quality and was deliberately playing for laughs…
My favorite example of female “victim posturing” was a woman journalist in Australia whining that women had worked in difficult conditions in munitions factories during a war.
Think about it for a moment.
Sheila Gregoire is solipsism extraordinaire.
From Women and Children First,
http://tolovehonorandvacuum.com/2012/01/women-and-children-first/
Rachel: “Women and children do not go first because they are weaker; they go first because lets face it, you need more women than men to keep the population going (men can make millions of babies in a day, women can only make 1-2 per year at best and our fertility limited)and children are our future to continue the human race.”
Fidel says:
January 24, 2012 at 9:28 am
Keep the population going … I get it.
Rachel, look up stats for abortion in America since Roe vs Wade ….
Sheila says:
January 24, 2012 at 9:53 am
Fidel, what is the matter with you? Are you insinuating that Rachel doesn’t know about abortion? Of course she doesn’t support abortion.
In other words:
Rachel: WACF because you need more women to keep population going.
Fidel: Uh, I don’t think women in general have a lot of authority to keep the population going when American women in general drive abortion.
Sheila: OH MY GOD!!!! How DARE you eeeeeevil man attack dear darling Rachel as an abortionist or in favor of abortion!!!! It’s all about RAAAAAYYYCHELL and your DISGUSTING PERSONAL attack on her!!!
Or this, also from Gregoire’s Women and Children First? http://tolovehonorandvacuum.com/2012/01/women-and-children-first/
deti: No one should be surprised at this. This is what women writ large fought for. The man does not know Rachel as a Christian woman. He identified her simply as a woman. He’s heard the messages from society: Women need men like a fish needs a bicycle. Women are men’s equals in every way. “Don’t you dare treat me as weak!! Don’t you dare patronize me!!” He dare not even make eye contact with a woman he does not know, lest he be labeled as “creepy” or a “potential rapist”.
The entitlement complex Rachel just set out above is endemic of today’s society: Women believe men exist solely and only to serve and protect women — even women who are total strangers. This runs so deep, it is so ingrained in her psyche, that even women like Rachel can’t see it themselves.
Elevator Man and Rachel are strangers. They don’t know each other at all. Yet. according to the line of thought Rachel just set out, she fully expected this unknown Elevator Man to put himself in harm’s way and possibly lay down his life for her. After the past 50 years of feminism, why should any man do such a thing for any woman he does not know?
There is much talk of how men are to act honorably and respectfully. But there is no reciprocal expectation that women act similarly, with grace, humility and submission. At least that was not mentioned.
It pains me to say this as a Christian man, but the Christian church no longer dominates western culture. It’s been discarded in favor of secular feminism.
Sheila says:
January 24, 2012 at 11:34 am
Deti, I understand your point, but here’s the trouble I have with the way that it is often phrased: I often hear people in the “manosphere”, or whatever you want to call it, criticizing the church for not teaching women to be submissive or graceful or whatever. But they say “the church” does it. How? There’s a very large female Christian blogosphere, for instance, and Darlene Schacht from Time Warp Wife came out with an ebook this week doing exactly that. All of the women’s Bible studies that I’ve read focus on developing godly character. In my church, godly character development and humility are taught. At the marriage conferences where I teach, run by FamilyLife, one of the largest family ministries in North America, all of these things are taught explicitly.
So I guess I have to ask: who, exactly, are you criticizing? I think it’s an easy criticism to make, but I personally do not see it. I don’t see it in the women’s Bible studies that happen at churches all over the continent on Wednesday mornings, or Thursday mornings. I don’t see it in Christian books written for women. I don’t see it in the Christian blogosphere. But I do see the criticism often.
Of course you’ll be able to come up with individuals, and that’s fine: those individuals need to be called out. But I do not see it in the church as a whole. That does not mean that every woman in those pews agrees with godly character, and more than every man does. But if you’re looking at what is being taught in the women’s Bible studies, women’s media, and women’s blogs, it’s very much that.
In other words:
deti: “Women in general expect men they don’t know to save women from harm. It is an entitlement complex brought on by 50 years of feminism. Women in general do not want to treat men with grace or show humility or submission.”
Sheila: “OH MY GOD!!!! I’m not like that!”
“The women I know aren’t like that!”
“The 1000 women I surveyed aren’t like that!”
“The churches I know aren’t like that!”
Then there are the manginas who feed the solipsism. I read an article once about women taking over in the veterinary profession in America. Written by a man. Rah Rah. Because everybody knows men don’t need jobs.
David Collard
My favorite example of female “victim posturing” was a woman journalist in Australia whining that women had worked in difficult conditions in munitions factories during a war.
Think about it for a moment.
For the benefit of those who were not taught the history of the 1940’s Pacific War, DC’s remark is particularly pointed. Entire Australian Army units were captured by the Imperial Japanese Army in Singapore. Some of them wound up on this little construction project:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burma_Railway
The Burma Railway is also known as the “Railroad of Death” or the “Death Railway”, due to the number of men who perished in various ways during its construction. No munitions factories come even remotely close.
Think about it, indeed.
“I see two areas where female solipsism is most obvious. The first is the tendency of women to think anything being discussed is about them personally.”
—————————————————————————
Im a black person.
Black people tend to have this response when the subject is N—–s; and white people tend to have this response when the subject is racism.
In other words, when the topic is race, all people tend to “man the barricades”, “batton down the hatches…” and get all defensive… because they think the example you are presenting is about them.
The way I get around this when I want to point out a n—-r pathology to a black person is to use myself as the example. This keeps the black person from getting so defensive they ignore the logic I am trying to get them to understand.
A lot of black comedians use this too.
Black people are some of the most fragile little bitches on the planet (I know cause I was one of em)
But white supremacists hold the world record. This is why I instruct black people not to argue with white supremacists. Not matter what you say, no matter the data, facts, THERE OWN WORDS… its useless because their solipsism requires everything to be dependent on them being a supreme personally.
The best example of both these phenomena is the classic internet battle of the black person trying to prove “black inventions” to a racist; as if it will be some big revelation to a white supremacist… that makes them give up racism?
Same thing with the IQ and DNA arguements.
By the time a child is 4 years old, they already know who is qualified to be mistreated on the basis of color, they don’t need a bunch of degrees and test tubes…
Trying to prove racism is incorrect to a racist is like trying to prove feminism is incorrect to a feminist.
Indeed, in both cases, their goal may really be to keep you talking; because if you ever stop talking, you might start acting.
TFH,
“That is why women having the right to vote does not work. Almost no woman has any problem taking X benefit for herself if it involves inflicting 10X damage onto men. ”
I think there are better arguments aganst women voting. Men aren’t any more caring about other men, than women are. I think the fact that feminism was allowed to develop by those supposedly in power (men) shows this.
“Could you *ever* envision a woman knows enough about Game to teach a novice man about it? Other than one or two women, I have never, ever seen a woman come close to even remotely comprehending Game.”
I also don’t think many women truly know game, but I think it’s due to the fact that they don’t need it. To know game, you have to practice it, even a little bit. You have to go out and try to pick up women, and see how they act not as friends, but as lovers. And you have to actually be a man or make them think you are one. I think one woman actually did this and learned a lot of things she otherwise wouldn’t:
http://www.amazon.com/Self-Made-Man-My-Year-Disguised/dp/1843545047
It is HARD to understand the situation of someone you are totally different from. You can read about it in a book or listen to members of that group, and comprehend it intellectually, But it would go a lot better if you actually experience what they experienced, or something close to it.
“Men don’t want/need to be judged “relationship material,” they want (and need) to be judged to be bangable. Women think that the man they’ve judged relationship material is higher value than the man they had a short-lived but wild sexual fling with, but in point of fact, the man she had quick sex with was higher value because the cost of entry she established was lower and thus his intrinsic value was sky-high.”
“Women need to understand how men feel about this (yes feel, it’s a visceral thought process): sexual access is the highest compliment you can give a man. The idea that “well you get MORE of me if I give you relationship value” is just projection from what women want men to give them (tingles + couply comfort).”
There was an interesting discussion along these lines at HUS in that for women, there is “sexual attraction” and “relational attraction.” We’re all familiar with women’s sexual attraction, or what is euphemistically called “short term mating strategies” “Relational attraction” is said to be “long term mating strategies.
IOW, the hot alpha stud for the quick f**k then the beta for marriage and child-rearing. The alpha’s dick and the beta’s wallet.
Alpha fucks and beta bucks.
What’s missing from this strategy?
What does the MAN get out of this?
Women give no consideration to what the man wants, needs, feels, desires. There is no consideration given to what the man’s role, other than how he fits into her life to serve HER. “Is he hot? Do I want to fuck him? Is this fun, exciting, or drama-filled? Will I get to do some fun stuff (with or without him)? Will he raise my status?”
Then it’s “Does he have a job? Does he make enough money so I can quit my sucky job? Will he be a good father to my kids (notice the adjective MY kids — whether he sires them is secondary to whether he can support them financiailly and emotionally)? Will he stay with me?”
No consideration is given to “what does he want? What does he like? Will he be OK? Is he doing all right? Do I look good enough for him? Do I meet his standards?”
Solipsism and Team Woman.
Solipsism also explains the Team Woman phenomenon. It surprised me for a long time that the same women could be so in favor of Team Woman and, at the same time, be completely competitive and harsh with her female friends, co-workers, etc.
When somebody speaks about women in general, women think they are talking about her. This is why they support Team Woman: they see it as a personal benefit.
When a woman is dealing with another woman who she knows and there is some difference between them, the first woman think about her personal benefit an it is merciless about getting it. This is why she doesn’t hesitate to do whatever she takes to achieve this objective.
So the same women who says “women are better than men and women have to support each other” is able to betray the sisterhood and back-stab her friend to get a man.
@ Rock Throwing Peasant
“Bob, nowhere in there is how they perceive the outside the outside world, in the sense of having a warped perception.”
A few years ago I ran across a woman I had known briefly in college. After talking to her for a while, she blurted, “This is about me, not you!” She accused me of being a stalker. She said all her former boyfriends had baggage and wouldn’t accept her “career.” She told me men were responsible for all the problems in the world. She told me she thought she was a stopgap on my way to another woman (I wasn’t even involved with her, so I have no idea where she got that idea).
She showed signs of Narcissistic Personality Disorder and Histrionic Personality Disorder.
Narcissists misperceive everything because it truly is about them.
As case in point for Susan Walsh: The comment section of any post on http://www.jezebel.com
@Deti
Bingo. At some point, we are going to have to recognize that the churches are not full of Christians. I’ve been saying this for months. Dalrock’s subtitle rightly recognizes that this is a post-Feminist society, but the real suffering is because this is a post-Christian society.
Deti on a HUSsie discussion:
No consideration is given to “what does he want? What does he like? Will he be OK? Is he doing all right? Do I look good enough for him? Do I meet his standards?”
What does he get? Isn’t that obvious? He gets to share in her awesomely awesome presence, at least for a while. What more could any man ever want, I ask you?
As for all that other stuff, eh, you just clearly want women to be doormats…
More seriously, however.
Deti, I’m thinking that just as there are slut tells, there should be some tells that a given woman has essentially zero empathy or compassion for men. Call them “user tells”. Off the top of my head here are a couple:
* How does she react to the idea of divorce theft? Minimize it? Deplore it? Defend it?
* What does she see as men’s role in the world? Does she assert that women don’t need men for anything, then backtrack to allow men to work in the oil patch, coal mines, Bering Sea crabbing, and other dangerous jobs? Or does she allow that some roles men play are important, right up front?
I think that these two would smoke out those women who regard men as some kind of robot / livestock to be used and then discarded / put out to pasture.
Thoughts?
“@Deti
It pains me to say this as a Christian man, but the Christian church no longer dominates western culture. It’s been discarded in favor of secular feminism.”
I would widen that definition to Secular Marxism. Feminism is but one pillar of Marxism unleashed upon the West to destroy the family institution. There are many other tenets that have come about in the culture as a whole that work in tandem to bring forth the wide-reaching effects you see today.
@ar10308
Yes, and Marxism is but a few pillars of a much older structure designed to subvert and destroy what God ordained from the very beginning of mankind.
@ Everyone
How to Identify a Female Narcissist
Physical Appearance
She dresses provocatively, flaunting sexually suggestive body parts.
She focuses attention on makeup and hair, even for the most mundane tasks or events.
She is overly confident about her looks. Research shows that narcissists are no more attractive than other people, but they believe they are much better looking than other women.
She places high value on brand names, and feels entitled to wear “the best.” She frequently purchases new clothing, and does not distinguish between wants and needs.
She is more likely to have plastic surgery, most commonly breast augmentation.
She enjoys being photographed, and often asks others to snap her picture. She enthusiastically shares the best pics of herself on Facebook or other social media sites. She will sometimes invest in a professional photographer for a portrait that she uses on Facebook or for online dating.
Personality/Character
She insists on being the center of attention, and is often the most charming person in the room. Narcissists are very outgoing and excel at marketing themselves.
She often seeks favorable treatment, and automatic compliance. She believes that she is special, and that she deserves fame, fortune, success and happiness.
She is highly materialistic.
She is prone to envy, though she presents as supremely confident. She seeks opportunities to undermine others, and enjoys sharing confidences about how the two of you are better than others.
She is convinced that others are envious and jealous of her, and often uses this excuse for her lack of real, intimate friendships. When her friends enjoy successes of their own, she finds ways to punish them by downplaying their achievements.
She lacks empathy, and even common courtesy at times. She puts others down, including you. She does not hesitate to exploit others.
She is very competitive.
She believes that she is intellectually superior to her peers.
She blames others for problems. Narcissists don’t believe that they make mistakes, and lack the ability to process shame.
She displays a haughty attitude when she lets her guard down or is confronted. She will act impatient, arrogant and condescending. She will often excuse her own shortcomings by claiming that others are pressuring her or expecting too much of her.
She is dishonest and often lies to get what she wants. She will never admit this.
She is “psycho:” She engages in risky behaviors, has an addictive personality, and is prone to aggressive behavior when rejected. (Note: This is most common with Histrionic Personality Disorder.)
She is unpredictable in her moods and actions. You have trouble figuring out what she wants and where you stand.
She is capable of short-term regret, and will apologize profusely if backed into a corner. However, she will quickly rationalize her behavior and return to narcissistic patterns.
A tangent here, but have you noticed how kid glove Vox is when he disagrees with giggles? (as he did on this topic of alpha game)…. It almost looks like beta appeasement.
Beta appeasement? Seriously? If you were a regular reader at VP, you’d see that one of my core rules is to treat others how I am treated by them. Whatever her differences with others may be, even others I also like and respect, she has never failed to behave courteously and respectfully towards me. I am pleased to do likewise. Obviously, Susan and I disagree with each other on the concept of solipsism, which is perfectly fine. And while I don’t think her objectives are perfectly in line with mine, or Dalrock’s, or Athol’s, much less Roosh’s or Roissy’s, I also don’t see them as diametrically opposed to the androsphere as are Jezebel and Pandagon.
Also, I was careful to point out that I was not attacking Susan because I wished for a discussion of the concept, not a hogpile on her, and I was aware of the possibility of the latter.
As a longtime blogger with no shortage of critics, anklebiters, and self-appointed enemies, I think I can recognize a genuine ideological foe when I see it. And Susan simply isn’t one.
@CC,
“Yes, and Marxism is but a few pillars of a much older structure designed to subvert and destroy what God ordained from the very beginning of mankind.”
At Marxism’s base is the idolatry of Mankind, which can be found all over the OT, (Tower of Babel, etc). In my opinion, IT is the Spirit of the Anti-Christ that has been moving through the ages.
Ever notice how a Marxist/Socialist has very similar ideas about property as Cain?
I covered feminine solipsism ages ago in War Brides:
https://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2011/10/03/war-brides/
@Bob Wallace – you say “sadistic” like its a BAD thing LOL
You got the Dark Triad thing right. Women have been engaging in Dark Triad traits (date like a man, love em n leave em) and the more they indulge this, the more they require a Dark Triad man, because only he will be able to master her or maintain hand in the interaction.
Everybody turning their hearts to stone.
terminology aside, this is rooted in selfishness, greed, and fear.
Would you prefer gamma or delta appeasement?
She refers to every man that believes in female solipsism as participating in a “circle jerk,” which includes you. Intentional imagery that conjures up that the men involved are unable to get laid and being gay.
And you want to keep her from being dogpiled . . when a man that wrote like her would get dogpiled on, and justly so.
You are criticizing her, but you can’t actually say that you are because she’ll take it personally.
Outcome dependant appeasement.
Interesting….the following from an article in Psychology Today, trying to define what an extreme female brain in, as opposed to an extreme male brain we see in Autism and Austism related phenomena.
….The female brain tends toward empathizing and mentalizing thinking, treating machines and objects as if they were other people. They attribute minds, thoughts, and feelings to inanimate objects. That, according to Crespi and Badcock, is the essence of paranoid schizophrenia. Paranoid schizophrenics hear voices where there are no people, and they attribute minds and thinking where none exist, such as when they believe other people are talking about or conspiring against them when they aren’t. Paranoid schizophrenics are hypermentalistic, and overinfer minds and emotions in other people, just as autistics are hypomentalistic, and underinfer minds and emotions in other people.
In their forthcoming article in the premier journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Crespi and Badcock present a very convincing case for paranoid schizophrenia as an extreme female brain. Now the whole picture appears to be complete. When your brain is “too male,” too systemizing, too mechanistic, you become autistic. When your brain is “too female,” too empathizing, too mentalistic, you become paranoid schizophrenic. If the extreme male brain of an autistic is “mindblind,” then you might suggest that the extreme female brain of a paranoid schizophrenia is “logicblind.”…..
Mmm notice the last sentence ….:Logic blind.
Personal experience here. A few months ago I put up a very sexist comment about women in general on fagbook and the missus saw it. It was not specific about anyone but as we argued about it I kept having to remind her that this comment was not at all any reflection upon what she was like but rather the rest of them out there. The argument folded up but I am not persuaded that she ever got the message given how she kept going back to that very point.
I’m very slow on my feet in an argument but for the benefit of others I’ve thought about how I would respond next time a chick makes that accusation. Response question – “Do you think it is about you?” wait for answer “What have you ever done that would make you think it is about you?” or “Is there something that I should know about you that you have never told me about?”
It seems to be hard wired into women’s brains because most of the time she is a very rational person but when this general statement was made the immediate thought was “He is talking about me and I must defend myself!”
@ Elaine,
“When your brain is “too female,” too empathizing, too mentalistic, you become paranoid schizophrenic.”
I know a woman who is schizophrenic quite well. She told me her mind runs away on her unless she’s on medication. First thing I thought: women babble all the time and say nothing, and she’s claiming that’s what her brain is doing to her.
She’s paranoid, too. Fortunately in her case it’s not that bad. And she does empathize way too much, about the silliest of things.
There is a great deal of truth to your post.
Pingback: Father Knows Best: International Talk Like A Pirate Day Edition « Patriactionary
@Anon Reader
This reminds me of one of the women on the post by Sheila on WACF that Deti referenced above. The woman first said that men shouldn’t be allowed to enter lifeboats on a sinking ship. Then she graciously suggested that if they had a child with them and the mother wasn’t present, in that specific corner case a man should be permitted to survive because it was in the interest of the child.
No one pointed out how gruesome this line of thinking was, seeing men as machines to be used and disposed of in whatever manner was most practical to women and their children. And all of this of course was in the context of outrage that men were being selfish for not offering the Full Titanic Experience the women had come to expect.
I’ve an off topic question. My apologies. I have been seeing the term androsphere a lot lately. What is the difference between the androsphere and the monosphere?
Here is the comment I referenced above. It was from the same Rachel that as Deti pointed out Sheila defended so strongly (emphasis mine):
@Bob: I know the mainstream, including modern psychology has become egalitarian, but its just not the truth. Even mental disorder is complementarian between the sexes. To try and eliminate the feminine solipsism in favor of sharing the masculine narcissism between men and women alike is symptomatic of what feminism has brought us in many ways over the years.
I am his equal.
My brain nearly gave out on this one. If they are indeed equal, why the heck would he even give her a seconds consideration? He did treat her like an equal. Just as the men did on the overturned cruise ship not too long ago.
The modern professional, ‘educated’ and ‘independent’ woman has been exposed as a sham. A farce worthy of dissection. Since they, in their rise to power, have berated and destroyed anyone questioning their policies, it is nice to see them squirm when the light is directed to them.
Seriously, did they not expect society to eventually catch up with them? Cougars, plastic surgery, sexual ambiguity/immorality, materialism etc etc are their fruits.
The feminist racket is coming unhinged and its minions are becoming more desperate in trying to remain relevant. The entire Left-wing Progressive community recognize they are becoming irrelevant and are doubling down on the inanity.
Fun to watch from the sidelines. As someone who have been on the receiving end of their vitriol, I will do nothing to assist them and, in fact, enjoy ‘tripping them up’.
@ Father Marker:
“It seems to be hard wired into women’s brains because most of the time she is a very rational person but when this general statement was made the immediate thought was “He is talking about me and I must defend myself!”
Seems this is not so uncommon as you think because I have perceived similar reaction in my woman.
In a discussion, it is not wrong to apply the issue to oneself, but this analysis shouldn’t end there if one expects to be taken seriously. Children have that level of maturity and reflective thinking.
Women have told us they are mature and strong etc, so they should also develop the ability to think objectively. Sad that this isn’t the case so much.
The concept of “female solipsism” is indeed “just another manosphere circle jerk.” Most topics among insular communities are. They are not up for debate by the uninitiated; their purpose is to reinforce the standards that unite a community as a community. So what’s her point?
“Provide stats or shut up” is an appeal to a third-person authority, in this case “stats” from a tautological, self-reporting, pseudo-social-science method. She presumes that absence of proof is proof of absence, and until demonstrated otherwise by someone she is solipsistically free to accept or reject as an authority, she declares it untrue, and her prior assumptions survive as operative. “Unless someone can offer me some rational explanation for saying that women are especially solipsistic, I don’t accept it.” Itself a declaration of solipsism.
No, philosophess. The correct starting position of any inquiry is agnosticism. “Unless someone can offer … some rational explanation” for either side, neither assumption prevails. To allow truth the space for recognition, we must remain neutral on the question. Susan Walsh imports her own bundle of unproven and unexamined assertions to the inquiry, operating as though they must be acknowledged by all present as the default preference, with the burden of proof on those who don’t share her assessment. Like women do.
Where have you gone, my blessed Trivium? A little familiarity with the rules of rhetoric and logic would keep solipsists like Vox Dei and S. Walsh from talking past each other. The Trivium is the third-person authority to which we all might defer, and in so deferring, make possible the synthesis of a mutual understanding. Worked for Socrates contra the sophists. What silly endless “arguments” we have in the absence of The Three! Talk about a “circle jerk.”
Matt
Isn’t the term ‘circle jerk’ a sexist statement?
I don’t care really, because I have heard worse and have thick skin and sense of humor. Just pointing out the hypocrisy in how feminist freak out at hearing ‘fireman’.
I go to a festival every year with a bunch of buddies. We hang out with an extended group of married/divorced/single ladies who go to this festival every year as a gals weekend away.
This past year the married sister of a never married gal made it her mission to hook us up. Her never married sister managed to stay slim all these years but never found a man to marry. She is in her mid forties. I went along with the fun and started to ask her about herself all in the spirit of getting to know her. Every one of the following answers was delivered with a big smile on her face, several tosses of her hair, and in a tone that sounded like bragging.
When asked about her science based public sector job: “Boring. They wanted me to go back to school to learn more, but why bother?”
Hobbies: “Nope”
Exercise: “Exercise is stupid and boring”
Cooking: “I hate cooking”
Good books she read: “I don’t read”
Any recent learning/classes/etc: “Nope”
But she has time to regularly take pictures of drinks at bars and put them on her facebook page. Any curiosity about me regarding all the above? Nope. I finally summarized all this back to her in her words and she didn’t like it one bit! Not that I cared. But the sad look on her married sister’s face was a little tough. All she wants to do is help her oblivious sister out.
Yes, this is anecdotal. But as a divorced man dating women in their forties I cannot tell you how much of this I run into. All kinds of ladies who got by in their twenties on their good looks and party/fun personality and still think that the same rules apply in their forties. That they don’t have to bring anything else to the table. If they stated that they just want to have fun with no serious relationships anymore I would understand. But most all profess to desiring a long term relationship leading to marriage/remarriage.
I had one of them, a supposedly smart, attractive woman, pronounce to me that “women don’t orgasm from intercourse”. I didn’t ask. She just popped it out of the blue. When I informed her that I have personally experienced this with a woman she claimed that I was wrong. Of course, this is the same lady that tried to tell me that women do not get custody of kids more often than men and that men and women pay out child support equally. She asked for proof that she was wrong so I sent her some of the recent links to government studies that have been listed on this site and others.
Her response?
“This is obviously wrong”
BTW, most of these dates are arranged. I don’t do the online dating sites. I get set up by the wives of people I know. You’d think that this prescreening would weed out some of this, but it doesn’t. Now I just laugh when I hear, “I have a friend I want you to meet!”
Matt,
Susan Wise Bauer is the bees knees. We use that book to homeschool our kids and I have had the privilege of seeing her and her mother speak. I have learned more in the past 4 years of homeschooling than I did in all my public schooling.
Pingback: The Attraction Doctor » Solipsism: Is One Gender More Selfish Than The Other?
Dalrock,
Thanks for bringing this debate to my attention. You can find my reply and thoughts on my own site here:
http://attractiondoctor.com/social-gender-issues/solipsism-is-one-gender-more-selfish-than-the-other/
Women are more naturally self-absorbed as a condition of their maternal instinct. Their aegis remains close to home, close to family, close to children, close to self. Their concern is with the specific and concrete, NAWALTs notwithstanding. Plato’s Symposium: the love of one’s own.
Conversely, men are outward directed, general, and abstract. Plato’s Symposium: the love of the good.
We can demonstrate this contrast with IQ studies, references to Rousseau, scripture passages, statistics, quantifications, philosophical polemic, Darwinian speculation, literature, poetry, or art. But if you want to remain a participant in the exchange, the most efficient path is to simply stipulate, along with your interlocutor, what is plain in front of our eyes. Baselessly declaring a certain foundational concept to be baseless is arguendo. It’s what excitable freshmen do to test out the power of their rhetoric, not to discern the truth.
Men in this community gather in this community already in agreement on the foundational concepts. If interlopers want to interject their disagreement, they will have to come with something heavier than the Varuca Saltian foot-stamp of “I don’t accept it.” Who asked her?
Susan Walsh is an interloper. She doesn’t have the presence of mind to understand the concepts enough to argue for or against their veracity. She only knows how to borrow such concepts and employ them to random, alien ends. Justification is not her forte. Alpha is what she says it is, solipsism is irrelevant until she declares it is, beta is good, up is down, weak is strong. This is not clever inversion or subtle word play. This is confusion at the core of what passes for her “thinking.”
Leave the abstractions to the men, Suze. There is a reason why all philosophers were men, and there is a reason why the most interesting theoretical exchanges in this field have been originated by and continue to occur between men — even as she endeavors to give practical tips for sluts, a Hints from Heloise for Harlots (hook up smart, girlfriend!), while the rest of her sex is exchanging inanities on Facebook or hoary feminist platitudes on Jezebel.com.
Matt
“What evidence can you offer that “female solipsism” is not just another manosphere circle jerk?”
..the answer lies in the question..
steps to understand:
1) Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one’s own mind is sure to exist. The term comes from the Latin solus (alone) and ipse (self). Solipsism as an epistemological position holds that knowledge of anything outside one’s own mind is UNSURE. The external world and other minds cannot be known, AND MIGHT NOT EXIST OUTSIDE THE MIND.
(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism)
2) answer inside the question (related to point 1): “IS NOT JUST ANOTHER..”
btw, this looks like the Femminine mistique… further info here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Feminine_Mystique
Keep the hamster rollin’ and rollin’…
Imnobody: “Another occasion where narcissism is evident is when women accept theories depending on whether they like these theories or not.”
Amanda Marcotte: “The narrative has always sat uneasily with me, as it’s based on the presumption that women are so foul that men will only put up with them in order to get sex.”
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/08/23/hook_up_culture_women_actually_want_it_and_less_needy_men_too_.html
Dr. Jeremy suggested a power metric to determine group or gender solipsism.
He says:
“■Which group has political, criminal, and legal backing to enforce their wishes?
■Which group is actively supported and “em-powered” by modern social norms and cultural views?
■Which group would be more likely to answer the sense of power scale questions above in a high-power manner?”
He then points out:
“In conclusion, to settle the solipsism debate, we must first settle the power debate. Unfortunately, because those two tendencies are related, the powerful will usually not admit their advantage. They will lack the ability to empathize, understand, and will simply desire to get what they want.”
Review. Discuss.
“What is the difference between the androsphere and the monosphere?”
I’m assuming you mean “manosphere.” They are the same thing, I would say.
Anonymous Reader: “Call them user tells.”‘
I’ve often thought that if a woman is looking at a new apartment or a house, if she is more interested in the closets she should be dropped. If she is more interested in the kitchen she might be a keeper. Not that women should only be in the kitchen, but rather that a kitchen is a functional aspect of living space, while a big closet is a warehouse for showiness and materialism.
“Women are more naturally self-absorbed as a condition of their maternal instinct. Their aegis remains close to home, close to family, close to children, close to self. Their concern is with the specific and concrete, NAWALTs notwithstanding. Plato’s Symposium: the love of one’s own.
Conversely, men are outward directed, general, and abstract. Plato’s Symposium: the love of the good.”
This is their natural states. Feminism has reversed this, and caused the genders to adopt and live out traits to which they are each unsuited.
And increasing number of men are now concerning themselves with themselves, to the exclusion of everything and everyone else. Get the bang. Pump & dump. No marriage, no children, earn just enough to support themselves, don’t make any large purchases or incur a lot of debt. Anything expensive is a toy.
No investment, no commitment. And why should they invest or commit when there is almost nothing worth investing in or committing to; and when that investment and commitment can be ripped from you on the whim of a woman? Men who do invest and commit feeling shortchanged or cheated. Some men who want to invest and commit denied the chance. Still others who invested and committed are divorced and divested of their investments.
And a lot of these men aren’t happy about it. They’d be happy to invest and commit, and take on risk, if it were worth it and if they could find any women willing to give them the time of day without throwing drinks in their faces or laughing uncontrollably in the church narthex.
By contrast, it is women increasingly leaving home and hearth for public life and career. They try to direct themselves outward and engage in deep abstractions. They earn their own money, drive their own cars, have their own houses.
They have everything their feminist mothers and aunts fought for. But they’re still dissatisfied, still empty, still longing. For what? Cue the cry:
“Where have all the good men gone!?”
“I don’t get it — I’m smart, successful, educated and well-traveled. Why can’t I get Brad Pitt/George Clooney to marry me?!”
“I’m hot, I’m sexually experienced, and I’m DTF. I like to have fun. I’m a fun girl. How come all these guys just want to f**k me, but they don’t want to marry me? How come I’m always showering semen off my back and then running to the McDonald’s alone for an Egg McMuffin and coffee in the mornings? How come a “date” is popcorn and a home video, when the frumpy goody-two-shoes are getting dinners at Chez Paul and engagement rings?”
This might be statistical evidence of female narcissism.
The dating website OKCupid conducted a survey of their members, and asked them to rate a representative sample of photos from the site (men rated women, women rated men). The men’s attractiveness ratings produced a realistic bell curve: a small percentage of women were rated very attractive, a similar percentage were rated not attractive, and the rest were bunched in the middle. Women, on the other hand, rated 80% of men as below average!
A dating site like this is kind of like a store: people shop for someone who is good enough for them. For the women at OKCupid to state that the vast majority of men were less than average–were not, in other words, good enough for them–speaks to staggering levels of narcissism, I believe.
http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dating/
Real Peterman, certainly the OKCupid survey clearly demonstrated Apex thinking at work; 80% of men are invisible to women, unless they do something about that condition.Some of the most simple and elementary principles of Game can enable a man to enter a venue or event as a ‘grey man”, then “pop into view” of women. The first time I experienced that I was stunned.
You could have a point about it also verifying narcissism. Of course, the sample of women and men is self selected, which surely skews results a bit. Yet the results are very interesting.
Dr. J, I disagree. Not because I don’t think there is a power dynamic at play (there is), but women’s solipsism (or ‘self-importance’ if you don’t want to make the abstraction) is an innate and evolved psychological schema that’s proven beneficial to them, and ultimately our species, whether women were ’empowered’ or not.
https://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2011/10/03/war-brides/
If anything feminine solipsism developed as a result of women’s physical powerlessness in the past. This is the ‘clever girl’ theory – in our evolutionary past women couldn’t match men’s overt physical capacity, so they turned their psychologies inward and developed covert strategies to manipulate men to benefit themselves. From this developed women’s greater mental capacity for communication, nuance, nonverbal communication, inference, etc.
No one questions those particular aspects of the feminine psychology because they seem like credits to the gender and reinforce the myth of the feminine mystique (i.e. women’s unknowability). Out of hand we’ll accept that women are better communicators and they’ll proudly post references about how women’s brains differ from men’s, but point out that those differences also include less complimentary aspects – such as feminine solipsism – and it’s outright rejection with a dash of accusations of misogyny.
Stingray
I’ve an off topic question. My apologies. I have been seeing the term androsphere a lot lately.
I think that is one of TFH’s terms.
What is the difference between the androsphere and the monosphere?
Ignoring the typo, there’s no diff in definition, IMO “androsphere” is less amenable to cutesy ridicule. So it may have some use due to that alone.
Accepting the typo, I’ll hazard a guess that you can’t catch “androsphere” from kissing…
Pingback: One out of three women resent their husbands for not earning enough money | The Woman and the Dragon
AR and the Real Peterman,
Thanks. A sphere of mono, not fun. The sad thing? Usually my typos are from hitting the key next to the one I intended. The “o” is nowhere near the “a”. Begs the question, what in the world was I thinking about?
I know Mrs. Walsh wants to see hard data about female solipsism, but I find women’s personal narratives to be quite an indictment. However, here is a new article on Forbes entitled, “Is Opting Out the New American Dream for Women” which provide survey data that seems to make women appear quite solipsistic – I’ve posted on it on my own blog, but here are a few self-involved gems from the article:
Stingray
Begs the question, what in the world was I thinking about?
Odessa, Texas, obviously…
@ Rollo,
I’m not sure we’re talking about different things here… Women’s communication and manipulation abilities are also a source of power. Power is a lot more than simply the overt physical capacity and resource controlling aspects, although those are aspects of power as well. In short, women developed “feminine power” as an answer to men’s physical and resource power. That is the adaptation to be sure.
As their power and control increased, however, so did the tendency for solipsism. They could coerce and influence…so they did not have to “care” and be as “other focused”. Solipsism, therefore, is both a result of their increased ability to influence men (power) AND a clever mechanism by which to maintain and increase that influence. For similar reasons, all powerful “ignore” the needs of the powerless. It is an easy way to gain and maintain their power.
We see further evidence of this in the modern era, as men’s power has been further eroded and women’s increased. Thus, we see a corresponding jump in solipsism as well. As one group’s power grows over another, their concern and empathy for the other group diminishes in proportion. The greater the disparity, the more obvious the solipsistic tendencies – especially to the group WITHOUT power!
In short, believe the adaptation led to power, which led to solipsism. That solipsism was a result of power and also served to maintain it. Now, with the increase in the power differential, gas has been thrown on the proverbial solipsism fire – and we’re way out of whack. Nevertheless, power is the important variable…because solipsism can only be reduced and “consideration” can only be elicited in women by re-balancing power and influence, at least within individual couples (e.g. learning game), if not society as a whole (e.g. MRA).
Sunshine Mary,
Ugh. That woman doesn’t want to stay home with her kids. She wants to be kept.
AR,
Oh my! Of course! 😉
Riffed on the subject here: http://theredpillroom.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-tangled-chains-on-swing-set-of.html
Dr. J. I think what’s throwing me is that power (in the way you’re outlining it) is a direct intent. Meaning it’s a conscious, motive driven, dynamic, whereas feminine solipsism is an internalized, subconscious ‘subroutine’ that is the mental point origin women frame their understanding of the world around them.
I get what you’re saying, but I think the “power-is-solipsism” is kind of a false equivalency. I’d agree that the power motive may have been instrumental in fostering women to evolve a ‘hard-wired’ solipsistic psychology (think Steven Pinker), but I don’t think that shifting power balances in society or gender (deliberate or not) predispose women to more or less solipsistic mental models.
In War Brides I laid out a speculative illustration explaining women’s ability to adopt a sort of Stockholm Syndrome situation with the men of other tribes who’d killed off the opposing men of their own tribe and how this evolved into women’s greater capacity to ‘turn their feelings on a dime’ and get on with their lives with another man more easily than men do. You could say this is a manifestation of the power dynamic, since survival, and survival of her offspring, would be a woman’s first priority – thus the power she needs is simple survival, but is that intent-motivated power or just the most pragmatic response to a bad situation? However, that situation (men being the disposable sex) also contributed to the development of feminine solipsism.
@ Rollo
I see your point. I’m not so sure power has to be conscious though. For example, some would argue that certain races or ethnic groups have privilege in society. They may not consciously wield it, yet it results in them being “blind” and “inconsiderate” to the needs of other groups. They sort of just figure life is that way for everybody. Simply being privileged or favored, even without active intent, can be enough to create solipsism.
With your war brides example… If men are disposable, or at least replaceable, then they don’t have very much power. The woman “gets what she wants”, whether it is from her dead tribal husband, or the new incoming raider. If she, consciously or unconsciously, plies her feminine wiles, each take care of her the same. So, why should she really “care” about either? She doesn’t have to care…so she doesn’t. In fact, it might be a male-focus that leads us to even consider it a “bad situation”. Sure, it is bad for the dead husband. But, as long as the food keeps coming and the hut stays warm, how is it “bad” for the woman. There is no difference to her life…a provider is a provider.
Put another way, women (and anyone else) act spoiled and selfish when they are used to getting their own way. They don’t care about anyone else, and are reinforced in that stance, because it keeps paying off. Only when they “have to” care, because they need something that they cannot get, do they snap out of the solipsism.
The test then, between our two hypotheses, is whether women’s solipsism changes with more or less power and privilege. If it is a function of power (either conscious or unconscious), as I propose, then it will vary. If it is an innate, hard-wired part of their psychology, as you suggest, then it will remain relatively stable over time and situation.
Personally, I believe I see evidence for women getting more and more self-focused and selfish in our modern society. Dalrock’s graphs above might be taken to support that assumption. When they have the power and ability, they care less and less for men’s feelings, and do what they darn well please.
In contrast, guys utilizing game appear to have LTRs and wives who become less solipsistic over time. They may fall back into old patterns (e.g. fitness tests – which are grabs for power). Nevertheless, those women are more thoughtful, considerate, and better able to think about “what their guy wants”. This, I propose, is because the power is more equalized and they “have to” care. They become dependent, at least emotionally, and the guy is no longer disposable to them. So, their solipsism toward him reduces.
I’m open to alternative thoughts though. I’m enjoying the discussion too. Thanks!
Dr Jeremy,
Your power differential hypothesis might explain why women have so little concern for men now that they have men at such a disadvantage in the family courts. But it doesn’t explain why men have been so interested in the needs of women even when (in theory at least) men held all of the power. Why did men so enthusiastically overhaul the divorce process to punish the (rare both then and now) husband who committed divorce theft/exploitation?
@ Everybody,
I do not believe the word “solipsism” is useful in the context it’s being used. I made the mistake of taking Epistemology and Metaphysics in college and have since forgotten most of it, but it came back.
Solipsism is a philosophical term, related to subjective idealism, and is the argument that the only place we know anything is in our heads. The philosopher who made the most airtight argument for it was David Hume (who never said he believed it) and that argument was so bullet-proof it took Kant to break it, He said Hume aroused him from his “dogmatic slumber” and led him to write “The Critique of Pure Reason.” That is where arguments about solipsism will lead; it has nothing to with men and women. Or in this context, women.
What we’re talking about here is narcissism, which runs back to the Greek myth of Narcissus. Everyone pretty much knows what narcissism is.
When people start saying, “Oh, women are solipsistic,” it’s sounds pretentious. It’s also wrong. It’s saying, “Women are philosophically subjective idealists, as compared to objective realists.” Hardly anyone knows what that means, and those who do will laugh. The whole argument is a can of worms.
When people start using the wrong terms or redefining them, that is one of the first signs of a cult. That means the Manosphere is turning into a cult, which is a religion with no power.
Feminism : Game :: Modernism : Postmodernism
I second Bob Wallace.
@ Dalrock
I think the answer to your question was in your bracket “in theory at least”. Personally, I would say that men have never held all of the power. At the most, there was an incomplete equilibrium among “most” men and women. Most, men held all of the survival power (resources and protection) and most women held all of the reproductive power (sex and children). Thus, there was, at best, an uneasy balance. Generally, we tend to forget to count reproduction as power. It makes the Feminist case that men had “all the power” historically, and women none. When, in reality, it was even – we just overlook the extreme power women already had!
So, to answer your first question, men always cared about the needs of women, because they always needed women more to reproduce. They had to care about women, because women had sexual (and influential) power. Similarly, at least historically, women had to care about men, because they needed a man to survive. Even then it wasn’t “even”, because it was easier for a woman to find another provider than it was for a man to find another sex partner. Nevertheless, the trade (and men having “some” power) kept everything more or less in check – with a minimum of female solipsism.
To answer your second question, not all men had the same amount of power. Just like today, some men are more attractive and higher value than others. The less powerful the man…the more he would “care” about the needs of women, because he couldn’t “make them” meet his needs (just like the needy guys with no game today). Also, he would have less to lose by selling out. Put simply, the unattractive, low value, white knight men dismantled the system. It had no value for them anyway, because they had no power to begin with. It handicapped the more powerful men that they previously couldn’t compete with. AND, they thought it would appease and gain favor with the powerful women they desired in a sycophantic manner (which they still have not realized doesn’t work). A reproductive win-win-win…or so they thought (and still think).
Oh I forgot…the liberal politicians dismantled the system as well. It allowed the socialist government to take the place of husbands as the “provider”. That way, women were dependent on the government and had to continue to vote liberal politicians into office to “support their rights”. The women’s dependency kept them in power. That is also why single moms now generally vote democrat, and churchgoing wives generally vote republican.
Thanks Dr. Jeremy. I’ll have to chew on that. It would explain why (at least according to feminist lore) women used to care more about the needs of men.
Bob,
Consider this. Before “narcissism” made it into the DSM, Bob from decades ago might have been saying, “Narcissism” doesn’t fit. They’re just egotistical!
You’re not catching the distinction that a lot of us have made. I’m not sure there’s another way to explain it. Alpha Mission really did lay it out well.
A narcissist does not have the self-doubt that the average woman has. Paired with the self-doubt is a belief that the world owes them something unique.
I appreciate your efforts. I just think it’s a matter of agreeing to disagree. I and others see a pretty clear difference.
Put simply, the unattractive, low value, white knight men dismantled the system.
the liberal politicians dismantled the system as well.
Potato, potahto.
“When the manosphere uses a word,”, said Humpty Dumpty, “it means just what they choose it to mean: neither more, nor less”.
@ Rock Throwing Peasant,
“You’re not catching the distinction that a lot of us have made. I’m not sure there’s another way to explain it. Alpha Mission really did lay it out well”
I understand the distinction. “Female solipsism” exists nowhere except in the Manosphere. It doesn’t apply there. It is a philosophical concept, not a psychological one.
When people starts redefining words, the first thing I think is Ayn Rand, who misdefined every word she could, and whose miniscule numbers of followers are still lost because of it.
I’ll say it again: when people start misdefining words, that is the first sign of a cult, which is a religion with no power. That makes the Manosphere a cult.
I’ll say it again: when people start misdefining words, that is the first sign of a cult, which is a religion with no power. That makes the Manosphere a cult.
Buddy, that is the sloppiest definition of “cult” that I’ve seen ever.
Start thinking.
@Bob Wallace,
It isn’t being redefined though Bob.
From Meriman Webster
Solipsism : a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing;
also : extreme egocentrism
Clearly the second definition is in view.
And from the Oxford dictionary
solipsism
noun
[mass noun]
the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.
the quality of being self-centred or selfish.
Again, the second definition is in view.
Nothing is being redefined.
Women are largely solipsism, but this has to be weighed with how narcissistic she is. I know it was argued these are different definitions of different terms where they cannot be compared. Nonetheless, solipsism can be correlated with narcisism. No one is completely on one side or the other. Women was also described as not empathetic with men. Thus, this is a data point to measure how narcissistic she is.
With my own experience with my ex-wife, she set the terms of empathy. She does things to protect feelings, but not consequences that don’t protect feelings. It is as if she never tells the truth because it is so hard to be honest and she doesn’t want me to get upset and yell at her. Yet when I find things that she has done that hurt me, it doesn’t count. Sigh.
I’m glad to be done with that. And I never dared to speak to her again.
A thought on the whole solipsism/narcissism divide.
Someone earlier noted that the principle difference is that the narcissist thinks they are superior to everyone around them, and see themselves as the center of the universe.
But the solipsist sees themselves are more or less normal, while being surrounded by lesser persons.
Maybe there is no difference in how this looks externally, but it seems the internal processes are different. The solipsist doesn’t regard themselves as the crowning achievement of all creation the way a narcissist does. They just think of themselves as normal.
That did seem to make sense to me, based on experience. I’ve seen females who tend towards narcissism and it seems different to the “run of the mill” solipsism that Dalrock is observing here that I have also noticed. Maybe there is a “spectrum” that women exist on and this is two different points on that spectrum.
Looks like you’ve misdefined the word “cult”, Bob…
When people start using the wrong terms or redefining them, that is one of the first signs of a cult. That means the Manosphere is turning into a cult, which is a religion with no power.
Once more, you’re showing that you don’t know what you’re babbling about, Bob. As Jason has demonstrated, because the Game blogs do not produce either the Oxford English Dictionary or Merriam Webster, your statements are obviously and demonstrably false on their face.
The journey towards marriage.
Bob Wallace is just trying to help. You fellows mean well, but you’ve no idea how ignorant your use of “solipsism” makes you look to people who really do know what it means. You also seem to have no idea that appealing to secondary definitions in the dictionary doesn’t really help. If a physicist tells you that you are misusing the term “mass”, and you reply with “here is a dictionary definition and it agree with me, so there”, all you have accomplished is to cement the fundamental ignorance of your position in the minds of people who actually know what they are talking about.
‘Don’t use the term “solipsism” this way, unless you don’t care about looking ignorant and cultish’ is good advice from Bob. You fellows really ought to listen to it.
A Catholic woman is telling us we’re ignorant. The pot is surely calling the kettle black this time.
I’m a sucker for irony.
One thing to discuss on the the Solipsistic tendencies of women: realize that children are this way as well. It takes parenting to raise a child out of this. In many ways, moving from “boy” to “man” is the ability to think in the abstract and leave much of the tendency in the dust.
While unknowing on the issues, children are innately selfish, self-serving, solipsistic and narcissistic. What we consider a “normal” human has learned to control much of these impulses, or at least enough control to function in a society.
While it might be too “easy” of an explanation, it would fit in with the experience that it seems like most women, here in the States, don’t really “grow up” (as a Man understands the concept). While at the same time explaining that issue with regard to the change in the way girls have been raised over the past 60 years. Food for thought.
It is a reasonable reuse of a term, zippycatholic. Language grows like this.
…as if ‘growth’ and ‘improvement’ are synonymous. The Beautiful At Any Size theory of language, I suppose.
@ZP
Well-played.
@Sunshinemary Those women speaking to Forbes have spoken and have made it clear what their first priority in life is and it is about earning money. They have made it clear that they know what the choices are and have made a decision based on their desires. I really don’t understand why they are not happy. They know the score and they’ve made what they’ve deemed an appropriate decision. Let them enjoy it.
Bob Wallace is just trying to help. You fellows mean well, but you’ve no idea how ignorant your use of “solipsism” makes you look to people who really do know what it means.
The use isn’t ignorant. You’re taking the very stupid position that the word doesn’t mean what the dictionary says it means. Bob simply doesn’t know what he’s talking about, as I previously proved with regards to psychopathy, which he falsely claimed is based on shame.
The point I was trying to make is that there is nothing wrong with coining a new term like “female solipsism” based on words with existing meanings. When feminists coined the phrase “male chauvinist”, they were taking an existing word, chauvinist, which had originally referred to excessive patriotic pride, and applying it in the area of the politics of the personal. I see no reason why feminists should be able to do that, but men in our turn not be able to invent an expression like “female solipsism”
BTW, I understand that there is an essay, The Eternal Solipsism of the Female Mind, by the man who used to blog as In Mala Fide. IIRC, it appeared in a book he had published. I think it was called something like “The Eternal Solipsism of the Female Mind and Other Essays”. My apologies if this has already been mentioned.
Narcissism: Abnormal self-love or self-admiration – Gk
Solipsism: View that that the self is all that exists or can be known – L
That is what my Pocket Oxford Dictionary tells me.
Hume was an Empiricist.
Kant (who never read the Treatise) said that Hume raised him from his dogmatic Slumbers.
It was Susan Walsh who used the word Solipsism.
Certain posters here – thanks for the better-educated-than-thou put-down.
ps
The word Solipsism derives from the latin word Solus – how dare those Idealists Philosophers adapt a perfectly good Latin word.
Susan Walsh writes to young women. Hasn’t everybody figured that out by now?
It seems that her agenda is to simply to help college aged women take control of the marriage market place. She certainly doesn’t seem have men’s best interests at heart. Her goal is for women to marry beta providers so they can support feminine wishes and desires.
She only supports men when it serves her purposes. I don’t know why any guy would take advice from her. She’s almost as bad as some newspaper relationship expert.
Any evidence contrary to her agenda and she will basically just tune it out and pretend it doesn’t exist.
It is not uncommon to coin a new term, or modify the use of one, especially if it combines or encompasses a few related concepts. This allows a discipline or movement to express a complex group of ideas with one simple word or two. This assumes that there is a benefit to the new term – with all existing words and concepts unsuitable to adequately cover the idea. On the other hand, simply “making up words” can look a bit silly, especially if that group cares to converse with others outside it.
Having said that, a few psychological studies do encompass the word solipsistic/solipsism to refer to a focus on one’s own worldview and goals, to the exclusion of seeing the perspective of others. Kind of a “the world revolves around them” mindset. However, more studies use narcissism for a constellation of related concepts and behaviors. Yet others simply use words such as selfish, self-focused, or self-serving.
Thus far, I have used Solipsism for two reasons. First, it did have some small use in the literature. There was a very limited precedent. So, it was a legitimate use to me – although perhaps not the most common choice of words. Second, it had (perhaps a vague) established meaning and value within the Manosphere. It is helpful for group communication to use terms a movement is familiar with and has shared meaning about.
Moving forward, however, if the concept of Female Solipsism is an important one, further clarity is required. Some questions to consider:
1) What are the range of behaviors and concepts we are trying to explain and define? When one uses the term “Female Solipsism”, what specifically do they mean? What is the definition and operationalization of the term?
2) Can the behaviors/concept above be fully encompassed within a more commonly-used, already existing term? Having a full view of the behaviors involved, would a different term choice be more clear and informative to convey the set of ideas?
3) Is the desire to claim power and meaning internally for the group by coining a “unique” word, or to convey a set of ideas to those outside the group? If it is to define the group’s insiders and highlight unique “group beliefs”, then an obscure word choice is best (sometimes the idea behind such word choices in fancy disciplines, movements, and yes sometimes cults). However, if the desire is to convey an idea to others outside the group, either uninitiated men or women, then a more commonly-used and broadly understood word choice might be better.
Pingback: The family court helps preserve the class system (hat tip, spearhead). | Dark Brightness
“Provide stats for this or shut up. Men cheat more than women do. How do you account for that in divorces initiated by women? He breaks the contract, she files. Sounds fair to me. Yes, there are frivolous divorces, but I’d like to know what percentage of female-initiated divorces they are. I think this theme is exaggerated and overblown in the manosphere echo chamber”
I’m pretty sure this can be accounted for by looking at the rates of “at-fault” divorce vs “no-fault” divorce. If a woman filed for divorce, but goes the **no-fault** route then there’s a good bet cheating was NOT the cause, otherwise the woman could go the at-fault route and get the divorce over and done with much sooner. Many states require a cooling off period of 6 months to a year for no-fault divorces.
No vocabulary red pills in the manosphere, apparently.
How about selfish? Is that a word we can all get behind?
Call it solipsism, call it narcissism: the phenomenom is real and everybody has had experience of it. No need to fight about the label we choose.
@Looking Glass.
You nailed it. I have always thought that American female narcissism is only the extension of children’s narcisism to the adulthood. Since telling a woman her feelings are childish are immature is discouraged in the American culture, women grow up by preserving the psychological features of childhood, especially narcisism.
@Dr. Jeremy.
Put simply, the unattractive, low value, white knight men dismantled the system. It had no value for them anyway, because they had no power to begin with.
No, they didn’t. The system was dismantled by politicians (members of Congress, etc) by issuing laws that dismantled the system. This dismantling took more than a century. Read that:
http://www.heretical.com/miscella/mmarrlaw.html
The point is: all these men who dismantled the system were alpha: powerful men and, hence, attractive to women. They didn’t need the system because the system was built to protect the reproductive interest of betas.
In the manosphere, it is usual to assume that the current system benefits women and damages men. But, in reality, it benefits alpha men and normal women and it damages beta men and very attractive woman.
“In the manosphere, it is usual to assume that the current system benefits women and damages men. But, in reality, it benefits alpha men and normal women and it damages beta men and very attractive woman.”
I would agree, but I never hear the view of this situation from the very attractive women.
@Bob
In the “community” there’s a lot of want for better terms. One of the major obstacles in the average guy’s path to unplugging is really coming to terms with the ‘terms’ we use. Somewhere on the net I’m sure there’s a glossary of the common acronyms used in the “manosphere” (I hate that term too) outlining the various shorthand we use. Some of these terms have gone mainstream and I’m beginning to see even “legitimate” online journalists use LTR (long term relationship) or ONS (one night stand) somewhat regularly, meaning there’s a common perception that others will already know what they mean.
The reason this is a hurdle for a lot of plugged-in guys is because it seems almost juvenile, like a treehouse club for preteen boys. For me to draw comparisons of an acculturated, feminine social paradigm to the central plot of the Matrix movies, admittedly, on the surface that seems kind of silly. It’s an apt comparison and a useful allegory when you understand the concepts behind it, but for a guy just coming to grasp it while being immersed in a feminine-primary socialization for his whole life, it dosen’t click. And predictably, women invested in that same socialization see the terminology as little more than little boys holed up in their treehouse, throwing rocks at the girls below.
However, like any new developing science or art or technology there is always going to be a need to codify abstract concepts. We lack better terms so we’re forced to create new ones to represent new concepts. Feminine ‘solipsism’ is one such concept that needed a term.
Narcissism isn’t accurate enough, and Feminine Sociopathy goes too far, but solipsism works for a more balanced term for the abstract concept.
You may say that having the audacity to create new terms is cultish, but what is a cult? At its core human society is really a set of progressively more complex ‘cults’. Your family, your social circle, your corporate culture, your religion, your government, your nationality, are all ‘cults’ to varying degrees each with their own unique languages, inside jokes, vernacular, accents, and yes, created terminologies to be conveniently used to represent various ideas.
Lawyers (like me) are often accused of using a $5 word when a $0.25 word would work just as well (and be better understood). Perhaps the manosphere is guilty of the same thing with regard to solipsism. I agree with I Art Laughing (who wrote: How about selfish? Is that a word we can all get behind?) that selfishness adequately describes the abhorrent female behavior under discussion. So, why use a highfalutin word like solipsism?
@Rollo
Great point about the need for efficient terms. It almost inspired me to start my own site a few months back.
But I disagree about cultishness. I’d say the key aspects that distinguish a “cult” from normal social organizations are some specific patterns of indoctrination, secrecy, and coercion of members. The treehouse club can be rude, crude, crass and off-putting to many people, but I wouldn’t classify it as a cult or even claim that it’s ‘cultish’. Most of the manosphere sub-communities are very open, accepting, and not coercive. When they’re cruel it’s usually to someone who has specifically opposed them, like that PhD woman who attacked Roosh’s education post and was driven offline by the hate she pulled for it.
Religious? That’s a much tougher question. While contributors generally respect science and empiricism a great deal, because science is so slow and men only have one life there’s a need to act now– so there’s a lot of advice and ideas out there that you really just have to take on faith. (Feminism, of course, is no less religious.)
@lavazza
I would agree, but I never hear the view of this situation from the very attractive women.
In the past, the very attractive woman was able to get the most attractive man (read: $$$) and keep it for a lifetime. Now, as she ages, she loses the man to younger, hotter models. So this is not an improvement at all.
How about selfish? Is that a word we can all get behind?
It’s more than selfish. It’s the absolute impossibility to see a point of view that goes against their interests.
A selfish person would say:
OK. I get that it was a nightmare for my husband to lose their kids but I come first.
A woman would say:
He is an asshole and I am doing right by not letting my children see him. I am protecting them.
Maybe the word we are looking for is “unconscious selfishness”. It’s not that the woman is consciously selfish. It’s that he acts unconsciously selfish and then she uses the rationalization hamster to explain this selfishness.
I avoid using the term solipism for this reason, as well as because I do make an effort to avoid unnecessary generalizations. But I can’t deny that I have personally observed some patterns where there isn’t a single $0.25 word, you wind up having to elaborate, so the question is more like… do you use a whole $3 paragraph or a $5 word? (Often, digging into the specifics and elaborating details rather than tossing out the jargon is a worthwhile mental exercise.)
Lad, I do not see much advice in the androsphere that requires blind faith. One of the things about Game that proves it to be a more accurate model of reality than anything feminists or their White Knight lapdogs have to offer is simple: it works. Some Game techniques work even when the man
employing them expects them to fail; obviously no faith is required, in those cases. A true empiricist would be hard pressed to deny the efficacy of Game, once he’s had such an experience. It is the first-person experience of Game that is surely undermining many of the shibboliths of feminism (and White Knighting) one man at a time. This will have a profound effect, at some point in the future, and could even be part of a larger Gramscian march through institutions in the years to come. One cannot observe the truths of Game first hand, and still believe that “men and women are exactly the same except women can have babies and men can’t”.
Ideas, such as female solipsism, are more fuzzy, given various aspects of the world. There’s no way to get a Ford Foundation grant to study it, and even if funding were available it would be a challenge to get any academic body to actually do so. Ideas that subvert a dominant paradigm are not going to be popular with those who benefit, or believe they benefit, from that paradigm. See the various ankle biters on this thread, who desperately labor to deflect the discussion away from the reality of the feminine imperative for one obvious example.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2205875/Its-NOT-fault-I-missed-chance-mother.html
Oh dear!
I agree with I Art Laughing (who wrote: How about selfish? Is that a word we can all get behind?) that selfishness adequately describes the abhorrent female behavior under discussion. So, why use a highfalutin word like solipsism?
If I may, solipsism in and of itself is not abhorrent. At a very base level, female solipsism is relating to the world (and experiencing the feelings that will arise) through what one knows through her own experience first and then . That does not mean women not are capable of then relating to others through other known variables. It means that many women won’t or don’t know how to do that. This base solipsism is not bad. It is the inability or refusal to empathize that is bad.
The very fact that so many view solipsism as being abhorrent is what makes it difficult for women to believe they are. They are unable to relate past the feelings that this causes.
@Stingray
Was the irony intended?
On the topic of the definition, one key part of the term for me is a sense of being trapped in one’s own head. It isn’t just thinking of oneself first, but not being able to break out of their own head even briefly, and very often not even understanding that there is a problem with this. They very often don’t empathize at even a basic level, and when they don’t they don’t (can’t?) recognize that empathy is missing, even if you point it out. I do agree that it is a form of childishness, and that whatever the underlying nature differences between the sexes here might be our culture has made this much worse.
Heh, no. Vicious circle, isn’t it?
Dalrock,
one key part of the term for me is a sense of being trapped in one’s own head.
Yes, exactly. It can absolutely be worked past, but there is no incentive. There is also no one teaching how to do this or evening teaching why it should. Rather, women are encouraged to maintain this state and go with their feelings. Their feelings can’t wrong. Solipsism always was, only women were expected and taught to work beyond this. No more. Wallowing in it is now the norm and thought to be a very good thing.
Stingray, I used the term “abhorrent” in an effort to flush out whether some of the more vociferous members of the manosphere accept that word as descriptive of their feelings toward women in general. As I see it, solipsism (or as I prefer, selfishness) is a condition of fallen humanity – going all the way back to Eve’s wanting the fruit because it satisfied selfish needs (lust of flesh, eyes, pride of life) and applied to all humanity by John (1 John 2:16). It’s not “more evil” than any other temptation to do wrong that humans yield to.
mohohn,
Agreed. It’s something women can absolutely work past. They cannot make it go away, ever. But it can be ignored. It can even be used towards good. If one chooses to, she can use it to help empathize with another and then help that person get through a rough spot. It’s why you often hear women say, “I know how you feel” and then observe the look of relief on the woman she is speaking with.
I am shocked and surprised that Bob Wallace should use the term Man-o-sphere when as everyone knows the correct term is Andro-sphere. This sloppy use of language etc etc.
Mojohn,
As Stingray describes, it isn’t what people conventionally think of as selfishness (or narcissism). The mechanism as women describe it is very feelings/emotion based. They don’t feel like they are being selfish. And since they are thinking predominantly with their feelings this is the very mechanism which they use to reject the introspection needed to get beyond their own personal feelings on the topic. It can be overcome, but first we need to identify and name it. Which brings me to my response to this from Dr. Jeremy:
We need to weigh this against the misunderstanding that using an older well used term to discuss something new will create. Calling it narcicism invokes a very different concept, even though the end results are very similar. The same is true for the word selfish. She doesn’t feel selfish, and she doesn’t feel narcisistic, so of course she can’t be either of those. Yet that thought process is exactly what female solipsism describes.
One other thought on naming. The same folks who are crying foul that the manosphere is changing the meaning of terms is the same group I see wanting to arbitrarily rename accepted concepts to names they like better. Zippy for example, as I recall you want us to change the name of Game so it doesn’t sound like it comes from pickup artists, correct? What I see here is a refusal to acknowledge the way language and social dynamics work together. Social groups naturally hash this sort of thing out, which is what has happened in the manosphere. I didn’t coin the terms Alpha/Beta, Game, Manosphere, or Female Solipsism. The group as a whole has worked this out, with some people being more influential in this process of leading opinions. What I see is an attempt to declare oneself the official arbiter of this social process, bypassing the influence of everyone else. It won’t work. If you want to be the opinion leader and call these sorts of shots, you need to earn that status for yourself first. I’m not saying those here who are trying to become the official linguistic referee of the manosphere can’t do so, but merely pointing out that you haven’t.
FH,
That column is gold.
He was a commitment-phobic poet, and while my friends urged me to finish the relationship and find one in which children might be an option, I didn’t long for a family enough to give him up.
Later:
When I analysed the reasons why they and I were in this position, I came to one conclusion: bad luck, bad choices or bad timing. Not selfishness.
Two contradictory mindsets and no realization, no true introspection (despite her time of reflection in Morocco) .
Not selfishness, she just didn’t want a family for some other reason, unexplained.
I was desperate to care for another human being, and felt increasingly lonely and isolated from my friends, most of whom had started families.
Later:
I soon started to understand what had led me to where I was. Part of my sadness was a sense of loss that I would never love or be loved with the fierceness that exists between mother and child.
She says she wants to care for another, yet it really boils down to what the child can produce for her.
She led the life she wanted and now that she can’t have another life that she (now says she) wanted, it couldn’t be based on the decisions she made.
Opus
I am shocked and surprised that Bob Wallace should use the term Man-o-sphere when as everyone knows the correct term is Andro-sphere. This sloppy use of language etc etc.
Clearly he’s trying to form a cult…
I would never love or be loved with the fierceness that exists between mother and child.
She seems to be imagining something that isn’t exactly right. Yes, there is that element where you would give your life for your child, but it isn’t a relationship of equals, at least not for a long, long time.
The love between a man and a woman is (or should be) on a totally different plain, and she would likely be the type of mother that transfers the love that is her husband’s due onto the children, probably going off sex in the process. Either that or she’d have a rude awakening when her kids refuse to act like automatons with a duty to feed her own narcissism.
FWIW, Rollo and Dalrock’s most recent comments have convinced me that the term “solipsism” isn’t arbitrary here — it does actually make some sense, at least if we assume that a narcissist is self aware, though that assumption may be shaky. But be aware that that doesn’t alter the outsider’s reaction of “good grief, how ignorant” when first coming upon it.
Use it if you must, but there are consequences to what terms you choose to use. Some will tend to reinforce the treehouse club exclusivity, and others will make it more likely that you’ll appeal to new members. When it comes to the well educated, “solipsism” is exclusive rather than evangelical; and when it comes to Christians and the generally morally upright, “game” is exclusive rather than evangelical.
Of course, Dalrock, I cannot dictate how you folks use terminology. But I can point out the objective effects the terminology you choose has on your mission. In doing so I am appealing to truth, not to my own authority.
@ Everyone,
This is the last time I will attempt to set straight the what I call the Lost Boys of the Manosphere, who cannot think for themselves but must imitate whatever narcissistic blowhard they think is a Manosphere leader.
“Female solipsism” exists nowhere except in the Manosphere. There is no “Female Solipsistic Disorder,” just as there is no “Female Epistemological Disorder,” “Female Ontological Disorder,” or “Female Metaphysical Disorder.”
Solipsism is specifically an epistemological problem. No philosopher has ever believed in solipsism. Nobody believes in solipsism, If someone truly did, he’d be insane.
Any woman who was truly solipsistic would point at everyone in the world and say, “You don’t exist. Nothing exists. You are all in my head. I’m dreaming all of you.” As she was telling everyone this, all the other solipsistic women would be pointing at her and saying the same thing.
These women don’t exist. Again, if anyone really did believe in solipsism, she’d be insane.
Since solipsism is an idea that exists nowhere except in our heads, it is a concept with no referent. It’s an idea that points to nothing in reality.
What is under discussion here is narcissism, a psychological problem. Specifically, Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Histrionic Personality Disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder, and Anti-Personality Disorder. Things all have in common are manipulation, lack of empathy, and blaming your problems on other people.
Whoever came up with “Female Narcissistic Disorder” does not know what he is talking about. If he is this ignorant about this, then he is ignorant about a lot of other things, and I would take everything he writes with a boulder-sized grain of salt.
If the Lost Boys of the Manosphere (who never learned how to be men, which accounts for their being the blind following the blind) wish to believe Female Solipsism Disorder really exists, so be it. You will not be taken seriously, you will be laughed at, and the Manosphere, which is in some ways a circle jerk, will be reduced even further to irrelevance.
I agree that it’s not blind faith and it’s empirical in the sense of personal experience but that is still a subjective interpretation and by scientific standards is prone to huge errors from time to time. But while game doesn’t depend so much on a single foundation of blind faith, like belief in God or Nirvana, applying game to your life is as much like applying religious moral teachings as it is like engineering (which is real applied science).
There’s an implicit appeal to the supernatural and it’s a thought-crimey presentation (fairly typical for Jesus), but the message is pretty clear: you shouldn’t be waiting until the last moment to decide whether to murder or not. You avoid becoming a murderer by avoiding anger in the first place.
@Bob
When men refer to female solipsism they’re not referring to epistemological solipsism. Several commenters have already pointed this out, as did Vox on the blog post that Dalrock linked right from the start (which you have read, I hope). Continuing to engage in semantic nonsense is only making you look silly.
And of course, RTP, nothing is ever her fault. The Right Man™ just never showed up, ’tis all.
Perfectly illustrative of the modern day functionality of the female solipsistic mind. The ladies hasmter’s on ‘roids. I suppose I could keep reading useless Daily Mail articles about pretentious women thinking they’re all that. It has actually been quite swell doing so this week, as I’ve had the most awful of colds, and really needed the ‘pick-me-up’ that comes from laughing too much, so as to remove the nasal congestion. Anyway, glad I could be of service and provide the much needed debasement of our minds with the utter garbage that is the News Media…
Dalrock
We need to weigh this against the misunderstanding that using an older well used term to discuss something new will create. Calling it narcicism invokes a very different concept, even though the end results are very similar. The same is true for the word selfish. She doesn’t feel selfish, and she doesn’t feel narcisistic, so of course she can’t be either of those. Yet that thought process is exactly what female solipsism describes.
Let me attempt to illustrate this a bit with an example from the summer. Assume a summer cabin with multiple bedrooms and two bathrooms. The smaller bathroom is reserved for adults (people over 18). The larger bathroom, with two sink basins and plenty of counter space, is to be used by the younger people.
Now assume two or more young women in the 13 to 16 year age range, and two or more young men in the same age range, who must share this bathroom. In fairly short order, the young women will lay claim to all horizontal surfaces. They just need all that space. They have hair curling irons and hair straightening irons and little bags with cosmetics and brushes and scrunchies and hair ties and shampoo and conditioner and on and on. They will commandeer both sink bowls, all the counter space, any and all shelves, all niches in the shower/tub area, without a qualm. Not in a deliberately provocative way, necessarily – no tampon boxes prominently displayed in an attempt to gross out the younger men – just as a natural outgrowth of the explosion of unpacking.
When it is pointed out to them that they are being selfish and inconsiderate of everyone else, because others need to have a place to put their toothbrush, single deodorant stick and bottle of Head & Shoulders, the first reaction is likely to be incredulity, followed by resentful anger. Because, well, gosh! In their eyes the young women are simply using the space that they need and surely other people can plainly see that. Persisting in insisting that space must be provided for the needs of other people in the cabin can result in resentful flouncing, shrill false dichotomies of the “Well, we’ll just have to go around dirty and ugly! We’ll just sleep in the yard!” sort, and other forms of childish defiance. If the young women are more or less well brought up, eventually they will, grudgingly, provide something like one square foot of counter space for all toiletries the boys may have brought with them. And all the while, at least one of them will be grumbling because she just does not see what the problem is. Calling them “selfish” is an invitation to a lot of wailing and even screeching.
Again, it’s not necessarily a passive-aggressive “land grab” – no bras are hung from the shower rail, nor feminine hygene products placed next to a boy’s toothbrush, etc. It’s not that the young women are thinking “Ah, we have to grab all the space in the bathroom we can before the boys get here”. They aren’t thinking at all, they are gossiping away and comparing hair care products and looking at eyeliner and getting out all their important stuff and simply can not understand why anyone finds any of this objectionable in any way.
Just one example. Almost every man her can provide more.
PS: Be aware, that in the modern world, to point out defects in the behavior of 14 year old girls, and then to observe that some 30 year old women behave in almost exactly the same way, is called “mysogyny” or “woman-hating”.
Bob Wallace
This is the last time I will attempt to set straight the what I call the Lost Boys of the Manosphere, who cannot think for themselves but must imitate whatever narcissistic blowhard they think is a Manosphere leader.
Argumentum ad hominem is definitely a great way to persuade people of the accuracy of your thinking, Bob.
Bob, we’re really not saying that women actually truly believe that only their mind exists. What I gather from this discussion is that women seem to carry on their lives through a rather narrow outlook as to what matters and how to live one’s life to achieve that. Their way of thinking allows only empathy for themselves, not other people, to factor into their ability to make decisions. Taken to a ’cause and effect’ premise, their belief system judges not on what might happen to society at large or even their smaller family group, when a certain decision is taken, but only on how it will impact them. And usually only in the short-term, as the article I posted above illustrates. She never thought that partying and sexing it up in her 20ties would mean childlessness in her later years. She couldn’t comprehend that. In her mind, everyone else is to blame, as she couldn’t possibly be, in a million years, wrong.
@Zippy
Fair point. What you are doing is different than Bob Wallace. You are trying to influence the use of terms as part of the social process. Bob is demanding that everyone acknowledge that he is the rightful leader of the sphere. I wish him good luck, but it will take more than beating his chest demanding we follow him to achieve what he hopes to achieve.
What I would point out in return though is I’m not the final arbiter of these terms either. Changing terms takes social capital, and while I have some this isn’t something I feel strongly enough to spend it on to see how far I could go. Beyond that, we need to be able just to have the discussions. Someone on Vox’s second post on this topic accurately described how demands for definitions, etc. can and do derail the discussion. I’d rather have the discussion using a potentially flawed term/definition, than wait for everyone to coalesce around a different term I might prefer.
@Bob Wallace
You’re being a bit pedantic. This is perfectly legitimate use of the word. To say someone is solipsistic needn’t imply the absolute end of that term – indeed, I’m not sure the philosophical concept even does that, since, if my understanding is correct, it is more about the self being the only way through which to discern reality, not that a tree isn’t a tree.
This is the inherent problem with all these post-modern philosophies though; they tend to negate themselves, but there can still be degrees of solipsism as a human characteristic, just as there are degrees of narcissism/ego in all of us.
@Bob Wallace
Maybe the Manosphere observations about the nature of women is a discussion of a trait with no name.
If it is not solipsism, what is it? — Female Exclusively Self Derived Emotionally Experienced Reality (FESDEER). Yes that is so much better. Now this is a new term that can be applied to this trait. It is simply fesdeeristic behavior.
@Dalrock
Someone on Vox’s second post on this topic accurately described how demands for definitions, etc. can and do derail the discussion.
That is certainly true too; but in my case it is kind of the reverse. FWIW, from my own perspective I’d like to be able to refer more people to Christian manosphere ideas. And while it is true that there are some substantive barriers there for me — that is, where I take issue with the substance of what is being discussed — the pervasive barriers are terminological (as here) and the close association with PUA/Game.
That’s just one guy’s perspective though.
@Bob Wallace.
According to Merriam Webster:
SOLIPSISM
: a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing; also
: extreme egocentrism
You speak as if only the first definition was true, but “extreme egocentrism” is a valid meaning too.
Bob: “If the Lost Boys of the Manosphere (who never learned how to be men, which accounts for their being the blind following the blind) wish to believe Female Solipsism Disorder really exists, so be it. You will not be taken seriously, you will be laughed at, and the Manosphere, which is in some ways a circle jerk, will be reduced even further to irrelevance.”
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out, dude.
Code green! Nice. That’s different, at least. Usually it’s either code purple or code red.
http://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/
I question the notion that men have even a theoretical equal opportunity to commit “divorce theft”. When a middle aged man asks for a divorce in the “trade her in for a younger woman” paragdigm, he has to pay for it. Through The Nose. The law can talk about formulas and set rules and so on and so forth, but, in practice, a successful, middle aged husband literally “dumping” his wife so he can take up with his secretary or any other young woman gets HAMMERED in divorce court. Well beyond the usual drubbing that men get. Perhaps this even fair, to a degree. After all, in the paradigm, the wife is loyal, blameless, but sadly aging. The guy is dumping her even though not only has she done nothing wrong, but has been a good wife to him and mother to his children. He SHOULD pay.
But the point is that he DOES pay. He gets killed in the “settlement.” The longer they have been married, the more the alimony. In some cases, the alimony becomes life long. He loses the kids, but has to pay massive child support, often including college and even grad school expenses. Of course, she gets the house, and everything in it, and the car (or the better of the two cars), and part of his retirment plan too. And health insurance for her and the kids. Etc, etc.
So, yeah, while dumping your wife for a “trophy” is a crummy thing to do, it doesn’t come free. It has to be paid for. Indeed, it is the very cost of such a move that keeps many men from seeking divorce in middle age.
So, where is the “theft?” Theft is taking something without paying for it. A divorce for a succesful middle aged man is not even close to free.
Contrast this to the paradigm of divorce that exists in practice, ie the young wife asking for divorce fairly early on in the marriage. In this case, there really is a “theft,” While she perhaps doesn’t make out quite as well in court as the loyal, dumped wife discussed above, she still gets cash, prizes and the kids. The guy still has to pay. She pays nothing. That’s what makes it “theft.”
As the joke goes, if you cheat on your wife she’ll divorce and you and skin you in court, but if she cheats on you….she’ll still divorce you and skin you in court! Heads she wins, tails she doesn’t lose. Same deal here. There is no opportunity for male divorce “theft,” not even in theory. Even if men were seeking divorce in middle age, they would not be stealing anything. As they would be the ones dishing out the cash and prizes. She gets those, plus the kids. So what has been stolen from her?
Ian Ironwood has a useful tale to tell, much too long to recount. The summary: in a job, he wrote in his notebook during lunch hour. Every woman in the room at one time or another was convinced he was writing about her, and even a woman not in the room was also convinced.
Hilarious and fascinating stuff.
http://theredpillroom.blogspot.ch/2012/09/the-tangled-chains-on-swing-set-of.html
@Zippy
I think the fundamental problem is twofold:
1) It isn’t the terms that are difficult, but the concepts they name. The concepts are new and go against conventional wisdom. Learning them will at times be difficult and uncomfortable because of this.
2) There is a reason the discussion started where it did, lead by PUAs and not men of God. Christians are playing catch-up not because we were shortchanged by the Bible, but because we (collectively) decided we knew better after listening to the feminists. The desire to strip Game of the taint of PUAs comes from the desire to feel morally superior to them regarding sexual morality. This in turn stems from a strong desire to pretend that Christians haven’t turned their backs on the Bible regarding men and women and sexual morality. Otherwise you wouldn’t need to explain what we are discussing here to Christian husbands and wives. You would just remind them to practice headship and submission, etc. and it would work. The answer is there, 100% PUA free if a Christian is willing to learn from the Bible. But that is the rub, which is why you are asking for a way to teach what PUAs know to Christians without anyone noticing PUAs were the ones who explained it to us. The first problem we have to solve is for Christians to repent turning their backs on the Bible. This process will by its very nature be humbling. I don’t know the mind of God, but it doesn’t strike me as impossible that He would choose to humble us by having us learn why we shouldn’t have abandoned sexual morality from PUAs. If we accept that humbling honestly and with grace, maybe the PUAs will notice and want to learn something from us and that Bible we keep talking about.
@ Dalrock:
“If we accept that humbling honestly and with grace, maybe the PUAs will notice and want to learn something from us and that Bible we keep talking about.”
I submit they already have. Perhaps it’s not heart knowledge, but it is in their (big) heads. Years ago, Roissy talked about women of character being worth their weight in gold. He consistently talked of female submission as an integral part of a woman’s character. Mentu’s vasectomy lament was something of a cri de coeur, a paean to days gone by of family and domestication that he might have liked to have lived had the time and circumstances allowed it.
Damn Dalrock you just caught her with a nasty left cross, shes on the mat and the ten count has commenced.
@mojohn,
Actually I’d disagree. I don’t think “selfish” is the right term. Selfish has connotations of deliberately putting yourself ahead of others even if you are knowingly harming others in doing so.
Although I don’t think any would disagree that female solipsism results in behaviors that appear from the outside to be incredibly selfish and even narcissistic, neither term seems to fit right because the woman doesn’t see herself as being selfish I don’t think.
I’m sure you could just redefine narcissism as “very selfish”, but you’d be missing something if you did so. I think the same is true with trying to define female solipsism as “just narcissism” or “just selfishness”.
Female solipsism seems to be to some degree part of the way a woman is wired cognitively, and that the process of civilizing them is to ameliorate that tendency and drive it is socially useful directions. The same with the male characteristics and how they are shaped and driven to be useful to “tribe”. Women tend to be more “collective” and “my clan” focused than men are. This when shaped properly is probably what tends to make them good mothers and care givers. That is rampant speculation, but it at least seems plausible. Actually I guess all of this is speculation, so make of it what you will.
To merely call it “selfishness” is to miss that entirely. To just classify it as narcissism likewise is just to make something that is fairly normal into a pathology. Both I think miss the mark.
The problem today isn’t so much that women are “inherently solipsistic”, the problem is that they generally haven’t be civilized and instead have been left to run feral.
It is a bit like hypergamy. Hypergamy itself isn’t actually a bad thing. A woman is driven to find the best possible mate she can and “not settle”. This actually makes a lot of sense and when functioning correctly within a civilized woman will generally be good for everybody. Again, unfortunately we have a lot of feral women running around who nobody ever bothered to civilize properly, and this natural and normally beneficial trait has run amok,
Just my 2c
@Zippy
FWIW, from my own perspective I’d like to be able to refer more people to Christian manosphere ideas. And while it is true that there are some substantive barriers there for me — that is, where I take issue with the substance of what is being discussed — the pervasive barriers are terminological (as here) and the close association with PUA/Game.
You must move in very educated circles. I’m fairly well-read, but when this discussion started, I had an uncertain notion of the meaning of solipsism and had to look it up to be sure. I doubt that more than 1% of the people I know could define the word accurately — let alone have a strong enough familiarity with it to turn their noses up at a group for not using it correctly in the philosophical sense. Of all the things that are said in the manosphere that might turn people away, that’s way down the list. Someone’s going to get past “mangina” and “cock carousel” and draw the line at “solipsism”?
That’s not to say I wouldn’t be willing to use a different term if someone comes up with one, but I haven’t seen any yet. Selfishness and narcissism aren’t what we’re talking about, though they may be kissing cousins. I wondered about “subjectivism,” figuring that would mean the tendency to see everything subjectively and to be unable to take an objective viewpoint, but that doesn’t really cut it. (Also, it turns out to be a specific philosophical term — a superset of solipsism, actually — so Bob wouldn’t let us use it either.)
What we’re talking about isn’t a woman who sees everything through her own filters — we all do that — but that her filter starts with, “How is this about me?” She doesn’t look at Mary’s new dress and think, “That wouldn’t look good on me,” which would be subjective and self-centered. She looks at it and thinks, “Mary’s such a bitch; she wore that just to make me look bad.” I don’t see any term that fits that better than solipsism. But again, I’m glad to entertain others.
zippycatholic
And while it is true that there are some substantive barriers there for me — that is, where I take issue with the substance of what is being discussed — the pervasive barriers are terminological (as here) and the close association with PUA/Game.,
It doesn’t matter what the labels or terms are. Churchians, like feminists, are quite averse to the content involved. The truths about female attraction are directly opposite Churchian teachings. And the fact that Game works, while Churchian beta supplication / pedestalization fails – quickly or over years, it fails – only makes everything worse from the Churchian perspective. The pretty lies are just lies, no matter how many fish stickers are fastened on.
Or to put it another way: Churchians can’t handle the truth about women .
“Women tend to be more “collective” and “my clan” focused than men are. ”
I think men are group-focused as well; they think of what they can contribute to the group, but also what is fair – i.e. they think in terms of justice. Women’s orientation to the group is different…
@pb,
I agree PB.
@Dalrock:
The desire to strip Game of the taint of PUAs comes from the desire to feel morally superior to them regarding sexual morality.
With all due respect, feelings don’t come into it. If any treehouse club ought to get that, it is the manosphere, which prides itself on the exercise of reason over feelings.
What PUA’s do is in fact morally despicable. Christians ought to want to distance themselves from the actions and mindset of PUAs, because what PUAs do is morally wrong and stems from a morally evil mindset. And in the Christian manosphere the point is often made that a Christian ought not follow every tenet of Game as articulated by (e.g.) Roissy, but rather ought to pick and choose what is appropriate for Christian men.
Now I think it is a very interesting point that for every “successful” morally despicable cad there are multiple and equally morally despicable sluts. Your other points are good too, e.g.:
The answer is there, 100% PUA free if a Christian is willing to learn from the Bible. […] I don’t know the mind of God, but it doesn’t strike me as impossible that He would choose to humble us by having us learn why we shouldn’t have abandoned sexual morality from PUAs.
Perhaps Roissy is our Nebuchadnezzar, in a sense. Or our Canaanites. Or choose another biblical persecutor. But treating the actions of PUAs as something other than the morally despicable things they are is not Biblical, not Christian, and is ultimately contrary to the truth.
“It doesn’t matter what the labels or terms are. Churchians, like feminists, are quite averse to the content involved. The truths about female attraction are directly opposite Churchian teachings.”
Good point. I think that’s why the discussion of terms seems like such a red herring to me. We could forget about trying to name it and just call it “female nature” and move on to talking about the specific actions, and they’d react just as strongly. The reaction isn’t because “solipsism” or whatever word you want to choose isn’t accurate enough; it’s because it is accurate enough to help us understand the facts about how women really act and think, which are what can’t be admitted.
@Cail Corishev:
Someone’s going to get past “mangina” and “cock carousel” and draw the line at “solipsism”?
Absolutely. When I read the former I hear invented vulgarities that make me laugh: like all good comedy it is funny because it is true, and it isn’t as if the terms have an established meaning which is being misunderstood and misapplied. When I read the latter as applied in these discussions it just makes me cringe, and makes the whole discussion appear ignorant.
Understand that I object to the use of the term because I think some important concepts are being explored and would prefer that they not be presented ignorantly. I don’t share Bob Wallace’s contempt for the “Lost Boys”, as he put it. The problems discussed by Dalrock are pervasive, and probably can’t even be completely avoided by the Amish.
I’ve noticed a tendency in Internet commentary to try to marginalize the manosphere as if it were a place for some small subset of bitter men who have been mistreated by women and the system, but not of much interest to “ordinary” people. Manospherians are like alcoholics or addicts or whatever, and the manosphere is a kind of twelve steps support group for the emotionally damaged. I don’t agree, and I see Dalrock’s work in particular as a counter to that. But the Christian manosphere does have some self-marginalizing tendencies, and in my own view it could do with a little evolution: with a bit more Christian (not cafeteria Churchianity but genuine robust Christianity) and a bit less PUA treehouse.
That’s just my own personal advice to Christians in the ‘sphere. You can take it or leave it, but either choice has consequences.
Now we’re getting somewhere.
What is the truth about women? Are the collection of facts (as presented by Game proponents) the totality of the truth? I’m told repeatedly that Game is just a set of amoral tools–it does not pretend to answer questions like “truth”, and that the Christian man does not have to deal with the implications of Game–he can just pick and choose which tools he wants to use. So, he should abstain from the lock-picking tools, for example.
The most basic implication of lock-picking tools is that locks can be picked. Now, if a man’s lock on his woman is picked, who are we going to hold responsible? There are only three possible choices: The thief, the buyer of the lock, or the manufacturer of the lock. Game, in fact, blames all three, but takes pains to point out that at least the thief gets to enjoy the booty–as it were.
This toolset, then, can only show benefit insofar as its employer can enjoy ill-gotten gains. By necessity, this must be a short time. There’s always a better lock-pick, and lock-picker; so another truth has to be that it is stupid for a man to even try to lock something down. Further, there it is foolish, under such circumstances, to hold anyone accountable. The best strategy, then, is to just catch and release all women as sluts. So the truth of Game must be that Game can only condemn all men as worthless in whichever role we play, and is is of no long-term help. It is, nothing but cynical, and hope-less. We say such philosophies are nihilist.
So: Game implies a hopeless philosophy full of blame, but no accountability. Does this sound like Feminism to anyone else? This is antithetical to Christianity, which is a hopeful philosophy full accountability, but seeks justification.
To the extent that the Christian rejects the need for justification for all people–which we all recognize as the phenomenon of treating women as morally superior–then he is Christo-Feminist Churchian.
Therefore, the only fact or truth of Game that can be useful to the Christian man–in his pursuit of justification for himself and others, which is the primary and only truly important chore for the Christian–is to highlight the need for the justification of women; that they need to hear the Gospel, and repent just as men do.
“But the Christian manosphere does have some self-marginalizing tendencies, and in my own view it could do with a little evolution: with a bit more Christian (not cafeteria Churchianity but genuine robust Christianity) and a bit less PUA treehouse.”
I don’t disagree with that at all. But I think “cock carousel” is a lot more PUA treehouse than partial misuse of a philosophical term that’s hardly in everyday currency.
I don’t disagree with that at all. But I think “cock carousel” is a lot more PUA treehouse than partial misuse of a philosophical term that’s hardly in everyday currency.
It is true that the vulgarities are off-putting to folks who are offended by vulgarity. But ignorant uses of established terms is off-putting to people who are interested in reducing ignorance, and a key mission of the Christian manosphere is putatively to reduce ignorance. The red pill and all that.
Cane Caldo, the truth about women is too big for one reply. For this thread, one truth about women is that they are often so self centered they can’t really recognize men as human beings, but regard them as some sort of a robot, or beast of burden. Like hypergamy, it appears to be a feature of women. Also like hypergamy, it can be controlled and channeled in useful directions, or it can be uncontrolled and therefore dangerous to everyone concerned. The feminine imperative does not want to be controlled by any man, and so we see some of the usual suspects and some new ones attempting to derail the discussion. Because the idea the women are mysterious and cannot be fathomed is very, very important to the feminine imperative – the alternative is that women are not a mystery, and can be understood, and therefore can be controlled.
Cane Caldo
The most basic implication of lock-picking tools is that locks can be picked.
What is the most basic implication of a key?
Now, if a man’s lock on his woman is picked, who are we going to hold responsible? There are only three possible choices: The thief, the buyer of the lock, or the manufacturer of the lock. Game, in fact, blames all three, but takes pains to point out that at least the thief gets to enjoy the booty–as it were.
When a lock has become difficult to open due to various contaminations, such as sand, dried out lock oil, corrosion of the metal due to disuse, then the key won’t open it very quickly. The key might not even open it at all. Now, one could just throw that lock away and get another one. Or, one could use locksmithing techniques and tools to get that lock open, and then get it working again.
If you are locked out of your house, then one option is to call a locksmith, who will use lock picking tools to get the lock open, and then he will leave you to your business. The same tools used by a burglar to break into a house are used by the bonded and licensed locksmith to open your house back up to you, in order that you can enjoy all the benefits of being inside your house. He might even share some basic techniques that you can use to service that lock and keep it working properly…
To you, Cane Caldo, a locksmith is the same as a burglar. This appears to be a major category error on your part.
Bank robbers often use a car to drive away from their crime. Therefore, according to you, anyone who learns to drive is just taking the first step to becoming a wheelman for a bank robbery gang. Is that really what you mean to say? I can go on like this all day. Do I have to?
@zippycatholic
Not true. This is very much about feelings. Put aside your feelings for PUAs for the moment. Consider the standard narrative that Christians fought (and are fighting) the good fight, but the culture isn’t listening. It is pure nonsense. How many Christians are ready to come to terms with that? Very few, even in the manosphere.
Zippycatholic said:
If only the Church had the guts to say this exact thing, but instead to the women in Church that are sluts, soon to be sluts or former sluts. Then there might actually be a Church worth saving. Too bad that they are all too quick to focus on the PUAs, Cads and ‘dead beat men’, whilst all too forgiving of the princesses.
Cane Caldo
So: Game implies a hopeless philosophy full of blame, but no accountability.
Only to you. That’s part of your problem. Another part of your problem appears to stem from guilt regarding your own behavior. Apparently you are convinced that any married man who learns the least bit of Game is planning to cheat on his wife. I suggest that you are projecting your own errors onto other men. Like the reformed alcoholic who sees every glass of wine on a dinner table as the first step to the gutter, you see any man who intentionally sets out to learn to deal with shit tests more manfully as taking the first step towards running a harem in all the local night spots.
From my perspective, you are fully opposed to married people being happier. You want men to suffer more, not less. You want their wives to be less happy, not more. You want women to be more in rebellion, not less. You want men to be ineffective, hapless, unable to lead, perpetually supplicating and kneeling before the pedestal that they have placed their wives upon. There’s not enough divorces going on, you want more. There’s not enough boys growing up with no father, you want more. There’s not enough cultural decay, you want more.
Cane Caldo: a lock smith is not a burglar, even though both possess lock picks.
You need to stop projecting your own errors onto other men.
@ AR
I find Cane’s comment about blame interesting in light of the fact that he banned me from his blog when we were discussing this exact same issue because one of my comments sounded like I was blaming him for something. In looking over my comment to him, I determined that I indeed sounded disrespectful, so I attempted three times to apologize humbly to him, including saying that he could publish my apology on his blog, but he refused to forgive me. Instead of searching the scriptures for verses to try to shame other men for gaming their discontented wives, perhaps searching the scriptures for verses on forgiveness would be a better use of his time.
@Dalrock:
Not true. This is very much about feelings. Put aside your feelings for PUAs for the moment.
Not for me it isn’t, and I’m hardly alone. It is about objective right and wrong. You can insist that it is about feelings if you like, but your insistence and imputation of motives doesn’t change the reality. I agree with you that a one-sided condemnation of the relatively small number of PUAs accompanied by silence about the relatively large number of sluts is a serious problem. But I’m not proposing such a thing, and the things I do propose are not emotional reactions but objective evaluations of morality.
@Feminist Hater:
Too bad that they are all too quick to focus on the PUAs, Cads and ‘dead beat men’, whilst all too forgiving of the princesses.
Agreed. The sort of one-sided “men are evil, women are virtuous” preaching which is prevalent – when there is preaching against sexual immorality at all, which itself tends to be rather scarce – is seriously wrong and needs to be corrected.
@Zippy
Then what do you (or they) need game for? You live in a radical counter-cultural movement, which despite what 99% of other Christians are doing actually takes the parts of the Bible feminists disagree with seriously. No need to teach these folks game. It is the rest that I’m talking about, the other 99%.
@Dalrock:
You live in a radical counter-cultural movement, …
That’s right.
It is the rest that I’m talking about, the other 99%.
And I’m not proposing a radical alteration for you. I am just proposing that you move your message closer to the truth: I am just proposing that you make it explicit that what cads are doing is in objective fact (like what the much larger number of sluts are doing) morally wicked, and that – as Cane Caldo among others has shown – Game as presently conceived is not separable from the moral wickedness of cads.
Again, you can follow my advice or not. But the choice has consequences.
@Zippy
I’m saying take it up a level. The sin of the PUAs and the sluts is their own. But the reality is that Christians are culpable for blessing the creation of the environment both the sluts and the PUAs are in. The lie is that Christians in general and the church have fought the good fight. It isn’t true. This is extremely important because of the way Christians as a group have rationalized their eager complicity with feminism. They pretend that it is all the fault of the PUAs. The PUAs didn’t drive the cultural change, Christians and feminists did.
@AR
Is it your contention that PUAs are locksmiths, and not burglars? If so, you destroy Dalrock’s assertion that we Christians ought to be ashamed that the Christian owner has to resort to a burglar for information on how to get into his own treasure chest.
The implication of a key is ownership; which is authority. Now, the way this is supposed to work is that the man who wishes to own the contents behind the lock asks the father of the lock to take the wealth and responsibility of the whole treasure chest, and for all that is locked within. There is a ceremony of some sort that signifies the transference of the key from the father to the husband. (In fact, this strike me as the heart of marriage, and the basic requirement for a Christian marriage: that the father of the bride give her away. His blessing is what is important; not the local church’s, and not the state’s. To the extent they are involved, it should only be as witnesses to the father’s blessing.)
What the Christo-Feminist Churchian fathers have done to pervert marriage is staggering, but here are several manifestations:
1) He leaves the treasure chest unguarded. Now, this one is animate, and it can choose to leave, so I do not say that every case is that the father is responsible. Nevertheless, the most common situation is that he is simply not around. He leaves it unattended at home. He leaves it unattended at college. He leaves it unattended at church. And he knows not what happens in his absence.
2) He foolishly trusts a lock after it has been compromised.
3) He lets the outward beauty of the treasure chest deceive him into thinking that the treasure within is still valuable. The overwhelming likelihood is that someone has either grossly defiled the contents; or made off with them entirely. (Suitors are guilty of this, as well. See: Ryan Reynolds)
4) He deceives the man seeking to husband this treasure by walking an empty vessel down the aisle; when he ought to be warning the man away: “Thar be no gold, nor rubies, here.”
If we admit (as a Christian must) that the Player (whether PUA or lucky chump) is a burglar (he is not authorized by transference of the key from the father), then the only possibly benevolent locksmith is Jesus Christ. What other person picks the lock to re-store it, and then presents the contents to another man? None.
In such a case, the chest must be wholly turned over to the Benevolent Locksmith for repair. While under restoration, she should not be tampered with by another man. For some chests this will take years; some a lifetime. Experience and scripture tell us that such intense restoration needs to take place in an environment that is best for the chest–her father’s home. If this is not possible (again, this chest can walk), the father must put her out of his mind until she returns for true restoration.
I do want to be careful though, and not be misunderstood as forwarding the idea of “re-virginizing” a woman. Whatever treasure the Benevolent Locksmith restores to the treasure chest is not the same as what was there from the beginning, and likely not as much of it. Until the treasure chest itself is utterly reformed through death, it will bear the scars–particularly around the lock.
I hope you do continue all day, AR.
@Sunshinemary
I banned you because you’re a woman, and you were on my jock–where you do not belong.
I banned you because you’re an emotional slut.
FWIW I must go on travel for a few days, so when I don’t reply for a while it isn’t that I’m ignoring anyone.
@Cane Caldo
In the sense that you are using the metaphor, PUAs aren’t picking any locks. They are just learning how to move to the front of the line. They’ve figured out how to get a low number at the bakery.
Edit: What I’m saying to Christians is shut down the bakery, or at least repent from having run the bakery for so long.
@Dalrock:
But the reality is that Christians are culpable for blessing the creation of the environment both the sluts and the PUAs are in. The lie is that Christians in general and the church have fought the good fight. It isn’t true.
Oh, I agree with that. The only exception on Earth is the teaching Magisterium of the Catholic Church (not to be confused with the practices of local priests, bishops, and laity). The hard line still stands there, and there alone.
I recommend against softening the line. And I think it is too simplistic to state that the morals of sluts and PUAs are their own. Clearly they also have influence here, as the level of sympathy for PUAs shows. I’ve seen comments to the effect that PUAs are doing “Gods work”, for example. Now that may even be true in the same sense that Nebuchadnezzar was doing God’s work. But that doesn’t translate into a license for Christians to adopt Nebuchadnezzar’s methods.
@Dalrock
Agreed, as you know.
Precisely, and that is the illusion that I am destroying. The Player (again, not just PUAs, but any man who takes what does not rightfully belong to him) is a burglar. When he tells others he is a lock-smith, has lock-picks, or that he has the “Master Key” that opens many locks–he is generally lying. The Player sleeps with sluts–already open chests.
I’m glad Sunshinemary chimed in, because she is a textbook case of our modern Churchian situation; which is ironic since she agrees with Game, and I do not. In one of her several apologies to me she said something very close to: “I’ve never discussed my husband’s affairs before. I didn’t know I was going to react so emotionally. Please forgive me.”, among other tumbler clicks.
Here’s a couple snippets from emails that I sent out to readers at the time:
That is the sound of tumblers falling into place (as is her comment here, today). It is a defensive crouch at full drip, and I haven’t done a thing to pick that lock. You can read almost all of it on my TSA post; except for her last three comments that I did not let post because she was so obviously diddling her emotions while she wrote them.
I continually get maligned as trying to protect women from Players, but that’s not really my goal. If it were, I’d be on women’s blogs warning them of what to look out for. The real danger I want to warn against is Christian men marrying bad women, and that is to whom I speak. As I said in another email to a young Christian man:
Cane, everything you’ve written is completely untrue. We had one conversation that got too heavy. I attempted to apologize. When you wouldn’t accept, I dropped it and never mentioned it to anyone again until this post. You, apparently, spent a week gossiping about it via email. I earnestly apologized. All that was needed was for you to say, “I forgive you.” I didn’t want to continue any further conversations with you, but as a Christian I needed to apologize. As a Christian, one would expect you to forgive. Instead, you have written numerous gossipy emails about me and written nasty attacks on me which are entirely untrue. I bring this up so that men who are considering taking your advice will understand the depth of your Christian behavior.
But I’ll say it once more, and then I will not bring it up again. I apologize to you for the disrespectful tone I had with you during that conversation.
That I was shocked to see a woman go round and round and always miss the point. It was very educational to see Deti handle the women that come through here… and then realize how many times my wife had used emotional and rhetorical tricks to manipulate me and deceive me…. Seeing women do the solipsism thing in almost any discussion… but every single time if the question was one of marriage, sex, divorce, law, and Christianity. It was disappointing to realize that women a merely very powerful, very spoiled children… and that people of our culture bend over backwards to cater to their illusions. I can forgive women for this, I suppose. (The bible certainly warned me of these things, and simpleton that I was… I did not regard them. How savvy I thought I was… how broad minded….)
But what I cannot abide is the mockery I see coming from alpha men towards beta men. The sneering condescension of the older men who actively put into place a legal and cultural structure to essentially abandon the average guy to unrestrained and feral women. And now they have the gall to tell those of us with marriage difficulties that it is our own fault… that we did not pay due diligence, that we are not manly enough, that we are whiners, losers, wimps….
Those sort of men have gotten theirs. And they feel no remorse for selling out the average guy. None. So shortsighted…. As it’s been pointed out, we are the men that build and maintain civilization. We’d break our backs just to get a home, a woman, and children of our own… and now, what incentive that was there… it’s all gone now. The people that did this… they have no idea what they sacrificed. No idea. This systematic undermining of fathers… and the deconstruction of it… the complete loss of rights and status a man gets when he marries and has children. It boggles my mind.
Men are reciprocating. Pick-up artists ignore their dehumanization and simply leverage the new playing field to consume the marriage value of their marks. What will happen when men as a group take their systemic disrespect and pay back other groups in kind…? These people that so smugly instruct us, “well a MAN has to EARN respect…!” How am I to take that? What if I wasn’t governed by the sermon on the mount? What if I started playing tit for tat and required women and the elderly to earn MY respect…? The chaos that could be unleashed if men didn’t merely go Galt… but quit playing by the old rules altogether… just imagine it…. I wonder if we have crossed the line where we have earned a second round of John Brown’s prohecy:
I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land: will never be purged away; but with Blood. I had as I now think: vainly flattered myself that without very much bloodshed; it might be done.
Not sure what I was thinking with the opening sentence.
Maybe change “That I was shocked to see a woman go round and round and always miss the point” to “I was originally shocked to see one woman after another go round and round and always miss the point. For years I assumed it was just my wife that was like that.”
And… “prohecy” should be “prophecy”, sorry.
@Sunshinemary
LOL
Everyone catch that?
I don’t do what you say, SSM, and I can’t forgive you of what you do not repent. You did not earnestly apologize; you expressed your feelings to me in an attempt to extract my sympathy. When that failed (fitness-test passed with flying colors, right?) you groveled much more than was necessary, as if to say, “Spank me, Daddy.”
Today you took a swipe at me because I don’t pay attention to you. When I give you the attention you deserve (but not that you crave) I am greeted with a game of Push-Pull; one paragraph of your expectations and man-up language, and an apology in the last. Textbook.
Finally: It’s not gossiping to warn others about the woman offering forbidden fruit, or to ask for help, as I did. Mrs. Caldo was not amused.
As I said, I’m glad you chimed in, SSM: You demonstrate the only true benefit of knowing about Game: How to recognize a slut. You think you’re chaste because you aren’t fucking anyone but your husband (as far as we know), but your heart is any man’s for the taking. The ass is only moments behind.
No, none of that is true, but it is of no importance.
@BobWallace
Words are redefined on a daily basis.
Until the mid-1950’s, awesome and aw(e)ful were synonyms (both words were used to describe circumstances that filled a person with awe.) Now, awesome is a superlative and awful (notice that the “e” has disappeared) is a pejorative. Likewise with the words terrific and horrific (although terrible and horrible, despite having the same roots in the words “terror” and “horror”, are still seen as negative.
Or, to be blunt, the word “nigger”. It’s a corruption of the word negro. Prior to the mass immigration of subcontinental Asians to the UK, that word (in English) was only used to describe Africans. Post-immigration, the use shifted to describe all darker-skinned people (in anglophone countries.) Prior to the advent of the moving picture industry, non-English speaking countries called Africans “black” in their own languages (eg. Schwartze for germans.) Post-Hollywood, most industrialized countries use a variation of “the N-word” to describe black people (Neger is a Teutonic/Scandinavian version.) However, even as I type, the word is going through yet another linguistic shift. Chris Rock’s classic speech about “Black people versus niggers”, may have been the tipping point, but modern day definitions of the word often start with descriptions of personal character, then race.
Solipism is in the same boat. It’s primary definition may be based in philosophical/psychological terms, but its working definition is evolving day by day. In clinical usage, a solipist may be a person who defines everything through himself or herself. In modern terms, its being redefined as a person who sees other beings through a veil of utility to himself or herself (in the same way that a narcissist changed from a person who worshipped his or her physical beauty to the exclusion of oghers, to a person who actively seeks to subvert the agency of other people to better himself or herself.)
Prior to the advent of the moving picture industry, non-English speaking countries called Africans “black” in their own languages (eg. Schwartze for germans.) Post-Hollywood, most industrialized countries use a variation of “the N-word” to describe black people (Neger is a Teutonic/Scandinavian version.)
Translate the name “Schwarzennegger”…. Where did his great-nth-grandfather come from?
I am shocked and surprised that Bob Wallace should use the term Man-o-sphere
Indeed.
Everyone knows that Men are not attracted to spheres. We prefer hourglass shapes.
Spinstersphere, on the other hand, may be a more accurate usage.
van Rooinek: Google is your friend:
“Arnold Schwarzenegger (1947- ) – Austrian-born actor, director, politician
Not only is the former bodybuilder’s name a bit long and unusual, it is often misunderstood. Arnold’s last name is made up of two words: schwarzen, black + egger, corner, or loosely translated, “black corner” (das schwarze Eck). His ancestors probably came from a location that was forested and seemed dark (like the Black Forest, der Schwarzwald).”
http://german.about.com/od/names/a/gerNames_2.htm
“What evidence can you offer that “female solipsism” is not just another manosphere circle jerk?”
Read anything by Hanna Rosin, Kate Bolick, Jessica Valenti or Amanda Marcotte. If you know what solipsism means, prepare to be beaten like a sack of wet puppies. Those women made entire careers out of their 5-th degree black belt solipsism.
Pingback: Linkage Is Good For You: I Have Arrived | Society of Amateur Gentlemen
Have you noticed how often a woman will say that the answer to a very real and very serious problem men face is…more rights for women?
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=marcotte%20more%20feminism&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&ved=0CFMQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgoodmenproject.com%2Fethics-values%2Fsolution-mra-problems-more-feminism%2F&ei=vIRfUNf6O-XaywHFmIHADA&usg=AFQjCNGfO5il5603hzqVWk5qkRWcmc35Pg
@TheRealPeterman,
What an odd article. It is a bit hard to take seriously any person who still thinks the pay differential between men and women is anything more than “men and women make different life choices”. It does seem to be a good barometer of whether or not the person is operating in vicinity of reality.
Thanks for the eye opening article. I assume it wasn’t a parody and the author was serious?
Pingback: Creative disobedience | Dark Brightness
@AR
To you, Cane Caldo, a locksmith is the same as a burglar. This appears to be a major category error on your part.
Is that really what you mean to say? I can go on like this all day. Do I have to?
Is it your contention that PUAs are locksmiths, and not burglars?
No. Kindly duel with your straw man elsewhere. You condemn all Game techniques as bad, do you not? Therefore, I ask this: do you stand up straight and speak to your wife with a deep voice? If so, you must stop it immediately and never do it again. Because that is a Game technique.
If so, you destroy Dalrock’s assertion that we Christians ought to be ashamed that the Christian owner has to resort to a burglar for information on how to get into his own treasure chest.
You claim to be in favor of men leading their wives, yet you explicitly denounce techniques that would enable them to do so. You are like a man who wants his son to win a 100 meter dash, but insists that the young man must wear shoes made of concrete – and when he fails, you will berate him and blame him, claiming the loss is all his fault.
I asked:
What is the most basic implication of a key?
The implication of a key is ownership; which is authority. Now, the way this is supposed to work is that the man who wishes to own the contents behind the lock asks the father of the lock to take the wealth and responsibility of the whole treasure chest, and for all that is locked within. There is a ceremony of some sort that signifies the transference of the key from the father to the husband. (In fact, this strike me as the heart of marriage, and the basic requirement for a Christian marriage: that the father of the bride give her away. His blessing is what is important; not the local church’s, and not the state’s. To the extent they are involved, it should only be as witnesses to the father’s blessing.)
And when, 5 years and 2 children later, that key no longer fits in that lock, that lock refuses to accept that key, what then? Go to the father of the lock and demand that he issue an order? Give up on that lock and go find another one? Take a sledge hammer and smash the lock open?
How about “do some badly needed maintenance and oiling” on that lock? And where can a man learn how to do that? From his pastor? No chance. From any other church source? No way. From the main stream media? From his mother? All those sources will tell him to kneel before the lock, and beg and plead for it to pleas work properly again. None of those sources will give him the least hint on how to pick open, clean, and oil that lock.
Only Game will enable him to do that. So what you want is…what? That locks should reject their rightful key, and be supplicated to? What?
According to you, some knowledge is so dangerous that no man should have it. That knowledge concerns the psychology of women. You are taking a feminist position.
I will go on. Tel me how learning to drive is a bad thing, because some men rob banks with getaway drivers.
I see that a man in Oklahoma murdered his wife with his hands. So you, Cane Caldo, better have your hands cut off, lest you become a murderer. Some men commit crimes and run away, so off go the feet. Some men use their eyes to look at porn, so better blind your self in both eyes. THere are men who rape, so a penectomy is in order.
Where does that leave a man? He lies, helpless, and must be cared for by others, he can do no useful thing for anyone. But by golly, ther e is no danger of him ever resorting to Game….so he’s your ideal Churchian man.
You know, Cane Caldo, the Bible has been invoked to torture people to death. You better stop reading it, lest you become a tyrant who seeks to burn anyone that disagrees with you alive. Now, do I still have to go on?
Cane Caldo: some women have used a knowledge of herbs to poison people. Therefore, according to you, anyone who wants to learn about edible wild plants is planning to murder with poison.
Do you know any electricians? Since some people are killed by electrocution every year, I assume you do not, because anyone who learns about basic wiring surely is taking the first step to murder with electricity, according to your reasoning.
Do you own any knives? I hope not, because knives are used by some thugs to threaten bodily harm as part of a robbery. So surely you do not own any knives, that would be the first step to becoming an armed robber.
Shall I go on? Do you still want to basically ban some knowledge of women, just like the feminists?
Do all you guys live in America? If so, please stay there. Thank you.
Pingback: “The one” vs “my one and only” | Dalrock
Pingback: Introducing Myself @ Stephen McDonald
Pingback: Let them eat cake. | Dalrock
Pingback: The Cult Of The Victim | The Society of Phineas
I recall reading in a diary account by a young Jewish woman that, as men and women were being herded into cattle cars, in a concentration camp, the rail of which would carry them to an extermination camp, the very young Jewish girls who happened to be standing around watching from the sidelines were swooning over the dashing young, smartly attired German officer who was there to oversee that things ran smoothly. When he raised his arm to signal the train to begin moving, the young Jewish girls were getting weak in the knees. I guess that is just how it goes. The woman recording all of this was of another type all together. It made her entirely sick so she chose an eary death, in solidarity with those who had gone before her. But she was the exception to the rule.
Pingback: I am Single Again (And I Should Have Been All Along) | The Reinvention of Man
Here I go, ever the solipsistic female, relating a personal story. Can’t resist. It’s a doozy.
A longtime acquaintance (and hyper-solipsist) related a story to me. Her son came home from school with a self-made Christmas card that said “Merry Christmas Mom and Dad.” For which she shot off a furious letter to his teacher. Why, you ask? Because she and the boy’s father are divorced, that’s why. Now I’m not sure if the teacher was aware of this fact. Regardless, what is she supposed to do? Keep track of the relationship status of every single parent of every single student in her class? Furthermore, what was she supposed to tell the poor kid? “Sorry, dear. But your mommy and daddy are divorced. So you can make a card for only one of them.” As for any child, the thought of a two-parent intact family unit was obviously a comforting one. Perhaps one he still dreamed of. But instead of focusing on that, his self-centered mother couldn’t see anything beyond her own stubborn point of view. In this case, one based on her hatred of her ex-husband. And how dare the teacher not see it that way as well?!!
Pingback: Red Pill knowledge is poison to marriage
Pingback: Lex Vitae