Читайте также:
|
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.
84. 
ar10308 says:
September 19, 2012 at 10:58 am
@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?
85. 
Rollo Tomassi says:
September 19, 2012 at 11:00 am
I covered feminine solipsism ages ago in War Brides:
https://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2011/10/03/war-brides/
Evolution has largely selected-for human females with a capacity to form psychological schemas that preserve an ego-investment that would otherwise afflict them with debilitating anxiety, guilt, and the stresses that result from being continuously, consciously aware of their own behavioral incongruities. Evolution selects-for solipsistic women who are blissfully unaware of their solipsism.
Given the harsh realities that women had to endure since the paleolithic era, it served them better to psychologically evolve a sense of self that was more resilient to the brutal changes she could expect be subjected to. Consider the emotional investment a woman needs to put into mothering a child that could be taken away or killed at a moment’s notice. Anxiety, fear, guilt, insecurity are all very debilitating emotions, however it’s women’s innate psychology that makes them more durable to these stresses. Statistically, men have far greater difficulty in coping with psychological trauma (think PTSD) than women. Why should that be?
Men are the disposable sex, women, the preserved sex. Men would simply die in favor of a superior aggressor, but women would be reserved for breeding. So it served a feminine imperative to evolve a psychological flexibility to cut former emotional ties more readily (in favor of her new captor) and focus on a more self-important psychology – solipsism.
86. 
Samuel Solomon says:
September 19, 2012 at 11:03 am
@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.
87. 
Ras Al Ghul says:
September 19, 2012 at 11:04 am
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.
88. 
Elaine says:
September 19, 2012 at 11:06 am
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.
89. 
Father Marker says:
September 19, 2012 at 11:16 am
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!”
90. 
Bob Wallace says:
September 19, 2012 at 11:20 am
@ 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.
91. Pingback: Father Knows Best: International Talk Like A Pirate Day Edition «Patriactionary
92. 
Dalrock says:
September 19, 2012 at 11:31 am
@Anon Reader
* 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.
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.
93. 
Stingray says:
September 19, 2012 at 11:34 am
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?
94. Dalrock says:
September 19, 2012 at 11:38 am
Here is the comment I referenced above. It was from the same Rachel that as Deti pointed out Sheila defended so strongly (emphasis mine):
I was just thinking of this topic last night. I was sharing an elevator with a man about my age. When the elevator stopped, I automatically started to get off and he almost ran into me! I am so used to men letting me get off the elevator first, it hadn’t occurred to me that he wouldn’t. Once I righted myself, I got thinking about it and why would he let me off first? I am his equal. I started to think if there was a scientific reason, and I could not come up with one. In fact, I thought maybe the man should go first to let him see if it’s safe (I’ve watched too much late night drama and seen too many people get attacked getting off elevators).
The thought process led to thinking about the “women and children first” policy and I do still think that applies, unless the child who is getting on the life boat is only accompanied by his/her father. I think then the dad should be able to get on the life boat with his child(ren).
95. 
Alpha Mission says:
September 19, 2012 at 11:46 am
@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.
96. Stingray says:
September 19, 2012 at 11:50 am
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.
97. 
Lovekraft says:
September 19, 2012 at 11:51 am
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’.
98. Lovekraft says:
September 19, 2012 at 11:56 am
@ 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.
99. 
King A (Matthew King) says:
September 19, 2012 at 12:00 pm
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
100. Lovekraft says:
September 19, 2012 at 12:01 pm
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’.
101. 
Interested says:
September 19, 2012 at 12:04 pm
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!”
102. Stingray says:
September 19, 2012 at 12:07 pm
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.
103. Pingback: The Attraction Doctor» Solipsism: Is One Gender More Selfish Than The Other?
104. 
Dr. Jeremy says:
September 19, 2012 at 12:21 pm
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/
105. King A (Matthew King) says:
September 19, 2012 at 12:29 pm
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
106. 
The Duke from Italy says:
September 19, 2012 at 12:30 pm
“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’…
107. 
The Real Peterman says:
September 19, 2012 at 1:01 pm
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
108. 
deti says:
September 19, 2012 at 1:09 pm
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.
109. The Real Peterman says:
September 19, 2012 at 1:16 pm
“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.
110. deti says:
September 19, 2012 at 1:24 pm
“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?”
111. The Real Peterman says:
September 19, 2012 at 1:24 pm
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/
112. 
Anonymous Reader says:
September 19, 2012 at 1:49 pm
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.
113. Rollo Tomassi says:
September 19, 2012 at 2:13 pm
In conclusion, to settle the solipsism debate, we must first settle the power debate.
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.
114. Anonymous Reader says:
September 19, 2012 at 2:47 pm
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…
115. Pingback: One out of three women resent their husbands for not earning enough money | The Woman and the Dragon
116. Stingray says:
September 19, 2012 at 2:56 pm
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?
117. 
sunshinemary says:
September 19, 2012 at 3:02 pm
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:
84% of working women told ForbesWoman and TheBump that staying home to raise children is a financial luxury they aspire to. What’s more, more than one in three resent their partner for not earning enough to make that dream a reality.
As one (working) mom of two told me, she may dream of leaving work to take care of her kids, but the (financial) reality of it is not so ideal. “Sure, if my husband made so much money that I could spend time with the kids, still afford great vacations and maybe the occasional baby sitter to take a class or go out with friends, I’d be the first to sign up,” she said. “So maybe while it’s a luxury I do think about, it’s not one I would want unless it was actually luxurious. I don’t want to be a stay at home mom who clips coupons or plans her weekly menu to make ends meet… If that’s the case, I’d gladly go on working to avoid that fate.”
118. Anonymous Reader says:
September 19, 2012 at 3:03 pm
Stingray
Begs the question, what in the world was I thinking about?
Odessa, Texas, obviously…
119. Dr. Jeremy says:
September 19, 2012 at 3:11 pm
@ 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).
120. Stingray says:
September 19, 2012 at 3:11 pm
Sunshine Mary,
Ugh. That woman doesn’t want to stay home with her kids. She wants to be kept.
AR,
Oh my! Of course! 
121. 
Ian Ironwood says:
September 19, 2012 at 4:01 pm
Riffed on the subject here: http://theredpillroom.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-tangled-chains-on-swing-set-of.html
122. Rollo Tomassi says:
September 19, 2012 at 4:08 pm
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.
123. 
zippycatholic says:
September 19, 2012 at 4:40 pm
124. Dr. Jeremy says:
September 19, 2012 at 4:48 pm
@ 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!
125. Dalrock says:
September 19, 2012 at 5:19 pm
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?
126. Bob Wallace says:
September 19, 2012 at 5:23 pm
@ 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.
127. zippycatholic says:
September 19, 2012 at 5:40 pm
Feminism: Game:: Modernism: Postmodernism
I second Bob Wallace.
128. Dr. Jeremy says:
September 19, 2012 at 5:40 pm
@ 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).
129. Dr. Jeremy says:
September 19, 2012 at 5:50 pm
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.
130. Dalrock says:
September 19, 2012 at 5:57 pm
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.
131. 
Rock Throwing Peasant says:
September 19, 2012 at 5:58 pm
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.
132. Rock Throwing Peasant says:
September 19, 2012 at 6:01 pm
Put simply, the unattractive, low value, white knight men dismantled the system.
the liberal politicians dismantled the system as well.
Potato, potahto.
133. zippycatholic says:
September 19, 2012 at 6:09 pm
“When the manosphere uses a word,”, said Humpty Dumpty, “it means just what they choose it to mean: neither more, nor less”.
134. Bob Wallace says:
September 19, 2012 at 6:09 pm
@ 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.
135. Rock Throwing Peasant says:
September 19, 2012 at 6:12 pm
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.
136. 
Jason says:
September 19, 2012 at 6:13 pm
@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.
137. 
Jimbo says:
September 19, 2012 at 6:16 pm
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.
138. Jason says:
September 19, 2012 at 6:23 pm
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.
139. Anonymous Reader says:
September 19, 2012 at 6:25 pm
Looks like you’ve misdefined the word “cult”, Bob…
140. 
VD says:
September 19, 2012 at 6:52 pm
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.
141. 
Mike says:
September 19, 2012 at 9:11 pm
The journey towards marriage.
142. zippycatholic says:
September 19, 2012 at 9:12 pm
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.
143. Alpha Mission says:
September 19, 2012 at 9:36 pm
A Catholic woman is telling us we’re ignorant. The pot is surely calling the kettle black this time.
144. zippycatholic says:
September 19, 2012 at 10:13 pm
I’m a sucker for irony.
145. 
Looking Glass says:
September 19, 2012 at 10:31 pm
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.
146. 
David Collard says:
September 19, 2012 at 10:32 pm
It is a reasonable reuse of a term, zippycatholic. Language grows like this.
147. 
unger says:
September 19, 2012 at 10:56 pm
…as if ‘growth’ and ‘improvement’ are synonymous. The Beautiful At Any Size theory of language, I suppose.
148. 
Cane Caldo says:
September 19, 2012 at 11:53 pm
@ZP
I’m a sucker for irony.
Well-played.
149. Father Marker says:
September 20, 2012 at 12:46 am
@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.
150. VD says:
September 20, 2012 at 2:38 am
Дата добавления: 2015-11-13; просмотров: 115 | Нарушение авторских прав
| <== предыдущая страница | | | следующая страница ==> |
| Female Solipsism | | | 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. 1 страница |