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

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.

151. David Collard says:

September 20, 2012 at 2:54 am

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.

152. Opus says:

September 20, 2012 at 3:08 am

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.

153. Opus says:

September 20, 2012 at 3:19 am

ps

The word Solipsism derives from the latin word Solus – how dare those Idealists Philosophers adapt a perfectly good Latin word.

154. FuriousFerret says:

September 20, 2012 at 3:42 am

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.

155. Dr. Jeremy says:

September 20, 2012 at 4:14 am

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.

156. Pingback: The family court helps preserve the class system (hat tip, spearhead). | Dark Brightness

157. Nutz says:

September 20, 2012 at 4:47 am

“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.

158. zippycatholic says:

September 20, 2012 at 6:42 am

No vocabulary red pills in the manosphere, apparently.

159. I Art Laughing says:

September 20, 2012 at 6:52 am

How about selfish? Is that a word we can all get behind?

160. imnobody says:

September 20, 2012 at 7:22 am

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.

161. imnobody says:

September 20, 2012 at 7:27 am

@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.

162. imnobody says:

September 20, 2012 at 7:37 am

@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.

163. lavazza1891 says:

September 20, 2012 at 9:01 am

“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.

164. Rollo Tomassi says:

September 20, 2012 at 9:16 am

@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 cult ure, 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.

165. mojohn says:

September 20, 2012 at 9:27 am

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?

166. Lad says:

September 20, 2012 at 9:43 am

@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.)

167. imnobody says:

September 20, 2012 at 9:57 am

@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.

168. Lad says:

September 20, 2012 at 10:04 am

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 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.)

169. Anonymous Reader says:

September 20, 2012 at 10:04 am

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.

170. Feminist Hater says:

September 20, 2012 at 10:20 am

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2205875/Its-NOT-fault-I-missed-chance-mother.html

Oh dear!

171. Stingray says:

September 20, 2012 at 10:37 am

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.

172. Dalrock says:

September 20, 2012 at 10:51 am

@Stingray

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.

Was the irony intended?

173. Dalrock says:

September 20, 2012 at 10:56 am

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.

174. Stingray says:

September 20, 2012 at 11:00 am

Heh, no. Vicious circle, isn’t it?

175. Stingray says:

September 20, 2012 at 11:04 am

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.

176. mojohn says:

September 20, 2012 at 11:14 am

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.

177. Stingray says:

September 20, 2012 at 11:24 am

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.

178. Opus says:

September 20, 2012 at 11:32 am

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.

179. Dalrock says:

September 20, 2012 at 11:34 am

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:

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?

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.

180. Rock Throwing Peasant says:

September 20, 2012 at 11:37 am

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.

181. Anonymous Reader says:

September 20, 2012 at 12:11 pm

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…

182. CL says:

September 20, 2012 at 12:20 pm

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.

183. zippycatholic says:

September 20, 2012 at 12:24 pm

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.

184. Bob Wallace says:

September 20, 2012 at 12:24 pm

@ 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.

Дата добавления: 2015-11-13