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. 2 страница

“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.

185. Lad says:

September 20, 2012 at 12:26 pm

Lad, I do not see much advice in the androsphere that requires blind faith.

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).

You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment.

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.

186. Lad says:

September 20, 2012 at 12:31 pm

@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.

187. Feminist Hater says:

September 20, 2012 at 12:34 pm

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…

188. Anonyous Reader says:

September 20, 2012 at 12:34 pm

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”.

189. Anonymous Reader says:

September 20, 2012 at 12:39 pm

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.

190. Feminist Hater says:

September 20, 2012 at 12:44 pm

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.

191. Dalrock says:

September 20, 2012 at 12:47 pm

@Zippy

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.

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.

192. CL says:

September 20, 2012 at 12:49 pm

@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.

193. 7man says:

September 20, 2012 at 1:07 pm

@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.

194. zippycatholic says:

September 20, 2012 at 1:18 pm

@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.

195. imnobody says:

September 20, 2012 at 1:38 pm

@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.

196. Lovekraft says:

September 20, 2012 at 1:53 pm

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.

197. TFH says:

September 20, 2012 at 2:05 pm

Bob is demanding that everyone acknowledge that he is the rightful leader of the sphere.

Never heard of him.

198. Retrenched says:

September 20, 2012 at 2:15 pm

Code green! Nice. That’s different, at least. Usually it’s either code purple or code red.

http://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/

199. ruddyturnston says:

September 20, 2012 at 2:37 pm

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?

200. Anonymous Reader says:

September 20, 2012 at 2:53 pm

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

201. Dalrock says:

September 20, 2012 at 3:12 pm

@Zippy

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.

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.

202. deti says:

September 20, 2012 at 4:25 pm

@ 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.

203. Joshua says:

September 20, 2012 at 4:48 pm

Damn Dalrock you just caught her with a nasty left cross, shes on the mat and the ten count has commenced.

204. Jason says:

September 20, 2012 at 5:16 pm

@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

205. Cail Corishev says:

September 20, 2012 at 5:18 pm

@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.

206. Anonymous Reader says:

September 20, 2012 at 6:21 pm

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.

207. pb says:

September 20, 2012 at 7:28 pm

“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…

208. Jason says:

September 20, 2012 at 7:34 pm

@pb,

I agree PB.

209. zippycatholic says:

September 21, 2012 at 6:57 am

@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.

Дата добавления: 2015-11-13