More on female solipsism

Vox has his promised follow on post up:  Why solipsism matters.  In it he offers both a definition and a practical test for it.  Check it out.

Commenter Cail Corishev made a point on Vox’s post which I think is very relevant:

There’s a common occurrence in Internet discussions. Someone presents a theory that some people aren’t comfortable with. The uncomfortable ones claim that terms need to be defined or proof needs to be offered — reasonable-sounding requests — and they divert the thread to a quest for perfect definition and proof, throwing up complex requirements and bulleted lists of points that must be satisfied before the theory itself can be discussed. By the time that’s done (if ever), everyone’s gotten sick of the discussion and moved on.

And a bit further down:

Empirical data has its place — I’m certainly not anti-science — but so do intuition and gut feeling. A guy comes into the group and says, “Hey, there’s this term that really fits something women do that guys need to understand,” and the other guys slap themselves on the forehead and say, “Holy crap, that’s it! I kinda understood that, but I didn’t have a way to think about it better than, ‘She be crazy.’ This really helps me understand how to deal with women/my woman.” A discussion begins as they explore the new concept.

I agree with this.  The truly interesting things we discuss in this sphere are the ones which are contrary to conventional wisdom.  The insistence on a conventionally accepted term for an unconventional idea can only serve to stop the discussion.  This doesn’t mean there isn’t value in searching for data, the best possible term, and most coherent definition, but the search shouldn’t be allowed to automatically preclude the discussion.  It should instead be part of the discussion.  In addition, those who add the most value to the discussion tend to be the ones in the best position to influence terms and definitions.  If you want to wield the power of an opinion leader, you need to start by becoming the opinion leader.  Don’t complain about the lack of data;  find data and share it.  Don’t complain about the term, coin another one and if people like it better and the old term hasn’t solidified they will use it instead.  Don’t complain about the lack of definition;  offer a definition which is so good others will be inclined to reference it, or even better accept it.  For bonus points, perhaps offer a practical test.

Lastly, while the rationalization hamster is a different concept than female solipsism, the two are clearly related.  This is perhaps best demonstrated by Badger’s excellent post from March of last year:  Scientific Evidence for the Rationalization Hamster.  In that post Badger quotes a UC Santa Barbara brain scientist describing how one part of the brain can invent information to avoid mental inconsistency:

Patients with “reduplicative paramnesia,” because of damage to the brain, believe that there are copies of people or places. In short, they will remember another time and mix it with the present. As a result, they will create seemingly ridiculous, but masterful, stories to uphold what they know to be true due to the erroneous messages their damaged brain is sending their intact interpreter. One such patient believed the New York hospital where she was being treated was actually her home in Maine. When her doctor asked how this could be her home if there were elevators in the hallway, she said, “Doctor, do you know how much it cost me to have those put in?” The interpreter will go to great lengths to make sure the inputs it receives are woven together to make sense—even when it must make great leaps to do so.

Edit: See also Ian Ironwood’s The Tangled Chains On The Swing Set of Solipsism

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

78 Responses to More on female solipsism

  1. Lovekraft says:

    It pretty much comes down to HOW one thinks, not WHAT one thinks, that distinguishes the herd from the forward-thinkers.

  2. deti says:

    One of the most maddening things that happens in these discussions is an absolute insistence on scientific evidence to support every single assertion any man makes. A man’s anecdotal evidence is discounted and discredited, no matter how many other men have had the exact same experience. If he cannot, or if he produces only anecdotes he personally knows of or from talking with others, then the responses are variations of:

    1. If there’s no scientific evidence, no double blind random controlled peer reviewed study, then it does not exist. Dudes be crazy.
    2. That’s just anecdotal. Don’t care how many there are. The plural of anecdote is not data. Dudes be crazy.
    3. Referring to anecdotes you heard from others on batshit crazy manosphere sitest is not acceptable either, because it’s confirmation bias. Dudes be crazy.
    4. The experiences you draw from are based on interactions with women who are batshit, or damaged, or slutty, or otherwise not normal. You interact with crazy women. You chose your wife/GF poorly. Dudes be crazy.

  3. Ras Al Ghul says:

    Even though ancedotal evidence is the go to form of evidence (after emotional appeals) that women use to support just about everything.

  4. okrahead says:

    I agree that requiring scientific evidence for every discussion is over the top. That being said, when scientific evidence is already there it should be put forward to expand understanding. That being said, I think the discussion here is still conflating solipsism with narcissism, or, more specifically, narcissistic personality disorder. Narcissistic personality disorders are closely related to, and overlap with, borderline personality disorder, an overwhelmingly female phenomenon. Solipsism and narcissism have in common the fact that the individual in question perceives him/herself to be the only true reality. Solipsism, however, is an error in logic; or, at times, a philosophical system, while narcissism is an actual failure of perception. Hence, the philosopher who is guilty of solipsism is actually capable of perceiving others as real, he simply questions their reality as a logical experiment, whereas the individual suffering from a narcissistic personality disorder is genuinely incapable of perceiving the reality of other individuals’ existence. This is also closely related to psychopathy as defined by Robert Hare and is closely associated with the “dark triad” personality traits; traits which are exhibited in the behavior of many of the women discussed on this site.

  5. brian says:

    @deti –

    That doesn’t just happen when the topic is women.

    Just about any conversation about observable reality with a liberal will generate the same absurd demands. In fact, the demander will go so far as to say that a sentence does not mean what it clearly means just for the purposes of dismissing the argument because it threatens their cocoon.

  6. deti says:

    Actually the argument on scientific evidence has a number of facets and objections.

    1. If there is no scientific peer reviewed study that supports your assertions, then the phenomenon you are talking about does not exist and is a figment of your fevered imaginations.

    2. If the phenomenon does exist as you say it does, it should be easily demonstrable in some sort of scientific peer reviewed study and provable through the scientific method.

    3. Since you can’t show me a study and it has not been studied, the phenomenon either does not exist, has been proven not to exist, or is not important enough to merit serious scientific or academic consideration.

    4. Here is a scientific study in which a large number of women were interviewed and they told the researcher about their sexual preferences, practices and likes and dislikes. We presume women are totally and completely truthful because it’s anonymous and this removes the incentive to lie or shade the truth. The researchers study what the women said. Therefore it is true and supports my assertions.

  7. Emma the Emo says:

    “1. If there’s no scientific evidence, no double blind random controlled peer reviewed study, then it does not exist. Dudes be crazy.
    2. That’s just anecdotal. Don’t care how many there are. The plural of anecdote is not data. Dudes be crazy.
    3. Referring to anecdotes you heard from others on batshit crazy manosphere sitest is not acceptable either, because it’s confirmation bias. Dudes be crazy.
    4. The experiences you draw from are based on interactions with women who are batshit, or damaged, or slutty, or otherwise not normal. You interact with crazy women. You chose your wife/GF poorly. Dudes be crazy.”

    Well… Some of that is faulty reasoning, but ideally, we should have science confirming our views (studies without flawed assumptions). Feminists can use all those points on that list to their favor and prove that men are pigs, because all their friends got cheated on. If they can’t use it, neither should we.

  8. Cane Caldo says:

    @Deti

    The plural of anecdote is not data.

    Yes, it is. An “anecdote”, if it is true, is a perfectly passable synonym for “datum”.

  9. A♠ says:

    Deti,

    You wrote:

    4. Here is a scientific study in which a large number of women were interviewed and they told the researcher about their sexual preferences, practices and likes and dislikes. We presume women are totally and completely truthful because it’s anonymous and this removes the incentive to lie or shade the truth. The researchers study what the women said. Therefore it is true and supports my assertions.

    Months ago, I talked about the root cause of why that is, on the whole, a very poor presumption.

    http://80proofoinomancy.wordpress.com/2012/07/16/290/

  10. Lib Arts Major Making $31k a Year at an Office Job (Got a raise) says:

    @ Deti

    Qualitative vs Quantitative reasoning. Those who support pragmatism will more often reason quantitatively – a method of reasoning that is solely based on accurately acquiring and numerically representing data, and the method of reasoning more often used by Men.

    Qualitative reasoning is most simply described as the entire field of Liberal Arts – the same field that is derided and shunned in modern society for being superfluous and useless, not to mention the preferred field of women.

    Interesting that you state that “in these discussions” (which implies within the Manosphere) “is an absolute insistence on scientific evidence.”

    What you’re trying to say is that you are surprised that Men having a discussion with mostly Men are demanding scientific, qualitative evidence instead of anecdotal, qualitative evidence. I’m not sure how this should come as a surprise. This is how Men most often function – or at least how red-pill pragmatists claim to function.

    I agree however that much more ground could be made if we allowed ourselves to more often cross into the liberal and theoretical instead of relying solely on data and expecting an empirical answer. The hilarious part about empircal data is that you will still end up with a “NAWALT Factor” of denial (Not All Women Are Like That, for the uninitiated) to even the most well-proven data points. That argument resounds a little more in the anecdotal sphere, but it’s similar to invoking God when talking about the unknown – it stops or stymies further discussion.

    Neil DeGrasse Tyson points out that as soon as scientists reached a point in understanding the universe that they invoked God, their forward progress stopped. This is not to say you should deny the existence of God – what it should mean however is that you should not say that just because something is unknown that God resides there and we shouldn’t go there and learn about it.

    Tl;dr – To correlate: just because NAWALT exists, you shouldn’t let that stop you from continuing to pursue anecdotes or behavioral gender theory.

  11. ruddyturnston says:

    okrahead:

    Pehaps solipcism is not the correct technical term. But narcissism does not quite capture it either. The thing is that women tend to view the world exclusively through their own lenses. Or, at best, through the lenses of females in general. That may show a lack of empathy or sympathy, which is compatible with narcissism, but, in typical, non techincal usage, a narcissisist is seen as as the same as an egomaniac. And egomania is not the real issue here. It’s NOT that women tend to think of themselves as being so great, so awesome, etc, etc (although, of course, surely some of them do), it’s that they don’t seem to be able to accredit a different point of view.

    On some blogs (like Feminist Critics), I have seen the terms “gynocentric” and “gynonormative.” I think these get closer to the real issue. Women see themselves, and other women, as the “norm,” as the prototypical “human,” while whatever men do, say, feel, etc, that is different from what women do, say and feel is pathological, non human, “testosterone poisoned,” and so on.

    A classic example of this is women who think that their husbands are somehow defecient if they do not act like thier girlfriends. Women friends tend to talk a lot to each other. They gab on and on about nothing in particular, and that is how they bond. When their husbands show no interest in doing the same thing, they see that as evidence that they don’t want to bond with them. They seem impervious to the idea that men show feelings of intimacy in a different way. Similarly, they don’t accredit the fact that men have stronger sex drives than they do. They are satisfied with sex once a month, and if their husbands aren’t it must be because there is something “wrong” with them.

    Of course, it is not easy for either gender to see the world through the eyes of the other. And there are men who are “androcentric” or “andronormative” in how they view the world. But, in general, I think men do try to make the effort to see things as women do, whereas women don’t make the corresponding effort to see things as men do.

    Why this should be so is another question. My guess is that it is because women, from the time they are young girls, are treated with a mixture of white knight chivalry and feminist propaganda. Bascially, they are told how wonderful they are by both groups, whereas both chivalrists and feminsts see men as brutes. That being the case, women make no more effort to understand and empathize with men than they do with animals (often less!). Boys and young men, on the other hand, are told by chilvalrists and feminsts how wonderful women are, and how they have to do this, that and the other merely to be worthy of the company of girls and women.

  12. My issue is that it seems right now Susan is hemming and hawing about how the old Philosophers who originally wrote about solipsism didn’t do so. My question to her that I just posed over at Red Pill Room is why she thinks that they would have any reason to do so in a society where males ran things overly and females ran things covertly. Between demanding that a world that is outdated meet the demands of a condition that has become more of a problem due to different prevalent conditions is absurdly deflecting and derailing the conversation.

    We are adapting language and concepts from what the baseline use to be to be able to describe and solve new problems using an older, understood concept. As the comment you quoted said – if it instinctively makes sense to a wide array of men from very different backgrounds, different experiences, upbringings, and moral beliefs…. Well, there’s a reason for that. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a post before now having to explain women’s solipsism, only how it operates, shows itself, and can be controls or avoided. That the manosphere has gone this long without needing to do so is a great testimony to the fact that it is a strong idea of merit, rather than the opposite.

  13. Keoni Galt says:

    So I began writing a response to this thread, than realized it was hitting post-length, so I posted it over at my place instead. But here’s the gist of it here:

    “Hypergamy and solipsism – two terms used to describe commonly observed aspects of female behavior, both with Dictionary definitions that do not really fit with what we are talking about here in our little corner of the web….but for those of us who understand the concepts underlying the literal definitions, they are perfectly applicable usage of words to clearly communicate the ideas under discussion.”

    [D: Here is a direct link to HL’s post. Check out the one right before it too.]

  14. Opus says:

    Grammar Nazis always disrupt – as they parade before you with their well-behaved, on-a-leash term. One can only stand in awe and offer contriteness.

    If I am bitten by a rot-weiller, I do not need a peer reviewed esperimentally falsifiable test to tell me to keep away from that breed of dog. Whether women are solipsistic, or narcissistic – and one really should reserve the word narcicssism for those medically found to be within the DSM IV criteria – they certainly are different from those with a penis, usually.

  15. slumlord says:

    Data does matter. The edifice of Conservatism is built on the foundation of the truth. Opinions are just opinions until they are backed up by the facts, but it is a standard Liberal debating strategy that when confronted by refutational data to dispute its endlessly. That’s why the use of scientific data in debates with liberals is a waste; they simply qualify it away.

  16. The Stranger says:

    Anectode = someone recounting an experience he (probably but not certainly) had.
    Data = someone recounting an experience he (probably but not certainly) had.

    The difference is merely the perception that a lab coat and a clipboard make one infallible.

  17. The Continental Op says:

    One of the most maddening things that happens in these discussions is an absolute insistence on scientific evidence to support every single assertion any man makes.

    Neil Postman’s “Technopoly” cured me.

  18. okrahead says:

    Opus,
    I will endeavor to remain civil despite your cavalier usage of the term “nazi.” Perhaps you should consider the Conservative and masculine ideal that “words mean things.” Precision in language leads to precision in thought, and vice versa. Conversely, sloppy speech reflects sloppy thinking (as in bandying about the term Nazi on this thread). The DSM IV is, in point of fact, somewhat useful in this discussion. As I stated, borderline personality disorder is an overwhelmingly female phenomenon, and accounts for many, if not all, of the traits being discussed here under “solipsism”. Since there is a wealth of peer-reviewed data dealing with BPD as well as Narcissistic Personality Disorders (there are different degrees and types) it would seem that we are dealing with a false dilemma when suggesting that our evidence need be either anecdotal or empirical. If one looks at narcissism the evidence is abundant in both forms.
    More cordially than you deserve,
    Okrahead

  19. tbc says:

    the thing I like about the manosphere is these kinds of conversation — which back in the day would have taken place in some men’s club around cigars and scotch. I can almost picture Okrahead and Opus going at it while wearing smoking jackets and sitting in front of a big fireplace whilst some others of us play cards, listen in, and throw in the occasional “harrumph”

  20. Opus says:

    @Okrahead

    Do you have any empirical evidence for your thinly veiled attack on what I wrote, in particular what exactly have you got against Nazis? – and what exactly are your qualifications to hold views on the DSM?

    You assert that words mean things, but I have always found them elusive (and alusive) and imprecise.

  21. okrahead says:

    Opus,
    Your question, “what exactly have you got against Nazis?” disqualifies you from being worth further serious (or other) interaction.

  22. Em says:

    I disagree with the use of the term solipsism as it is used in this article. Also, where is your evidence that internet conversations take these kind of turns. I want to see numbers.

  23. greyghost says:

    okrahead you need to get you one of those sense of humours like Em here has.

  24. Lovekraft says:

    I wonder if anyone here calling her/himself a feminist recognize the high level of respect given to them by we MRAs in comparison to how they treat outsiders/dissenters on their own sites/blogs.

    We are pulling our punches so to speak, which in man terms means that you should tread carefully and know your place before chiming in.

  25. tbc says:

    Aside from the whole debate about language I think there is a valid point raised here about the essence of the issue:

    Of course, it is not easy for either gender to see the world through the eyes of the other. And there are men who are “androcentric” or “andronormative” in how they view the world. But, in general, I think men do try to make the effort to see things as women do, whereas women don’t make the corresponding effort to see things as men do.

    I would argue that women are not socialized to be solipsistic, but are that way naturally. In its place, it functions as a very useful kind of empathy. Women are generally more empathetic than men (though I know some would dispute this) because they are solipsistic. They really do encounter things in terms of how it relates to them personally, or feels to them, or would feel to them if they were in that situation. However men are more sympathetic, because we encounter things in a slightly more detached way. So men get angered or saddened or feel badly for someone because something concrete has been violated, whereas women get angered of saddened or feel badly because they can feel themselves in that same situation.

    So men in the manosphere get riled up about frivorce fraud, and child-supportamommy, and false rape because it is wrong and unjust, not because we’ve been through it ourselves or even imagine going through it. Similarly a man will be upset about horrible things happening to women because it is wrong and unjust. Women seemingly don’t have the same capacity, except insofar as they bond sufficiently with a man as to feel his pain as her own, or to experience a threat to him as a threat to herself and her own interests.

    But these are just my speculations. Thoughts?

    (Insert standard NAMALT / NAWALT disclaimer here.)

  26. greyghost says:

    “Women seemingly don’t have the same capacity, except insofar as they bond sufficiently with a man as to feel his pain as her own, or to experience a threat to him as a threat to herself and her own interests.”
    A woman like that is a what a wicked selfish bitch behaving as a moral christian woman looks like. And is the best it is ever going to get. And I’ll take it anytime.

  27. Anonymous Reader says:

    Em
    Also, where is your evidence that internet conversations take these kind of turns.

    The evidence is with the ambiguity. It is over there, in a box.

    I want to see numbers.

    Very well, I shall accommodate you.

    7
    Also 3, 1.414, .682 and everyone’s favorite, 3.14159

    Hope This Helps.

  28. imnobody says:

    Similarly a man will be upset about horrible things happening to women because it is wrong and unjust. Women seemingly don’t have the same capacity, except insofar as they bond sufficiently with a man as to feel his pain as her own, or to experience a threat to him as a threat to herself and her own interests.

    This is exactly the reason for Team Woman. When a (unknown) woman and an (unknown) man have different interests or when men in general and women in general have different interests, a woman can’t help imagine herself in the woman’s shoes (because of her solipsism). Hence, she will always defend the woman.

  29. Cail Corishev says:

    It’s funny — I almost didn’t post that comment you quoted because I do like science. I like mining data and coming up with statistics. One reason Game appeals to me so much is that it can be tested and falsified to a great extent. The Internet makes it easier than ever: send beta-type messages to 50 women on dating sites, and alpha-type messages to 50 others, randomly chosen, and see what happens. Go to a bar this Friday and buy 10 women drinks, then go next Friday and tell 10 other women to buy you a drink. Observe, record, calculate, retest.

    But as much as I like all that science, we’re still talking about human science, which necessarily deals in generalities and gray areas and words like “most” and “tends to.” It’d be nice if we could debug human behavior like a computer program and define exactly what causes each effect, but that’s not possible, so insisting on such means you get nowhere.

    Of course, if you reversed the roles, it’d be different. If a bunch of women are talking about male infidelity and you angrily cut in with, “My dad was faithful to my mom all his life!” they’ll look at you like you’re nuts. And they should — they weren’t talking about all men everywhere. But guys get that, so they rarely react that way. Women generally don’t, so they do.

    Another thing I’ve noticed in 15+ years of Internet discussions: even if you sprinkle your argument with weasel words like “generally” and “rarely,” as I did in that last paragraph, people don’t hear them. You still get the same, “I have a friend who’s not like that, so you’re wrong” responses. Disclaimers don’t work against emotions.

  30. BC says:

    One of the most maddening things that happens in these discussions is an absolute insistence on scientific evidence to support every single assertion any man makes.

    Guys, guys, guys- haven’t Roissy/Heartiste and other game written about this tactic as a shit test (by women) or a disqualifying tactic (by AMOGgers)? Don’t let yourself and the discussion get sidetracked. Consider the demand for proof, decide whether it is reasonable, and if they are just being anklebiters, aspies, or women trying desperately to deny something that isn’t convenient or that the feminine imperative cannot accept, then either ignore, ridicule or game them.

    Game on.

  31. greyghost says:

    BC
    what is AMOG I have seen that before.

  32. greenlander says:

    AMOG = alpha male other guy
    It refers to a high-status male in a group of mixed guys/girls where you’re trying to pick up the girls.

  33. unger says:

    AMOG = Alpha Male Of Group. AMOGing is putting on a show as the AMOG, being the most obnoxious motherf***er in the room in an attempt to cow opposition – in other words, using charisma in place of rational argument.

  34. greyghost says:

    Thanks Fellas I’ve been out of circulation for a while.

  35. The Continental Op says:

    Gog, Magog, and Amog. It’s in Revelation somewhere.

  36. deti says:

    imnobody:

    CL and 7Man expertly refer to this phenomenon as women playing for either Team Woman, or Team Her Man.

    A woman always is for Team Woman, except when she is for Team Her Man.

    She is never for Team Man, but will sometimes be for Team Her Man, so long as Team Her Man’s objectives do not conflict with those of Team Woman. Only in very extreme circumstances will she take the side of Team Her Man against Team Woman. She will never take Team Man’s side against Team Woman.

  37. BC says:

    A game tactic used to disqualify a competing male in front of females is to ask him a question that demands a logical answer or facts. It’s a way of getting the guy to shift his frame to logical (which tends to turn off women) instead of emotional (which tends to connect with women), thus sidetracking his approach and killing the tingle.

    Key point: Sidetracking the approach and killing the tingle.

    Giggles and others who demand yet rarely if ever accept or are satisfied with any offered proof are doing just that – derailing discussions about female characteristics (which must be kept a mystery as much as possible as per the feminine imperative!), and killing the attraction of the concept originally being discussed to anyone who isn’t already convinced of it anyway. They don’t care about honest debate to seek the truth and change the minds of those who already believe in the concept – those people are a lost cause to them. What matters is maintaining their frame to disqualify the offending concept to their supporters and the undecided/wavering.

    And by letting the debate get shifted in that direction, you are accepting and arguing within their frame.

    Don’t do it.

    Of course don’t just dismiss challenges out of hand – give demands for proof due consideration, and decide whether they are reasonable. But if is fairly they are just being anklebiters, aspies, or women trying desperately to deny something that isn’t convenient or that the feminine imperative cannot accept, then ignore, ridicule or game them.

    You wouldn’t argue seriously with a child about whether the sky is blue or water is wet, going back-and-forth endlessly defining and debating the definitions of ‘blue’ and ‘wet’, would you?

  38. FuriousFerret says:

    BC said what I was thinking.

    It’s a tactic to get people divided on petty technicalities.

    It’s a desperation effort. When the spirit of the arguement is impenetrable, then the opponent must resort to lesser weaker forms of attack such as well what does this word really mean in the historical context and blah blah blah.

    Hypergamy and solipsism are rock solid concepts in how women operate. Just because of how we use it doesn’t match word for word what webster’s defines it as doesn’t make those concepts any less true.

    For instance on HUS, I believe that Aunt Giggles has been set in stone that hypergamy is simply a woman wanting to marry/LTR with a man of equal or higher status. She has debated this with the posters over there. The concept in the manosphere is that women in today’s society want a guy that’s waaaaaayyyyy above her status. Like not even in the same ballpark. However, she wants to confuse by debating the technical definition of the word Hypergamy as proclaimed by the doctrates such as David Buss. I wonder when the last time David Buss tried his hand at pick up and had first hand experience with the young women today. She is using the argumentative equivalent of a five year holding his finger 2 cm from his sister proclaiming ‘I’m not touching you’.

    Now it’s just moved on to solipsism. I believe we use this word to convey the concept that women see everything in relation to themselves and find it hard to detach her own desires/emotions from other people’s reality.

    We obiovously don’t mean exactly what webster’s says which is:

    ‘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 ‘

    That’s absurb. We simply use this word to relay our own definition. What the hell are we supposed to do, make up new words just for the manosphere?

    She also damn well knows that. She has her own agenda. She is on Team Woman. I mean look who she has basically banned (Dalrock, Rollo, Yohami). Those are some our main guys. How can you be on the team when you loathe the stars?

  39. Badger says:

    Thanks for the link. The rationalization mechanisms in our brains are astoundingly efficient. It’s really amazing to realize the degree to which one’s brain can lie to you.

  40. finndistan says:

    I don’t need to have empirical scientific evidence usually collected by biased researchers and/or depending on the unreliable self reporting of women… (I like a man with humor. That is the most important trait…. …. …. if he is attractive of course)

    Do I need evidence for:

    Female solipsism
    Female self centeredness
    Female hypergamy
    Rationalization hamster
    Nice guys finish last
    Women go for badboys
    etc…

    When all these phrases resonate in the frequency that would make my soul break, had I not known them?

    But then, the ones claiming they need evidence for all of these, bend down and take it up the guilthole, when a female goes “All men are pigs”….

  41. FuriousFerret says:

    I think that man in general has a sinful nature. It’s just that it manifests in sex differently.

    It goes back to girls are everything sweet and nice and boys are snips and snails and puppy dog tails. It just is assumed as true by society at large when both sexes have self centered motivations.

    Violence for example. If you asked people on the street if by and large men are violent. The answer would most likely be yes. It’s also true. Many men will resort to violence given the current circumstances.

    Is violence associated to women? No it is not. We correctly do not consider that most women are violent.

    Now with solipsism. That’s a feminine trait. However, it is clearly shown by women such as Aunt Giggles that this can never be. There is no such thing. Show me the proof. It just another manifestation of the feminine mystique.

    Are there some men that display solipsism. Yes they are, but most men are too practical due to necessarity to have such a naive view. Some women are violent but most chicks do not turn to violence as one of their effective means of achieveing their goals, it’s just not in their nature.

  42. The insistence on a conventionally accepted term for an unconventional idea can only serve to stop the discussion
    ——————————————————————————
    Dalrock, I wonder, since you wrote what I quote here, how it must seem surreal as people interject game into the thread. I have never seen game discussed (on blogs where the blog owner isnt metaphorically carried around like Cleopatra by 8 sweaty dark skinned men in a temple of game) that it did NOT start down the definition-redefinition type argument tactic.

  43. English says:

    Women’s solipsism?
    There is no end to it.They are good at grabbing power and then not knowing what to do with it.
    Would rather deal with a crack-head with a saturday night special than a hysterical woman armed with a Police State.Fake claims of “abuse” are simply the use of the nuclear option to win everytime.Men are cowed into submission,then fail.Leave them be,they will feed on their own given the lack of a fresh male victim.
    Nothing civilized about the constant irrational rationalizations.This is why the fem-trolls get the vitriol,they foment violence and there is no recourse inside “The Lawz” lollzzzzz *butthex*

  44. empath,
    IMO, on those sites, the audience has given authority to one, so there is one standard of right and wrong (the AMOG). If the discussion is more open, people will feel more free to challenge more basic concepts.

    That imagery is great, though.

  45. greyghost says:

    Remember women will always do what they think is in there own self interest. Women are very violent and have no empathy and will kick a man when he is down. And will kill a child when it is helpless and demand no one judge. The only check on female violence is physical limitations of the female body. Women that are really beat the hell up by a man in general tried their hand at DV. See Rihanna.
    On the surface it will show women as less violent. Calling the cops and saying you where raped or claiming abuse during a divorce knowing the government is going to go after the guy. You can ask Bill Price over at the Spearhead how female violence works.

  46. farm boy says:

    What informs my thinking are the vast expanses of cubicals at work. Lots of guys, lots of samples, lots of stories. It is less than scientific, but way more than anecdotal.

    Let’s face it, for most here, if what was said in the mamosphere did not match what was seen in the real world, we would be outta here. People are here because they want models that are effective, no doubt because in the past they operated with models that were ineffective.

  47. farm boy says:

    I have the suspicion that those in position to gather useful scientific evidence (e.g. academics), do not do so for political correctness reasons.

    In the end the arguments typically come down to, “who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”

  48. sunshinemary says:

    Badger wrote:

    The rationalization mechanisms in our brains are astoundingly efficient. It’s really amazing to realize the degree to which one’s brain can lie to you.

    That’s really true. Years ago, when I was fresh out of my speech-language pathology MA program, I briefly worked with adults who’d suffered right hemisphere brain damage and thus exhibited left-side neglect. They would deny up and down that the left side of their body even belonged to them. One woman told me that her left arm was really her purse; another time when I said, “Mrs. ___, let’s put your left arm back up on the bed, ” she told me, “No dear, that isn’t my arm, that’s my husband.” I couldn’t convince her otherwise. Perhaps this is why so many women refuse to believe what men in the manosphere say, preferring instead to think with their rationalization hamsters.

    And farmboy, what is a mamosphere? 😉

  49. Another problem with using “solipsism” is that it implies a thought out, explicit position. But the meaning folks seem to want here is subconscious: it isn’t that she has explicitly decided that other perspectives don’t really exist, it is that she is literally incapable of understanding reality from a perspective not her own. Narcissism is a better term for that, but I do understand the objections to narcissism. How about “hamstercism”?

  50. Or “hamsstercism” — get that double s in there to invoke narcissism as a concept while still setting the term apart.

  51. Anonymous says:

    Here’s another wrinkle. I did a lot of marriage/couple work earlier in my career (psychologist). Something I noticed at a pretty ubiqitous rate:

    When asking men and women what they need, or are not getting enough from their spouse, it broke down that men generally were asking for more respect, deference, etc. When exploring what that meant, in general what men were craving was, more or less to be “looked up to.” They wanted to be looked up to for a variety of things, like strength, leadership, how successful they are at their jobs, etc.

    In contrast, the women wanted to be “known.” Getting into this with them was exemplified by one woman who said “I know his favorite color, favorite sex position, what food he likes, his most cherished childhood stories, and he doesn’t know me at all.”

    Tangentially, the men would usually respond to this by saying “that’s great that you know all that about me, but I would trade it for more respect.”

    I haven’t thought about this for several years, as I now prinarily do forensic work, (thank God–when you are intern/resident they make you take all the silliness like marriage counsling) but I wanted to throw it out there.

  52. Martian Bachelor says:

    …Hence, she will always defend the woman. (imnobody)

    I’m pretty sure it was in Rene Denfeld’s book The New Victorians that there was a picture of a c.1970 second wave women’s rights street march. One of the protest signs says something like “We Take the Woman’s Side in Everything!”.

    That about sums up feminism when it comes down to it. Almost all women are feminists these days to some degree or another because the whole culture has been feminized.

    The most disturbing thing about feminism is that a certain way of behavior by a female is labeled positively as “liberated” and “empowered” while the exact same behavior displayed by a man is labeled negatively as “selfish” and “irresponsible”. That double standard seems more the real issue.

  53. Paul says:

    Jeepers, look at this ‘things my partner doesn’t know about me’, by the looks of it all these secrets belong to women. Women broadcast the truth about themselves daily on major media, exalt in it, but should we ever talk about it: where’s your peer-reviewed research? Bah.

    http://lifestyle.sympatico.ca/Relationships/galleries/articles/things-my-partner-doesnt-know-about-me.htm?feedname=PHOTO_GALLERY_LIFESTYLE_MY_PARTNER_DOESNT_KNOW_THIS&pos=1&nolookup=true

  54. farm boy says:

    As for political correctness in academia related to issues of relevance, here is an example

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19181-2005Jan18.html

    As a result, he was driven from office

  55. farm boy says:

    @SSM
    what is the mamosphere?

    It is people like you, ladies discussing manosphere topics

  56. Lovekraft says:

    Work today had a woman play the part of the victim perfectly, stating a man offended her. I instinctively approached to see what was the matter, BUT knew that I owe it to the man to do my own investigation before proceeding. Within 5 seconds here act ended and she admitted it was a joke, but the way she was so able to convey true pain was astonishing.

    Men, wake up! White knighting must die.

  57. sunshinemary says:

    ssm asked:

    what is the mamosphere?

    farm boy wrote:

    It is people like you, ladies discussing manosphere topics

    I love it! The lady bloggers who are interested in anti-feminist and men’s issues finally have a label! 🙂

  58. Paul says:

    This has got to be the perfect picture for the manosphere.

    I absolutely love the irony that the woman who posted this has no idea the truths it speaks to.

  59. “The only check on female violence is physical limitations of the female body.”

    True. Women are cruel to children and abort the unborn. I sometimes think God made men stronger to keep them in check.

  60. b-166-er says:

    FuriousFerret says:
    Violence for example. If you asked people on the street if by and large men are violent. The answer would most likely be yes. It’s also true. Many men will resort to violence given the current circumstances.
    ———————————–

    Do males really have a choice to be non violent?

    Seems to me, in order to have a civilization, somebodys got to be violent and that job (like all the others) has been pinned on males.

    They used to execute males who would not fight.

  61. b-166-er says:

    .

    empathologicalism says:
    I have never seen game discussed (on blogs where the blog owner isnt metaphorically carried around like Cleopatra by 8 sweaty dark skinned men in a temple of game)
    —————————————–

    actually, that ends up being the purpose of most blogs; that and driving traffic. Until you have some of your posts blocked or deleted, you have no idea what information you are being denied. Blogs have a lifespan and it is rare for one to stay youthful and confident enough to tolerate opinions that counter the groupthink.

  62. With the Les Miz movie coming up, it seems appropriate to post the ultimate Ballad of the Alpha Widow in this thread. Of course it is “life” that killed her dream, not her own choices. Two corollaries to hermetic hamsstercism[*] are that (1) she is baffled by the horrific consequences of her own choices, and (2) she blames those consequences on the unfairness of the world, not on herself:

    [*] Sorry, I just can’t abuse the term “solipsism” the way other folks are, nor am I interested in contributing to postmodern instability of meaning: if you want a fundamentally new meaning, use a new word.

  63. GKChesterton says:

    I tend to agree with you zippy. But I don’t know a good word either. Even the solisupraism? That is “alone and above”?

  64. JoeS says:

    Second definition given for solipsism:

    “extreme preoccupation with and indulgence of one’s feelings, desires, etc.; egoistic self-absorption.”

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/solipsism

  65. Cane Caldo says:

    I don’t have a problem with solipsism, except that I have to type out “female solipsism” so anyone can know what I’m talking about. But they do.

    What about “self-deference”?

  66. JoeS says:

    I learned the word solipsism reading 1984 in seventh or eighth grade. I think it’s a clumsy expression, however, it’s definitely a concept that shrink-influenced people like to use. “You think the world revolves around you” “it’s your world, we just live in it” – they will use such insults at men – which is projection, of course.

  67. Bob Wallace says:

    @ Cane Caldo,

    “self-deference”?

    There are a lot better terms than the embarrassing, inaccurate and adolescent “female solipsism.”

  68. imnobody says:

    @Bob

    Believe it or not, we have been happy using “female solipsism” for some time (besides “mangina”, “white knight”, “rationalization hamster”, “the wall”, “pedestalization”, “alphas”, “betas” and so on and so forth) and I don’t see any reason to change. There is no equivalent English word so a new term has to be coined.

    In every community, new terms have to be constantly coined to name the realities that are being discussed. Every community (even a group of friends) has its own words and this is good. These words are not in the dictionary (but they may eventually get into it) but they allow the communication to be fluid. As any linguist would say you, English is richer than the English standard language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_language) English is alive and constantly changing. Many words that are in the dictionary were once rejected by grammarians.

    I speak four languages (I am not a native English speaker). When I learn English, it always amazes me the fact that English is a very illogical language. For example, why do you say “bug” instead of “programming error”? Bug is an animal and has nothing to do with programming. Why do you say “gym” instead of “gymnasium”? Why do you use “google” or “xerox” as a verb? This is weird but it is convenient. My native language is more logical and words are longer. As a result, we often use English words, which are shorter and more convenient, which, in my opinion, proves the superiority of the English approach.

    I don’t see a reason not to use “female solipsism”. Most people don’t even know what the philosophical theory of solipsism is and, if they do, they are able to learn a new meaning for an old word (they do this constantly). I guess some person despised the use of “mouse” referring to a computer device because “mouse are rodents, as the dictionary says”.

    I know there is a place to correct grammar and wording. School compositions, books, mass media.. But trying to be so adamant about a word used in an informal chat, such as the one maintained in a blog thread seems very anal-retentive to me.

    Live and let live. If you dislike “female solipsism”, feel free to use your own term. I have coined a term “pedestalization movement” and nobody uses it, but I am happy to use it in my posts and I don’t try to impose it to anybody. I know other manosphere guys using their own words. Zed uses feminine-ism, for example.

    What is embarrassing, inaccurate and adolescent is trying to control how other speak in an informal chat. I’d rather speak about ideas than waste my time quarreling about words, which, after all, are only means and not an end, because this is the manosphere, not a community of grammarians.

  69. Pingback: Linkage Is Good For You: I Have Arrived | Society of Amateur Gentlemen

  70. Bob Wallace says:

    @ Imnobody,

    “I don’t see a reason not to use “female solipsism”

    I certainly do. Since you’re not a native English speaker, you may not be all that familiar with the term “neo-conservatism.” They’re not conservatives, but leftists. They have redefined the word “conservatism” to mean almost the exact opposite of what it has traditionally meant, and they have conned quite a few Americans into believing them. Hence, our two wars.

    When people start redefining words to mean what they don’t mean, it causes nothing but trouble. For one thing, it’s one of the first signs of a religious cult, e.g. Scientology and Objectivism.

    Private languages that no one understands but the “enlightened” is a sign of contempt for people outside the Chosen. Words such as “patriarchy” and “male oppression” “Dead White Males” are inaccurate concepts that have taken over and caused nothing but trouble

    The same might happen with inaccurate concepts such as “female solipsism” (what about male solipsism?) and “rationalism hamster.” They’re adolescent, and I can’t imagine such people as Clint Eastwood, Gary Cooper and Humphrey Bogart using such embarrassing concepts in public.

  71. Cane Caldo says:

    @Bob Wallace

    I can’t imagine such people as Clint Eastwood, Gary Cooper and Humphrey Bogart using such embarrassing concepts in public.

    Touche. That’s the best argument I’ve heard against it.

  72. imnobody says:

    @Bob Wallace

    I can’t imagine such people as Clint Eastwood, Gary Cooper and Humphrey Bogart using such embarrassing concepts in public.

    Of course not. They wouldn’t do that for two reasons:

    a) Gary Cooper and Humphrey Bogart are dead so they cannot use new words. So yes, I cannot imagine Humphrey Bogart saying: “You are going to pay, baby, for your crimes and your female solipsism. You are going to give up your iPad and go to jail” .

    b) Clint Eastwood would NEVER be willing to use the term “female solipsism”. Why not? He would be TERRIFIED at the possibility that the people who listen him from the TV set could think like that:

    “OMG! Clint is using a badly defined word. He is such a bastard! Everybody knows that solipsism means the philosophical doctrine that claims that the self is the only thing that exists. F**king Clint, he has disgraced this S-word, which is so cherished by the American people. Bishop Berkeley must be rolling over in his grave”.

    I can imagine the public outrage about Clint using “female solipsism” without referring to philosophy. Oprah would start a campaign to restore the dignity of the S-word. This could be a wedge issue in the incoming elections and, quite possibly, the end of the career for Clint Eastwood. Even a tough guy like Clint cannot go that far.

  73. imnobody says:

    When people start redefining words to mean what they don’t mean, it causes nothing but trouble. For one thing, it’s one of the first signs of a religious cult, e.g. Scientology and Objectivism.

    Sorry but

    1) Using a new word with a new meaning is not redefining a new word. It’s adding a meaning.
    2) People add meanings to words all the time. Mail is an example. Network is another. Network originally referred to networks used by fishers to trap fish.

    If adding meaning to words was the sign of a religious cult, everything would be a religious cult.

    But the obsession for controlling the language is also the sign of religious cult and the sign of an ideology that wants to control the discourse.

    Private languages that no one understands but the “enlightened” is a sign of contempt for people outside the Chosen.

    BS. Every community has its own words. English has about one million words and about 500,000 are words only used in specialized contexts and not part of the standard language.

    Bob, I am not going to argue with you anymore. I guess you are not arguing with good faith. If you want to declare victory, so be it. I don’t know what your motivations are. Trying to derail the discussion by focusing on an unimportant point? I don’t know but I won’t waste one second more debating with you. And every guy who writes here will use “female solipsism” every time he feels like it. You cannot order us about what to say. This is a free discussion.

  74. jz says:

    How to turn an opinion into a fact: repeat it over and over thousands of times.

    Example:
    Opinion—the millionaires and billionaires don’t pay their fair share
    repeat above X 1000=Fact—–the millionaires and billionaires don’t pay their fair share

    Opinion—women are more solipistic than men
    repeat above X 1000=Fact—-women are more solipistic than men

  75. Pingback: Some common myths in Game « Krauser's PUA Adventure

  76. Pingback: (Late) Father Knows Best: Creative Anachronism Edition « Patriactionary

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s