“Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today’s warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children.” – Hillary Clinton
I had planned on using Hillary’s now infamous quote for an upcoming post outlining the distinction between women’s innate solipsism and an acculturated narcissism, but fate delivered me a much more profound use for this quote last week (we’ll get to that in part II).
Before I dig in here I feel it’s kind of incumbent upon me to point out that I in no way align with, nor endorse Hillary’s political or ideological perspectives, and I think it should go without saying that I diametrically disagree with her feminine-primary social agendas.
That said, if you ever need a better quote to explain the realities of feminine solipsism I think I’d be at a loss to give you one. A lot of men, even Red Pill aware men, have a hard time understanding how solipsism fits concretely into the feminine psyche. The social conditioning and upbringing that predisposes us towards an egalitarian equalist mindset rebels against thinking women and men would have different psychological firmware. Equalism teaches us to expect that men and women’s needs share mutual origins and our impulses are so similar that any difference is insignificant.
That egalitarian frame predisposes us to consider that ‘not all women are like that‘ or to disassociate the idea that men and women could be anything but functionally equal agents. As a result we get convenient distractions to confuse our looking for comparatives to should anyone (or thing) challenge an equalist answer.
Simply put, we get rationales like “Oh well, men do it too”, or worse, or any opposite comparison that leads us away from considering the truth that men and women are psychologically, biologically and sociologically different; with different motives and different strategies which they employ to meet their different imperatives. And often these imperatives are at odds with the best interests of the other sex.
The Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies:
For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed the other gender must compromise or abandon their own.
It is the fundamental differences in either sex’s imperatives, acculturation and biology that creates this conflict. Of course, men and women have come together for each other’s mutual benefit (and love, and enjoyment) to create families and sustain our race for millennia, however, this mutually beneficial union does not originate from mutual imperatives or sexual strategies.
When I explain how women hold an opportunistic concept of love, while men hold an idealistic one, the resistance to accept that observable, behavioral, reality is rooted in a blank-slate belief that men and women are fundamentally the same. So, when we read a statement from a woman (to say nothing of a high status one) such as Hillary’s, we either scoff at the oblivious audacity of it because it is so counter to our (male) imperative’s interests, or we nod in ascension in the feminized belief that what best serves the female imperative necessarily is the best interest of the male imperative.
This is an illustration of the fundamental difference in the interpretation of experience between the sexes.
From a solipsistically oblivious female perspective what Hillary is expounding on here is entirely true. From a perspective that prioritizes feminine Hypergamy above all else, these three sentences make perfect, pragmatic sense. The idea that men losing their lives in warfare would make them victims at all (much less the primary victims) isn’t even an afterthought; all that matters is the long term security and continued provisioning of women and their imperatives.
Solipsism, not Narcissism
A lot of newly Red Pill aware men get confused at my using the term ‘solipsism‘ when I refer to this female-specific obliviousness to any concern – or lesser prioritized concern – of anything outside their immediate existential needs. The confusion comes from men who want for a similar justice to the one I outlined in Our Sister’s Keeper. Self-importance or narcissism would seem to be a more appropriate term for this dynamic, but I disagree.
Female solipsism in and of itself is not necessarily a net negative in the larger scope of human survival and evolution. On the surface that may seem a bit outrageous, but it’s only outrageous insofar as women’s solipsistic natures come into conflict with the biological and social imperatives of men. This solipsism is the necessary result of a feminine survival instinct that’s helped preserve women and their offspring in a violent, chaotic and uncertain evolution.
Recognizing the importance of feminine solipsism is not an endorsement of the anti-social, and often cruel, byproducts of it.
No doubt, men who’ve been on the sharp end of this will grind their teeth at the inevitable narcissism that becomes an extension of women’s solipsism. I’ll agree. Socially we’re living in an era of unprecedented (western) narcissism manifested in a vast majority of women.
At no other time in history have women become more accustomed to perceived entitlements of personal security, ubiquitous social control and relative assurances of optimizing Hypergamous imperatives. At no other time have women’s sexual strategies been of such primary importance to society. However, this narcissism is the result of an acculturation and learned social priorities that predispose women to expectations that border on arrogance. Over recent generations that narcissism has become learned and fostered in women to the point that narcissism is openly embraced as a feminine strength – women believe it’s their due after a long suffrage.
Women’s solipsistic nature however is an integral part of their evolved psychological firmware. Solipsism is the evolved, selected-for result of self-preservation necessities that ensured the survival of our species. As men we get frustrated by this intrinsic nature; a nature that puts women’s imperatives as their primary mental point of origin. As any newly aware Red Pill man will attest, coming to this realization is a very hard truth to accept. It’s cruel and contrary to what the First Set of Books have taught him he should expect and build his life around.
Furthermore, it’s cruel in the respect that this solipsism neither aligns with the romantic, Blue Pill hopes he’s been raised to accept, but also the egalitarian, equal and level playing field ideology he’s been conditioned to believe he should alter his priorities to accommodate for women; and in turn he can expect from women. As I stated earlier, coming to terms with men and women’s differing concepts of love is a tough disillusionment, but this difference in concept is simply one of many a man must come to terms with.
When I wrote Empathy I got taken to task about women’s capacity to feel empathy to a greater degree than do men. It’s not that women cannot feel empathically (a shared experience), my argument was that the idea that women feel a ‘greater’ empathy than men was a social convention with the latent purpose of masking women’s innate solipsism.
That wasn’t a very popular idea. The notion that women are the mothers and nurturers was predictably spelled out, but with regards to empathizing and caring for men the primary concern of women was worry over their own and their children’s well being before that of their men should they become incapacitated. Again, this is a cruel truth, but also a pragmatic and survival based one.
Mental Point of Origin
Women’s mental point of origin begins with their own self-importance, and the overriding importance of their own and their offspring’s survival. I’ve had women readers lambast me that they couldn’t possibly be so influenced by solipsism because they put their children’s wellbeing before their own. However it is just this solipsism that predisposes women to seeing their children as extensions of themselves and their own identities. And the good news is that this dynamic is one reason the human species has been so successful.
The following was a comment from Starve the Beast on the TRP subredd:
Women are bad at reasoning, but good at rationalization.
Let that sink in for a minute. One cannot rationalize without the faculty for reason. So are women really bad at reasoning? No, actually they’re great at it.
The difference is that women don’t place as much value on Truth as they do upon self-preservation, and therefore their reasoning processes do not abort when self-contradiction is reached. They’ll just rationalize their way out of that too, if exposed.
Ultimately, the so-called hamster reflects an underlying difference in value systems more than in reasoning ability.
Women can learn to sublimate their solipsism. In fact, cultures and progressive societies have been founded on sublimating female solipsism. Women can and do learn critical thinking quite regularly. Women can learn and function within a society that forces them to compromise their sexual strategies and mitigates the worst abuses that solipsism would visit on men (and themselves). Women can learn to be empathetic towards men as well as live within a social order that looks like mutual justice and fairness.
But the fact that these civil dynamics should need to be something a woman learns only reinforces the biological and evolved influences of female solipsism as women’s mental point of origin. The parallel to this is men’s learning to sublimate intrinsic parts of themselves – primarily their sexuality – to reinforce prosocial interaction in society.
Women dislike the idea that their experience is colored by solipsism. It sounds bad, and it runs counter to what they believe are sacrifices on their own part to help others. That may be so, and I’m certainly not going to attempt to discount those investments, but they come from a learned compassion that must overcome an innate solipsism. That ‘me and my babies first’ mental point of origin isn’t necessarily a bad thing either – it’s only when that learned compassion and humility are superseded by it that anti-social behaviors and hubris arise.
I expect the predictable criticism will be that men are also self-important, and / or all humans are intrinsically selfish fucks. In part II I’ll elaborate more on this, but for now it’s important to grasp that female solipsistic nature is less about selfish individualism and more about pragmatic survival.
Many a male reader of my Hierarchies of Love series grated against the idea that a conventional model of love would progress from Men to women, women to children, children to puppies, etc. That model is a direct reflection of a uniquely female solipsism that seemingly discards men’s reciprocal emotional investment in women. However it is also the same dynamic that predisposes women to desire men who can decisively control their environment as well as dominate them sexually and emotionally.
In part II I’ll outline more examples of feminine solipsism, how it’s reflected on the individual and societal level and how a man might best use an understanding of it to his advantage.