Solipsism II

solipsism_II

A comment from Truman gets us started today:

Rollo, it would be great if you could provide some evidence for female solipsism beyond a few examples. From my own experience I could name a few solipsistic women, but I could do the same for men as well, and I’m far from convinced that the trait is universal in women, or even that it’s more prevalent in women than in men.

I will admit that the main reason I split this post into two was because I anticipated this example-seeking. And to their credit my more vocal female commenters didn’t disappoint me with (sometimes over the top) illustrations. If you haven’t had enough of the hamster spinning goodness yet feel free to sift through the comment thread from part one.

However, to begin to work out Truman’s request Voverk from the TRP forum had this example:

One of the most eye opening of the solipsistic world of females was when a plate of mine was giving me directions on where to pick her up. It went something like this:

Her: “When you come to that traffic light, turn over to me.”

Me: “What do you mean?”

Her: “Just turn here towards me.”

Me: “How the hell am I supposed to know which way is that? Left or right?”

Her: “I don’t know. Just turn my way”

She eventually gave directions, but it amazed me how hard it is for a woman to put herself in someone else’s shoes, even if she wants to.

Women’s mental point of origin (solipsism) presumes the entire world outside of her agrees with her imperative and mutually shares the importance and priorities of it.

Just like The Red Pill Lens, it takes a sensitivity to it, but you will begin to notice instances of that solipsism all around you if you pay attention. An equalists, feminine-primary upbringing and acculturation predisposes men to accept the manifestations of this solipsism as ‘normal’, so we blow it off or nod in agreement without really considering it. Most plugged-in Blue Pill men simply view this as a standard operating condition for women to such a degree that this solipsistic nature is pushed to the peripheries of their awareness.

It’s just how women are and women are more than happy to have men accept their solipsism as intrinsic to their nature. It’s excusable in the same sense that women hold a “woman’s prerogative” – she always reserves the right to change her mind. When your default is to accept this social imperative any greater inconsistencies fall into line behind it.

We are conditioned to accept that what best benefits women’s sexual strategy is necessarily what benefits men. On both a social and personal level women’s solipsistic importance presumes, by default, that what best serves themselves automatically best serves men – even when they refuse to acknowledge it. Remember, nothing outside the female existential imperative has any more significance than an individual women will allow it. So, perceptually to women, if a man suits a purpose in her self-primary requirements he must also mutually share in that awareness of his purpose. Thus, she maintains that his imperatives are the same as her own.

Societal Reinforcement

Social reinforcement of women’s solipsistic nature is a self-perpetuating cycle. A feminine-primary social order reflects in itself, and then sustains, female solipsism. For most Red Pill aware men this cycle is apparent in women’s overblown self-entitlements, but there’s far more to it than this.

When men accept and reinforce this socially, we feed and confirm women’s solipsistic natures. When men are steeped in a Blue Pill acceptance of what they believe should be men’s condition, and defend (or ’empower’) women’s solipsistic behaviors or manifestations of it, thats when the cycle of affirmation of this solipsism comes full circle.

Recently I called commenter InsanityBytes to the carpet about her first priority being to defend the Sisterhood when Dalrock published a post critical of a woman’s abortions and another who’d joined Ashley Madison then rationalized it away because she was in a loveless marriage with a man who was in his last days.

This is another instance of solipsism; that a woman’s first directive is to defend her sex’s imperatives even above considerations of religious conviction, marriage vows or espoused personal ideology. That’s the depth and breadth of feminine solipsism, and again, this reinforces a cycle of affirming it in women.

Communication

One of the easiest ways to identify women’s solipsistic nature is manifested in their communication style, and as fate would have it I received a fresh comment from a new female commenter on my interview with Niko Choski. I wont bore you with the histrionics of most of it, but her ending comments serve a purpose here:

I’m not lonely, I enjoy solitude…
I am a whole person who needs no other for my own completion.No man, no woman. The qualities identified by different cultures as male and female…are all mine.
Your obsession with division….iis absurd.

I’ve dug into women’s communication styles on more occasions than I can account on this blog, and with regard to how women defer to their solipsistic nature there is no better way to identify it than in the priorities they give to communicating with men and other women.

From Duplicity:

It’s endlessly entertaining (and predictable) to see how often women’s (and feminized men’s) default response to anything they disagree with in regards to gender dynamics is met with a personalization to the contrary. It’s always the “not-in-my-case” story about how their personal anecdotal, exceptional experience categorically proves a universal opposite. By order of degrees, women have a natural tendency for solipsism – any dynamic is interpreted in terms of how it applies to themselves first, and then the greater whole of humanity.

Men tend to draw upon the larger, rational, more empirical meta-observations whether they agree or not, but a woman will almost universally rely upon her isolated personal experience and cling to it as gospel. If it’s true for her, it’s true for everyone, and experience and data that contradict her self-estimations? Those have no bearing because ‘she’s’ not like that.

This personalization is the first order of any argument proffered by women just coming into an awareness of long standing conversations and discussion in the manosphere. It is so predictable it’s now cliché, and each woman’s first retort invariably responds with personalized anecdotes they think trumps any objective, observable evidence to the contrary.

It might be entertaining for Red Pill men to count the instances of personalization in a woman’s rebuttal comment, but it’s not about how many “I”s or “me”s a woman brings to any counterargument – it’s that her first inclination for a counterargument is to use her personal experience and expect it to be accepted as a valid, universal truth by whomever she is presenting it to.

I’s, Me’s and Myself’s are simply the vehicle and manifestation of women’s first directive – a solipsistic mental point of origin; any challenge to that self-importance is invalidated by her personal self-primacy. This mental origin is so automatic and ingrained to such a limbic degree that consideration of it is never an afterthought for her.

This is common to feminine communication preferences (and men who’ve been conditioned to opt into a feminine-primary communication mode). Women focus primarily on the context of the communication (how it makes them feel while communicating), while men focus primarily on the content (the importance of the information being communicated). This isn’t to exclude men from using personal experiences to help illustrate a point, but the intent comes from a different motive. That motive is an attempt to better understand the content and information of that issue, not an exercise in self-affirmation that feminine solipsism requires to preserve a woman’s ego-investments (usually her solipsistic mental point of origin).

The most visible manifestation of women’s rudimentary solipsism is the priority with which they expect their personal, existential, experience to be considered the most valid, legitimate and universal truth apparent in any debate.

Middle of the Story Syndrome

One thing I’ve been frustrated with by virtually every woman I’ve ever known in my life is their tendency to begin a conversation in the middle of a story; all the while expecting men to understand every nuance and be familiar with minute ‘feely’ detail that made up the backstory that’s never forthcoming.

I swear, every woman I’ve known has done this with me at some time. The presumption is that their story is of such importance that bothering with any pretext, or outlining and describing the events and information that led up to that mid-way vitally important element that made them feel a certain way is all that  should matter to a listener.

Women have an uncanny way of accepting this when they relate stories among themselves; gleaning incidental details of the backstory as the teller goes on.

There’s an ironic feminine-operative social convention that complains that “men aren’t good listeners” or “men don’t listen” to what women are telling them. This convention is really another manifestation of a solipsistic mindset with regard to communication.

It isn’t that men don’t listen, it’s that our communication styles focus on content information, not the contextual ‘feel’ of what’s being communicated by women. Women, above all else, hate to repeat themselves. Not because of the inconvenience, but because men ‘not listening’ and requiring a repetition of that information conflicts with her own self-primary solipsism.

The want for a ‘good listener’ is really the want for a man who affirms her self-priority by not needing to be told something that confirms that priority more than once. And this confirmation should never require explanation or and understanding of the backstory of events that made it feel important to her.

Women have an inherent pretext in communication that always begins with themselves. In fact, most are so sure of their solipsistic, personal truth that glaring objectivity never enters their minds; at least not initially. As I mentioned in the first installment, women are entirely capable of applying reason, rationality and pragmatism as well as men, it’s just that this isn’t their first mental order when confronted with a need for it. Just as a girl can be taught to throw an object as well as it comes naturally to a boy, a reasoned transcendence above her solipsism, one that considers the individuated existences of others’ experiences takes a learned effort.

Ladies First

Luxocrat had a great illustration as well:

I asked my ex that last month, if her kids came first or if I did. She paused and said “I really don’t know. That’s a hard one.” I replied “Then it’s your kids.” I recall my ex-wife reading one of those save your marriage books right after I made it clear I was leaving. She read me a line in it and said she sees how she was wrong. The line went something like this: “If you want to have a strong marriage, you need to understand your husband comes first, even before your children. They must be taught by you, their mother, that he is head of the household and respect must be given. The only way they’ll see that is by your demostrating by your actions that this is so.”

I still left though.

The irony in this instance is that for all of the humble deference this seemingly good advice promotes, it still presumes a woman is already the primary source of authority who ‘allows’ her husband to be “the man”. I’ve heard similar advice espoused by evangelical pastors making Pollyanna attempts at ‘granting headship’ to husbands and fathers from their reluctant wives. The inherent flaw is that these men already begin from a perspective that women are in a position of unquestioned primacy and require their permission to be ‘men’.

In a way they are unwittingly acknowledging women’s solipsism (and perpetuating the cycle) as a default source of authority. That a woman would need to be taught to defer authority to her husband belies two things; first, her solipsistic mental point of origin and second, that her man isn’t a man who inspires that deference.

It’s easy to see how a Beta man wouldn’t be someone that would naturally prompt a woman to go against her natural solipsism, but in Luxocrats position (I presume Alpha since he walked) there is a conflict women have to confront in themselves.

In a social order that reinforces the entitlements presumed by women’s solipsism there develops an internal conflict between the need for an optimized Hypergamy and the ego-investments a woman’s solipsism demands to preserve it. As a woman progresses towards the Wall and a lessened capacity to optimize both sides (AF/BB) of Hypergamy this conflict comes to a head. The necessities of long term provisioning war with the self-importance of solipsism at the risk of her losing out on preserving both (and having a guy like Luxocrat simply walk away from her).

 

756 comments

  1. “The inherent flaw is that these men already begin from a perspective that women are in a position of unquestioned primacy and require their permission to be ‘men’.”

    I grew up with a lot of this.

  2. Hah, here’s a good example of personalization to the contrary.

    I was recently at a friends birthday party. Everyone else there is married. I’m the only single one. Predictably, when I found myself at the hen table, I get one of the more pleasant girls asking me why I, with lots of “great qualities” was still single. I have a tendency to open up when people least expect it. I had had this question numerous times from these girls before, so I just opened the kimono and told them this story:

    https://therationalmale.com/2015/08/24/jails-churches/comment-page-4/#comment-116063

    They already knew my raised-in-cult background, but had little understanding of the restrict-your-sexual-nature abuse that was compounded onto me.

    Two very interesting things happened, within a minute of each other. The first was amazing. One of the girls, to my right, blurts out, “Well, not all women are like that,” in response to how my mother harmed me and this harm affected my ability to relate to women. Mind you, in my relating of the story, I made absolutely no judgement whatsoever on any woman, not my mother, not any of them. I was simply describing what happened to me and how it crippled my ability to socially relate to women… and this woman’s first thought was to simply defend the female turf. Her presumption was that my entire outlook on these events was about her and therefore she had to protect her own beliefs on women.

    I looked her straight in the eye and said, “I’m not making any judgements of women, not even of my own mother, I’m describing what happened and how it affected me.” The second thing that happened is that the older of the girls immediately started up with stories of her own past, juicy ones too about things her parents did to her as a child. She had to create a new topic immediately, even though the three of them had been extremely anxious to hear about me and why I was still single only a few minutes before that.

    They wouldn’t allow themselves to even stop and think that a man was harmed by the normal behavior of a woman. Their minds simply wouldn’t allow it.

    So, if you want to see women reverse course and abort any meaningful conversation with you as a man, bring up a story about yourself that makes you look vulnerable and isn’t flattering to womankind either.

  3. “I swear, every woman I’ve known has done this with me at some time. The presumption is that their story is of such importance that bothering with any pretext, or outlining and describing the events and information that led up to that mid-way vitally important element that made them feel a certain way is all that should matter to a listener.”

    I was doubting some of the words written until I started to recall an interaction with one of the girls I’m seeing that just happened tonight.

    She was telling me about some news reports she had been watching that weekend with her father:

    “So me and my dad were watching the news and there was something about an airplane and every single news channel we flipped to had it on. I was like, ‘this is news? Are things so slow that this is on every channel?’ And my dad was all like, ‘Yup. And they’re just going to keep talking about his shoes, or what color shirt he was wearing-”
    At this point I interrupted, “Wait, what? Who is he? What happened?”
    “Oh I don’t know, some airplane engine caught on fire or something. Anyway-”
    “Wait, what? What news story was this?”
    At this point she actually got annoyed at me and accused me of not listening to her.
    I just laughed at her and made a quip that she tittered and slapped me on the shoulder for.
    Same girl has told me that personal experience has as much value as statistically backed rational arguments.

    Fucking. Textbook.

  4. Anybody familiar with women saying “well it’s how I feel” or that a man is guilty of wrong doing because she felt uncomfortable, you experienced women’s solipsism.

  5. This was making rounds on FB:

    For a majority of women, their progeny comes first. Evolutionary speaking, it has to. Your last post covers this to an extent. A women’s solipsism aids in not only her self-preservation, but by some extension, that of her offspring as well. So while I get that some men feel angered or may grow embittered to this sudden realization, (the thought that a child will always be upheld higher) one must understand that this female condition transpired out of the chaotic and unpredictable environment our ancestors evolved in.

    Typically, males died off much earlier due to wars, changes in power, and the general expandability that came with being a man. Men were known to venture off into the unknown, sacrifice themselves for “the greater good” and perform heroic feats that would typically end their lives. This would often leave women fending for themselves and their progeny. Now that I think about it, this topic really ties into the War Brides theory as well.

  6. What’s also a popular one is “well if you understood how I feel than you’d agree with me”. And that could be as innocuous as talking about a movie you like. A man could be surprised at another man not liking a movie, based on what he knows about him or what other types of movies he likes. But he can accept it and enjoy a discussion about why.
    It’s often I’ve seen women get on the verge of upset if somebody doesn’t share the same opinion about something they really like.

  7. “well if you understood how I feel than you’d agree with me”

    That one is so fucking cheap. Of course you can understand her feelings. And once you feel what she feels to prove you can, you’ll agree with her and: bam! she got you.

  8. Men have to lead in a way thats pleasing to women, of course its like kissing if you have to ask you’ve already failed.

  9. “it still presumes a woman is already the primary source of authority who ‘allows’ her husband to be “the man”.

    This is immutably the case in The West. Why?

    Because “physical violence is the ultimate authority from which all other authority is derived”

    The state is at her beck and call, so it can only ever be a game of make believe. “Let’s see how it feels to let him play captain while I pay first mate, of course if it goes to his head I’ll take his children and have him jailed”

    The closest thing to an exception is a man who is alpha enough, and out of her league enough that she’d never be willing to detonate things. Few men are adequate to reach this status, of them few will escape blue pill indoctrination, of them few can maintain it for long.

  10. Another example of solipsism run amok – “If mama ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy.” Pretty self-centered to think that you – and you alone – reserve the right to make everyone around you miserable if things aren’t going your way.

    The good news is men have more influence than they think they do if they adopt the right mental frame. The bad news is I don’t see nearly enough men out there with the proper frame, which is part of the reason why women’s narcissism gets more widespread with each passing year.

  11. If I hear one more person regurgitate the “Happy wife – happy life” quote I think I will have to scream. So that’s it – our existence is just to labor to make sure that women are happy and just maybe they will throw us a bone and give us some attention. Rollo you were right – it’s dangerous to free a man’s mind after a certain age… I’m 46 – married for 19 years and could have been the poster child for the ultimate beta male hamster that ever existed. I did everything for her to constantly try to make her happy and yet ultimately failed. I know now that she lost respect for me and I have lost respect for myself. Now that I am aware of the nature of things – I can barely stand it. You have defined exactly what is going on between men and women and every single day I see it in action and honestly it makes me sick. My eyes are finally open and if hurts like hell. I can’t go back now and going forward is a bleak wasteland that on most days I hardly see worth the effort. The quality level of the women I have been interacting with combined with their feminine primary upbringing and society’s reinforcement of those beliefs is mind-boggling. It’s like having to deal with two-year olds with severe ADHD and an extra dash of pure narcissism. All this just for some sex? Really… half the time they aren’t even that good in bed. I now understand the MGTOW movement – The world is what it is – the game is what it is – we have to decide if the reward is really worth all of the effort. I don’t know if I want to thank you or choke you for opening my eyes… right now a little of both…

  12. “Happy wife – happy life”

    Partially true when you consider the burden of performance and all that. On the plus side most of making her happy is to be true to yourself as a man, and making yourself happy.

    I also believe that after you truly internalize all this red pill shit the burden of performance isn’t as much of an issue because you disappoint yourself with failure to perform more than anyone else.

  13. I can understand female solipsism. It’s how some men blindly indulge it that annoys me. This is a personal example, but the way nearly everyone involved reacts to it shows that female solipsism has been normalized and expected in modern society.

    An old friend of mine began dating someone a little over a year ago. My friend told me that she wants an “equal relationship”. I reserved my judgment, and observed how equal they were. My friend often takes her out and pays the bill for fancy restaurants and drinks on a weekly basis. He often buys and cooks dinner for her. Rarely, she will make simple appetizers for him and others, but only if he comes to the store with her and buys the groceries first. I should point out that my friend sometimes struggles to pay all his bills every month, where as she has built up savings into the 5 figures. He will often will act as free taxi, driving her back and forth to cities as much as 10 hours away. When we met up for dinner, she specifically requested that I make a time consuming meal for the group. I decided instead to make a similar meal to gauge her reaction. When she saw that what I made wasn’t exactly what she requested, she chastised my friend for not communicating the request properly, and refused to eat it.

    Recently, after he helped me move, I treated them to a nice dinner, breakfast, and drinks. Also recently, I treated them to a nice brunch. Not once has she reciprocated and offered to pay for the group, even for a round of drinks. The only time she offered to pay was to buy a cheap ice cream FOR HERSELF, and my friend ended up paying for it in the end. This is what it means when women say they want an equal relationship. They want all of the entitlements of male sacrifice, but they don’t want to be expected to reciprocate any effort at all. By offering to pay for things like a coffee or ice cream once in a blue moon, they can say “I’m not selfish. Remember when I offered to pay for x?” It’s getting to the point where I can’t even hang out with him anymore when she’s around. It’s bad enough watching my friend become her servant, but now she’s starting to make demands from me, fuck that. He’s become so indoctrinated that because I don’t serve the interests of the FI, he’s starting to paint me in a bad light to her so he can gain browny points with her. It’s completely undermined my trust with him and I’m questioning an old friendship because of it.

    My parents, friends, and family of the guy I’m talking about have all met this women. She has been described by all of them as nice, a real catch. In many ways I agree, and if he had more of a backbone, there wouldn’t be any issues. The fact that this relationship can be so one-sided, and still considered to be equal illustrates just how acceptable female solipsism has become in our society. If the roles were reversed, my friend would be described as an abusive and exploitative boyfriend. It’s not the personal example that matters, but the way the example is viewed by society.

  14. Another great example of how women communicate is on display every night on your local news. The stories always begin with some poor woman and how she is negatively affected by whatever it is the story is about. They may also drag a child into it for more “feels”. They almost never just give us the straight story without dragging us through the feels territory.

  15. I hear ya Mike Hawk. (awesome name)

    I swing between being sickened by it, and laughing about it. Hang in there man.

    My example of solipsism:

    My wife HATES Rollo because she read his essay on empathy. Says it is hate speech. Tried to shame his work to me with things like “who hurt him?” and such.

    “I just don’t understand these guys that hate on women. Regardless of what women did to them, they shouldn’t write stuff like Rollo does. They need to grow up. Like saying women can’t empathize with men! What kind of crap is that! Maybe he needs to be with better women! Is that the type of self help stuff you read??”

    So she says that she can empathize with men, while literally saying she can’t empathize with men. (threw a NAWALT in there as well!)

    3 years ago I wouldn’t of caught the contradiction.
    1-2 years ago I would of caught it and got very angry.

    Now? I just laughed at her. Which made her angry. Which made me laugh even harder.

  16. Tale from the Hypergamic Trenches.

    I start a new job. Job site has two female coworkers to me of slightly different SMV ; on day three Girl A (7) immediately runs aggressive mate guard tactics against Girl B (8) around me anytime Girl B talks with me . I recognize Girl B is just screwing around; no real IOIs, just some fun flirts and whatnot. She owns the office social pool and knows it. I like money, so my zipper only opens at the urinal .

    Girl A has made no move to socially escalate with me , and being that she’s married and makes more money then me such escalation is very unlikel according to the Rules of Hypergamy .

    The woman has no reason to give a crap about who I flirt with ; indeed shed be better off if I was banging another coworker, as that would be a better social opportunity for Girl A to advance in the organization at my expense with zero effort or impact on her own affairs. If she wants a Stud boy toy there’s literally thousands of Alpha men in the city who’d gladly plow her and not have the complication of working next to her daily.

    Yet anytime another female even says hello to me in her presence….the jealousy claws come out and she vigorously mate guards me like she’s my fiancee and I’m an NBA point guard to other women in the office.

    We haven’t done so much as a f**king lunch date, to say nothing about boning or dating. Proof positive that female Sophilism knows no limits. Think about it men-how fast would we all be locked up for assault and psychological problems if we knocked out the first dude who checked out the building hottie because “she’s my girl !” – oh and we haven’t even asked her out get.

  17. @ Mike Hawk

    No, its not all about laboring to make women happy. And no its not just to get some sex.

    Red pill awareness is a starting point for you to become a better person. Someone you respect. If you can make it through triage and want to be a self respecting guy who is better at being a man that you were for the last twenty years, there is hope. A lot of hope, in fact.

    With enlightened self interest you can regain self respect and have others including women want to be with you because they want to be with you.
    I take it from your post that you are not still married? How long have you have you known red pill and possibly decided to swallow it?. It takes time. Like 18 to 24 months after a prolonged marriage of 19 years to make a turn around in your mindset.

    Really nothing is different with the world with you having had a new found awareness and no it is not a wasteland out there. The usual manosphere instructions (take better care of yourself physically–lift weights, exercise, control vices like alcohol and smoking– and for gods sake raise your testosterone naturally, enlighten yourself mentally and have an interest in and build a skill level of “Game”) is not for nothing.

    Red pill awareness and game is a starting point for you to make yourself into someone you and others can respect down the road. And one that gives you the tools to leverage your own current skills, gifts and intellect to find your true purpose in life and have true power: Rollo Tomassi: “Real Power is the degree to which a person has control over their own circumstances. Real Power is the degree to which we control the directions of our lives.”.

    If you need help, ask for it. You can easily get, but find difficult to employ, practical knowledge and skills to live a masculine life of integrity, authenticity and freedom. You can do it. (Don’t you see idiots around you doing it all the time?)

    My father in law was an artist and on one occasion I decided to paint a water color picture of our (wife and I’s) first bungalow house. I took a picture and then projected the house onto a watercolor paper pad with a photographic enlarger to get a pencil sketch of the the outline of the house and proper prospective. Then I proceeded to paint with watercolors.
    My father in law–as an artist–endorsed the idea. He said “why draw freehand when you can copy”.

    In that vein, someone said better than I can say the following:

    Stop Hoping for a Completion of Anything in Life

    “Most men make the error of thinking that one day it will be done. They think, “If I can work enough, then one day I could rest.” Or, “One day my woman will understand something and then she will stop complaining.” Or, “I’m only doing this now so that one day I can do what I really want with my life.” The masculine error is to think that eventually things will be different in some fundamental way. They won’t. It never ends. As long as life continues, the creative challenge is to tussle, play, and make love with the present moment while giving your unique gift.”

    It’s never going to be over, so stop waiting for the good stuff. As of now, spend a minimum of one hour a day doing whatever you are waiting to do until your finances are more secure, or until the children have grown and left home, or until you have finished your obligations and you feel free to do what you really want to do. Don’t wait any longer. Don’t believe in the myth of “one day when everything will be different.” Do what you love to do, what you are waiting to do, what you’ve been born to do, now.

    Spend at least one hour a day doing whatever you simply love to do—what you deeply feel you need to do, in your heart—in spite of the daily duties that seem to constrain you. However, be forewarned: you may discover that you don’t, or can’t, do it; that, in fact, your fantasy of your future life is simply a fantasy.

    Most postponements are excuses for a lack of creative discipline. Limited money and family obligations have never stopped a man who really wanted to do something, although they provide excuses for a man who is not really up to the creative challenge in the first place. Find out today whether you are willing to do what it takes to give your gift fully. As a first step, spend at least an hour today giving your fullest gift, whatever that is for today, so that when you go to sleep at night you know you couldn’t have lived your day with more courage, creativity, and giving.

    In addition to the myth that one day your life will be fundamentally different, you may believe, and hope, that one day your woman will be fundamentally different. Don’t wait. Assume she’s going to be however she is, forever. If your woman’s behavior or mood is truly intolerable to you, you should leave her, and don’t look back (since you cannot change her). However, if you find her behavior or mood is merely distasteful or a hassle, realize that she will always seem this way: The feminine always seems chaotic and complicated from the perspective of the masculine.

    The next time you notice yourself trying to fix your woman so that she will no longer (fill in the blank), relax and give her love by touching her and telling her that you love her when she is this way (whatever you filled in the blank with). Embrace her, or wrestle with her, or scream and yell for the heck of it, but make no effort to bring an end to that which pisses you off. Practice love instead of trying to bring an end to the quality that bothers you. You can’t escape the tussle with the feminine. Learn to find humor in the unending emotional drama the feminine seems to enjoy so much. The love that you magnify may realign her behavior, but your effort to fix her and your frustration never will.

    The world and your woman will always present you with unforeseen challenges. You are either living fully, giving your gift in the midst of those challenges, even today, or you are waiting for an imaginary future which will never come. Men who have lived significant lives are men who never waited: not for money, security, ease, or women. Feel what you want to give most as a gift, to your woman and to the world, and do what you can to give it today. Every moment waited is a moment wasted, and each wasted moment degrades your clarity of purpose. ” (Chapter 1 of The Way of the Superior Man by David Deida.)

    And:
    Law 10 of the 48 Laws of power:

    Infection: Avoid the Unhappy and Unlucky

    You can die from someone else’s misery – emotional states are as infectious as disease. You may feel you are helping the drowning man but you are only precipitating your own disaster.The unfortunate sometimes draw misfortune on themselves; they will also draw it on you.
    Associate with the happy and fortunate instead.

    And from Illimitable Man, the principles of Game (adapted from the Beige Philip show):

    “#07 – If anything goes wrong it’s always your fault (because she’s a reflection of you.)

    Anything that happens in a relationship that goes bad with your woman, if your woman’s a bitch, if she’s disrespectful, if she cheats on you, if she leaves you, if she takes your money – it’s your fault. The way she treats you is down to the presentation you give her. There’s no such thing as victims, just volunteers.”

    Mike Hawk, welcome here.

    I hope you feel like you are worth it and make it through triage.

    Even if the onus and burden of performance is on you, you are doing it for yourself not for others.

  18. @pilot
    September 9th, 2015 at 9:20 am

    Good point about modern journalism. Another reason not to watch modern television, news and reality based shows. I need to find a way to pry my wife away from the boob tube.

  19. Guy – I really like your example. The way I see it is that is a “normal” equal relationship nowadays – in fact the woman there probably thinks the man is getting a better deal. The reason is due to the normal laws of supply and demand and economics. Scarcity and availability dictate the value of a commodity. Bottom line is that women hold a 100% monopoly on the world’s supply of pussy. They can control it’s availability as well as it’s going price.
    Everything that your friend does for her – buying dinner/drinks, cooking, taxi service has very little actual value because she is fully capable of doing these things for herself. His actions are mere tokens and if he stopped doing them she would either do them herself or find someone else to do them.
    She however provides him access to the all-powerful vagina. This is the one thing that a man cannot do for himself. We are at their mercy. Therefore the value of that access is extremely high. Way beyond the value of the things that he does for her. In her eyes he should consider himself lucky that she doesn’t ask for more… and she probably will over time.

  20. Thanks for starting with my comment Rollo, I appreciate it, although the post is still fairly short on real examples!

    Voverk’s one is a good one, I actually had a similar experience once, with a girl who told me to go “that way” when she was sitting behind me in the car and I couldn’t look back. When I laughed and asked “which way”, she just said “that way” again! But she was about 13 or 14 and not the brightest bulb in the box, so I won’t put too much weight on that.

    If InsanityBytes’ “first priority [is] to defend the Sisterhood”, hardly sounds like solipsism, she’s thinking of half of humanity rather than just herself.

    Women’s “tendency to begin a conversation in the middle of a story… I swear, every woman I’ve known has done this with me at some time”

    Not me. I’ve probably seen it a handful of times in my life, especially from my mother, but it’s extremely rare in my experience.

    Luxocrat’s example also isn’t really solipsism. Authority, or even the presumption of authority, are not the same as solipsism.

    Finally, in your reply to my post on the original thread, you mentioned Sun’s comment:
    https://therationalmale.com/2015/09/02/solipsism-i/#comment-116752
    OK, somewhat solipsistic, the girl realises women shouldn’t wait until they’re 30 for marriage, it doesn’t occur to her that things could be different for men. But then, rather a lot of men seem to think that women do or should think like men, and can’t understand why talking in logical, rational terms gets a bad reaction from a woman who’s talking about something emotional.

    Having said all that, I’ve thought about it some more since leaving the comment you quoted, and I’m starting to think there’s something to the idea of female solipsism. I find it plausible at least that there’s a greater tendency to solipsism in women than in men. For example, feminists thinking that we live in an oppressive patriarchy could be explained by them seeing only their own problems, and having no empathy with or understanding of men’s problems. However, that applies only to feminists; there are several women in my social circles to whom it does not apply at all.

    I also know a woman who thinks that in a relationship you should just be free to express whatever emotion you’re feeling at that moment, no matter how hysterical and no matter the consequences, and the partner should simply accept it. I guess that could be seen as a form of solipsism, and I certainly can’t imagine a man thinking that way. On the other hand, I only heard about this from another woman, who was shocked and thought her friend’s opinion was ridiculous.

    “A Definite Beta Guy” asked me on the comments to the other thread for examples of male solipsism. I can only speak from my own experience, but I can think of one guy I know off the top of my head who is overly paranoid that others are talking about him behind his back, when they’re not. Admittedly, that guy is gay, and I could name a couple of women like this as well. Another example, I find men are much more likely than women to drift away from and forget about their old friends when they move to a new city or country, even in cases where they say they would much prefer to stay in touch. You can argue about whether that’s really solipsism, but I think it’s more solipsistic than some of Rollo’s examples in women.

  21. “Recently I called commenter InsanityBytes to the carpet about her first priority being to defend the Sisterhood when Dalrock published a post critical of a woman’s abortions and another who’d joined Ashley Madison then rationalized it away because she was in a loveless marriage with a man who was in his last days.”

    With all due respect Tomassi, I complained about Dalrock’s unforgiveness and condemnation of a now locked up child murderer, because that kind of attitude is bad for the hearts of the men who are promoting it. The woman in prison suffers nothing from their mean little words, as Christians they do.

    In the Ashley Madison case, a scandal that involved primarily men, I certainly did not defend the woman Dalrock spotlighted, but once again spoke about the importance of grace and redemption. Women aren’t the ones blowing their heads off in that scandal, men are.

  22. Anybody familiar with women saying “well it’s how I feel” or that a man is guilty of wrong doing because she felt uncomfortable

    Or because she says she felt uncomfortable. Da Hamster told her she felt uncomfortable.

    A broad told me she didn’t need to express gratitude and thanks for something I did for her (teaching her some dancing) because she felt uncomfortable doing something she doesn’t do with other men (being alone with them and learning dance moves). She did this twice and wanted to do it a third time. And she said this in the very same place where we practiced dancing–which place she herself had suggested for our chat.

    Of course, the real reason that she felt “uncomfortable” is because she had wanted me to make a move and I didn’t, heh.

    Behold the power of the Hamster. And see the solipsistic nature of women. Women don’t need to be thankful for something a man has done for their benefit because the Hamster told them they felt uncomfortable.

  23. “She however provides him access to the all-powerful vagina. This is the one thing that a man cannot do for himself. We are at their mercy. Therefore the value of that access is extremely high. Way beyond the value of the things that he does for her.”

    Luckily that’s not how women see it, or at least not necessarily see it. Their view of the value of these things depends on how you see that value and how you act from that. If the man thinks her pussy is high value and offers a lot to get it, she will think her pussy is high value and demand even more. If he offers all his services for free she will think his offerings are low value because he does give them so willingly.
    If on the other hand he thinks her pussy isn’t special at all because the girl from last week was hotter, and he treats her like shit because of it, she will think he is high value and offer her pussy easily. If his services for her are scarce and he never has time to do these things for her, she will think his help is high value and give back something so she can hope to get some more in the future. As Illimitable Men says in his very clear and poetic way: “Women are machiavellian as the water is wet.”

  24. @Insanity

    Oh thank heavens you have arrived. I had these horrible visions of women using men like mules, calling the cops for frivolous reasons, and stealing their children to use as perpetual hostages.

    Thank the goddess you have arrived to lead me back to the fold. Every woman is a sacred princess who must be obeyed. Oh thank you, your royal highness, allow me to subjugate myself before your presence.

  25. “One of my favorite sci/fi guys once did a post about “Women as Parasite” that made me think of intestinal worms. Do it again dude and I will flatten your boxes, set them on fire, and sweep the ashes out the door.
    He wasn’t entirely wrong however, women are a bit like orchids clinging to a decaying log.”

    Wow.

    Changed from “women are parasites” to women are beautiful orchids growing on a “decaying log”.

    That is a spin for the hamster world series.

    Did you really threaten to flatten his brain with your feminine charms?

    (true femininity is intoxicating, I’ll give you that. But that ain’t you sista)

    Also, I love how your entire post starts by referencing work a man did.

  26. “One thing I’ve been frustrated with by virtually every woman I’ve ever known in my life is their tendency to begin a conversation in the middle of a story….”

    This is a perpetual state of affairs with my wife. She simply expects me to decode which one of the three active threads she has switched to in the moment. This of course includes a thread I have no knowledge of even existing. I of course am also responsible for simultaneously developing any required context to make the story sensical in the slightest.

    As noted she gets snippy if I ask her to back up and or render some more detail to the whole thing so I can get on board with what the fuck she is talking about.

    In a parallel scheme I also find the following to be true when dealing with children and women. I will ask a very specific question, the question is always asked in such a way that the answer, the logical answer, can only be binary, yes or no, true or false and so on. Invariably I get a tangential answer from them, some soliloquy about something or other that of course has to do with her personal experience, her attempt to reframe the conversation but never a simple yes or no. If I am feeling impatient I will reframe the conversation, “Sweetheart, the question was XXXX there is only two possible answers, either yes or no, which is it? Is it YES or is it NO?

    Then again we’ll go into the subroutine of a 90 degree deflection from a seemingly impossibly simple ask. In some cases it’s a shit test, in others it is absolutely solipsism. They simply cannot comprehend the question or the perspective that would render some kind of simple binary answer to that question.

    If I am feeling generous I will facilitate the answer delicately to ensure that her perspective has been heard. If I am impatient I will shake my head, walk away, and ask the nearest tree the same question knowing I’m more likely to get a logical answer.

    In both cases, starting in the middle, or going tangential to a simple choice you can always see the same deer in the headlights confused look on their faces about why “he” didn’t get it. Or the WTF are you asking me look. When I see that look I know it’s time to take a deep breath and consider what I am dealing with.

    Of course if I am wise I spend a moment to deduce the medium is the message, what is the Meta she is communicating here? Oh I see, you cannot answer yes or no to “do you want to go swimming?” because first we need to explore your body image issues for today, of course we don’t say that we orbit that while talking about what bathing suits are available for use currently or possibly in the future based on what you saw in a magazine last week. While we’re in orbit around that we should comprehend the nature of our friendship with Lucy, will she be at the pool, I feel guilty because I didn’t message her back last week about that thing and she’s probably judging me for that (Because I sure as shit judge her all day long). If Jane is there she’ll provide friendly cover fire for me but I’m not sure I can handle her talking about HER kids again, fuck if I hear about HER kids one more time I’ll smack that bitch, oh but you know I did do my nails today so I could show them off but I’m hungry, Oh and lets ride bikes……………

    Never mind

  27. Mark Gungor’s trite characterization of the male brain is a feeble attempt at humor. And your essay about this concept and how a woman’s brain works is a solipsistic and feeble attempt to make sense of a woman’s lack of ability to control her uncontrollable emotions and lack of rational thinking.

    A man’s “empty box” really derives from his primal nature and search for freedom. (i.e. a moment of La Petit Mort)

    “The essential masculine ecstasy is in the moment of release from constraint. This could occur when facing death and living through it, succeeding in (and thus being released from) your purpose, and in competition (which is ritual threat of death). The masculine is always seeking release from constraint into freedom. The feminine often doesn’t understand these masculine ways and needs. ” (Guess Who?)

  28. @agent p

    “This is a perpetual state of affairs with my wife. She simply expects me to decode which one of the three active threads she has switched to in the moment. This of course includes a thread I have no knowledge of even existing. I of course am also responsible for simultaneously developing any required context to make the story sensical in the slightest.

    As noted she gets snippy if I ask her to back up and or render some more detail to the whole thing so I can get on board with what the fuck she is talking about.”

    I cosign that.

  29. @Truman

    Women’s “tendency to begin a conversation in the middle of a story… I swear, every woman I’ve known has done this with me at some time”

    Not me. I’ve probably seen it a handful of times in my life, especially from my mother, but it’s extremely rare in my experience.

    You should probably think a little harder on this. I’ll bet you’ll find more examples in your life. Just this week, the new secretary in our group has interrupted a conversation I was having three times in as many days with the presumption that I was already up to speed on the conversation she was having with someone else. She literally just started talking over me and tried to include me in the conversation she was having as if I were paying attention all along. On the third try of this I finally just gestured to her and said, “Please wait” (in front of other people), and she stopped.

    Women who feel comfortable around you tend to get on this thought process that because you’re now familiar, then you’re somehow on the same wavelength they are all the time. This is a common female presumption because it works in female-to-female communication. I recall a few times as a youth in a youth church athletic program sitting in the back of a large van listening to the (female) cheerleaders behind me conversing. About 80-90% of the time they were speaking in shorthand, leaving details to the listener and flying along at a ridiculous pace. The value of their conversation was in the emotions conveyed between them, not the details explored. All of the stuff I would consider important was left unspoken. It was literally dizzying as a young male to try to comprehend, many times it came across as gibberish. Male communication is very different. It is data-based so it presumes much less and demands much more detail and background.

    However, that applies only to feminists; there are several women in my social circles to whom it does not apply at all.

    I’ve not found a woman this did not apply to in some fashion. My mother, for instance, finds empathy w.r.t. the effects of her own behavior on her kids a challenge. She can’t, or won’t (easily) see past her own actions and see what it’s doing to her kids. She doesn’t mean harm, she’s not intentionally malicious. She’s just wrapped up in her own bubble; A bubble in which she builds a desired perception of how her kids are doing and goes from there.

    Another example, I find men are much more likely than women to drift away from and forget about their old friends when they move to a new city or country, even in cases where they say they would much prefer to stay in touch.

    How is that solipsistic? If I’m in a new environment that no longer includes a longtime friend, then I am forced to deal with what is not what I want to be. Being solipsistic in that situation would be to cling to experiences and friends from the past to the point of not living the life I have now chosen.

    Are your summer camp friends supposed to last a lifetime? Or is it supposed to be a shared experience that you move on from? Is it solipsistic to move on when the environment dictates that that is the healthy move? I don’t think so.

  30. @ sjf – Thanks for the reply and the welcome here! We split up about six months ago – our relationship had died many years before that. I’m definitely in the anger phase of the acceptance process and believe it could easily take years to fully recover – if ever… I’m doing my best to keep my sanity – trying to take care of myself and make myself happy – but for the most part don’t even know how to do that. I was an only child and I grew up without any positive male role models. My mom controlled the marriage and my dad split when I was ten. Then it was my responsibility to make her happy (and it still is to this day). Couple that with all the bullshit feminine primary programming from schools and society and a 19yr beta marriage – I’m definitely behind the 8 ball here. If I can pull this off I will definitely be the comeback kid…lol

    @Andy – that post on the desire dynamic hurt me to my soul… That is exactly how our marriage ended – we went that route and just as the post illustrated – it didn’t work

    @agent P – OMG you nailed it! It’s like trying to reason and talk logically to a 2yr old with ADHD

  31. The neuro architecture of a habit, particularly a bad habit is remarkably similar across bad habits. For example, habits such as alcohol & drug abuse dependency, gambling, addiction to porn, shopaholics, binge eating, ect. And therefore, fissures and cracks anchored to a “disease model” pushed by traditional Western medicine (NIH, counselors, psych-docs, big pharma, and industry wrapped around disease model such as insurance, treatment centers) have a lot at stake if renegade docs such as Mark Lewis keep the focus on habit architecture as a complex behavioral manifestation rather than cellular and or brain defects. To be sure, there is some interesting biology going on in bad habit formation.

    I bring this up because poster Marc above made a good point about solipsism leaning towards progeny (posterity maybe a better word) as an evolutionary adaptation. The female’s self-indulgent metal POV, the “now appeal” (“how do you feel”?, “It’s what I feel right now”, short-term thinking vs. downrange benefits) does not easily cross-walk with Men’s communicating style of reason, risk taking, sacrifice, rationality pre-frontal cortex executive functioning posterity. If the female brain’s adaptive feature and posterity is to protect offspring because of the chaotic, unpredictable and uncertain world having a more evolved limbic system, than the mental POV or solipsistic thinking (totally unconscious?) makes sense.

    It’s only through the Red Pill lens that we see, as Rollo rightly nails, the acculturation of the pervasive FI and primacy. A feedback loop that the Red Pill metaphor is breaking down and tearing to shreds. To me, that’s one of the biggest take-way’s from this and on-going discussion. And, a difficult concept to jettison, but a necessary one if we wish to have successful outcomes with the opposite sex

  32. @SJF: “Good point about modern journalism. Another reason not to watch modern television, news and reality based shows. I need to find a way to pry my wife away from the boob tube.”

    Your instinct here is correct. We stopped watching television in my home in January 2014. The increase in peace in the home and positive change in my wife has been remarkable. I cannot recommend this enough. After three weeks, you won’t miss it. In six months, you’ll be annoyed when stuck in a waiting room playing CNN.

  33. “Happy wife – happy life”

    True in its way but you can’t make your wife happy in order to get a happy life.

    On the other hand if you’re red pill aware or at least red pill acting, and you have a happy life, odds are, your wife stands a good shot at being happy.

    She will not know why she is happy.

  34. A cat in an apartment views all rooms,furniture, and stuff as it is owning it. Actually the cat believes the family is also part of the flat, which belongs to the cat. Totally self centric animal. Ancient Egypt had a cat goddess. Female body and cat head.
    They were wise …

  35. “This is a perpetual state of affairs with my wife. She simply expects me to decode which one of the three active threads she has switched to in the moment. This of course includes a thread I have no knowledge of even existing. I of course am also responsible for simultaneously developing any required context to make the story sensical in the slightest.”

    Be careful with that. You could actually connect to her so well you’ll understand without asking and it may be easier in the long run. But in doing so you’ll hand her some frame and maybe that’s why she tries. They draw you down to their level of “short-circuit fault (to use Insanity’s model)” and then beat you by experience.
    You should find something to punish her in a funny way. Her getting angry is a shit-test, or a failed shit-test already.

  36. We’re at a conference table with attorneys discussing a settlement.

    Her: We agreed I would stay home and raise the kids.

    Me: We also agreed “until death do us part.”

    Her: That’s different. I’m wasn’t happy.

    Me: I’m not happy you want $8k a month for 12 years.

    Her: We agreed I would stay home. Since I haven’t worked, I can’t get a job.

    Me: You had a job when I married you.

    Her: I raised the children.

    Me: WE raised the children and for the last 9 years you haven’t had to do much. You could’ve become a brain surgeon in that time.

    Her: I don’t want to be a brain surgeon.

    Me: I don’t want to pay alimony.

    Her: You have to, it’s the law.

    Me: You cheated on me.

    Her: I told you I wasn’t happy.

    Me: I guess that makes it okay then.

    Her Attorney: Let’s move on.

  37. @Caveclown “(true femininity is intoxicating, I’ll give you that..But that ain’t you sista)”

    True femininity is like pornography, you know it when you see it.

    Can’t help smiling every time I see that.

  38. The female’s self-indulgent metal POV, the “now appeal” (“how do you feel”?, “It’s what I feel right now”, short-term thinking vs. downrange benefits)

    The same thought occurred to me. It seems that solipsism is not just “me” as opposed “us”. But also “now” as opposed to “future.”

  39. @entropyismygod.

    As if we can judge the Ancient Egyptians on the matter of gynocentric behavior.

    In any event ,women have told me point blank all they care about are their kids-unborn or otherwise – and themselves. In that order. Us males may as well be biological furniture for all they care about us.

    It may seem drastic , but women do NOT view us as human. To execute the tenets of Hypergamy they frankly can’t afford to.
    Much like how cops have to dehumanize their jobs or risk being psychological basket cases, to fulfill the occasionally immoral tenets of maximizing her reproductive options a woman cannot be burdened by morality or empathy for males. This is the disconnect so many feminists refer to when evaluating “The Patriarchy as a negative “. Theyre referring to having to pretend to care about a man they view as a soulless appliance exclusively intended for her use alone.

    Picture the only way ahead for you in life being that you not only have to drive a Toyota Prius for the rest of your life, but you also have to pretend to love and cherish it in front of Society until the day you die :even though you REALLY want a speed yellow Corvette ZR1.

    Even Chad Thunderdick can’t escape this- he’s simply a more fascinating and coveted brand of designer male appliance then the boring, store bought provider male. No matter what letter of the Greek alphabet a man attaches to himself, he shares the same rank among all women-an appliance. Whether he’s considered an exciting or boring one is up to him.

  40. @Mike Hawk

    My eyes are finally open and if hurts like hell. I can’t go back now and going forward is a bleak wasteland that on most days I hardly see worth the effort.

    It’s not as bleak once your eyes get adjusted to reality. It just seems that way at first because the ideal that exists in the male mind based on what the matrix feeds you is actually impossible. It doesn’t mean that you can’t live happily.

    Stay in the pool a while, you’ll be beating off the sharks in no time.

  41. that post on the desire dynamic hurt me to my soul… That is exactly how our marriage ended – we went that route and just as the post illustrated – it didn’t work

    Sorry man, so fucked up that this is common marriage advice. It should be a crime.

  42. @ Mike Hawk

    You’re on the right track. I would recommend to read through as much of therationalmale.com as possible. It is a great resource in helping you understand how you have been conditioned throughout your life. I think a good thing to focus on is improving yourself and learning to live for your own enjoyment. It may be difficult to live for yourself at first, but when you start to feel guilty about it, remind yourself of everything you’ve done for the people who demand your sacrifice, and think about if they’ve reciprocated your good will. If they haven’t, then they are taking you for granted, and it should be easier for you to resist their demands. Anger is a natural emotion after learning you’ve been sold a lie and taken advantage of for most of your life. Eventually though you have to overcome it, otherwise your happiness will suffer. If I had to go through my journey all over again, my main focus would be on overcoming my insecurities and learning to respect myself.

    The thing that probably helped me the most starting out was getting into weight lifting. When I started seeing results, I felt more attractive, and I gained a better self image. My posture improved, and the increased testosterone made a tremendous impact on my sense of well being and my self respect. I stopped slouching, kept my head high, and my shoulders back. I started walking with swagger, and nearly everyone started treating me better which created a positive feedback loop. It only takes 30 minutes 3 times a week, and it’s something every man can do. You can probably find a barbell and some adjustable dumbbells for under $200, and they should last a lifetime.

  43. @Jeremy

    You should probably think a little harder on this. I’ll bet you’ll find more examples in your life.

    I’m sceptical, but I’ll watch out for it. If I find some examples, I’ll try to post them here or in the next related thread!

    I’ve not found a woman this did not apply to in some fashion.

    A few examples from my own life are:
    – a woman who is distressed about her brother’s suffering violence at the hands of his girlfriend, and the courts’ taking the side of the girlfriend. The other women who were in the group as she told the story were also sympathetic.
    – a woman who remarked that she always thought it must be difficult to be a guy, as guys always have to approach girls rather than vice versa.
    – a woman who is happy for me that I’m now engaging in multiple STRs, and understands it’s what I need after coming out of an LTR.

    These are far from what you would call “red-pill women”, the first two would probably identify as feminist in the vague way that most people do nowadays, and the third is a fairly hard-core radical feminist.

    Another example, I find men are much more likely than women to drift away from and forget about their old friends when they move to a new city or country, even in cases where they say they would much prefer to stay in touch.

    How is that solipsistic?

    Because it’s engagement only with the world that’s immediately in front of you, and forgetting about things that were previously part of your life. As I said, you can argue about that one, but do you agree that some of Rollo’s examples (IB defending women as a whole, women’s presumption of authority in a relationship, see my prev post) are also not solipsistic?

    Are your summer camp friends supposed to last a lifetime?

    Depends on whether you want them to. Remember, I specified “even in cases where they say they would much prefer to stay in touch”. Personally, I’m very happy to still have some good friends I met when I was 21, 18 and 12 (I’m now 33).

  44. @Jeremy

    “It’s not as bleak once your eyes get adjusted to reality. It just seems that way at first because the ideal that exists in the male mind based on what the matrix feeds you is actually impossible. It doesn’t mean that you can’t live happily.”

    Life is a grind stone. You can place your trust in the illusion of the feminine primary goddess worshiping blue pill and be crushed under the weight and grinding of the stone.

    Or you can accept the painful truth of reality, the brutality of the red pill, turn yourself and let that stone sharpen you. It can bring you to become a deadly weapon, a shiv of truth, a dagger to thrust into the bosom of lies and liars.

  45. @Troberts

    “The neuro architecture of a habit, particularly a bad habit is remarkably similar across bad habits. For example, habits such as alcohol & drug abuse dependency, gambling, addiction to porn, shopaholics, binge eating, ect. And therefore, fissures and cracks anchored to a “disease model” pushed by traditional Western medicine (NIH, counselors, psych-docs, big pharma, and industry wrapped around disease model such as insurance, treatment centers) have a lot at stake if renegade docs such as Mark Lewis keep the focus on habit architecture as a complex behavioral manifestation rather than cellular and or brain defects. To be sure, there is some interesting biology going on in bad habit formation.”

    I just was turned on to Mark Lewis’ book the Biology of Desire: Why Addiction Is Not a Disease (which was just published July 15th of this year) by another commentator here on TRM. That was just six weeks ago. And it’s insights helped me climb on to a higher plane in my life in a very shot time frame.

    It is a remarkably good read for anyone currently stuck in a “loop” of bad habits. And it speaks to the neuro-plasticity of the human mind that can indeed change tremendously by breaking out of those loops by engaging in dopamine friendly pursuits like Red Pill awarenes and Game. Men boosting their testosterone naturally, weightlifting, having a passionate pursuit (any passionate pursuit at all) and chasing pussy/getting laid with the least effort possible are well aware of this neuro-plasticity. Change through breaking bad habit loops is well worth the effort through collective knowledge (The Manosphere) for the frustrated man.

    The Blue Pill (and one-itis, per se) is a bad habit. An addiction per se. It can be overcome without one being powerless over it (disease model).

    From Marc Lewis’ book:

    “A FRESH LOOK AT THE BRAIN

    Yet among the opponents of the disease model, no one has fought fire with fire and tackled its neuroscientific foundations. Like the general public, most of those arguing against the disease model assume that “brain change” automatically implies a disease process; then they change the subject. Others tune out (or get mad) when the brain is even mentioned in regard to addiction, because they assume that a neuroscientific description will somehow replace a more psychological or humanistic perspective, rather than complement it. It’s as if students of addiction have to choose: either admit that the brain is a really important organ, in which case addiction is a brain disease, or put the brain back in the closet, in which case you can go on talking about choice, environmental factors, social anthropology, and all the rest of it. In his most recent book, Stanton Peele, a longtime opponent of the disease model, gives his readers a stark choice: either accept addiction as a brain disease, in which case addicts are powerless to fight it, or recognize that addiction is a personal, self-defeating habit. Peele wants to reject the fatalism inherent both in the disease model and in some AA rhetoric. With this I concur. But we don’t have to reject neuroscience or AA to do that. In fact, a fresh look at the brain can help.

    First, though, we have to remove brain science from the arena of medical politics and connect it back to its natural partners, psychology and personal experience. That won’t be easy. In a 2013 journal article, Satel and Lilienfeld echo Peele’s challenge: “The brain disease model implies erroneously that the brain is necessarily the most important and useful level of analysis for understanding and treating addiction.” These authors are right to encourage multiple levels of analysis in our attempts to understand addiction. But must we step away from the brain in order to accept addiction as a complex human problem? Must we throw out the brain with the bathwater? As a neuroscientist, I find this impossible. I see the brain as fundamental to our humanity—and as fundamental to addiction. Whether we construe addiction as a disease, a choice, a complex sociocultural process, self-medication, or a string of bad-hair days, we only have one brain, and it’s central to everything we do, everything we are. So a very important question is simply this: what does the brain do in addiction?

    But before trying to answer that question, we need to understand how brains change normally. In fact, brains are supposed to change. Brain change—or neuroplasticity—is the fundamental mechanism by which infants grow into toddlers, who grow into children, who grow into adults, who continue to grow. Brain change underlies the transformations in thinking and feeling that characterize early adolescence. In fact, developmental neuroscientists estimate that “as many as 30,000 synapses may be lost per second over the entire cortex during the pubertal/adolescent period.” Brain change is necessary for language acquisition and impulse control in early childhood, and for learning to drive a car, play a musical instrument, or appreciate opera later in life. Brain change underlies religious conversion, becoming a parent, and, not surprisingly, falling in love. Brains have to change for learning to take place. Without physical changes in brain matter, learning is impossible. Synapses appear and self-perpetuate or weaken and disappear in everyday learning. Learning alters the communication patterns between brain regions and builds unique configurations of synapses (synaptic networks) that house knowledge, skill, and memory itself. The connection between learning and brain change has been studied for more than a hundred years: it was reasonably well understood by the 1940s, and the search for specific cellular mechanisms continues today. Whether repairing the damage caused by a minor stroke or altering emotional processes in the wake of trauma, neuroplasticity is at the top of the brain’s resumé.

    To repeat: proponents of the disease model argue that addiction changes the brain. And they’re right. It does. But the brain changes anyway, at every level: gene expression, cell density, the concentration and location of synapses and their fibres, even the size and shape of the cortex itself. Of course, neuroscientists who subscribe to the disease model must know that brains change with learning and development. So they must view the brain change that accompanies addiction as extreme or pathological. In fact, they would have to show exactly that in order to be convincing. They would have to show that the kind (or extent or location) of brain change characteristic of addiction is nothing like what we see in normal learning and development, or even in the more extreme transitions people go through when they fall in love or have children. But that’s where they step onto thin ice. The kind of brain changes seen in addiction also show up when people become absorbed in a sport, join a political movement, or become obsessed with their sweetheart or their kids. The brain contains only a few major traffic routes for goal seeking. Like the main streets of a busy city, the same routes get dug up and paved over time and time again, no matter who’s in charge.

    Brain disease may be a useful metaphor for how addiction seems, but it’s not a sensible explanation for how addiction works.”

    Sure that was long-winded. But it was just an introduction to an explanation that can show how men can indeed break the cycle, the loop, and the spinning the wheels when stuck in a Blue Pill, Feminine Impaired (..Heh, I made that up…) society. And it starts with branching out of the bad habit cycle and having desire drive other dopaminergic avenues to masculine self-improvement instead of the same old things that are keeping any one man in his ruts. It is hard and it takes time, but it is worth the pursuit.

    (Men) Stop hoping for a completion of anything in life.

  46. And “Balls of Wire and Little Boxes” could have easily been written by a 5 year old. In fact I’m pretty sure it was plagiarized from a 5 year old.

  47. In an earlier thread I asked how we differentiate true Solipsism from simple self-centeredness or selfishness or Narcissism or even cluelessness. I am still trying to do so.

    Truman questions some of the examples others give, and while I might not agree with all of them I think we should clarify what we mean. A dictionary definition is this:

    1. Philosophy. the theory that only the self exists, or can be proved to exist.

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

    Both pivot on what we are talking about, but it’s not quite there.

    The solipsism we are talking about is a fusion of the two, no?

    Women seem to have the ‘philosophy’ of it hard-wired so it is second nature, not learned, and it is so integral to a woman’s BIOS that the ‘egoistic self-absorption’ is automatic and literally immune to logic, facts and fair play without some considerable effort to break through.

    Basically, is the solipsism we are talking about not a ‘preoccupation’ with one feelings and desires (‘yeah…Jimmy is having a tough time but so am I and it is some much harder for me because I really am sensitive…’), but a literal lack of empathy for anyone else’s feelings or desires. In a sense, it would resemble sociopathy or psychopathy, and I am not making judgements with those terms, but an observation.

    A sociopath can make extremely logical decisions devoid of emotionalism, morals, decency, etc.

    One example is having to make the decision to push one fat man into a runway trolly car to keep it from hitting a gas tank and killing the 6 people on board. Most people would hesitate, but if given the order to save the most people, the sociopath would not even hesitate to push.

    To transfer to the example to woman’s solipsism, her happiness is the trolley car full of people…whatever it takes to save it, will be done, with no hesitation or remorse?

  48. in addition to starting conversations in the middle,

    I also believe that women LIVE in the middle. The old quote in As God as it Gets. I imagine a man and take away reason and accountability. That statement is a good indication.

    Women always tell me “oh I have time”, “I am young”, “I’m exploring”. yada yada. If they have “the rest of their lives” to make the big bucks and be in the big house then there is no accountability on their life’s progress.

    This is why the late 30s and 40s are so traumatic for females.

    They start to realize that there IS indeed a set of mile markers on the highway that they can’t ignore anymore.

  49. My experience with women’s solipsism is:

    She was about to give me a BJ when she started talking about how she can defeat ISIL / ISIS , I had to agree with her.

  50. @lh
    “Be careful with that. You could actually connect to her so well you’ll understand without asking and it may be easier in the long run. But in doing so you’ll hand her some frame and maybe that’s why she tries. They draw you down to their level of “short-circuit fault (to use Insanity’s model)” and then beat you by experience.
    You should find something to punish her in a funny way. Her getting angry is a shit-test, or a failed shit-test already.”

    Duly noted however, you presume that I actually care about the answer in the first place. Likewise you presume that I care if she gets angry…

  51. Laugh I nearly sh@
    Me: Where is it? (destination)
    Her: What? It’s The (licensed premises/entertainment/pet vet/hospital etc.)
    Me: Quite. Do you have a postcode, a street address or something, for the satnav?
    Her: Why? That always slows things down. It’s a waste of time! You’re fucking iautistic! Just hurry up for God’s sake! Snuffles is dying!!/We’re late!! (because she decided to have a bath at the exact time the reservation/or appointment was made for lol)
    etc. etc.

    and if I ever get near
    Me: Where do you want dropped?/Where’s the turnoff?
    Her: There. There!! For Christ’s sake what’s wrong with you!?!???
    Me: I can’t see you in the back seat there, pointing is futile. If I look round, we’ll experience a horrible fiery death. Use words, like “Left”, “Right”, “Straight On” or “Stop”
    Her: There! There!!! You drove past on purpose! You bastard! etc. etc.
    Me: Sure I did. Get the bus next time.

    “Middle of the story” all right. I’ve tried often to explain that I don’t have a radio implant in my brain, so am selfishly unaware of EverySingleThoughtTheyHaveEverHad(In Both Its Completely Opposing Versions), and indeed am ignorant of ThingsThatHappenedWhenIWasNotPresent. For example, people they knew in their childhood, or the rude checkout girl six weeks back.
    Howls of Indignation. “That’s because you’re not listening to meeee!

    I now know that women simply lack boundaries, in that they completely reject the concept of an inconvenient physical gap between their brain, and everybody else’s brain, like the Borg. If they’re thinking it, so should you. You insensitive swines!

  52. … is the solipsism we are talking about not a ‘preoccupation’ with one feelings and desires (‘yeah…Jimmy is having a tough time but so am I and it is some much harder for me because I really am sensitive…’), but a literal lack of empathy for anyone else’s feelings or desires. In a sense, it would resemble sociopathy or psychopathy, and I am not making judgements with those terms, but an observation.

    I think a distinction needs to be made between women’s inherent solipsistic mental point of origin and a learned self-important societally reinforced narcissism.

    Women’s solipsistic nature isn’t intrinsically evil nor is it always self-serving. It’s important to remember that this solipsism is the evolutionary result of necessary self-preservation measure for women over millennia.

    When I wrote War Brides it was an effort to explain the evolutionary causes for why women could dissociate themselves so quickly from a (Beta) lover after a break up:

    https://therationalmale.com/2011/10/03/war-brides/

    “Evolution has largely selected-for human females with a capacity to form psychological schemas that preserve an ego-investment that would otherwise afflict them with debilitating anxiety, guilt, and the stresses that result from being continuously, consciously aware of their own behavioral incongruities. Evolution selects-for solipsistic women who are blissfully unaware of their solipsism.”

    […]Given the harsh realities that women had to endure since the paleolithic era, it served them better to psychologically evolve a sense of self that was more resilient to the brutal changes she could expect be subjected to. Consider the emotional investment a woman needs to put into mothering a child that could be taken away or killed at a moment’s notice. Anxiety, fear, guilt, insecurity are all very debilitating emotions, however it’s women’s innate psychology that makes them more durable to these stresses. Statistically, men have far greater difficulty in coping with psychological trauma (think PTSD) than women. Why should that be?

    On the face of it you may think that men’s better ability to rationally remove themselves from the emotional would make them better at coping with psychological trauma, but the reverse is actually the case. Women seem to have a better ability to accept emotional sacrifice and move on, either ignoring those stresses or blocking them entirely from their conscious awareness. Women possessing a more pronounced empathic capacity undoubtedly served our species in nurturing young and understanding tribal social dynamics, however it was also a liability with regards to a hostile change in her environment. Stockholm Syndrome is far more pronounced in female captives (the story of Jaycee Duguard comes to mind), why should that be? Because women’s peripheral environment dictated the need to develop psychological mechanisms to help them survive. It was the women who could make that emotional disconnect when the circumstances necessitated it who survived and lived to breed when their tribe was decimated by a superior force. This is also known as the War Bride dynamic; women develop an empathy with their conquerors by necessity.

    Men are the disposable sex, women, the preserved sex. Men would simply die in favor of a superior aggressor, but women would be reserved for breeding. So it served a feminine imperative to evolve an ability to cut former emotional ties more readily (in favor of her new captor) and focus on a more self-important psychology – solipsism.

    Like Hypergamy, women’s solipsism is a pragmatic, species-beneficial adaptation that’s preserved us for long time now. Neither is intrinsically bad or good, but only so in their applications.

  53. One thing I considered covering in this post (but will save for a future post) is the relatively new social convention of women complaining that any time a man provides a rational, well-reasoned challenge to women’s solipsism is “Mansplaining”.

    This is a deductive response when a woman’s ‘feelings’ and self-primary experience crashes into cold empirically evident logic – dismiss and disqualify men’s experience with shame.

    Ego-investment dictates that an attack on an invested belief is equitable with an attack on the person, no matter how incontrovertible the evidence that challenges that belief. So the logical recourse for women is to poison the well and question the motives of the man putting forth that evidence.

    Ergo, the challenge is disqualified because, ‘Mansplaining’.

  54. I think a distinction needs to be made between women’s inherent solipsistic mental point of origin and a learned self-important societally reinforced narcissism.

    Ok, glad I asked, because I think they can easily get tangled up with one another. I can understand how solipsism could help feed into the narcissism, but they are separate.

    And to be clear I was not making value judgements on woman’s solipsism using the sociopath examples, but just trying to understand the mindset.

    Let me offer an example of I think solipsism and let others be the judge. I might have mentioned this story before so forgive me.

    For a number of years my wife wanted a budget for buying gifts for each other at Christmas. She state she wanted to cap it at $250 each year, and would bring it up to “keep our expenses in line”. She is normally very budget conscious and this was a recurring theme.

    Good, sound fiscal judgement one would say, although I found it slightly annoying because we certainly could afford more and I just didn’t like be limited. But, although I found it slightly annoying I didn’t really care because shopping for her can be difficult and honestly, I don’t need a lot of new shit. We would argue you about it for a bit and I would say, “fine”.

    Then comes the year she decides she wants a Tablet. She says it is the only thing she wants, but the price tag?

    $500 or so.

    “Woah,” I say, “What about our yearly budget?”

    She then got annoyed that I brought that up, and was further annoyed that I suggested that gifts for that year for me should equal roughly the same amount.

    What I think made it true solipsism is that she (and my wife is NOT a ditz) just couldn’t see the incongruity in her actions and attitudes. It was like ruleset A was in place until she wanted something that they did not allow, and then suddenly ruleset B was pulled out, and she could not understand why I would object.

    I was less annoyed than fascinated by the whole interaction. It was pretty illustrative.

  55. @SD
    September 9th, 2015 at 11:45 am

    “Us males may as well be biological furniture for all they care about us.”

    “Even Chad Thunderdick can’t escape this- he’s simply a more fascinating and coveted brand of designer male appliance then the boring, store bought provider male. No matter what letter of the Greek alphabet a man attaches to himself, he shares the same rank among all women-an appliance.”

    I tend to disagree.

    Forge the Sky and Rollo said it better that I can here:

    https://therationalmale.com/2015/02/24/the-invisibles/

    My wife and her five cats view me as a human on occasion. When I make myself visible. Other times she stares at birds.

  56. @SJF, @Mike Hawk

    And it speaks to the neuro-plasticity of the human mind that can indeed change tremendously by breaking out of those loops by engaging in dopamine friendly pursuits like Red Pill awarenes and Game.

    Along the same lines. I don’t think I’ve ever seen The Law of Attraction or Neuro Linguistic Programming ever mentioned on this site. I highly recommend looking into them. Basically “you are what you think you are” Call it neuro-plasticity, call it the placebo effect. It just doesn’t matter because the truth is it works. A great way to jump start yourself into the right frame of mind.

  57. Something Jon and I were discussing a bit earlier was that the Alpha Sigma divide becomes even clearer when it comes to female self-awareness vs solipsism.

    The short form:

    As Alphas are more sociable and keep broad harems of plates or girlfriends, they are more willing to overlook the lesser faults of a single woman in favour of the quality she adds to his life. He doesn’t need one woman to be self-aware, to know that she is replaceable, to understand the transactions of the relationship. As long as he has someone for everything, he’s happy to tolerate some misbehaviour. All girls are welcome.

    However Sigmas are less sociable and keep booty calls and plates, with one or two (if any) wives or girlfriends. They do much of what they need on their own and will not keep a female around if she isn’t the best. Even a minor fault is a good enough reason to swap her. Therefore, she must be self-aware, understand relationship transactions, fight her instincts and strive to provide value to his life. Otherwise she’s demoted or gone.

    Extroversion in Alphas makes them more prone to casual, expanded dating and more forgiving of faults. Introversion in Sigmas makes them more reluctant to share their time out and stricter about their standards.

  58. @Superslaivswife

    Your own personal solipsism in your comment is shockingly clear. What you are saying is that all men not Alphas or Sigmas are garbage, worthy of slavery and death.

    The truth of all women laid bare.

  59. Heh, just got down as far as Truman and agent p’s comments. So it’s not just me being an arse, then?

  60. @Truman

    These are far from what you would call “red-pill women”, the first two would probably identify as feminist in the vague way that most people do nowadays, and the third is a fairly hard-core radical feminist.

    The third example must be tossed out as STRs are basically described as healthy for everyone by feminist ideology. She’s just repeating feminist boilerplate in her discussion with you. As for your second example, some women actually grow up with fathers that hold them to account. Those women learn empathy from dad and don’t so automatically regard the male experience as nonexistent and indistinct. This says nothing about whether or not their default situation is living within their own bubble. A woman who is distressed about her brother’s situation isn’t exactly a shining example. In that case her male family member is already suffering significant legal consequences from another female before she recognizes the problem. That doesn’t speak well for her ability to see past her own world.

    How is that solipsistic?

    Because it’s engagement only with the world that’s immediately in front of you, and forgetting about things that were previously part of your life.

    No, I think that pretty clearly falls outside of the definition of solipsistic. If I’m grounded in reality I am engaging in the world according to my own senses. That’s about all anyone can ask for. Solipsism actually rejects input from the senses, and outright refuses to use imagination to interpret the world through other peoples eyes, preferring instead to rely on a chosen and rather personal interpretation of the world.

  61. @Seraph, All:

    I think it should be pointed out that solipsism doesn’t preclude men’s benefiting from it. If a man serves a woman’s existential experience she’s more than happy to include his existence into part or all of her own.

    Feminine solipsism is about a woman’s mental point of origin (herself and by extension womankind), not necessarily the specifics of how she applies it.

  62. “Most people would hesitate, but if given the order to save the most people, the sociopath would not even hesitate to push.”
    Like fuck he would. Those idiots chose to get on the car, they can take their chances. Why should he even lift a finger, never mind commit murder, just to save some unwary fools? Only White Knights and despots undertake that kind of “Greater Good” calculation. Fuckem and the car they rode in on.
    Me and the fat guy are going to search for the tatters of their wallets, and have a damn good drinking session to clear the fumes and meaty smoke smells.

  63. “I think it should be pointed out that solipsism doesn’t preclude men’s benefiting from it. If a man serves a woman’s existential experience she’s more than happy to include his existence into part or all of her own.
    Feminine solipsism is about a woman’s mental point of origin (herself and by extension womankind), not necessarily the specifics of how she applies it.”

    And it’s all “unconscious” on women’s parts, no? Like a nice guy having his mental point of origin on someone else or external validation or whatever, it’s not on purpose. So she does not even realize that she is including a man in her solipsism, she just “likes” or “loves” or “tingles” for him, right?

  64. “I think a distinction needs to be made between women’s inherent solipsistic mental point of origin and a learned self-important societally reinforced narcissism.”

    Solipsism is the hardware and narcissism is the software?

    When i raise my fist to the heavens and curse the gods for the way women are, I think I am actually frustrated with the narcissism, not the solipsism?

  65. @Seraph

    A sociopath can make extremely logical decisions devoid of emotionalism, morals, decency, etc.

    One example is having to make the decision to push one fat man into a runway trolly car to keep it from hitting a gas tank and killing the 6 people on board. Most people would hesitate, but if given the order to save the most people, the sociopath would not even hesitate to push.

    Not quite accurate. A sociopath simply feels no social pressure to behave in a default ethical/moral way. The decision happens just as easily for anyone else, it’s just that non-sociopaths put significant value on how other people value them. This leads them to question their standing with other people if they make the wrong decision, which leads to hesitation.

    Also, it’s worth noting that modern psychology is revealing that sociopaths are actually not a rarity in the human population. In fact it’s likely that most people fall on a gradient from empathetic to cold-as-ice, and the population it turns out is more of a bell curve along that gradient.

    So go feel warm and fuzzy because you probably already associate with 1-5 sociopaths (depending on size of your social circle) in your daily life. What’s really f-ed up is when you realize that the human population probably has a genuine need to have such people in it.

  66. Rollo – “…women’s solipsism is a pragmatic, species-beneficial adaptation that’s preserved us for long time now. Neither is intrinsically bad or good, but only so in their applications.”

    The judgement of “bad or good” comes from the preponderance of experience. Observable female solipsism is mostly of the bad sort and the easiest to take note of. I assume there is an observable good sort, but am at loss to come up any examples.

    So I am forced to extrapolate and say the good sort does not necessarily have a benefit for any individual man, but rather benefits mankind biologically. The bad sort must impact individual men because otherwise there would not be any biological benefit. It’s a case of the good of mankind outweighs the bad inflicted on any individual.

  67. @Badpainter

    I assume there is an observable good sort, but am at loss to come up any examples.

    I was presuming the cave-man example of the woman running away at the first sign of a saber-toothed tiger and letting the man die for her was the good sort. Yes, the man died, and 150,000 years ago, that would have been me… but the species survived. The good part of the solipsism is that it served the purpose of keeping women alive in a hostile environment without masses of white knights to keep them safe.

  68. On a limbic level, yes. There’s very little reason for a woman’s hindbrain (or a man’s) to expend the mental effort in questioning why a round peg fits in a round hole.

    https://therationalmale.com/2014/11/14/mental-point-of-origin/

    Another consideration is contrasting women’s instinctual mental point of origin (solipsism) with men’s conditioned mental point of origin.

    When I wrote this post it was an effort in deconstructing how men are taught to sublimate what might be their own instinctual MPO to ostensibly make them more socially pliable (selfless Betas).

    In contrast, women’s solipsistic, instinctual MPO is entertained and empowered. That MPO is founded in unconditioned hindbrain solipsism.

    This is a primary reason men need to unlearn their own MPO (as I outline in that post) and why teaching women prosocial ways of controlling solipsism is offensive to women on the surface.

  69. In regards to the proverb “Happy wife, happy life.”

    What I find is true is my own proverb, “Chasing wife, happy life.” In other words, if your wife is chasing you, you will have a happy life as much as your wife is able to make it so.

    To get your wife chasing you, you must have options to make yourself sexually attractive to her. This means you will make use of preselection–the fact that other women find you attractive. You must also cultivate a frame of mind that is mostly aloof and amused by women and in control of yourself–amused mastery.

    From this frame of amused mastery: Flirt early, flirt often…with your wife…with female cashiers…with women you happen to run into…etc. You.must.have.options, especially if you’re married or in a LTR.

  70. Rollo – “If a man serves a woman’s existential experience she’s more than happy to include his existence into part or all of her own.”

    And this is the origin of Happy Wife = Happy Life.

    Except where it all goes wrong is some shocking number of men thought they could by intent and design serve a woman’s existential experience such that they could earn the benefit of her including his existence in her own.

  71. @ Jeremy

    Yes I think that is the extent of the observable good of solipsism: a man dies.

    What I can’t imagine is an example of “good” that is a positive for a living man, but I can write all day anecdotes of various degrees of “bad” that don’t require death, and don’t benefit any man individually or collectively.

  72. What I can’t imagine is an example of “good” that is a positive for a living man,

    What about Truman’s example?

    a woman who is distressed about her brother’s suffering violence at the hands of his girlfriend, and the courts’ taking the side of the girlfriend. The other women who were in the group as she told the story were also sympathetic.

    Tell those women the same exact story from the perspective of the girlfriend, and they’ll empathize with the girlfriend instead of the sister. But that doesn’t mean that the brother isn’t benefiting at that moment.

  73. @ Andy

    So it’s not much of a benefit is it? Like a finding a quarter on the street; it’s better than a kick in the balls, but not much better than if it never happened.

  74. So it’s not much of a benefit is it?

    Their empathy doesn’t mean much to you because you know that it is situational – but that doesn’t mean that it is not a real feeling that they are experiencing that you could take advantage of.

  75. “Ergo, the challenge is disqualified because, ‘Mansplaining’.”

    No, No, No Rollo! At this point I have to totally disagree. A women accusing a man of “mansplaining” actually wants to say: “Don’t make those sexy moves. You’re aren’t sexy/high value enough to pull it off.” It’s like a man making degrading comments about a women in not enough of a dress without the figure to wear it.

  76. @Andy, true story: When my brother in law hung himself over his impending divorce with my wife’s sister, it was less than 3 months before she announced she was marrying her millionaire concrete mogul boyfriend she’d “met in a church group”.

    The truth was she’d met the guy about 3-4 moths before she decided to divorce her husband of 20 years, who’d done the right thing at 19 and married her after he’d knocked her up with their first child.

    Part of my Red Pill awakening happened when I explained this to some coworker women I worked with at the time and ALL of them took the side of my sister-in-law marrying the millionaire. Their rationale was that she had moved on from her barely in the ground husband and I should be happy for her.

    I could go into more detail, but essentially these women took the side of a woman they had never met, had no prior knowledge of or had any idea of what her character was like. They were adamant and got offended that I was ‘judgmental’ about her very obvious plan, and a man was dead because of it.

  77. Again, I think Truman’s example is poor. The woman only did anything when the law got involved? Sounds to me like their ability to perceive the pains of their own blood (brother) is sketchy at best since they only recognized the problem when it became violent and legally messy for him.

    A woman who actually uses her imagination to empathize and perceive harm to a man would actively use her greater powers of social perception to detect threats to men in her life. She would challenge women who posed such a threat before they became a problem. That did not happen in that case… so as far as I’m concerned, yeah, that guy’s sister lived in her own bubble until cuffs get thrown on her brother.

  78. @lh

    A women accusing a man of “mansplaining” actually wants to say: “Don’t make those sexy moves. You’re aren’t sexy/high value enough to pull it off.” It’s like a man making degrading comments about a women in not enough of a dress without the figure to wear it.

    I actually don’t see a contradiction between this and what Rollo said. Rollo was explaining women attempting to impose their value system on male reasoning with facts and evidence. Women disqualifying it because it doesn’t fit their value system is pretty much exactly what Rollo was explaining.

    Unless I’m reading between the lines, you just repeated what Rollo said, but from a feminine point of view.

  79. The woman only did anything when the law got involved? Sounds to me like their ability to perceive the pains of their own blood (brother) is sketchy at best since they only recognized the problem when it became violent and legally messy for him.

    Maybe I’m misunderstanding Truman’s point, but IMO the solipsism is the sister’s friends. They aren’t empathizing with the brother. They aren’t putting themselves in the brother’s shoes. They are putting themselves in the sister’s shoes. If that happened to their brother they would be sorry.

    @Rollo, truly fucked up. Do you think their reaction would be different if you were a woman (say your brother in law’s mother) telling that story to the same women? If I’m understanding solipsism correctly it would.

  80. @ Andy

    And how is the “situational empathy” of the sister’s friends a benefit? Is that empathy for the man or for his sister? So no I see no real benefit to it, I must admit I see no downside to it either.

    “Situational Empathy” strikes me as having about as much value as “Opportunistic Love.” Very little.

  81. @entropyismygod

    I concur.

    Opening eyes is depressing.

    If you had asked me what a shit test was a few months ago, I would have guessed it’s when you are leisurely walking down the road minding your business then you come to some pile of shit. Then you taste some. Just a little, you know, just to see how that goes… Shit test right there.

    Shit test! Aha! So that is what all that has been about all along? All that shit? Ya. Shit test. They cant think of a better way?

    But it helps to open the eyes because then you can relate to someone who tells you, “When you come to the traffic light, turn towards me.” She is not pulling a fast one. She is just being her honest self.

    Reminds me of a woman friend from the west that I mentioned the falling marriage rate statistic to (I live in Africa). She quipped back, “Just before I left home to come here, I attended my daughter’s wedding.”

    [So my daughter got married, I witnessed it, and so people are getting married, fuck the statistics…]

  82. @cheupez

    Choose to be the knife, stab the queen of lies.

    A pop song made for those with the intellect of 12 year olds sings “why does love have to be a battle field?”

    The answer is because hypergamy is never good. It cannot be satisfied, it is a black hole, un-fillable. A bottomless pit, ever hungering, an addiction. There is no such thing as a good amount of heroin addiction, you can’t use “enough” heroin to be satisfied. You can’t recreationally use Heroin.

    Love is a battlefield because women are addicted to hypergamy. I was blind but now I see.

    A battlefield is much more fun when you can fire back.

  83. And how is the “situational empathy” of the sister’s friends a benefit?

    You might be able to exploit your understanding of it. You want a female to understand something. Instead of explaining from your perspective, pretend like you are explaining it from some other female’s perspective. Like instead of “I think” yadda yadda yadda. Maybe try “My mom/sister/girlfriend thinks” yadda yadda yadda

  84. @Andy,

    I thought Truman was making the point that the fact that any woman had any sympathetic thoughts towards the situation was (partial?) proof that women are not all inherently solipsistic. To me that’s just a reach at best. The point from Rollo as I understand it is that women start from the perception of themselves, always. They operate under frankly a more socially capitalistic point of view, where every woman is out for herself. They instinctively expect that men operate this was as well. This is not the case. Men had whatever feelings they had like this bred or trained out of them as their role through history was one of self-sacrifice and pro-active action on behalf of the weaker members of a community. You can’t do your job as a protector and provider if you can’t empathize with or inherently value the lives of others above momentary risks to yourself.

    These roles protected the baby factories through history, which are extremely important in population growth and long-term evolution and survival of the DNA that makes us.

    Women sympathizing with each other about the pain the women feel about the situation another family member is in hardly qualifies as not being solipsistic. In fact, in my mind, it only further demonstrates a fem-centric view.

    Women sympathizing with a brother who now has a criminal record due to a violent and crazy woman is a poor example at best, imo. This is because it demonstrates an extreme lack of time spent thinking about the situation of your blood relatives around you. It just demonstrates that these women didn’t give two spits about how insane the woman their brother married was until it turned to shit on him, even though those women could have probably more easily perceived something amiss with her, and warned her blood brother. Instead, the sisterhood was protected from slander/harm, and the man paid the price.

  85. Rollo,
    “Part of my Red Pill awakening happened when I explained this to some coworker women I worked with at the time and ALL of them took the side of my sister-in-law marrying the millionaire. Their rationale was that she had moved on from her barely in the ground husband and I should be happy for her.”

    Insanitybytes,
    Your say?
    How about a two point of views ! , one from Dr. Jekyll and one from Mr. Hyde?

  86. “I actually don’t see a contradiction between this and what Rollo said. Rollo was explaining women attempting to impose their value system on male reasoning with facts and evidence. Women disqualifying it because it doesn’t fit their value system is pretty much exactly what Rollo was explaining.

    Unless I’m reading between the lines, you just repeated what Rollo said, but from a feminine point of view.”

    You may be right. But I think it’s important not to cry foul but to play that game. As I said a while back already, apart from the manosphere those radical feminists are the only ones talking about masculinity, you just have to do the opposite of what they say they want.

    “Mansplaining” was for me personally one of the cornerstones of my way to the Red Pill. Before finding the manosphere I had some long affair with a married women who was dark triad hardcore hypergamous, most people where afraid of her sooner or later, but who was for some reason very easy and natural to game for me without even knowing what game is. I don’t take shit from anyone, especially not women, never did and so I wasn’t afraid at all but enjoyed pushing buttons and taking what happened. I knew already something was wrong with the Blue Pill there, but only from playing with this women I understood what it was.

    Anyway, she absolutely loved when I broke into her high-speed babbling:

    “Stop, you little kacknoob (=shit-noob) don’t understand anything.”
    Big eyes.
    “I’m gonna explain it to you.”
    Gleaming eyes, smiling.
    “Look,… [a few seconds break]”
    Sparkling eyes, mouth open, all wet.
    And then I used to apply logic, theory, abstraction to her personal problems and she was very grateful for it.

    So when I heard about the accusation “mansplaining”, I realized I’m like the king of mansplaining (several women have confirmed it to me) and never ever was I accused of mansplaining, they always liked it? Since then when some RadFem accuses men of anything, I usually think: “Thanks for the hint!”

  87. @Rollo,

    One thing I considered covering in this post (but will save for a future post) is the relatively new social convention of women complaining that any time a man provides a rational, well-reasoned challenge to women’s solipsism is “Mansplaining”.

    Glad you mentioned that in regards to larger social trends because I could not help thinking that the current hysteria about the college rape hoax and positive consent seems like solipsism. In fact, it might be a pretty strong example of it.

    While I think there are certainly other societal and political forces pushing positive consent and its ilk, it seems solipsism is a major factor/enabler of it.

    Basically, it boils down to however a woman feels about a sexual interaction NOW is what matters, no matter how she felt at the time or what actually transpired. She decides she no longer feels good about what happened, she can turn around a declare it an assault, irregardless to how she or the man behaved prior and during the encounter.

    Her solipsism She not only changes the reality of what happened, but she literally has NO compassion, empathy or guilt for destroying someone’s life. She only knows how she is now unhappy about it and she has the right for redress.

  88. The amount of examples I see in my daily life of female solipsism, is unreal.

    As I described in last weeks comment section – I had two girls, one primarily more then the other, literally hate mob me because I pretended like I didn’t know one of them. BTW – I made it very well known I was kidding.

    This one chicks motive for borderline yelling at me outside of the bar – I ignored her and approached another girl. That’s it.

    Do she know me? No. We’ve been around one another (mutual friends) three times and let me stress the word “around”, not even at the same table at the bar.

    Have I even had a conversation with her that lasted more then 30 secs? No.

    Would I even consider her an associate? No.

    BBBUUUUUTTTT, because society tells her to follow her feels, she is 100% OK with verbally destroying a person (my awesome self), she doesn’t know because “I wronged her”.

    Seriously, like I posted last week, she started her “I want your dick, please notice me” hate mobbing by saying “Look at you!! Look at the way you smoke your cigarette, even!!” Pathetic? Oh yes. Solipsism? Even more.

    The other girl you may ask? Whom I don’t even know her name, called me “pretentious”. It was awesome (lol), thanks for conforming the attitude I’m trying to project!!

    When I said, while laughing, “you don’t know me” what did she say?? You guys are going to love this and some of you can guess it easily – “I know enough.” Of course she does, she’s got that incredible female intuition she’s been encouraged to follow by society sense she can remember.

    Once you swallow the RP and internalize it, you’ll notice female solipsism everywhere and you’ll see multiple examples, in one situation, like I posted above.

    My example is one of many!! It’s just the most extreme example, I’ve seen recently.

    It’s actually kinda fun being SUPER RIGHT about female solipsism, when you internalize the RP!! It’s a sign you’re there!! Be happy!!

  89. “In a social order that reinforces the entitlements presumed by women’s solipsism there develops an internal conflict between the need for an optimized Hypergamy and the ego-investments a woman’s solipsism demands to preserve it… The necessities of long term provisioning war with the self-importance of solipsism at the risk of her losing out on preserving both (and having a guy like Luxocrat simply walk away from her).”

    This is why women in a place like the U.S. in 2015 have basically been reduced to pump-and-dumps for men. When the women genuinely don’t care about anything beyond their own personal comfort and luxury, they lose all the qualities that make them attractive as long-term partners and even dating them becomes extremely annoying. (Ever see a young girl order food, then act like she has no idea where it came from when the waiter brings it out and sends it back?)

    Our culture reinforces the idea that nothing is good enough for them, and they should never settle for anything less than exactly what they want. The problem is, only a spoiled child with wealthy parents can get exactly what they want all the time, which explains their collective immaturity.

    It boggles my mind when I see what these guys who are in relationships or married put up with from these women. I often ask them if they really want to tolerate that kind of behavior long term. I’ve gotten to the point where I just don’t care anymore and my response is always “only a loser would put up with a girl who acts like that.”

Speak your mind

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