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.
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.
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.
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.
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).