“A picture held us captive. And we could not get outside it, for it lay in our language and language seemed to repeat it to us inexorably.” – Ludwig Wittgenstein
2.) The Pause In Priority
3.) Communication, Abstraction & Solipsism
5.) In Closing
6.) Relevant Reading
Women conflate histrionics with characteristic depth, because to women, depth is defined by interweaving hues of diverse emotional experience and how they relate to one another rather than an understanding of the abstract. Conversely, man defines depth by struggle, knowledge and a capacity for the abstract thought necessary to think critically.
The masculine does not view the incessant cataloguing and processing of one’s emotional history to be particularly interesting or deep. However, this propensity is an intrinsic fundamental of the solipsistic rationalisation process native to women. It is this process by which women build their self-perception. Naturally, the flaw of this process is the dominance of the catalogued emotional narrative and an absence of introspection in regard to it.
The distinction between introspection and solipsism lies in that introspection assumes the external world is the root, attempting to understand where the individual fits in relation to said world. Solipsism assumes the individual is the root, and attempts to understand how the external world fits in with relation to the self. “What I think” becomes “I think that made me feel because…” And so whilst a woman considers it enlightenment to explore every nuance of her emotional palette, men view such fixation as nothing more than infantile self-absorption.
Antithetically, what man views as immature behaviour, woman perceives as mature. To a woman there is nothing more interesting and mature than “understanding herself.” Whilst man desires to understand the world, a woman desires to understand herself. When a woman declares “she needs to find herself,” other than riding a train of exotic men to accomplish the task, what she means to communicate is “I’m leaving to seek nuanced emotional experiences I haven’t felt before.” Eliciting the further unspoken implication “…and I don’t think you can provide those experiences.”
By nature of solipsism, women deem the abstract obtuse and the solipsistic reasonable, whilst man, the contrary; the solipsistic obtuse and the abstract, reasonable. Within the sexual differences into what constitutes human depth, we merely scratch the surface in elucidating how distinct the psychological perceptions of men and women are.
2.) The Pause In Priority:
Free a woman of material dependence, and any polite sensibility or sense of self-constraint flees in an unending pursuit of new emotional luxury. When surviving is no longer an issue, the pursuit of rich and nuanced emotional experiences come to the forefront of a woman’s wants.
Really, a woman’s need for resources is nothing more than an unwelcome interruption of her primary psychological drive, emotional self-discovery. And so the gratitude of a desperate woman provides the perfect guise for solipsistic selfishness, it will make her seem like a good woman; one who cares for others more than herself. But the mere act of provisioning shifts her priorities, for she must no longer behave deferentially to have her material needs met.
Her pursuit of intense emotion is only paused by the urgency of her material needs, it is never vanquished. No wonder then that a woman’s directive is to first seek out a man who can provide, only to later seek a man who can induce emotional intensity should the prior be incapable, or no longer capable of providing it. The boring sycophantic domesticated male is a necessity of bated breath for the woman without wealth, but truly it is the detached, ever alluring, but never quite attainable alpha she truly longs for.
Romance and sex, as distinct as they are, are the culminating opiates of emotional experience, fear and power but the aphrodisiac to wetten the feminine emotional appetite. Therefore in the pursual of unending solipsistic self-discovery, it seems only natural that women would be most permanently drawn to such things, for their ability to provide the most compelling fantastical emotion is unchallenged. It is female nature to learn about herself via the emotional roller coaster, so what better way is there for a woman to research herself other than to pursue romance?
The fixation with romance is not solely part of her biological imperative to produce offspring, but likewise a window into the feminine soul, the need to indulge her most visceral emotivity. And this inclination refuses to cease even when a woman has reproduced countless times. This suggests its presence within the feminine is not a clear-cut evolutionary psychological benefit we can deduce to be a simple manifestation of woman’s biological need to seek out optimum genetic material. Because if it were, a craving for romance, the opiate of solipsism, would diminish if not vanish in women who have birthed multiple children. Instead, we note its persevering intrinsicality.
A 60-year-old woman with 5 children is no less solipsistic and longing for romance than a 20-year-old with zero. She may be less optimistic of the endeavour, but nevertheless it is something she shall crave should she lack it. And I think it not that romance is a solipsistic determiner for commitment and provisioning; as the most sought after romance is always that which is unabashedly obsessed with the woman, not any children she has. Likewise for good measure, such romance is forbidden, often sexually depraved and absent the mundanity of everyday life. Indeed then, the pursuit of emotional intensity is a goal unto itself, one that surpasses all else. Female solipsism goes far beyond a woman’s role as a mother, and if too pervasive, actually undermines her capacity in this role.
3.) Communication, Abstraction & Solipsism:
Much unlike man, who searches for understanding in the external world, a woman’s quest for understanding lies within the emotion of the internal word. Women are not so interested in the quirks and qualities of the abstract world in so much as they are ever perplexed by their emotions.
Where a man’s curiosity lies in how the external world functions and how he can best manipulate it, a woman’s curiosity lies in how her internal world functions and how she can best utilise the external world to manipulate her well-being. Essentially, men are knowledge focused whilst women are self-knowledge focused. Men are curious of the abstract, women are curious of the fluidity and sentiment of the self. Man defines himself in relation to what his observations conclude, woman defines herself in relation to how her observations make her feel.
Women are near constantly preoccupied with their emotions in response to external stimuli. This inhibits external analysis, focussing it internally. Women will communicate how they felt from memory, eliciting further feelings, leading to word-by-word disseminations of how she believes her feelings define her – as she feels them. And so there is this continuous cycle of feelings eliciting further feelings, which a woman then needs to factor in to her overall view of herself. Only with a conclusion rationalised to be emotively acceptable does she find relief. Such a conclusion is rarely ever THE truth, but rather, HER rationalised, chosen truth. A truth that reconciles negative with positive emotion to bring about an internal balance that is completely unconcerned with the abstraction that is objectivity.
As such, the solipsism of women appears to be not just a limitation, but an addiction. An addiction man finds psychologically arduous should he find himself in the not so pretty situation of playing therapist to the ever dissatisfied self-discovering woman. When a woman talks about her feelings, she is defining them as they are brought to the surface and expressed. Women need to talk about how they feel, because although their focus is internal, their process is external. As such, they address external problems from the position of their emotions without even so much a hint of desire to remove said emotional filter. This is the core of what we mean by “women are solipsistic.”
Sanity to man lies in understanding the world, a woman’s sanity lies in understanding herself. A woman who cannot understand herself is fraught with distress, compelled only to seek further self-understanding. Man experiences a similar distress in an inability to understand the world rather than himself, in this we note the similarity yet complete distinctiveness of the sexes. Much unlike the self however, surroundings can be replaced. The self can be influenced, but it is ineludible. As such, a woman cannot escape herself, for she is always herself. The craziest woman is therefore the woman who has no outlet to process her emotions, for her relative sanity is entirely dependent on the process of emoting.
So despite women being stuck in their heads (or should I say hearts?) they speak loquaciously. To process her emotion there is talking, lots of talking. So why does a man stuck in his head tend to focus outwardly and process his observations inwardly, whilst a woman focuses inwardly but processes her observations outwardly, namely, with voluble chatter?
It is a most quirky irony that in a quest to comprehend herself, a woman will speak constantly. It is by merit of solipsism and this constant need for emotional self-discovery that every woman considers herself an expert on herself, and as such, is inclined to talk at great length about herself. In terms of attraction, there is nothing a woman loves more than for a newly acquainted man to tell her something she considers true about herself. A man who seems to know a woman on the emotional level without that woman having to express herself exudes his own enchanting intrigue. By being able to communicate with women on this level, man creates his presence within her solipsistic world. “He just, like, totally gets me!”
This is oft mistaken for narcissism, but should she lack narcissism, such a quality still persists. For not only is self-obsession a product of narcissism, but likewise a product of solipsism. Therefore being that solipsism is intrinsic to women, self-obsession is an unavoidable by-product. Indeed a woman’s most profound hobby is that of her self-interest, chiefly, the catalogued history of emotions she has experienced, how they shape who she is, and which ones are desirable enough to be pursued for re-creation.
To summarise this section:
The emotional world is solipsistic, for it is singularly distinct from individual to individual, like a series of unconnected universes existing simultaneously. The abstract world on the other hand is a shared constant, external, one we all operate and cohabit within. To women, there is no distinction between the emotional and the abstract, for she believes the emotional is abstract. Her instinct is that her inner-world is an abstract world she must constantly process and seek to understand via external communication. To men, the inner world is a solipsistic world. Both men and women have an inner emotional world, but men have less interest in processing the nuances of this world and live their lives mentally more in the abstract world.
Few women play the male game, that is, that depth is a product of hardship, study and self-awareness. To women, self-awareness amounts to nothing more than solipsistic indulgence; this is to experience strong emotion and to then process that emotion via further emoting. The reason women constantly communicate and address their emotion, is because they seek to understand past emotion. And then by understanding past emotion, they experience the sensation of discovery. To experience emotion and process emotion is what a woman considers growth.
Histrionic solipsism is a female simulacrum for depth. Where genuine struggle is not achieved, it will be manufactured. The modern woman believes experiencing a wide range of emotion is what makes her deep and worldly. Women have a propensity for histrionics, because it is through drama and subsequent emotional reflection that a woman evaluates herself as a person. The female mind is characterised by its solipsistic nature, therefore it stands to reason that women intuit their self-awareness rather than deduce it.
5.) In Closing:
The emotional narrative on which a woman’s solipsism is predicated is so disjointed in nature, so very non-sequitur to all but her, that an element of the purpose in a woman’s communication of her feelings appears to be a need for her narrative to be externally corroborated. If we assume this principle is true, it further elucidates women’s need to be understood no matter how unintelligible her line of reasoning.
6.) Relevant Reading:
Exploring Logic & Emotion (Part 1)
Solipsism, Emotion & Arguments
29 thoughts on “A Most Solipsistic Nature”
I really would enjoy you being at the man undemanding conference with Rollo
These papers are amazing
Who knows what the future holds?
” Now my charms are all o’erthrown,
And what strength I have’s mine own,
Which is most faint: now, ’tis true,
I must be here confined by you,
Or sent to Naples. Let me not,
Since I have my dukedom got
And pardon’d the deceiver, dwell
In this bare island by your spell;
But release me from my bands
With the help of your good hands:
Gentle breath of yours my sails
Must fill, or else my project fails,
Which was to please. Now I want
Spirits to enforce, art to enchant,
And my ending is despair,
Unless I be relieved by prayer,
Which pierces so that it assaults
Mercy itself and frees all faults.
As you from crimes would pardon’d be,
Let your indulgence set me free.”
I’ll wait to embrace it.
Like many of the topics that have been discussed on this blog over time, I get the impression that you’ve overly polarized each genders capacity for various thought processes. The fact that you have such a deep and comprehensive understanding of self perception is evidence for my point – like a pseudo “takes one to know one” situation. I think it’s more fitting to imagine to skewed bell curves representing each mindset with like a cut off limit for each gender. But of course, the each bell curve would have a sharp cut off as each curve approaches 0; Women have a sharp cut off limit for max external-curiosity indulgence, men have a cut off for max self-insight indulgence but that does not mean that a scale of overlaps is non-existent!
It’s as if you’ve made a point in never making this clarification.
This is my first reply since first discovering and binge reading early in the summer. I wanted to applaud your deliciously data-heavy writing style; Thanks, you’ve influenced my thinking.
Naturally, everything is on a scale. Intellect, dark triad traits – whatever. If you can imagine it as a human trait, it is probably on a spectrum. You are right, I have polarised the genders as I often do in my works, because not only do I believe this makes the work more interesting, but likewise I believe it to be a more accurate depiction of everyday existence.
When I polarise something, eg: the masculine and the feminine, if you want to be technical, realise what I am saying is “these traits are considered feminine because women more commonly exhibit these behaviours and therefore, women must centre around a position indicative of this on the behavioural bell curve.” As such, these traits can’t really be considered masculine as although some men will embody these traits, they are outliers of the masculine behavioural equivalent. So yes, it is correct to say “some men are like this too.” It is always correct. But it is inaccurate and dare I say, disingenuous to confuse the commonality of the two. To simplify my sentiment: Most women are like this, most men aren’t. As for my understanding of such things, I do not think I could perceive these things if I was truly solipsistic myself.
Likewise, most men do not understand women. If we overlapped more behaviourally on the various spectrum/bell curves we all fall on, we would. This suggests the overlap is extremely minimal, eg: feminine homosexuals and heterosexual women overlap cognitively, but heterosexual men and women do not. Even this is a crude explanation, but I am imperfect and cannot concisely explain and account for each and every extraneous variable that makes up the colourful mosaic of human behaviour.
I think you would agree with what (I think) I originally meant:
Your discussions make it clear that masculine and the feminine behaviors and thinking protocols stem from the same unconditional elements..
More specifically, the gender-universal unconscious need for power acquisition/ conservation.
This includes more explicit gender-universal psychological drives. Avoidance of cognitive dissonance, production of a viable system of gratification delay i.e conscious reform of unconscious habits, etc.
Humans are self regulated by emotionally relevant data. (e.g Eat good tasting food–> dopamine,etc –> remember how and where).Social/Identity/ Power acquisition data that is actually emotionally relevant comes from other humans feedback. Mirror neurons, allow us to apply our understanding of how others are feeling about how we are feeling for the benefit of reforming our methods of satisfying those universal foundational needs (see: external identities)
Of course, hormones and physical attributes tend to favor certain means of satisfying said drives, but the gender overlap in understanding/application of other’s feedback is substantial .
If men were treated and given the same responses to their behaviors that women do, they would hamster, rationalize, and do all of the things that we as men expect from women, and Vice versa.
My point is that the colorful mosaic of human behavior is mostly (the differing hormone profiles are undeniable) gender neutral until its is influenced by the latest iteration of society is placed into the equation.
My question to you:
Do you really think an enclosed society of woman who have never been exposed to modern society would be full of women who behave in the way that today’s society allows?
I wouldn’t call the writing here “data-heavy” by any stretch of the imagination. While it’s clear the author put a great deal of thought into this little theory, he doesn’t seem to have bothered to verify his personal feelings with any other source: he cites no scientific studies, informal tests, historical precedent, or even anecdotes.
Obviously, this is some kind of explanatory manifesto or starting hypothesis, but. . . it would be nice to know what the hypothesis is based off of. It doesn’t specifically reference any previous work or any research planned — which seems to me to indicate a lack of curiosity into his subject matter? That can’t be right. . . but I’ve been looking around on this website, and he seems to mostly cite his own work, with occasional disconnected and unexplained epigraphs, and vague references to “Machiavellianism,” “social psychology,” and other similarly broad fields. Am I missing something? Could someone please point me towards a section where he or a related thinker or organization proves these assertions?
Nah what I said was data heavy.
I haven’t frequented this site in a year but what I meant was that this guy is consistently correct. His claims don’t contradict his earlier claims, and since he’s making a lot of bold claims. His bold claims cover a huge range of “easy to dismiss based on one vaguely relevant personal experience” topics for his audience. He writes based on things he’s certain would be self affirming to his readers as a result of his assessment of what must be universally true in his experiences.
Some shit he writes about can get close to theoretical (something that I the reader can easily remember something that “must” discredit what he is saying) but I remember that when reading these I enjoyed that he didn’t let me “catch him”. He does that by careful yet elegant phrasing (i.e the truth is in some further elaboration of the words he chooses)
It’s like how in a good movie, care is taken to not kill your suspension of disbelief for the idealization of the characters
SOO, as he continuously stays right, he takes care not to contradict himself by keeping track of the implications of his “elegant phrases” and that’s a lot of data. (In real life I would bet he’s got a lot of people thinking some silly unrealistic shit about him)
By the way, no one can point you to where his assertions are proved, only you can do that. In science you only disprove.
Academic culture: reference others, and use referencing as a form of credibility to back up your claims.
Corroboration is thought to increase plausibility, but what if you cherry pick what you cite and ignore all the studies that disagree with you as is common in academia?
And then if you have studies that are FOR a thing and studies which are AGAINST it, will you ever truly have the answer, or occupy an infinitely pedantic stalemate where one side’s starting premise of “this is true” cherry picks studies to support its position whilst those with a starting premise of “this is false” find studies to support the opposing position. Doesn’t the fact science is unable to come to any hard conclusion on so many topics highlight its limitations? In the presence of both supporting and opposing studies, isn’t it rich then that your position will ultimately come down to the subjectivity of what you think and not the objectivity of the data? Are you not then simply “saying what you think” in much the way a philosophising observer does, except rather than directly observe life, you partake in a complex system of experimentation and peer review prone to corruption and disingenuity born of prestige preservation and political manoeuvring?
Is it healthy for one to live in constant doubt because nothing is really ever proven, but more things are suggested and interpreted by the data. Again, even when you interpret data, there is a metaphysical subjectivity to what you think that data means. Is there a scientific methodology to weight the validity of this, or does one base the opinion on further subjectivity like “expertise” and “perceived authority of the opinion holder?”
Is the corroboration of studies intrinsically plausible then, or can you have bullshit corroborate bullshit due to the shared ideological dispositions of the so-called independent researchers? Are independent researchers truly independent when their minds metaphysically inhabit the same ideological space? I would think not. Is much so-called science, especially in the social fields, little more than falsifying data sets and cherry picking studies to reinforce pre-existing prejudices under a veneer of scientific credibility? Perhaps some of the time but not all of the time. It is notoriously known the social sciences have low replicability (and funnily enough the most ecologically valid metric, IQ, is the most disputed and least believed) So where does the rabbit hole go after that? Even if these things are untrue, even if one’s starting premise is completely unmired by prejudice, we now go into the infinitely pedantic exercise of quibbling over the validity of a study due to its sample size, experimental methodology, or how long ago it was performed. And if it doesn’t fail on any of those metrics, we can now attack for its lack of replicability, for even if other studies support the same conclusion, perhaps their method or sample was different, so the study wasn’t truly replicable and therefore we can cast yet further doubt on whether the original study has any validity whatsoever.
And so like this, you never reach a meaningful conclusion, yet because both sides tap into the prestige of the academic culture, and cite certain names from certain years and reference certain books – apparently this bolsters the plausibility of what they’re saying?
Is this not then, really just an exercise of the most futile befuddlement? To debate and to confuse with contradiction ad infinitum is not, as far as I’m concerned, the height of intelligence. And if one is to accept that science is always in the process of disproving itself, then it is safe to assume that nothing is really actually true, but that what is believed to be true is the closest we have currently come to discovering truth.
And then there is your false starting assumption – that science is required to prove/disprove things in order for them to be true, and that science IS actually capable of proving and disproving everything.
But this piece is philosophical, it is based in the metaphysical, can science prove or disprove the nature of metaphysics? It cannot. So what does one reference then? Philosophers? But they lack data too, they’re merely opining and thinking in much the way that I am, so do we achieve scientific validity by referencing each other? No. We merely increase corroboration if we independently formed the same conclusions without knowledge of each other’s work. If one read the other’s work before saying the same thing, it is credibly argued that the latter was simply influenced by the former, and therefore regurgitating or at the very least adapting their thesis.
If you actually trace something back far enough, it has an origin point that references nothing because it’s an original thought. The ancient Greeks would refer to their contemporaries, but that has no empirical or scientific basis in much the way a group of friends sharing an opinion does not.
It is foolish to believe or imply that nothing can be true, valid or deemed credible in the absence of citations. But when you deal with metaphysical things, like solipsism, it is foolish to expect science to have answers when modern science does not even understand the realm of human consciousness. This is why although science is the empiricism of philosophy, philosophy serves purposes that science does not (and vice versa).
Where science cannot even pierce the concept of human consciousness, so you cannot quantify everything into absolute or highly probabilistic answers, you’re best keeping an open mind, observing the phenomenon that interests you and simply thinking about it – because this will discover far more truth than the empirical method, which although useful, is not at present all encompassing in its capacity for discovery.
TLDR: I don’t refer to data to support my claims nor use empiricism to make them, I make claims based on the development of observation via logical exploration and pattern recognition, such is the nature of philosophising.
As for citations and referencing, I do not believe occupying this continual landscape of epistemic uncertainty and inconclusiveness in a system rife with political bias, inadequate research methodology, low replicability and therefore low quality data validity gives the academic culture the credibility that is assumed of it. “Citation needed” is becoming its own fallacy.
Finally, I would posit a mind needs fixed (but not static) beliefs to stabilise itself, and an openness to experience to update its beliefs whenever they are conclusively disproven, although even this can be risky for some individuals in that it leads to a crisis of faith (and I don’t just mean this religiously, but ideologically too.)
These days not enough people read shit online in the context of real life.
Even though this guy is butt hurt about the implications about him of something you wrote,
It’s amazing how some never notice how they don’t give two fucks about the references they use when writing an paper, or how they can easily change the meaning of something THEY say by making arbitrary wording choices.
It never crosses people’s minds to actually think, it’ s pretty interesting.
People don’t realize the studys they read actually happened in some university or lab or something by a group of regular people that could barely hold up to you in person
Most of the studies that weren’t designed to increase profits for some person or another were designed and conducted by the same type of average schmuk you see every day and don’t mean shit besides the only things it must mean (I.e One instance of grabbing 30 random people at this place and have them do Y resulted with them answering this type of question this type of way) etc.
The question in this hypothetical study could have now been answered like that for 30 reasons and in reality, that’s up to the reader of the study to decide based on times they answered something some type of way…
Holy shit Mr. Illimitable, props to you, articulating this shit can get very complicated, not easy if you’re the type of lazy fuck I think you must be. Keep up the good work
I would be interested to learn how men and women fit on the Thinking/Feeling scale of the Meyers & Briggs test. Your writing seem to suggest that men will be predominantly Thinking, and women predominantly Feeling, with the tacit belief that Thinking is superior to Feeling. However, my suspicion is that men and women are more broad-spectrum and less polarised than you think.
It’s interesting, for example, how nearly all religious leaders, e.g. Buddha, Jesus and Mohammed, are men. These are people that were the examplars of compassion. The Buddha was also highly intelligent.
Perhaps one could say that women are irrational in the sense that they need to fabricate an interpretation of reality in order resolve the cognitive dissonance that they feel. I saw an interesting documentary once, a long time ago, where a journalist, and a variety of other men, stripped down to their underpants, stood on plints as exhbibits, and had a group of women walk around and express their thoughts. One of the men was a professional male model. He was judged to be too cock-sure of himself, and therefore not the kind of person that they might be interested in.
This was odd, because they made a judgement based on no insight into the model’s real personality. Here’s what I think was really going on: the women probably thought he was unattainable, so had to manufacture a hypothesis in which there was something wrong with him, not with themselves.
Your misspelling of “focused” (TWICE IN A ROW) triggered me
It’s not actually incorrect. It’s just an alternate spelling. It’s not used in American English, but is in the rest of the commonwealth. The more you know.
I am just extremely impressed with your posts, every one like it’s brothers yet unique at the same time… one of the “manosphere’s” greatest writer…. bravo, I applaud the magnitude and introspection of your articles.
I’m pretty sure you guys will dig this vid by Paul Elam, “Your Feelings and Why They Don’t Matter”:
awesome video… going thru this shit right now with my girl.
this solipsism the way you have described it has also in men ?? like look intense experiences to discover yourself or to you feel good?
Men are outside themselves; women are within themselves: this is true of the genital as well as the existential. Astride the world they each lie athwart it to transcend that state. In the discovery of love, ask a man what he loves about his mate and he describes her as such. Ask a woman what she loves about her mate and she describes herself. The presentation turns on the context that founds the answer.
Sounds like you date narcissists.
….wait. So women are self centered and incapable of reason?
Why do so many women I meet seem to not understand their selves at all?
Because thats what they want to seem
I recently found myself in a discussion about God and of course it came up that God is a woman and maybe even a black woman…. It took me a moment but than I came up with a nice explanation why God has to be a man: In the Genesis ist says
“Then God said, ‘Let there be light’; and there was light. And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.”
Women are no creators as men are, it is hard to image that a woman would create light out of chaos, and even harder to not fickle around and say something like “and it was good”
I just came here to ask whether solipsim and ability for abstraction are related.
I get sometimes so confused when people cannot see the general picture because they get stuck in the details of an example and instead of using the example for what it is intended, namely to outline a general principle they jump from the example to “I” and only discuss a particular situation.
I think I will stop using examples and try to get my own head and thinking so clear that I don’t need examples anymore.
Some parts of the text relate to me, but I’m introverted, so I’m not very expressive and I have a hard time talking about what I feel.
In the paper “The reality and evolutionary significance of human psychological sex differences” John Archer shows areas where men’s and women’s distributions are nearly identical and areas where men’s and women’s distributions are separated by GREAT distance. He shows how many of these are likely the result of evolution, specifically sexual selection where each sex has a different role in reproduction. Parallels in other mammals (particuarly primates), differences arising in the womb or at puberty and/or being provably influenced by sex hormones, suggest these differences are basic and biological not societally constructed.
Two of the biggest psychological differences: the interest in things vs. interest in people dimension and the systemizing vs. empathy dimension. While this isn’t exactly what you’re describing, people and empathy sound subjective and internal, things and systemizing sounds objective and external. The huge documented differences make your ideas plausible and add data for your critics.
For what it’s worth your ideas make me less prone to misogyny. It makes me think that women are hardwired for this sort of thing (with much variability of course) and makes me accept that we have to understand them and love them for who they are (while realizing the risks to us associated with their tendencies). I think we imagine them at times to be like us men and then the way they think and react infuriates us.