“One ought to hold on to one’s heart; for if one lets it go, one soon loses control of the head too.” – Friedrich Nietzsche
2.) The Cultural Battle of the Sexes
3.) Solipsism’s Role In Femininity
4.) The Role of Rationalisation & Sophistry
5.) In Closing/Relevant Reading
As I write this, I cast my mind back to a time I did not understand women. It is surreal to write on “how women work” when one so vividly remembers being a man clueless in such matters.
As a clueless man bereft of the knowledge my sanity demanded, I would ask men to explain women, I would ask women to explain women, and I would ask Google to explain women. Nobody really knew what they were talking about. The only answers I would get were gynocentric inanities mixed with general rhetorical platitudes such as “be yourself” and “be confident”.
The problem with the mainstream gynocentric viewpoint is it teaches men how to be a good slave, rather than a good master. It teaches men how to cater to women, rather than how to inspire a woman’s desire to cater to them. It actively suppresses truths related to women, whilst spreading vitriolic untruth about men. At this point it seems the system would prefer men are useful but ignorant, rather than enlightened and sovereign.
Men yearn to understand women, for they wish to attract them, as well as protect themselves from womanly predations. This knowledge is essential paramount sustenance all but crucial for the preservation of man’s sanity. And yet quite sadistically, this wisdom eludes most men no matter how earnestly they seek it.
Today, life changing truth is only readily available should a man happen upon a site such as this. Most men are unaware of women’s true nature, and the minority who are aware dare not discuss the elephant in the room, for doing so may come at incredible cost.
2.) The Cultural Battle of the Sexes:
The number of men aware of the realities inherent to female nature continues to dwindle, whilst the cultural hysteria touting “men are evil and women can do no wrong” reigns pervasively.
Men are taught to worship women, whilst women are taught to distrust men. Men are taught to serve women, whilst women are taught to deceive men. Society believes it morally reprehensible for a man to dupe a woman, and yet bares no such disdain when the polarity is reversed, often going to extreme lengths to rationalise aesthetically pleasing justifications for immoral female behaviour.
Before the emergence of red pill philosophy, no meaningful infrastructure existed to support and educate men on matters of women, and this is why what we do is crucial. We educate boys and men on matters nobody else is capable of, and support them where nobody else cares.
Culturally there is a power imbalance where the masculine has become so weak and the feminine has gotten so out of control, that she threatens to destabilise civilization’s very core with a tyrannic power she is not fit to wield. The red pill (as well as this very publication) does to the extent of its reach, attempt to redress this imbalance by giving men the tools they need to exercise power and remain sovereign.
Red pill philosophy is effective, it thoroughly details female behaviour from numerous perspectives (sociologically, evolutionarily and occasionally, economically) to form a rich and comprehensive philosophy.
However, having internalised much of this “forbidden knowledge” over the years, I wish to do something I do not believe has been done before: unify the red pill understanding of women into a framework that depicts the relationships between the mechanisms that embody the feminine.
When I was clueless about women, I’d have killed for an article like this, so if that sounds like you, strap yourself in because you’re in for a treat. You’re going to learn what many men never learn, and what many others pay in pain and poverty to merely intuit.
3.) Solipsism’s Role In Femininity:
One cannot deny that women are vigorously interested in themselves and how men perceive them, yet regardless, this passion does not translate into a meaningful philosophical enquiry on womankind by herself. As such, a woman’s opinion of her sex is inseparably tied up with how she sees herself. To simplify: whatever a woman believes to be true of women, is 99 out of 100 times, something she believes to be true of herself.
Solipsism leads women to believe the opinions they hold of themselves accurately represent the behaviours generalisable to their sex. Naturally most women are oblivious to their flaws, and are as a matter of ego, unwilling to even ponder the possibility they’re not intrinsically wonderful.
Most women do not realise the negative traits they possess should be rectified where possible or otherwise mitigated, because they do not recognise themselves as having said undesirable qualities to begin with. Simply put, women lack self-awareness, they tend to deny their shortcomings rather than fix them, and this is why there is a substantial lack of bodies in the women’s online self-improvement community.
If you talk about the general nature of women to a woman, but you do not distinguish between her and “most women”, she will almost always lump herself in with “most women” and fail to make the distinction between herself and women as a whole. This leads her to constantly miss the forest for trees, stating that “she was in a similar situation and she was never like that” when you generalise her sex.
Now, whilst it is certainly possible the woman you’re talking to may be the exception to something, it is more likely that she is not but believes in all delusional earnest that she is. Because she follows her feelings, and it feels better for her to believe she’s different than to be aware of her shortcomings, she will believe an aspect of her behaviour immune to generalisation even when her behaviours confirm the generalisation!
You may even remember a time when the woman you’re talking to embodied the exact generalisation you’re asserting, and yet like a crazy person with amnesia, she will claim to be nothing like that. This is another “function” of solipsism, a woman’s pre-occupation with the self is mirrored by an utter lack of self-awareness of what said self consists of.
And so it is only in the grand denial of a woman’s solipsism that if she believes there’s nothing “wrong” with her, then there’s nothing “wrong” with women either. If she believes she’s not like that, then she incorrectly concludes that most women aren’t like that either.
It is the observation that nearly all women will unironically say “not all women are like that” that gives away the feminine’s solipsistic point of reference, that a woman will attempt to differentiate herself as superior when in competition, but should you criticise women in general, suddenly her ability to make distinctions between herself and her group vanishes.
In juxtaposition, if something negative is said about men, most men can simultaneously weigh up whether the generalisation applies to men as a group, and if it does, if it applies to them. They do not instantly conflate opinions of their sex with opinions of themselves, and so unlike women, are not reflexively offended by negative statements made about their sex if an element of that statement is based in reality.
Naive men believe “women must be experts on women, because being women themselves they know all about women!” such a belief is folly, and no more than a reflection of a man’s naivety, for it assumes women are abstractive rather than solipsistic, that is, more interested in the truth than being purposefully ignorant in order to maintain an optimum level of happiness. This couldn’t be further from the truth.
When women talk about women, they project rather than investigate because they’re prone to emotional solipsism, not rational investigation. Solipsism is the core base of all female behaviour, it is the intrinsic way of being, the very foundation on which the female’s other psychological aspects spawn.
Women with little power and low self-esteem are solipsistic and prone to infantile narcissism, whilst those with high self-esteem and great power are grandiosely narcissistic, the latter meaning they possess a characteristically masculine air of arrogant detachment.
Where solipsism is her internal dialogue and mode of thought, its external counterpart is infantile narcissism, women’s insecurity of her relative inferiority to man, and dependence on men. If one analyses the thinking of the feminist movement for a second, a great part of it fixates on “empowering women by granting them independence.”
This suggests a few things, that firstly, women do not possess the ability or desire to take independence for themselves and so need powerful politicians to legally mandate it. And secondly, that the feminist fixation with independence is a macro manifestation of female insecurity. This to say, that women are all too aware of their reliance on men for both economic and emotional support, and that collectively, rather than be grateful for man’s magnanimity, a great deal despise it. The saying “no good deed goes unpunished” seems apt here.
Women are deadly, yet needy. They have always needed men, still do, and most likely always will. And yet it is in the infantile stubbornness of femininity that a resentment brews for this biologically ordained neediness.
Even the women who do well to provide for themselves end up requiring a man who earns more than they, who is mentally stronger than they, and so on. A woman is hypergamous by her very nature, and thus much to the disdain of her insecurity, requires male superiority in order to even find men attractive.
The topic of feminine infantile narcissism presents the perfect opportunity to explore why women are more inherently cunning than men. It is because women are so incredibly aware of their heightened neediness relative to men that they develop an intrinsic penchant for cunning. They are all too aware the depth and breadth of assistance they require from the opposite sex is greater than the inverse, and so it is this position in large part which fuels their motive for manipulating as a way of life.
Women are in a position of neediness, and yet they cannot fully trust men to give them what they need, so they manipulate men in order to give them what they want, but then resent the men who fall prey to such devices. This phenomenon alone should explain to you the mental hell women occupy, and explain much of their external craziness.
Even the sweetest, kindest, best raised woman is a cunning creature, for it is in the insecurity inherent to reliance that a woman protects herself via the impassioned practice of cunning. I believe that where nature gave man superior strength, women were bestowed pathological cunning. Unfortunately, what was granted to be used as a means of defence, is often in practice used for anything but.
Infantile as they are, women are ill-equipped to handle power, and that which is born out of the insecurity that a man may do her wrong, turns into an exploitative, predatory misuse of power that fuels grandiose narcissism, and thus masculinises her. The aforementioned relationships between the different aspects of the female psyche do not explain it in its entirety, but nonetheless, should accurately depict its root and core.
4.) The Role of Rationalisation & Sophistry:
In contrast to the prior section, this section will be quite short as many of the mechanisms relevant to this behaviour are aptly described in my distillation of solipsism. Whilst solipsism requires greater explanation because of its breadth as “something she is”, rationalisation requires less explanation because it’s merely “something she does.”
Rationalisation is the grand act of seeking justification or explanation for something that has occurred in order to flatter/benefit the person who performed the behaviour. It is not an honest attempt to understand what causes a behaviour.
Women often do not understand why they feel what they feel, because rationally verbalising primal impulses is difficult if not impossible. She cannot acknowledge that she doesn’t even know why she said or did something as she’ll look stupid. So to save face, she will come up with persuasive nonsense to reconcile the irrationality of her behaviour with the aestheticism of something that sounds convincing.
To simplify, she will find something that sounds reasonable to explain her behaviour, regardless of whether this is the true cause of said behaviour. As long as it makes her look and feel good, it is a sufficient rationalisation that serves the purpose she needs it to.
Women are far less concerned with communicating the truth about themselves than they are maintaining an acceptable image. Again, this is why it is folly to ask women about women. They’re less interested, capable and incentivised to understand themselves than men are.
5.) In Closing / Relevant Reading:
Here before you lies just a few of the aspects inherent to the operating system of female psychology. It is incomplete, as a complete treatise on the topic is not merely substantial in depth, but likewise of breadth. Time permitting, it is my desire to pen a follow up piece that details other aspects inherent to female nature, linking them in with the aspects previously described in order to create a coherent framework.
Fifty Shades of Red
Fifty Shades Redder
The AWALT Misconception
The Myth of Female Rationality – [Part 1] – [Part 2]
The Nature of Women
53 thoughts on “Understanding Female Psychology”
Earlier today I was hanging out with friends after finishing up our sports league for the year. The subject of the women’s league came up, and how often, ladies will bring their kids and let them run around the facility while they play their game.
One blue-piller at the table immediately asked “where are their husbands?”, and tried to explain how if the women were bringing their kids along, it must be because their husbands were too lazy or not involved enough to care for the kids for a few hours a week. It was a sharp example of the inherent misandry in our society that Illimitable mentioned above. If a woman is doing something inconsiderate, it must be her lesser half’s fault. I’m reevaluating my relationship with this man.
So much so I doubt I’ll make any effort to maintain a friendship with him. Two things have occurred to me, now that I have internalized red pill knowledge:
1) Women in our urban western societies have little to offer. As Illimitable said above, they worry nothing about what is inside, and all their time maintaining appearances. And they seem to believe the more they can carry a false facade about how empowered and self-sufficient they are, the more real that somehow makes them (when in reality, they are constantly whining about how hard it is to be a career women, a single mom, or whatever, as if they are the victim of their own choices.)
2) That blue-pill men who buy into the above bullshit are not worth the time to invest in. They have even less to offer, because they don’t even try to fake it: they derive their worth from their servitude to women, and their ability to self-deprecate and generalize about their own gender, and expect you to play along. And when you get a single blue-pill boy among red-pill men (or among gay men, who have zero use for the female antics above), the blue-piller acts as if he is the only sane one, for trading in his self-determination for a little sexual access.
Perhaps its because I am in my 40s and my hormones don’t rule me anymore, but unless a woman shows me some brains and a sliver of introspective ability, I’m out of fucks and time to give. And even then, with a knowledge of hypergamy, and the sense of entitlement western women seem to have (“Vagina, therefore, give me everything I want without me asking, and make my life consequence free!”), relations with the opposite sex have little luster left, beyond a quick fuck and an even quicker exit.
Hello sir ? I have a question that has been lingering in my mind for some while now. How can we deal with their irrationality so that we can move forward ? If she is your boss and she keeps blame shifting her mistakes to you due to her incompetency ? Is resigning a solution ? How can we override this bullshit ? Is there an article that you can link me up on how to deal with women in assumed power. Practicing positive leadership isn’t working, taking charge is often met with micromanagement.BTW the female am dealing with is my mom. Thanks for the work Illimitable man.
Ideally you remove them from the position of power because they’re unfit for it. There’s absolutely no point trying to get her to accept blame for her actions, because she won’t, she will just double down, become increasingly irrational and get very angry.
So you have to go with the middle of the line nonsense and sort of talk to her like a little girl in an assuring yet leading way, eg: “I know you tried really hard with that, but I don’t think it’s working and WE need X to work, so let’s try Y instead and if that works we won’t need to worry about X”
You tell her in a really kind way “you don’t know what the fuck you’re doing, so I’m going to do this, now move aside”
Then when your way works you say “this is much better than before, thank you for the idea!” (even though it wasn’t her idea, it’s positive reinforcement for her to take your advice in the future)
Women are very egotistical and insecure (as I allude to in this article) so you have to step around that whilst doing what needs to be done to get shit done.
Likewise women are very sensitive, so it’s not really the premise of what you say that is a problem in so much as how you present the premise.
You can have one premise presented in two very different ways, and the one that’s more sugar-coated and inclusive sounding will get their approval whilst the one that is cold and exclusionary sounding will not. Why? Because female decision-making is based on emotion, and you have to leverage that emotion to get them to cooperate with you, otherwise they obnoxiously defy you even if in doing so they collectively damage everybody.
Thank you sir, you have a great deal of work you are doing.Exposing plugged men to reality is astounding. Great work sir.
Question: Do you think blind solipsism is a natural state induced by powerlessness?
As I see it, those who are fully solipsistic, such as infant children, people with the brain of an infant child, first world young women and elderly people suffering mental degradation all are naturally powerless in their own lives. Should they decide they are selfish, ugly, unpleasant or materialistic, they would not know the first place to start getting out of their circumstance, let alone possess the tools. This may be due to external or biological pressures, such as a young child depending on its mother for safety, which justifies selfishness. Or it may be due to social pressures, where becoming less selfish makes your selfish friends reject you to feel better about themselves.
On the other hand, we have people who both escape and enter solipsism. People who escape solipsism tend to have undergone some form of social trauma. Young children undergo it as soon as they are around 6-10 years of age. Unattractive or socially rejected women undergo it as soon as they need to work for social value. Essentially introspection is required to function adequately.
However not all people who become successful or powerful to the point of no longer needing introspection will lose it. They lose some perception, that is granted, but they retain memories of their past struggles and of what it is like to be in another person’s shoes. In fact, the people who become solipsistic typically have become successful or wealthy… but dependent rather than powerful. Elderly people receive the same care as a child, but if they lose their mental faculties they are unable to function without society and therefore can cease to introspect. Teenage girls exited solipsism during mid childhood, but when they are still full dependents, unformed adults who do not need to work for social points any more, they can revert to solipsistic behaviour. Those humans that are fully provided for, yet unable to provide for themselves, become solipsistic and cease to introspect, almost as though they know that they have no control over their own survival any more and are shutting down self motivating processes.
I am unsure if this is accurate, but from my observations there is a direct link between dependence and solipsism, as though it were a defense mechanism to keep you protected by the herd and provided by its leaders. Is it possible that blind solipsism is a feature that naturally develops in dependent people, not a bug?
I think they’re correlated, but I’m not sure that correlation is a causation. For example, there are plenty of powerless teenage boys out there, yet rather than be solipsistic they lean towards abstract reasoning. I suspect testosterone comes into it, that is, teenage boys tend to have very high testosterone, whilst the elderly, children and women do not.
It seems your assertion here is “people who don’t have to rely on themselves are privileged enough to indulge solipsism” – I think this is a fair argument, I think it’s one factor that encourages solipsism and is often enough in and of itself to lead to “full solipsistic conversion”, but I do not believe it’s the main reason solipsism exists to begin with. Basically, solipsism is estrogen cognitively manifested, whilst abstraction is testosterone cognitively manifested.
An interesting hypothesis, I would love to be able to test it.
I don’t think a rational person would stop being rational because they became economically dependent on others. I like your theory, but I’m not sure of its form. It seems to me that emotional mental dominance (high estrogen) is predominantly responsible for solipsism, which in turn causes dependence, rather than the inverse of dependence causing solipsism.
That seems to be a fair analysis. I would then add that if solipsism is controlled by reason and driven by hormone profiles and brain structure, that there must be a series of mental functions which are corrupted to allow solipsism to form in previously rational people or be removed under duress. Both these phenomena are observed. Take for example the degradation of reason in henpecked, friendless men. However high their testosterone is, historically they have been repeatedly noted to focus all social interactions on themselves on their woes and to neglect action. Likewise women in harsh environments tend to display greater solidarity and be more likely to work hard than women with no external pressure.
But you have a point about reason, as above a certain level of reason it seems impossible to remove introspection. Suppress it? Yes, but not remove it. Perhaps what I am observing is the result of certain mental functions atrophying? In theory, so long as you possess reason you have a means to escape dependence. You can always start over, make more friends, or go to a care home rather than live with your kids. Therefore the path from self awareness to solipsism is:
Self awareness > technical dependence > mental or hormonal degradation > trapped dependence > solipsism.
The physical alteration may already exist, such as women’s brain chemistry or people with dementia, or it may be induced such as in a depressed and henpecked man. That would also make solipsism a feedback loop, which checks out with most of what I understand about human mental and hormonal functions and disorders.
Hey superslaviswife – keep going – you are on to something. It is not accurate to conflate solipsism with estrogen. Men are solipsistic too, but value differently, and so their solipsistic focus seems as if it is not. I like your line of reasoning – keep going – redpillforlife’s idea about underlying agency is key for going deeper (but I think the gendered capacity for personal agency is similar but use of which is socially rewarded differently)
IllimitableMan – you said:
“It seems to me that emotional mental dominance (high estrogen) is predominantly responsible for solipsism, which in turn causes dependence, rather than the inverse of dependence causing solipsism”.
I disagree – emotional mental dominance (high estrogen) is predominantly responsible for women more-so valuing the group consensus, which is dependence, which is the female form of solipsism. i.e. – everybody is their own mental point of origin – this is an inescapable condition of the subjective/objective dichotomy that absolutely everyone is subject to – as such solipsism is not a gradient-quality-gender-wise, it is an inherent condition of personhood. and I agree with superslaviswife’s implication that there is a gradient for mental-point-of-origin-delusions, that is probably not a gendered gradient, but a gradient correlating with life -pressures person-wise, but that there is gendered differences wrt to delusion-outcomes.
Otherwise, superslaviswife makes some good points about how the pressures of life impinge upon the gendered styles of the mental point of origin, and cause different life-outcomes as life circumstances change (different outcomes gender-wise by way of the value-differences as conditioned by the hormonal environment, at each life stage, and also by way of the social feedback loops that redpillforlife is alluding to).
IllimitableMan – it may seems I am just quibbling about definitions – but I think these finer descriptions are very important, because there is huge downstream implications wrt to gender relations, for conflating the feminine gender with solipsism in general (as opposed to it’s particular flavoring).
All mental and behavioural conditions in theory benefit the individual and society to some degree, as humans are social animals and need a strong group to survive. What we consider to be mental disorders are mental states that have run amok and are harming their owner. What we consider to be social or behavioural disorders are mental states that allow the individual to harm the society that feeds them. Thus, hypoagency to some extent must be positive for women, which must be positive for human society, otherwise it would not be the dominant form for the female mind. And if it is positive, but also a detestable state (no human enjoys being truly dependent, as our self preservation drive pushes us away from it) then women must have an inbuilt means of keeping us hypoagent. Enter solipsism: almost every woman who comes face to face with her own solipsism either goes into denial or becomes a full blown perfectionist or careerist in an effort to justify her existence. Thus, solipsism is at least part of the puzzle of dependence.
I think it’s also important to add that not all selfcentredness is solipsism. Subconscious selfcerenteredness without excluding empathy is just the self preservation drive. Conscious selfcenteredness within your own justification, excluding empathy, is narcissism. Conscious or subconscious selfcenteredness beyond what is reasonable yet without excluding empathy is egomania. Subconscious selfcenteredness in denial, excluding most empathy is solipsism. Men seem to lean more to egomania and narcissism, women to solipsism, all humans have a powerful self preservation drive. This may simply be because a passive, dependent, solipsistic woman is at least given a good chance of survival and breeding, whereas a passive, dependent, solipsistic man is unlikely to pass on his genes. Whatever causes the bias (hormones, neural pathways, upbringing, everything) is probably genetically engrained on some level.
superslaviswife – interesting analysis. You are you using the term “solipsism” by way of more-so emphasizing the psychological aspects around the ontological, that color the more hard-core ontological definition of “solipsism” that I was more-so emphasizing. I think your method may prove-out as a useful method to proceed, and so I very much do appreciate your interest in furthering this “solipsism” discussion.
For clarity sake, perhaps I should expand on the ontological definition I was more-so emphasizing. I think the subjective/objective dichotomy that we all are faced with as humans means that:
1) we can infer from the phenomenological element – “with certainty, I know, at least, that something is going on”, that this phenomenon has embedded within it’s essence – the subjective state, – the “I am” that can be known directly,
2) and that by way of close inspection of the limited quality of the subjective “something is going on” phenomenon, particularly our gross “I am” limitations wrt to omniscience, one can also infer an objective reality apart from the subjective experience
3) the tension that stems from all the implications of the interface of #1 and #2, is what I mean by the subjective/objective dichotomy
As such, the ontological definition of “solipsism” that I am using would be the “subjective/objective dichotomy” paired with some of the specific #3 implications – namely that – other people have this same basic ontological design, and are basically the same as me in this fundamental existential manner, and as such – “we each are inescapably akin to – our own mental point or origin” = “hard-core definition of solipsism”.
So the quibble (if it could even be called that at this point) I may have with Illimitable Man, wrt to how he is using the term “solipsism”, is that, if we are sloppy about how the word is used, one could begin to insinuate that women are in a different category of fundamental-existential-personhood then men are, and by way of Illimitable Man’s use of the term, I am not sure if he actually means to insinuate this or not. If in fact that is his insinuation, that would be an interesting development within the discussion, but my sense is, to insinuate that women are of a different ontological category than men, is a bold statement, and therefore needs strong proof, and to-date, I don’t see strong proof for this claim.
It’s quite obvious that if one were to take up a defense of the “women are of a different ontological category than men” argument, one would be claiming as untrue the claim I made above that one of the implications of the “interface of the objective reality apart from the subjective experience” is that “other people are similar to me wrt to being of the same basic ontological design”. So it is best if I now say a bit more about what I more precisely mean by
“other people are similar to me wrt to being of the same basic ontological design”, because after all – people are not exactly the same, but instead, we have the sense that other people are all “the same but different” if you will. I will break this out into several parts as follows:
A) by way of evolution, the genome continues an exploration of the available combinatorial space (variant gene hierarchies within individuals within social groups) as shaped by survival and sexual selection pressures. It is in this sense we are the same by way of basic “design” but different wrt the precise design parameters.
B) so is there evidence that the normative gendered “design” parameters, around ontological capacity, have diverged to such a degree that these are now normatively different? (note that I am not questioning whether there are many many normative gendered “design” differences, which there clearly are, but instead we are focused on the ontological capacity in this particular discussion, so must narrow the question as such).
C) to answer the question put forth in (B) above, we must define “ontological capacity”. Or in other words, what would the precise aptitudes be, for being subject to the “hard-core solipsism” as so defined at the beginning of my comments here? I would argue for two elements –
(i) an aptitude for the use of personal agency, which I define as the belief that we have the ability to make meaningful non-deterministic decisions, and as such have personal responsibility for those decisions; – I think this is an aptitude, wrt to the “use of belief” aspect of this aptitude, which is necessary to infer #2 in the discussion above, and I think this is an aptitude, wrt to the realization of the “responsibility for” aspect of this aptitude, which is necessary to infer the specific #3 implications – namely that – other people have this same basic ontological design, and are basically the same as me in this fundamental existential manner. If you disagree, I could expand on this if you like.
(ii) enough intelligence capacity to formulate the subjective/objective dichotomy in the first place. Let’s not quibble about (ii) – though the normative intelligence-aspect strengths and weaknesses are somewhat different, gender-wise, there is no good evidence that “g” is any different, and certainly not much different if at all, median-wise (i.e. – I do agree the gendered determination of the median around “g” is still inconclusive and is still an open question – which is telling in of itself, a least wrt to evidence that bears on the discussion we are now undertaking).
D) as such, to my way of thinking, the gendered ontological capacity comes down to (i). This personal agency topic is rather mysterious and is hard subject to get a proper handle on. Here is a portion of as comment I recently made over at Rational Male on this subject:
“The Stanley Milgram work from the 1960’s is also very interesting wrt outlining how people (both men and women) have a tendency to refuse choice (or decision) so as to refuse agency so as to refuse responsibility. It is interesting to note that people have a tendency to limit themselves in the one way they are not actually limited. Here is an excerpt from a recent comment I posted at another site, outlining my thoughts wrt this agency-refusal that Milgram uncovered:
The one way we are not limited …… is our power to choose …… the power to choose what we decide to choose …. the power implied by our personal agency in the first place (though our options for choice are limited the power of this choice itself is not – you either have the power to choose or you do not – if you believe you do have this power then in this way it is not limited – it is an all or nothing abstract artifact). There is something deeply mysterious about this activity ……. I have choices (albeit among a limited set of options) …….. as well I choose to choose or choose not to choose ……. so refusal of agency is a choice!! But how can that be? If I chose not to choose (i.e – refuse my agency), isn’t that still a choice? So perhaps the point wrt to “agency-refusal” is whether I recognize (or perhaps even choose to recognize!) my choice-refusal, as even a choice. So …….. the question becomes …… is the choice not to choose in the same abstract class (and therefore the same moral class perhaps) as the other limited-set-of-options-choices, (which would perhaps then imply my personal responsibility for such choice) or not? Do you see how there is something rather schizophrenic implied by this quandary? Perhaps the only way to reconcile this quandary is to view ourselves as of two minds (the willful mind, and the mind willfully bereft of will).”
E) given the very abstract nature of this personal agency subject, how to discover whether there are gendered differences wrt to aptitudes for use of and accepting responsibility for personal agency, vs. gendered differences wrt to actual use of and accepting responsibility for personal agency? The Stanley Milgram experiments from the 1960’s are quite telling in this respect, because the design parameters of the experiments tended to remove gendered value differences that might more-so otherwise skew results. There is good movie about this called – Experimenter (2015) – you are probably familiar with this – it is about a series psychological experiments whereby regular people (both men and women of all demographics) were called on to shock another person in another room to the point of apparent death, for the sake of a supposed learning experiment (which was being faked), as directed by an “experimenter”. Many many regular people went all the way. People (both men and women) have a tendency to refuse choice so as to refuse agency so as to refuse responsibility. People have a tendency to limit themselves in the one way they are not actually limited. As far as I am aware, there is no normative gender differences wrt to the original experimental results, or by way of experimental replication by others later. If there is some data around this issue that shows otherwise, I would be very interested to know about this.
F) given the Milgram results as outlined in (E) above, I think it more reasonable to conclude, at least at this juncture wrt to the knowledge now available to us, that it is more likely that the hard-core solipsism, as defines in my comments here, normatively apply to men and women alike, and as such it would be inaccurate to imply that women are in a different category of fundamental-existential-personhood, than men are, in this sense.
IllimitableMan – do you agree?
superslaviswife – do you agree? If so, then I would like to explore this subject now, more-so from the emphasis of the term “solipsism” that you were implying in your last comment – more-so emphasizing the psychological aspects around the ontological, that color the more hard-core ontological definition of “solipsism” that I have outlined in this comment.
“Thus, hypoagency to some extent must be positive for women, which must be positive for human society, otherwise it would not be the dominant form for the female mind. And if it is positive, but also a detestable state (no human enjoys being truly dependent, as our self preservation drive pushes us away from it) then women must have an inbuilt means of keeping us hypoagent. Enter solipsism:”
If you agree with my definitions as outlined here, then the “hypoagency” you are referring to in this passage would be more-so a social artifact (but most probably a social artifact shaped by incentives and values, some of which are probably innate in nature) than an immutable condition of “fundamental-existential-personhood” gender differences – yes?
You also said:
“I think it’s also important to add that not all selfcentredness is solipsism. Subconscious selfcerenteredness without excluding empathy is just the self preservation drive. Conscious selfcenteredness within your own justification, excluding empathy, is narcissism. Conscious or subconscious selfcenteredness beyond what is reasonable yet without excluding empathy is egomania. Subconscious selfcenteredness in denial, excluding most empathy is solipsism. Men seem to lean more to egomania and narcissism, women to solipsism, all humans have a powerful self preservation drive. This may simply be because a passive, dependent, solipsistic woman is at least given a good chance of survival and breeding, whereas a passive, dependent, solipsistic man is unlikely to pass on his genes. Whatever causes the bias (hormones, neural pathways, upbringing, everything) is probably genetically engrained on some level.”
Interpreting this passage, in light of the definition of hard-core solipsism as I have defined here within this comment, I take all these elements you have mentioned – i.e. – self-preservation, empathy, narcissism, egomania, denial, and valuations around self-centredness, (which is what I believe is what you mean by the definition of “solipsism” you are prescribing to here), as psychological scripts, and sub-scripts (or routines and sub-routines), for which the hard-core solipsism, as I have defined, operates upon. If you agree – I think we could continue the discussion in that vein, which I would think may be a fruitful approach.
Before we go any further – superslaviswife – are you with me so far? If not – where do you disagree?
“Do you think blind solipsism is a natural state induced by powerlessness? ”
This is the “patriarchy” angle – women being hypoagent because they lack the power to assume agency… That’s just a hypoagent response in itself.
Profitability drives behavior. What gets rewarded gets repeated. So a better question to ask is “How is hypoagency profitable for women?”
You’ve already answered that. I’ll just add, women are trappers and beauty is not their only bait.
Look to the weakness of men to understand the power of women. On top of his sexual drive, the lonely guy is desperate for companionship, and the insignificant guy is desperate for significance.
It’s not difficult for a woman to prey upon a man’s vulnerabilities. She can damsel for profit, because, like a trout striking the fisherman’s fly, the right combination unlocks his instincts and wallet.
However many of the more radical feminists actually touched on this more accurately in their definition of patriarchy: patriarchy is biological, everything about the male mammal leans to the suppression and utilization of the female mammal. And for the species and society to continue, the woman MUST be suppressed and used. Imagine a society where all, or at least most, women all of a sudden pursued full independence, power, freedom from men… well, we don’t have to, we’re living it. However as brainy animals, male and female humans alike seek to be independent, to feel safe and strong and valuable. Solipsism lets young children, the elderly and women feel as though we are equal to working age men, as though we provide just as much and are just as capable of functioning on our own.
Yet, as you say, we DO have some power. Children have their mother’s natural bonding, the elderly have the youths’ sense of duty and a desire for repayment, and women have our “vagina magic” as Jon puts it. But, from the perspective of a female who has been forced to introspect, realize all that’s messed up in my head and work against it (and for all anecdotes are worth), you can’t just go back. Sure, I know I could live off Jon’s salary easily. I could get by just doing the basic housework and sitting on my butt all day watching TV. But the feeling of worthlessness… it ruins it. I need to make money, to keep the house pristine, to budget, manage the garden, care for his pets and relatives, otherwise I can’t face myself. Solipsism might have allowed me to escape that and sit back and enjoy the life he affords me, and in that I can see how it might be hard to break, possibly even useful to many women. We might have power, but, deep down, all humans want to be selfsufficient and useful, and that is something that, on our own, women rarely are.
I agree with superslaviswife’s connections between “solipsism” and dependence, as I say in my comment below. Good insight.
“I think they’re correlated, but I’m not sure that correlation is a causation.”
Based on my education in maths and statistics, I can say it isn’t, if that can help in any way.
” Men are taught to worship women, whilst women are taught to distrust men. Men are taught to serve women, whilst women are taught to deceive men. Society believes it morally reprehensible for a man to dupe a woman, and yet bares no such disdain when the polarity is reversed, often going to extreme lengths to rationalise auditorily pleasing justifications for immoral female behaviour.”
A few years back I began to appreciate the need for secret societies for men & men only associations.
Men need to restart this both in public and private…
Indeed, the importance of male spaces cannot be understated. Part of TRP’s popularity (and utility) lies in the fact it’s a male space – which are in short supply these days!
Well said bruv!
Ok. So if all that you say is true about me, then being a woman, what would I do to NOT be cunning? I am nice and kind and it is important to me to be honest and genuine. But you say regardless if a woman is nice, kind and brought up well, she is still cunning. Well, what do I do then? What is your point? Where is the middle ground? So, you have a “good” woman but she is still cunning and just horrid in nature..manipulative and irrational because born a female. What is your point? Dont marry a woman? No commitment? No loving a woman? I’m just unsure as to what this matters on a large scope. Please explain?
In the essay I state I believe the cunning to be pathological, and therefore “not removable” – men have to learn how to deal with it, you as a woman can’t do anything about it. However, you can learn how to be a better woman by checking out red pill women on Reddit – http://reddit.com/r/redpillwomen
You forget you’re on a site written for men and that’s why there is no advice for women here. You don’t understand why the article exists or relate to it because it hasn’t been catered to you (you’re actually unintentionally demonstrating my thesis on solipsism in the essay, so thank you!)
The purpose of the essay is detailed in section 1 and 2. It’s explaining female psychology to men who don’t understand women so they can make more informed decisions in their dealings with women. What they choose to do with this information is ultimately up to them. See my essay “The Choice” for an exploration of the different options available to men.
“The Choice” can be found here: http://illimitablemen.com/2016/01/22/the-choice/
The cultural battle of the sexes is more like the battle between females and beta males.
My observation is that women get indignant the moment they are told a particular activity is forbidden or that it is beyond their ability eg. forbidding habits like drinking will be seen as controlling or even belittling but not healthy. This is a gift of solipsism but is the byproduct of a necessary evolutionary trait. Telling a woman she is bad at math is another example. Normally this would be seen as an affront to an individual’s ability but in case of women there is more to it.
Her resistance to being excluded from any male dominated activity is the reason why human species has advanced so much. Women enjoy doing things that appear to give them power but they want to learn these from the best of men i.e the alphas. Given the fact that women love much easily after respect is earned it follows that teaching a woman new skills is evolutionarily favourable. How does this manifest in improvement of the quality of the species?
My earlier assumption was that a species advanced only when more powerful males impregnated the females raising the quality of species. My rethinking of this aspect in light of female solipsism drew me to a different conclusion that the best males raise the quality of females by introducing innovative thought that is then spread amongst the females through training or other exposure. The females will welcome the new training by being more receptive reproductively to the men. The dark side is that they will try to replace the beta males to remove the low quality genes and force a gene quality jump. All efforts towards female inclusion at work are an insidious strategy to get between beta men and alpha men.
Alternatively, a woman that is exposed to hardships that men face also get trained which thus raises gene quality. Quality women birth quality men and vice versa. A surprising conclusion derived from the above was that losing a war and getting a large chunk of males wiped out may actually benefit the community in the long run as the women are then forced to be quality.
Either ways the betas are guillotined.
Women are the biggest harcoded program in the world. Solipsism can be better explained by herd mentality. Imagine the entire female species as a large harem herd that is answerable only to the best of men. The moment the individual is taken out of the herd by a personal attack it is no longer part of the harem and has no access to the best of men owing to its defects. Since the female brain is itself incapable of initiating change it has to console itself by hamstering. Not being part of the herd is suicidal to the female. By hamstering she has actually cheated evolutionary death. Solipsism has other benefits. It generates unwavering loyalty to men they are in love with for the moment. The flaws of these men are ignored at light speed as they now reflect the females choices. This grants the males to have soldiers that can be treated any way they want. Nature intended this to be used to push female limits and thus raise quality of species. Solipsism is harcoding. Thus the need for Red Pill fathers for getting the code right.
Greetings from India.
I have a problem with these writings. There is absolutely no research nor references to support any of the claims. There is some truth in what you write, but statements like this are in my opinion bullshit.
“In the essay I state I believe the cunning to be pathological, and therefore “not removable” – men have to learn how to deal with it, you as a woman can’t do anything about it.”
If there were so many differences and with such a big importance then there would be possible to see it in the brain structure, fMRI, EEG, neuroimaging..
This is not about morality or nothing similar. I’m 21 and I go to prostitutes almost every month. Way better than Tinder and going to dates. Pay 60 euros and be with a top10% woman of the age, weight, stature, hair color, sexuality.. of your liking. That’s my solution to the sex area for now, for me it makes the most sense as I’m not especially physically attractive and I don’t have that much time to waste. I should get into dating again so I can continue practicing though, probably in the Summer.
Anyway, you may help some guys while you help yourself. I’m more of reading peer-reviewed papers/academic books, and then applying that to real life. Experience trumps theory though.
There are actually scientific underpinnings to this. Neural differences in men and women have been observed and elucidated. For example, women have limbic systems (repsonsible for emotion) that are more easily activated then mens. In other words, a lower frequency of action potentials is required to activate their limbic systems.
To get a basic introduction to the topic (that you can further pursue on pubmed) please read this Wikipedia article.
If one sufficiently understands neuroscience one can easily see the correlations between Illimtable’s writings and neuroscience.
I understand neuroscience as I’m doing both a psychology and neuroscience degree. There is no evidence to make any of the strong affirmations done here.
Must’ve been great to philosophise in peace like Aristotle and Plato’s ilk, for they did not have empirically obsessed idiots dismissing anything not backed by multiple studies (which contrary to academic belief, are far from infallible and often total bullshit, executed poorly, unrepresentative, falsified datasets etc)
It’s sad somebody doing a hard science degree such as yourself can be so close-minded and dismissive, I guess this is only a reflection of the degenerate state of modern academia and the kind of rote memorising idiots they allow in.
Nothing I’ve said has been disproven, in fact, some of it has been proven.
But this isn’t a science blog, it’s a philosophy and men’s blog, and I don’t pander to self-important chip-on-their shoulder wannabe academics such as yourself, I allow you to make yourself look like an idiot by prestige signalling in the comments, then roast you on a stick and tell you to fuckoff.
Here’s your precious study:
Cheers to your comment on studies. In university I was required to run and participate in surveys/experiments as part of my course requirements (free labor to the graduate students and university).
Trust me when I tell you most participants just clicked through the screens, paid no attention, made up participants to full our quotas, etc. I actually saw one study published in a fairly major newspaper and had to laugh as I knew how completely wrong it was.
Ironically, ever since college I have a strong distrust of “studies”.
Illimitable Man – the study you link is very interesting. I prefer to differentiate hard-core ontological solipsism from psychological routines (i.e – some psychological routines may be just masquerading as hard-core ontological solipsism, but may actually be something else) as I fleshed out in my comments above responding to superslaviswife’s comments.
This study may be hilighting something cogent in this respect.
Perhaps with women’s greater focus on the social order, as counterpointed with men’s greater focus on the order of the objective reality, the comparable hard-core ontological solipsism that each is subject to, will appear different in action as follows:
1) men: less compunction wrt to manipulating the order of the objective reality (much of which will actually now be social reality but at very large organizational levels) so as to achieve his ends (greater mastery of his circumstances)
2) women: less compunction wrt to manipulating the social order (occurring at much smaller organizational levels, perhaps at sizes below 150 individuals) so as to achieve her ends (greater mastery of her circumstances)
Mmmm …. if seen this way, the next question is:
Since this is about goal-directed behavior, one would assume that women should be able to learn how to gain greater moral control of their smaller-order social behavior. If so, then culturally, the way forward may be to provide women with opportunities for said learning (which is pretty much the opposite of what is occurring right now, whereby the much weaker feminine-informed politically-correct morality has taken hold as the ascendant form in current smaller-order culture, and therefore larger-order culture).
There are plenty of studies showing that male and female brains are wired differently. Here’s a link that took about five seconds to find, and I’m sure that there are plenty more out there.
Even if our brains were exactly the same, is it so hard to believe that the differences in upbringing and life experience between the sexes would result in difference in behavior? Imagine two computers with the same hardware specs, but with different programming; of course they will have different capabilities and functionality, to best suit what their users think they need.
Dr. Scott Reuben, an anesthesiologist who faked the data on 20+ pain studies. Time to reconsider the “respectable” fields of science and “peer reviewed” anything.
” Women often do not understand why they feel what they feel, because rationally verbalising primal impulses is difficult if not impossible.”
And this is why men get trapped in the first place – because we naively believe what she/they say. We ignore the signs, not to mention the re-education that occurs for the rest of our lives, and the vicious cycle that is perpetuated.
As Rollo put it, “the medium is the message”…
As Patrice (O’Neal) says, it’s like a deer telling a lion how to be a lion – NO!
The lion wants to eat said deer but the deer says, with her doe eyes, “Deep down you know you really want to be friends, I’m not like other deer, I think you’re special…just be yourself…”
So the lion live a a few years holding hands, prancing in the savanna, with his new best friend, ferociously protecting her from his hungry brothers…
Then one day he sees something that makes him feel disillusioned…he feels sick, his body starts to reject the shit his been eating…grass, rats, roots…
Emaciated, after a few days alone, in a dizzy mist, the deer visits him. She ridicules him, about how his not fit to be a lion, he can’t even be a good deer…she wants to turn him into a wall hanging…
It’s then he has this instinctual rush of feline blood thirst right in his subconscious that makes him realise, without guilt, without shame, and with pride, that he is what he is…and a grin circumscribed by eyes of blood lust eyes forms.
The deer now is gripped with fear…he knows it, instinctually that deep down, she wants this, she needs it, so that his cubs, and her deer too can have a better future….all this flashes through his mind…and he springs into action pinning the deer down…
His drool drips all over her face…as he let’s his conviction slip out in the slightest of whispers…”I’mma eat you bitch!”
This is my first time posting on this side. One could say that I have ‘swallowed’ the redpill in childhood due to my Eastern European background and I recognize that women are cunning and often hurt men.
However, Eastern European culture teaches beta behavior in dating and I have not had the success with women that I would like. For example, I recently got played pretty badly, and can describe the situation in more depth if anyone desires.
I am currently in a STEM field. What I do not understand is how can women be unsuitable for power, how are they unaware and solipsistic, as I see many women working in science and doing research. In fact my PI and supervisor were both females and understood the scientific method. What gives me pause is, how does one reconcile your writings with my observation?
Read this article and tell me if it answers your question: http://illimitablemen.com/2015/09/27/educated-women-vapidity/
“women are deadly but needy”, wow. Didn’t you also write something like “women are dependent yet hate to be depended on” recently.. I don’t know what it is, but you & rollo seem to specialize in quick quotes that are easily internalized. Many thanks!
I like the fact that this entire post is in essence saying that women are very happy to make a modified fallacy of composition, where they assume that everything you say of a part of a whole, is true of the whole in one case. Yet they hate the very same fallacy when the feel like it references them.
It seems to me that a woman’s mind is composed of a weird pattern of division and composition fallacies, where she can:
A) Accept that something is true of a part of a whole if:
Either it reflects positively on her
Reflects negatively on other women
B) Accept that something is true of a whole by the sum of its parts if:
A) if it reflects positively on her.
B) Negatively on other women.
In essence, this shows that women operate of 2 sets of “logic” one positive and one negative.
I would confer to general idea that, like numbers in mathematics, language (imagination) and for that matter, reality are two things that cannot superimpose. Numbers: cardinal and ordinal at the same time, language(imagination): extrapolation and interpolation to reality, both serving as dissipating pointers… I believe short daily life stories, without interpretations, without multiple folded and intertwined implied desires could be more relevant… they will not construct an “imaginative” reality that, as much as resonating to logic and inner deep wishes these constructions seems, but will touch the ludic sense of humans and the apparent hardship of life will be eased…
You allude to the human addiction to the narrative as Yuval Harari (historian at Hebrew University of Jerusalem) is fond of saying. There a couple of good youtube vids of him presenting these compelling ideas, that I think are worth the time to absorb.
titirobil – I think I may be grasping your point, and it is very relevant, especially the way you put it. You are portraying “language(imagination)/reality” as a “system of polarity”.
Here is an idea that I have been pondering in the last week or so:
system of polarity = non-resolution = strong emergence!
Mmmmm …… my current question is …… “Is there more than one system of polarity, or are they all aspects of the polarity of the subjective/objective dichotomy?” – these subjective and objective perspectives necessarily imply each other, and therefore non-resolution is their inherent defining property, – yet that mystery is so deep – I could never grasp the nature of this emergence until I recently have entertained the idea that the emergence is implied by the very property of non-resolution!
If this line of inquiry turns out to prove promising, then the concept-horizon is exciting indeed, because it is not hard to see that, also implied by the above-provided relational formula, is:
new systems of polarity = new strongly emergent properties!
As well, emergence is implied within mathematics, by way of an information systems approach (see Stephen Wolfram and his ideas around cellular automaton), except, as far as I know about the mathematical concept, – we can show that emergence indeed mathematically does arise, but we don’t have a deterministic rationale for such.
Would not the man/woman system of polarity, be of another class outside of the class of the system of polarity of the subjective/objective dichotomy? I would argue that the man/woman dynamic probably is a system of polarity precisely because the dynamic refuses to resolve (though at first it seems rather more mundane, and that it should resolve – yet – there it is – it refuses to resolve!).
Titirobil – if you have any thoughts on this I would be glad to hear.
Let’s be ludic, I feel these could be insightful:
Kaplan’s Law of the Instrument: “Give a boy a hammer and everything he meets has to be pounded.”
A conclusion is simply the place where you got tired of thinking.
Lavoisier’s law: Dans la nature rien ne se crée, rien ne se perd, tout change.
Tao gives birth to one.
One gives birth to two.
Two gives birth to three.
Three gives birth to all things and all beings.
All beings bear the negative physical form which is represented by Ying, and embrace the positive true nature which is represented by Yang. With the union of these two, they arrive at a state of harmony.
titirobil – perhaps by way of your comments, (a human will do as a human does – draw conclusions) + (perhaps the very nature of the human-conclusion-making-operation should be drawn into question) + (ying/yang = principle of polarity = negative physical form/positive true nature ….. by which you are implying the subjective/objective dichotomy) – you may be all-together implying that the “property of strong emergence” is real in only the sense of being an inevitable product of the human endeavor (i.e – a man-made abstract artifact)?
Maybe so. Open question (as is an open question wrt absolutely all the abstract products of the human inquisitive nature, in precisely the same way, but methinks it strange and wondrous in any event, that such abstract products provide such power to shape the human realm). This “open question” stance would therefore imply that that then is the playing field you are necessarily limited to, and that I am necessarily limited to, and any exchange we seek to undertake will be necessarily limited to. I have no problem proceeding as such if you so wish.
But you also quote Lavoisier (In nature nothing is created, nothing is lost, everything changes). By that do you mean to imply no proof, or perhaps a refutation even, of the principle of strong emergence? The quality of the change implied by strong emergence implies either “something novel has been created”, or “we don’t understand how the change was inevitably implied by the original conditions”. Either “conclusion” would imply very interesting problems wrt to the “edifice of human-made conclusions”, as these are now constructed. Wrt to the first, problems around the principle of conservation arises. Wrt to the second, problems around the principle of causality arises.
Do you agree that in this sense Lavoisier’s quote is wrong?
The rather enigmatic point I was alluding to in my post above, is that strong emergence seems to be inextricably linked to non-resolution.
Some interesting questions would therefore follow from this observation:
is the relationship between strong emergence and non-resolution symmetrical (i.e – if strong emergence always implies non-resolution, as I am postulating as an idea worthy of consideration, does non-resolution always imply strong emergence)? If so that would have some potentially very powerful ramifications wrt to furthering our inquires.
what is non-resolution anyway? Can it be conflated with the principle of the known/unknown/unknowable, in the sense of demarking the border (or interface) of the unknown and the unknowable? If so does this shed any light on the quality of the infinite implied by the unknowable – for instance, – can we thereby ask – what is the aleph of the unknowable? Also – if we come to know something about the limits of the unknown in this way – this could perhaps be helpful wrt to working top-down-wise in conjunction with working bottom-up-wise, so as to convert more “unknown” territory into the “known” territory.
my intuition (what it feels like to me) is that the limitations of the human realm is akin to a finite precipitate of the infinite. How can this be? Is non-resolution this precipitate?
titirobil – does any of this resonate with you?
This version of wordpress doesn’t see the indented point marked with (-). Here is the last portion of my comment, reformatted:
Some interesting questions would therefore follow from this observation:
1) is the relationship between strong emergence and non-resolution symmetrical (i.e – if strong emergence always implies non-resolution, as I am postulating as an idea worthy of consideration, does non-resolution always imply strong emergence)? If so that would have some potentially very powerful ramifications wrt to furthering our inquires.
2) what is non-resolution anyway? Can it be conflated with the principle of the known/unknown/unknowable, in the sense of demarking the border (or interface) of the unknown and the unknowable? If so does this shed any light on the quality of the infinite implied by the unknowable – for instance, – can we thereby ask – what is the aleph of the unknowable? Also – if we come to know something about the limits of the unknown in this way – this could perhaps be helpful wrt to working top-down-wise in conjunction with working bottom-up-wise, so as to convert more “unknown” territory into the “known” territory.
3) my intuition (what it feels like to me) is that the limitations of the human realm is akin to a finite precipitate of the infinite. How can this be? Is non-resolution this precipitate?
titirobil – does any of this resonate with you?
When discussing mind’s objects and processes that are trying to map the real phenomena I would safely assume as true:
In terra caecorum monoculus rex :both related to quantitative/qualitative effects;
The story of the blind men and the elephant :both related to static and dynamic properties of an opinion;
The Principle of Four cornered negation :applied to both emergency and resolution process;
Take a subject e.g. “non-resolution and its’ relation with strong emergency” and apply first principle trying to reach all applicable fields and descriptions. Then, make a/some “wild” assumptions by using second principle in regards to the whole. And in the end, apply the third principle to all your endeavour.
And there it is, you found it.
I appreciate your and for that matter, host’s effort, to elaborate a constructivist new way of thinking about women and strong emergency, both related as we can imply… I feel rather too small to have my own opinion, I tried many times but inextricably failed… so, I didn’t give up, just applied strong emergency to women’s field… hahaha…
So, if I try to see the same elephant as you (strong emergency and its’ non/causality/resolution) I will try to enter in the “same” terra caecorum where you are… saying this, you created your elephant and you are the only one who will be the monoculus on this/your matter… I am caecorum of that and using MY mind’s tools will be to only create my close-to-your-description own elephant…
So, you see?… let’s play again, Hawkin’s Theory of Progress: Progress does not consist of replacing a theory that is wrong with one that is right. It consists of replacing a theory that is wrong with one that is more subtly wrong. So it is in your power to define when/where you stop and make others accept your elephant as the currently accepted view of elephant models for that matter.
Now, whatever mind has built in Real World for humans works only in approximations: even a circle’s length cannot be measured exactly and we want to build an unified theory of anything???… so, the work done here is very, very in depth and illuminating, sometimes touching a certain kind of reality, but nothing trumps the reality… and the ludic part of it… 😀
Women are cunning for a simple reason: cunning is for the weak. Cunning is what you must use when you would get destroyed in open combat. Cunning is for the dependent. If you depend on other people, if you have no realistic path to independence, then you have to master the social landscape because you have no choice but to extract what you need from it. You cannot go directly to the source yourself. You cannot be self-sufficient. So you had better learn how to wheedle what you need from society.
It’s very important to keep the pejorative gloss of these kinds of comments, because we live in a feminized society. As a result it is taboo to say what we lose due to feminization. We have the responsibility to discover the ways in which a feminized society is worse than one led by masculine elements. Of course, one of the results of a feminized society is that the men exhibit these characteristic defects of women–the mental and social habits of the weak and dependent.
I do hope that everyone had a glorious Easter. I should think now not the time for comment, but this is a special day indeed. I should hope that young ladies who visit this sight do not turn away unnerved, as it’s Author has a way of unspitefulness in his prose, and I may say, a most gentle way of sorting the truth. This is no menial task as Truth as such, is rigid. It’s most difficult to politely issue the truth knowing that the throng is, without deduction, against you. To put it blunt therefore, is often the way of putting it straight, which is more important than being cordial. The author of this site is man after every mans own heart as it were, and hopefully will long continue to be.
I should like to mention breifly, the small lingering set of women thus far untouched by the Philosophy of feminism. I should think these women quite unawares, as the toxin is discreet. An indoctrination in which the method is most often on the sly, and flows skulkingly beneath the minds natural gaurd against unrighteousness.
The question at present that I’d like to issue is “Is there an essence of man and woman adjoined in happiness, and if so, what is it to be.
Feminism goes on about the repression of Women by Men. To be candid, I don’t believe a man ever considered such a notion of repression, which, to a feminist would retort, “that is precisely what we would expect a man to say.”
But who is you’re quarrel with? In the words of Chesterton, “a maniacs mind moves on a very small circular track. If you argue with a lunitic, you are likely to get the worst of it. That is what feminism is…a very tiny circular track of thought. A small circle is quite as infinite as a large one, but it is nowhere near as big.
The Man in love mutters, “I love this beautiful woman, and I should die for her if needs be” and the congruous woman utters back ” and I am yours my love, and shall die with you if it must be.”
The poor feminist cannot even imagine love. She looks with wanton eyes on what a man has and is, then disregaurds her own talents as if she had naught at all. Then she drives herself mad over what he’s trying to extort while extortion is her principal effort.
In short, it’s ungrateful, to God, should no one have the stones to say it. It’s no mans or anyone elses fault that a woman is afraid to be loved in her own right.
I should like very much to thank the Author of this site. Manliness is only to be spoken of in whispers these days and I THANK YOU GREATLY SIR for the effort. One man holding the torch bravely illuminates the path for the masses.
I was going to write a scathing response to this blog post, then realized something: this post would almost word for word describe how I think of men in general. In fact, I happened upon it after googling “distrustful of men” in an attempt to reconcile some personal issues I’m having. I guess the difference is I realize my opinions are subjective and would never attempt to pass them off as fact. These claims you’re making are completely anecdotal and you would be hard pressed to find any legitimate empirical evidence proving these findings apply to all women other than just ones you’ve been intimate with. I would also say that what you’ve written about women shows us only your perception of those you’ve been intimate with, which is through your personal lens of bias. Your “findings” are therefore just biased opinions of a select few women that you’ve interacted with. It’s your right to write about what you please, just understand that a responsible reader will take it with a grain of salt. I feel the need to say this because it seems like you take yourself VERY seriously. Symptomatic of some infantile narcissism perhaps?
Just a few female inventions of note – there’s no way I could list them all without taking up an awful lot of room – windscreen wipers, the Mars rover, computer code, Kevlar, the life raft, the fire escape, solar heating, the medical syringe, the electric refrigerator, wireless transmission technology, CCTV, user friendly computer software… I honestly could go on and on. Without these inventions and the ingenuity of these women, you would not even have been able to create and share this article.
All women love to be treated as more special than all other women. The key to attraction is to make a woman feel that she is special enough that a high value man wants her above others.
Consequently all women hate generalised statements that may be interpreted as AWALT. Because generalization hurts female pride by making a woman feel decidedly not special and bringing them down to be grouped with other women, especially when that statement feels negative. Hence women always retaliate against a person or a statement making a “herd” observation about women, while they have no qualms about making similar statemets against men.”
Is it then any wonder why women reading your works tend to attack personally in the comments section? You probably didn’t make the reader feel special.
Oh yeah and being married now, I know from first hand experience that all this is so very true. I started reading your blog when i found that this was exactly what I was going through.
No wonder why whenever I tried discussing reasearch, strategical, engineering, analytical and philosophical stuff at home, I got shut down for “always researching”. Or why girls cry over things like their best friend being shifted to the adjoining classroom. Mars and Venus got it mostly right, though they missed out the fact that women can’t understand men’s issues or even that men have issues. I guess many women readers hate TRP because men sharing their issues comes across as weak to them, hence the wide range of shaming comments.
To the point: You say, and I believe that female ‘love’ is conditional respect for a man who she views is the most respectable from her orbiters.
So if you follow your advice to a T, become wealthy, physically superior, have mad dread game, be alpha in all categories and have a woman out of many you are interested in for a LTR. In the LTR if she still cheats or fucks another dude, lower class, lower tier and a beta, lets say a pool boy, What is the explanation for that?
IF you do everything we believe a man needs to do to have a stable relationship and she still cheats, scrap and move on, but is there any end? I’ve heard of the lower level pool boy story too many times to place all women under the category of ‘will love you if you are a god’ heading. I’m sure you can destroy my question, good, I’d like to know.
“As a clueless man bereft of the knowledge my sanity demanded, I would ask men to explain women, I would ask women to explain women, and I would ask Google to explain women. Nobody really knew what they were talking about.”
Of course not. If the question is wrong, no answer will be correct. If you ask “Why are unicorns always hungry?”, no answer to this question will be satisfying (one could point out that unicorns don’t exist, but this will very probably not be accepted by the questioner as a valid answer).
It is the same here. There is no way to explain women, as well as there is no way to explain men, or children, or blacks, or Americans, or Chinese. You may find some common traits in these groups (or at least in a majority of the members), but this is far from explaining anything.
You are explaning a certain kind of woman. Insecure, emotional, submissive, spoiled. Granted, such women exist, and the description may be accurate then. But generalizing them to all women is like generalizing gay men to all men.
Pick-up artists typically boast that they have success quotas of 1:20 or the like. (This is in fact very high: It means that at a long evening with many tries on women, they very often have sex later on that night.) So this means that roughly 5% of the females are of this specific kind. Nice for PUAs, but still 95% off from “all women”.
And this thinking can also be a trap: German chancellor Angela Merkel is infamous for politically eliminating any alpha male by turning their masculinity games against them, to the point where she seems without alternative in a center-right male-dominated party.
So this inaccurate generalization can even backfire pretty hard. There is no other way than to judge people from case to case. If you fall prey to lazy thinking – and the belief in the woman-explanation-formula is lazy thinking – you will have to deal with the consequences.
No need for me to refute your comment. This is what you’re looking for:
Ill- would love to hear your thoughts to wild man when you get a chance. Most comments seem to be women offended (thus proving point) or regurgitated redpill mantras that have become as predictable a response as those women who are so quick to get offended.
Superslaviswife and wild man offer ACTUAL insight to an already insightful and enlightening article (also Ivan love to get your thoughts- saw your responses and always value your insight sir) .
ILL, you said this article is written FOR men (seems obvious to men perhaps but important to mention if women will be commenting it seems) so any woman who feels the need to “let me be the exception woman” and womansplain what they believe you got wrong about women is just missing the point i think.
But men and women have two different existential experiences of life . The “nature” of man and “nature” of woman is lived. What one cannot experience/live or embody, (might be a better word) one cannot fully comprehend.
I believe feminisim is an ideology of entitlement stemming from resentment. I must admit as i observe the suppression of the masculine today and how negatively our young men have been affected, i question if feminisim is the feminine rebellion of the supressed/ controlled “nature” of the feminine under patriarchy? I can find no other logical reason for their abortion obsession. Its not just “empowered” (most over used/ nauseating word) by not becoming mothers but the power comes more from the TERMINATION of what has already begun (and ironically requires a man to start) and they being women can only bring forth into existence- every person you see on this planet came to life inside a women- OR we will use this as leverage for money IF we deem this a human (child suppprt). (Reproduction weaponized).
But pregnancy, body prepares every month EVERY MONTH for possible new life… Something so unique to the female experince… its As if they are rebelling against their very nature. The thing they see as what accounted for having very little say over their lives hell even who they would marry (the pendulum has swung certainly!) Still they see the greatest threat to their agency being their very own biology and all “choices” MUST suppprt the rebellion or women get set back blah blah years OR they go back to the regulated feminine nature that pleases the patriarchy. (Meaning artificial regulation because its the nature that pleases the opposite sex meaning control)
Men and women are NOT equal. This i believe (or it could be my own naive optimisim) women who reject feminism are coming to understand (and thrse women are JUST starting to appear). For ironically feminism puts down the female with their delusions of equality in nature more than the so laothed “patriarchy”.
masculinity can not be suppressed or condemned it is vital so too is the feminine (which HAS NOT been properly cultivated by either patriarchy or femi ism due to the need for control- thats different from purposeful complement by ones own accord) To suppress or deny “nature” is to limit its potential for good OR bad. BUT there is NO chance for the “good” to manifest if controlled or suppressed because true greatness is a conscious calculated choice. The “bad” is also a conscious choice which is the risk of freedom i guess but my bigger point is the suppression, shaming or controlling of said “nature” will ALWAYS lead to rebellion it must be embraced (not at the expense of others i must note) but nonetheless embraced cultivated and guided to a state of regulated embodiment- NOT artificial regulation that will either please the patriarchy or the feminists.
The opppsite sex cant cultivate the others nature for them nor should they be forced to validate it or condemn it ( how could man or woman possibly judge so definitevely the opposites’ nature based on experiences or observations?!) And then decide how best the individual should live… To do so is utterly narcissitic and superficial, a superior simpleton no doubt.
Back to cultivation and choice… A free woman will not live as a free man will (something the delusional feminists will never subscribe to) the laws and rights might now be equal and as you so perfectly pointed out in the feminists favor with divorce courts… BUT the laws of nature have not changed. How will we (men and women) progress as free individuals?
Feminism ( which includes the man feminist who is a wolf in sheeps clothing and female feminist who is the pathetic version of a man) will not sustain itself do to the supression of both natures.
So a free woman? Freedom is NOT equality. Freedom is not even “choice” but rather
Something that is MAXIMISED by personal accountability for one’s choices. dont confuse that with oppression or control. To deny your very nature/ biology for the sake of autonomy is the antithesis of a free woman or free man for that matter. You have so much as limited your own pool of choice by forcing a standard of equality that doesnt account for the biological differences between men and women.
You are the choices that you make, your ability to ensure the outcome you desire and ultimately handle the consequences whether you like those consequences or not…so LEGALLY yes equal rights have been achieved however like i said before though the laws of nature have not changed – either man or woman is the frame with which youre working-choose, plan, prepare accordingly.
Now the “complement”…how does a free woman complement a free man? Im not sure. 3rd wave feminism will see to it that women believe their very biology/nature is the greatest threat to their freedom because they dont want “complement” or freedom really. They want to get even.
ILL i love this article because you have articulated ultimately the survival nature of women which i could not quite pin point. We live in a society that no longer requires each sex’s innate survival nature to its fullest extent- men have the physical advantage so strictly looking at survival if you dont have the physical advantage and what ever may come with having that physical advantage what means have you to survive beyond the means you have been allowed (motherhood, prostitution, nun) What means have you to acheive SOME agency over your life ? It makes sense. Not judging either sex or the dynamics of the past it is what it is. And somewhere in the past you will find the answers for not only what has evolved but how and how into what we know as “present”.
Today, Whatever has not been cultivated purposefully, organically and naturally by each sex (this looks different for men and women and its on each individual man or woman to do so) will not reach its mature state of self-regulation embodiement and thus complement; said man or woman will remain infantile in nature.
The opposite sex’s opinion of what the other”s embodiment SHOULD be quite frankly is irrelevent because we are also individuals. All this talk of nature ive been doing ive completely neglected the individual man or individual women. Dont have time to get to know INDIVIDUALLY everyone so having some knowlesge of nature is key but dont let the “nature”cloud the flavor of the individual.
Proceed with caution.
The will to not only survive but thrive will manifest its power in sometimes dark ways. and that of course is nothing new.
Thanks for your work. I appreciate your style clarity and nuance.