As a female Boomer, I will undoubtedly continue to exhibit robust self-esteem and a somewhat emotional view of the world, processed through the lens of my inner experience. I’ll happily cop to female solipsism, or whatever the guys are calling it these daysOn the one hand, it doesn't matter in the slightest if Susan, or anyone else, deigns to accept the concept. She isn't the Conceptual Police, solipsism either exists or it doesn't, and it doesn't actually matter what anyone, including me, happens to believe. On the other hand, the discussion has been a very useful one, as concepts that survive this sort of critical refinement only become stronger and better understood.
The discussion also got me to think about the concept in a different way. I don't know that I would go so far as to describe female solipsism as "a feature, not a bug", as Keoni Galt did, but his perspective did remind me that it exists whether I like it or not, exhibitions of it are not indicative of female failings so much as feminine attributes, and there is nothing I can do about it except accept it and potentially make productive use of it.
And how does one make use of it? By looking for opportunities to frame the discussion with a female interlocutor in terms of her self-perspective. For example, if for some reason you want to convince a woman that Volvos are better than Toyotas, female solipsism suggests it will be less effective to appeal to her sense of logic by presenting a set of objective metrics that make sense, and more effective to appeal to her self-perception. Simply saying "I think you're the sort of woman who can really pull off a Volvo" will likely prove much more interesting to her, and get her thinking about the car much more deeply, than a comprehensive set of performance reviews from Car and Driver and other automotive magazines.
As with all material and scientific concepts, the proof is in the predictive model. So far, female solipsism appears to be useful in this regard. I hope to complete the first draft of the Solipsism Quotient test before the end of October; but one need not wait for it in order to test the basic concept in real life.
I would be remiss to fail to point out that this has also been an example of Susan's value to the androsphere as well as showing her genuine openness to our ideas. Does she tend to have an immediate emotional and negative reaction to anything that promises to offend Team Woman? Yes, and it is certainly fair to point that out. But it must also be admitted that she can, and observably has, risen above that immediate reaction to consider a conceptual case on its merits. Furthermore, if we cannot convince her, whose mind even her more committed critics must admit is at least relatively open in comparison with other female bloggers, then what hope have we of ever convincing women who are more instinctively hostile to the ideas and concepts we are continuing to develop?
There is no question that the vast majority of women, and perhaps the vast majority of men as well, will have to be instructed by rhetoric. But the more we can convince through dialectic, the better, as they will become our allies in developing the required rhetoric that is not our native language.
118 comments:
You seem like one of those smart and independent Ron Paul voters, not like those emotional Obama voters.
She takes pride in her solipsism. How is that good? God did not make woman to be self centered, nor man. Woman was made to help man (be his helpmeet) and both sexes created to worship God. Solipsism doesn't fit into that. It is sin, just like unrestrained hypergamy and shit testing (her desire will be to control him, but he will rule over her).
She takes pride in her solipsism. How is that good?
Who said anything about that? You're moving the goalposts now. The point is that she issued a challenge, the challenge was met, and she was honest enough to admit as much. Can one take pride in something that one simultaneously claims does not exist?
"God did not make woman to be self centered, nor man. Woman was made to help man (be his helpmeet) and both sexes created to worship God."
Which makes God more than a little self-centered.
I think you're the sort of woman who can really pull off making me a sammich...
This whole discussion of female solipsism is very interesting, and Susan Walsh's involvement has been great. I like her.
I may incorporate the "volvo argument" into my language.
Looking forward to the Solipsism Quotient test.
A SQ test? Looking forward to it!
Are we the androsphere now? What happened to the manosphere?
Does this have to do with Paul Elam and various bloggers separating themselves from him and the MRA 'movement'?
"Simply saying "I think you're the sort of woman who can really pull off a Volvo" will likely prove much more interesting to her, and get her thinking about the car much more deeply, than a comprehensive set of performance reviews from Car and Driver and other automotive magazines."
So, in other words, men must find a way around women's "biological" traits? It is frustrating that I have to find ways to correctly "word" my points simply so that the audience (in this case women) will actually listen. It has nothing to do with how valid my points are, and everything to do with the fact that how I make my points simply don't "feel" good?
It's ridiculous that as a society we put more importance on how a message "feels" than how accurate and useful it is. And it shows everywhere. Watch any typical news broadcast and notice that even while they are delivering bad news (someone got shot, plane crashed and killed hundreds, etc) the news anchors are VERY careful with how they deliver it. Inflection of voice, facial expression, even body language (they often sit very still, arms at their sides or on the desk in front of them) as if THAT is the most important part of the entire broadcast: how the anchors are perceived by the audience.
How did we as a society end up here? When did "feelings" become king over sense and reason? Maybe it's always been this way and I simply never cared to notice.
The question that has been bugging me since the start of this debate is the extent to which "female solipsism" is really a female tendency.
It's certainly an aspect of women that makes it difficult for men to relate to them (at least, men like me). But is that because women are inherently more afflicted with "female solipsism" or is it the case that it tends to activate when dealing with relationship conflict, making it a relevant obstacle for men but something women don't notice or care about much in men.
For example, how often will the volvo test really sort men from women? 55/45? 60/40? 70/30?
For example, if for some reason you want to convince a woman that Volvos are better than Toyotas, female solipsism suggests it will be less effective to appeal to her sense of logic by presenting a set of objective metrics that make sense, and more effective to appeal to her self-perception.
So, as dad said, "When a woman comes to you with a problem, son't try to tell her how to solve it, just listen to her."
Masked in that bit is, "Her solipsism is bruised and she only wants to focus on rebuilding it."
Dudes. Vox is utterly correct. Susan has been a blessing to the Manosphere (which has a lot more marketing panache than androsphere, so I'm sticking to it) by offering not only offering her perspectives, but by keeping us honest. There's a reason she's listed on my blog roll with many of the other prominent voices in the Manosphere. She's useful, she's generally sympathetic to our perspectives, and she's willing to have a reasonable and often rational discussion on subjects that send most women to Hamsterland on the short bus.
So lighten up.
Vox is also right in that regardless of her willingness to concede the issue of female solipsism and its role as either feature or bug or both, it exists. Oh, it exists, and it's already used and exploited by a secret international cadre of specialists for their own nefarious purposes:
Marketers.
Seriously, female solipsism has been the go-to model for the all-important targeted demographic of female buyers. Thanks to the usefulness of female solipsism, for fifty years marketers and advertisers have been able to convince them to purchase everything from the cotton they use for their menses to the mud they smear on their faces. Female solipsism, combined with nearly-ubiquitous personal insecurities, has been ringing the cash register all over the place for years. Can't get chicks to buy computers? Put them out in colors, so that they can make a statement about themselves. Can't get them to buy a new car? Put in a flower vase and a customizable features so that they can make a statement about themselves. Can't get them to buy coffee? Add a bunch of crappy flavors and dilute it with milk so that they can simultaneously pamper AND make a statement about themselves. It's like a dog and a ball: if you want to sell to women, invoking their insecurities and their solipsism is money in the bank. They have huge purchasing power, they're willing to buy just about anything if they think it will improve their position in the Matrix and give them a chance to make a statement about themselves.
It's like us with boobs or beer, only more sophisticated.
Seriously, take this for what it is: a gift of insight into the feminine mind. The Red Pill is the real world, and in the real world female solipsism, feature or bug, exists and always will. It's up to you what you do with that information.
Me? I'm a marketer. I know what to do with it.
So, in other words, men must find a way around women's "biological" traits?
If you want her to readily see your point, then yes. However, women do this for men as well. At least we should. We word things to maintain our respect for your leadership. We also word things to manipulate your feelings. Vox made a point that is relevant in his post about his training exercise and dragging the women away from the group. One woman was submissive toward him and it made him want to protect her. The way she worded things (presumably) and her mannerisms changed his perception and his feelings and she may have been able to talk herself free in a real world situation.
This is no different. Change your words to get what you want. She is not a man and you need to stop expecting her to act like one.
Can she break away from the solipsism with recognition and practice? Yes, but everything will still go through it's filter. It's unavoidable.
"paulmurray said...
"God did not make woman to be self centered, nor man. Woman was made to help man (be his helpmeet) and both sexes created to worship God."
Which makes God more than a little self-centered.
September 26, 2012 2:45 AM "
Who are you to judge your creator? Everything that you are comes from Him and you presume to judge Him? You do realize what you are doing here, right? You're placing yourself on His throne, putting yourself in His place, giving yourself the authority to declare what is good and what is evil.
May He have mercy on your soul.
Marketers.
And politicians.
So, in other words, men must find a way around women's "biological" traits?
Yep.
It is frustrating that I have to find ways to correctly "word" my points simply so that the audience (in this case women) will actually listen.
Yes, it certainly is.
It has nothing to do with how valid my points are, and everything to do with the fact that how I make my points simply don't "feel" good?
This is not news. It was known by very intelligent men literally thousands of years ago. Again, I refer you to Aristotle:
"The duty of rhetoric is to deal with such matters as we deliberate upon without arts or systems to guide us, in the hearing of persons who cannot take in at a glance a complicated argument, or follow a long chain of reasoning."
- Rhetoric, Book 1, Chapter 2
Think of it as Aristotelian Game.
For example, how often will the volvo test really sort men from women? 55/45? 60/40? 70/30?
Working on it....
Exactly. Being pissed off at women for not acting like men is futile and unrewarding.
Ted D
How did we as a society end up here? When did "feelings" become king over sense and reason? Maybe it's always been this way and I simply never cared to notice.
It is the nature of society. Ancient philosophers had the same complaints - that logic didn't reign supreme over the hearts of men (and particularly women) as a general principle.
What is amusing that, based on the millenia of evidence, even though logic has demonstrated itself as an important, but not overriding, tool in societal understanding, there remain self-described logicians who insist that logic must magically rule society!
And that's simply irrational, akin to the sci-fi trope that human beings would be so much freer and better off if they just let the benevolent fascist scientists bring about the extinction of man.
I liked Vox's offhand description of solipsism a while back much better than the hair-splitting definitions we're debating lately: "she only cares about you insofar as it affects her."
Add to that a deference to one's own perspective above the consideration of others' or the facts (for example a woman saying "all the divorces I know of are because the man cheated, so therefore frivolous divorces are an overstated problem"), and the tendency to personalize abstract arguments as if you are being passive-aggressively attacked or criticized (Cf. Ian's story of the notebook),
and you've got a pretty complete description of the phenomenon that matches most men's experiences with women as a whole.
There's also certainly an element of thinking your emotions are facts that must be dealt with objectively by other people.
"What is amusing that, based on the millenia of evidence, even though logic has demonstrated itself as an important, but not overriding, tool in societal understanding, there remain self-described logicians who insist that logic must magically rule society!"
Everyone needs to read Robert Cialdini's "Influence." It's a first-rate primer on how to use non-rational levers of human psychology to persuade people. He listed six (later amended to seven, including contrast) principles: reciprocity, commitment, social proof, likability, expertise authority and scarcity.
It's like a secular (by that I mean non-sexual) parallel to PUA game which posits a number of highly effective buttons to push in the female mind to get her interested in you, like the takeaway, status display, and emotive expression.
Stingray – “We also word things to manipulate your feelings. “
Although I appreciate this difference, to be honest I get rather upset when I find someone attempting this with me. I won’t say it doesn’t happen, because it surely does. But after the fact, when I have time to look back on the situation and realize that I was manipulated, I lose trust for the person that did so.
VD – “This is not news. It was known by very intelligent men literally thousands of years ago.”
Point taken. I simply do NOT engage with people often enough to realize that most simply are not logical and analytical first and foremost.
Working in IT doesn’t help since I’m essentially surrounded by men pretty much the same temperament as I am.
Ian – “Exactly. Being pissed off at women for not acting like men is futile and unrewarding.”
I’m not pissed off at women per se, I’m just not willing to change my communication style to fix this. And up until recently, I honestly believed that being logical and reasonable was a higher HUMAN trait, not a MALE trait. I was raised by a single mother and bought the whole “men and women are equal” crap 100%. I’m still finding out just how much of a lie that is, and this falls into that category.
Daniel – don’t get me wrong, there is certainly a place for emotion and feeling in life. In fact, I’d say that I am probably at a disadvantage at “life” because I have less focus on emotion than most people. But, to me emotion should be the added variable, NOT the entire equation. I value my wife’s input in situations because I know that she is primarily looking at it from an emotional standpoint. So, her input will give me some insight into the things I completely ignore: how my actions will make my family feel. That’s great until someone that is primarily emotional ends up calling the shots, and then all bets are off. Leading with emotion to me is simply dangerous, immature, and irresponsible.
If I followed my emotions, I would have strangled at least a dozen people with my bare hands by now. I would have probably run several dozen off the road with my car, and I would have been fired from every single job I’ve ever had for telling someone off. Knowing this, I find it very difficult to trust anyone that leads their train of thought with emotion. Perhaps I’m more emotionally violent than most of the populace? Do emotional people want to beat others with a baseball bat for acting stupid?
Oh, well thank goodness Aunt Giggles has finally canonized the term "feminine solipsism", for the masses.
Concession my ass.
Susie throws out another red herring and everyone bites. It's not that she didn't acknowledge the concept of female solipsism, she just wants everyone to view it as a net positive (and if you don't she'll delete your 'open discourse' from her comments).
The problem with her assessment is that she presumed that the mean misogynists of the manosphere focused too much on the negative aspects of feminine solipsism. Far be it that men might actually use this understanding to better leverage their interactions with women rather than appreciate feminine solipsism for the empathetic qualities it engenders.
Positives be what they may, Giggles would rather we stick our heads in the sand and not recognize the raw truths and consequences of how feminine solipsism evolved, the amorality of it and the price men have paid for it since our hunter-gatherer days.
http://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2011/10/03/war-brides/
Ted D -
1) What should be and what is have always been two very different things. Nothing has changed, and you asked what had changed. Perhaps you were simply not aware that humans, at heart, are not logical beasts.
2) Just because your emotions run to the wildly violent does not mean that most people's emotions do, especially women. So, the fact that you can not live an emotion-driven life does not necessarily mean that no one can live an emotion-driven life.
3) I note with amusement that your confusion regarding the behavior of others stems from your solipsism! (i.e. that because you can't conceive of another way to successfully live and think, that no one else should be able to safely live in other ways besides logical ones!)
4) Even you admit that your wife does not live or think the way that you do: that her perspective is an emotional standpoint mostly. How many people has she murdered?
Does that make sense? Logic, in this case, dictates that logic is neither a) the only way a person can live nor b) the only safe approach to society. Your adherence to "sola logica" is not logical!
Point taken. I simply do NOT engage with people often enough to realize that most simply are not logical and analytical first and foremost. Working in IT doesn’t help since I’m essentially surrounded by men pretty much the same temperament as I am.
This was a constant debate between my father and I. He wanted me to treat people in a less condescending manner. I wanted him to realize that not everyone thinks like a PhD in a STEM field from MIT and that treating them the way you want to be treated is a recipe for disaster. I think he finally realized what you're learning now.
Concession my ass. Susie throws out another red herring and everyone bites. It's not that she didn't acknowledge the concept of female solipsism, she just wants everyone to view it as a net positive (and if you don't she'll delete your 'open discourse' from her comments).
Of course it is a concession! To go from denying its existence to claiming it as a net positive is a major step forward.
Far be it that men might actually use this understanding to better leverage their interactions with women rather than appreciate feminine solipsism for the empathetic qualities it engenders.
But that's outside her wheelhouse, Rollo. How men use it is no more her concern than how they use their height or their intelligence. I understand that some of your differences with her are substantive, but to a certain extent, it seems as if you're looking at a zebra and asking why it isn't behaving like a giraffe.
Her objectives are more focused and less abstract than either yours or mine. And that's fine.
Although I appreciate this difference, to be honest I get rather upset when I find someone attempting this with me.
As a wife's job is to help (be the helpmeet) in a relationship, you do realize that this is often used to manipulate the husbands feelings in a good way, right? We use it to support the husband and even to increase his masculinity. As a woman's submissiveness can increase a man's masculinity we can use that to the husband's aid.
Ted D, I just thought of a great example:
The least logical person I ever have known wouldn't hurt a fly - literally. She thought that killing a fly would make the flies family sad, and she couldn't live with that sort of guilt. She said she was pro-choice because she didn't want to upset anyone. She said she was at peace with dying because at least she wouldn't have to be afraid of it after she died.
Not a logical bone in her body. But she was entertaining, loving and married a successful man. Her kids weren't even that screwy. Logic simply had no part of her life.
Ever.
Daniel – 1. I realize this. It doesn’t stop me from desiring the “should”. I suppose it is the idealist in me.
2. Well, I was actually asking the question hoping for an answer. Are emotional people generally less violent? If so, then at least I can ‘feel’ a little better about being surrounded by people driven primarily by their emotions. How would I know what other people “feel” or “think” without asking?
3. I never claimed I was free of solipsism. Although I probably lean more towards narcissistic. And yes, your statement does indeed reflect my thinking on it: since I can’t live steeped in emotion, I do tend believe no one else can or should.
4. To the best of my knowledge none. But, I will tell you that her MBTI scores show her as an F, but only by a slight margin. (If you put any faith in MBTI. It is something I learned about at HUS actually, and although I see how it might be helpful, I also think of it in the same manner as I do astrology) She is indeed emotional, but thankfully she has a decent capacity for rational and logical thought, IF I can get past any existing emotional turmoil. I have never “appealed to her emotions” and yet we manage to communicate, because beneath the emotion she does indeed have the capacity for rational thought.
And yes, it makes perfect sense. But understand, I have no desire to fill the world with unemotional logical people. I would simply like it if everyone stopped following their emotions around to the complete exclusion of common sense and rational thought. I don’t expect everyone to be Spock, but I’d like it if everyone properly managed their emotional tendencies and stopped acting like “how they feel” has any real merit when it comes to proving a point. I get that sometimes the truth sucks, but that is not a reason to deny it.
VD – “This was a constant debate between my father and I. He wanted me to treat people in a less condescending manner. I wanted him to realize that not everyone thinks like a PhD in a STEM field from MIT and that treating them the way you want to be treated is a recipe for disaster. I think he finally realized what you're learning now.”
That sounds about right. The Red Pill is probably the very first time in my life I’ve ever looked at human nature in detail, and to be honest it is very disappointing. Not just in terms of the feminist lies about equality, but the basic fact that humans are just not as evolved as I’d hoped. We truly are just animals with really big brains, and despite our capacity to rise above it, as a whole humanity chooses instead to wallow in it. If nothing else it has strengthened my lack of desire to engage with most “people” and has also led me to appreciate the few people I am close to. I will not be trying hard to overcome my introverted tendencies knowing what is out there for me to engage with.
Stingray – “As a wife's job is to help (be the helpmeet) in a relationship, you do realize that this is often used to manipulate the husbands feelings in a good way, right? We use it to support the husband and even to increase his masculinity. As a woman's submissiveness can increase a man's masculinity we can use that to the husband's aid.”
Perhaps most can only do this by emotional manipulation, but I would counter that at least for me, it would be much easier to simply appeal to my sense of logic. And to that point, I’ve made it known to my wife that I greatly dislike emotional manipulation, and she does her best to avoid using it. I will admit that she is effective and disarming my anger with emotion, but she doesn’t do so in a manner that makes it secretive or subversive. She is shamelessly obvious about it, and because of that I don’t feel manipulated BY it, if that makes sense.
I morally object to intentional manipulation of any kind. I don’t want to be manipulated; I want to be reasoned with. Yohami and I went around for a bit on this point, as he insists that it is impossible to interact with people on a day to day basis without manipulating them. I can see this, but again my objection is with intentional manipulation. If someone says hello to me with a smile, and it puts me in a better mood, it is NOT intentional manipulation. But, if my wife attempts to sway a decision I’m making by playing on my emotions, it is indeed intentional and I take offense. Fortunately, my wife understands this distinction and seems to be able to accomplish her role as “helpmeet” without the need for such subversive tactics.
Daniel – “Not a logical bone in her body. But she was entertaining, loving and married a successful man. Her kids weren't even that screwy. Logic simply had no part of her life.”
I’ve not experienced anyone like this to my knowledge. I’m sure I’ve been around some, but I certainly never got to know them well enough to understand how they functioned. I really am sheltered it seems in terms of what most “people” are like.
I will say this: your description of this particular woman would have me pulling my hair out within a week. How can anyone like this ever make a decision? She seems more concerned with how others will feel about what she does than actually getting anything done. And looking forward to death because life scared her?! I’m truly at a loss.
"I’m not pissed off at women per se, I’m just not willing to change my communication style to fix this."
Then you'll fail at communication. Look, communication is the art of getting your point across, and if you refuse to change your style to suit your audience, then you have to accept failure as a precondition. Me, I just don't let people (or things) get in my way like that. Sometimes that means I have to change my way, alter my presentation, challenge my own preconceptions, but if the end result is getting what I want (in this case, communicating across the gender lines in a way that makes my points understood and even appreciated) then I'm not above doing that. It's not a matter of pride, or of idealism, it's a matter of getting shit done.
You lost me at ....As a female boomer........
Who cares what any clam in that group has to say. They literally have nothing of value to contribute to anyone.
The men who claim to be logic-driven and that they make their decisions based on logic amuse me. Refer to Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde for an earlier exploration of what happens if you separate the emotional part from the logical (good?) part of a man. Dr. Jekyll couldn't make decisions anymore, lost much of his drive, and became weak. But that is fiction.
Time and again, working for a science-driven company, I see ample demonstration that men, ESPECIALLY men in the engineering and IT field, are especially vulnerable to their blind spot. That blind spot is how easily they are manipulated into making decisions by their emotions.
The more pride they take in governing their lives by logic, the bigger their blind spot. Some of them are easier to influence and manipulate than a mid-twenties gay flamer, who at least is usually aware that they make their decisions while heavily influenced by emotion.
You and me both, Ted, but I also want a pet dragon.
The dragon is far more likely to come true than mankind becoming sane.
I understand the myth all too well that "the rational should inherit the earth", but that's as big a fantasy as any.
Your disillusion/disappointment will give way to opportunity, however. After all, when I was a very little kid, I remember being entertained, thinking I was "winning" the demo of a stand-up space invaders game at a ski lodge. It was disappointing to soon realize a) I was always going to get squashed by about 3 remaining ranks no matter what I did (it was rigged) b) that there was nothing I could do to change the system without putting real money in and c) that I wasn't even playing the game.
The even bigger disappointment? When I finally did get a quarter, I didn't even survive as long as the demo.
Egads, though: decades later, I still enjoy playing games for real (though I still loathe cutscenes, not surprisingly), and if I was still stuck in the rigged demo mode, I wouldn't be as delusionally happy as I am now realistically happy.
Knowledge may be power, but new knowledge can frustrate early on. It can be unwieldy.
Ted,
Ok, I see where our problem lies. I was using manipulate wrong. I was thinking of it in terms of manipulation as used in definition 1, not definition 2:
noun
[mass noun]
1 the action of manipulating something in a skilful manner:
the format allows fast picture manipulation
[count noun]:
conscious manipulations of oral language
2 the action of manipulating someone in a clever or unscrupulous way:
there was no deliberate manipulation of visitors' emotions
I agree that a woman should not unscrupulously manipulate her husband, but rather in the way your wife does it.
VD, sorry but I call bullshit.
Her intent was never to get at a working definition for solipsism. She already understood and believed in the concept before she issued her "challenge" and admits as much in her most recent post. She just couldn't stomach that the manosphere had assigned a term for it (she did a google search for the term and got my site as the first listed) and felt it cast women in a bad light. And that was her real concern, not a rejection of the concept.
How do I know this? Because she still wont allow for any objective input (even on her last post) that runs counter, or even provides a balance to her self-defined imperatives. And that's about solipsism or anything else for that matter.
It's not about wanting a zebra to be a giraffe, it's about her own self-misrepresentations of being a zebra in the first place. As I've stated before, she is patently and provably uninterested in objective discourse about inter-sexual, inter-gender issues that would in anyway cast a bad light on women and the feminine imperative. She'll advertise exactly the opposite, but then scrub her comment threads and even prior blog posts to align with her fem-positive purpose.
Sometimes the truth isn't pretty, but you you'd never know it at HUS. I stated this over at Obsidian's blog (another HUS pariah):
"What's ironic is that the open, diverse, inter-sexual discourse that Aunt Giggles would have everyone believe her blog is all about has to take place in the comment sections of other blogs to avoid her censorship."
I really appreciate you, Rollo, amd your contributions into this particular "sphere." However, at times you come off as overly cynical as though every negative female trait is somehow contrived by the woman rather than a feature of the woman - as though women are conscious of the reasons for their thoughts and actions. I'm not sure if this is your intention, but that is the way I receive it.
I don't particularly care for Susan, but I think you have to understand, Rollo, that she is not a man and will never be a man, thus she will never hold male interests as dear to her heart as you. Shit. Even your average man needs to be beat over the head repeatedly to prioritize their own interests.
Susan may think she's more reasonable than she is, she may be overly pedantic at times, she may lack the ability to thoroughly empathize with the plight of your average man, she may have her own personal agenda -- just as the men do in this sphere -- and she may be emotionally reactive at times, but she's not an evil conspirator bent on undermining men ! You are giving her way too much credit.
She simply lacks the tool sets to see things the way you do, thus instead of perpetually focusing on where you two diverge in ideals, you may be better off emphasizing the areas in which you find agreement on and going from there. Either that or simply ignore her existence.
Ted D if you are the same one who posted frequently at Susan's site (back when I occasionally browsed over there), I noted that your posts positively leaked emotion.
To the point that I just skipped your comments.
Your own observation of your avoidance of other people because they annoy you shows how you've been manipulated into major behavior and lifestyle and career choices by....wait for it.....the emotion of annoyance.
I say this to illustrate my point that those who think they are logic driven are just as emotion driven as the rest of the human race. Only with a big blind spot to this fact. Get over it. The human race has survived for thousands of years with most people deciding things based on their emotions. Bug, feature, doesn't matter, it is the plain truth and your emotions about it won't ever change the world.
I am aware that I often make decisions by emotion and then use logic to rationalize and justify that decision. As the Bible says, "The heart is deceitfully wicked".
I will say this: your description of this particular woman would have me pulling my hair out within a week. How can anyone like this ever make a decision?
She doesn't. Or she leaves it to chance. Grocery shopping was based on packaging and sales. If it was 50% off, she buys it. Doesn't matter if she needs it or not - look how much she's saving.
She married her husband because he asked her to. He makes all the major decisions, and she never questions them.
She seems more concerned with how others will feel about what she does than actually getting anything done.
Yep. Exactly. It works for her, and never once recognizes that her self-description as a "people pleaser" means that she pleases herself by agreeing with everyone, even in a dispute.
And looking forward to death because life scared her?!
That was unclear on my part. She claims to be at peace with death, because once she's dead, she won't have to be afraid of death anymore. She loves life.
Oh yeah, one other thing:
She describes herself as a purely logical person. When multiple people have told her that she's not terribly logical, she responds with, "Oh, I know. Nobody is, but I just like to think of myself as a logical person."
Commence brain explosion.
I'm telling you though, it is darn fun to surf across her emotional seascape. You never know where she's going to end up.
VD, sorry but I call bullshit.
No need to apologize. I'd have been more than a little surprised if you didn't. You know better than most that I don't expect everyone to agree with me all of the time, least of all the various bloggers of note.
JCclimber - "Ted D if you are the same one who posted frequently at Susan's site (back when I occasionally browsed over there), I noted that your posts positively leaked emotion.
To the point that I just skipped your comments. "
Guilty as charged. I went through a very solid year of major emotional turmoil from finding the Red Pill.
I've never once claimed to be completely unemotional, I simply do my best not to allow those emotions to drive my decision making. I know I have emotions, because I constantly have to deal with controlling them. I suppose the reason I get irritated is that I put so much effort into keeping my own emotions in check, while most of the human race is more than happy to allow their own emotional issues to bleed into other people's lives.
I'm not in any way proud of the fact that for a time recently I had great difficulty keeping to that ideal. The thing is, I DID make sure that in my own personal life those emotions did not come out often. I basically took all that emotional turmoil and directed it to my web posting and writing music. I found a way to vent it that did not affect those around me, or at least not in any large way. I'm sure I was "moody", but I truly tried not to be.
"Your own observation of your avoidance of other people because they annoy you shows how you've been manipulated into major behavior and lifestyle and career choices by....wait for it.....the emotion of annoyance. "
Perhaps. But I chose to avoid others, so if it is manipulation, at least it isn't subversive. To me it is a simple matter of cause and effect. Annoyance is the effect, people are the cause. So, I avoid people to avoid the effect.
Stingray - "I agree that a woman should not unscrupulously manipulate her husband, but rather in the way your wife does it."
Then perhaps the root issue is one of morality. That is, most "people" have such a poor sense of morality that "manipulation" is more often definition 1 than definition 2. And I'm not just referring to women, wives, or any particular person. I'm speaking in the general sense of all people.
There are 2 different world views. Men like logic and reason because that's who they are and the arguments benefit them. Women prefer dealing with issues on a personal level and they win arguments with YOU based on how they feel.
Anyways, I don't always believe that logic and reason is good enough for me especially if I can on occasion be out argued by women or men. Then it becomes personal especially since the ground conceded is unnecessary and I still won't alter my opinion.
As for marketing, business is personal. Get used to it.
Solell, the biggest difference between Susan's message and my own is that I don't misrepresent myself when I encourage an open discourse about the ideas I propose.
There is in fact a great deal of cross over where Susan and I agree, but you will only ever read about those agreements on other people's blogs. Even Susan herself will go to other blogger's comments and debate issues she would never allow on a HUS comment section.
Last night I decided to test something. I found a liberal man commenting to a friend of mine on FB. Here's his comment:
"Maybe you only feel like you're running laps around em because they seem stunned and friggen dumbstruck in disbelief in the lack of intelligent and moral thinkers in your teapot party!!!! You've got us so awestruck by your own stupidity that we might seem as though lost or confused!!!!!!!!! LOl!!!!!!!!!! Keep runnin those laps with that weak mental game and lack of morals you have, see where it gets you track star!!!!! LOl!!!!!!!!!"
I wanted to see if there was anyway I could get him back to being rational. I know that once a woman exclams like that she's gone, no rational thought will come from her. Here's the rest of the conversation:
Me: Death by exclamation point...
Him: I like to give it to folks raw and uncut. We dont sugar coat this crap around here!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Me: Your over usage of exclams indicate high emotion. Emoting to this degree puts into question your reasoning capabilities. Regardless of what you think you're not sugar coating, your rhetoric is laughable and therefore ineffectual.
Him: Laugh away!!! *SarahsDaughter*!!!!!! Woman please without emotion life would be pretty dull!!!!!!!!!!! I'm gonna stay that way for life. I'd rather feel something than nothing!!!!!!!!!!!!
Me: Dude (?) that comment did make my 11 year old daughter laugh. You're funny.
Him: I'm glad she found it funny and you got to me to a point with my bad punctuation. But I do all that because I invent my own form of punctuation by using it in non traditional manner!!!!Sure I know I come off as a big idiot or ineffective f-in jerk...
Now I'm looking for an opportunity to say the same to a woman who is in the middle of a rant - regarding it making my 11 year old daughter laugh. Any bets on how that will turn out?
There is in fact a great deal of cross over where Susan and I agree, but you will only ever read about those agreements on other people's blogs. Even Susan herself will go to other blogger's comments and debate issues she would never allow on a HUS comment section.
But Rollo, wouldn't you agree that we are considerably more free to permit a wider range of permissible discourse given our readerships than she is? I mean, I've got my settings on the lowest possible level when I comment over there and it is still enough to send some of the commenters there scurrying for cover.
I can't even imagine how they'd react to a typical VP-style beating, complete with the Dread Ilk firing away.
Her mission is very different than ours, her audience is different, and that combination puts some severe restrictions on her ability to permit the same freedom of discourse no matter how she personally feels about it. I'm not saying she wants the same level of all-out intellectual war that you and I might find comfortable, only that the restrictions at HUS aren't all about her.
wouldn't you agree that we are considerably more free to permit a wider range of permissible discourse given our readerships than she is?
I would disagree with this. She could discuss there anything she wished regarding difficult topics of the sphere. I would, however, agree that the way in which the topics must be presented would have to be much different.
"As a female Boomer, I will undoubtedly continue to exhibit robust self-esteem and a somewhat emotional view of the world, processed through the lens of my inner experience. I’ll happily cop to female solipsism, or whatever the guys are calling it these days"
How is that not taking pride in it again?
She could discuss there anything she wished regarding difficult topics of the sphere. I would, however, agree that the way in which the topics must be presented would have to be much different.
Not discourse in terms of topical range, but rather the range of "communication of thought by words". In other words, she has to make sure everyone plays very gently there in order to prevent the more sensitive commenters from fleeing in distress.
I have no problem with that there... and no patience for it here.
How is that not taking pride in it again?
I didn't say anything about that one way or the other. I said it was irrelevant.
In other words, she has to make sure everyone plays very gently there in order to prevent the more sensitive commenters from fleeing in distress.
I agree that this is important. However, isn't the problem that so many have is the fact that, regarding certain topics, no discourse at all is allowed?
I am not a regular reader, so maybe I am wrong. If it is the case, then this is a disservice to all her readers as it hinders one's ability to reach the truth.
VD - "Her mission is very different than ours, her audience is different, and that combination puts some severe restrictions on her ability to permit the same freedom of discourse no matter how she personally feels about it."
My issue isn't her mission. My issue is simply this: I do not believe she can achieve her stated goals without discussing the basic nature of the female human animal. She wants young women to find decent guys, marry, and have a family. Fine. How exactly can a woman do that with lists of great beta traits to look for? Even IF they listen, they will NOT understand why they crave the "bad boy" despite having a perfectly acceptable husband. (perfect on paper perhaps, but lacking in alpha traits to encourage attraction)
It seems to me she is trying to band-aid women's poor mate selection by suggesting they do otherwise, instead of simply pointing out to these young women that they are responding to their base instincts when making those poor choices. If they knew and understood their natural responses, they could then make better decisions about mate selection. In other words, if they knew what it took to make their "ginie tingle", then they could look for guys that trigger it AND have decent husband qualities as well. Most men have some attraction triggering traits, its just that many/most have been taught that those traits are "bad" or "wrong" and they work their asses off to control them.
So, my issue with HUS is not that I think Susan is wrong, or that she is misguided. I honestly think that despite her best efforts she will never change the bad behavior she seeks to stamp out, because she doesn't attack that bad behavior at its core: female nature.
Of course its relevant. Going from denying the Holocaust to thinking it was a good thing is still not seeing it for what it is.
"I do not believe she can achieve her stated goals without discussing the basic nature of the female human animal."
And those in the manosphere are not interesting fixing it, but exploiting the female nature and avoiding relationships.
I don't look at this issue as mere female nature and the manosphere has discussed at length the current environment with reference to the cultural and religious implications.
It would seem like women are easily manipulated. Thus female nature can be changed given enough cultural and religious pushback. Not sure if it is possible to turn back women's instinct for hypergamy and I don't think it is the root of the problem. The most hypergamous women won't marry as they disqualifed themselves and men are well-served to avoid them.
Men should seek women that are similarly situated. It is obvious that much of what the manosphere has done with high status women is pump and dump. Yes, that's what you do to them if you're the type that wants this type of life. Why are they wasting time with advice on the marriage potential of sluts when there is none? (via Monopoly game referenence: Pass Go. Do not go to jail.)
From Susan's comments:
I actually approve of the term as used in the manosphere, for the purpose of male discussion. In fact, I said I happily cop to solipsism.
What I object to is the hyperbole and demonizing of female nature on my own blog.
She is solipsistic = she is a female homo sapien. (According to the sphere). And yet there is no acceptance of female nature as having evolved to complement male nature. The term is used in a pejorative fashion by some (not all).
Calling women solipsistic for having a normal female outlook is analogous to calling men autistic, which interestingly, is described as having an abnormal preoccupation with the self.
However, even now we are conflating the meanings of solipsism as selfish, unempathic behavior vs. experiencing the world by processing it through one’s inner experiences and emotions.
The former is true of some women and some men, the latter is true of all women
Susan is not conceding anything, she is redefining the term to suit her own narrative. She rejects solipsism in the given sense that women have an innate tendency to perceive the world around them from an ego-centric 'how-it-affects-me-first' perspective, and then (she thinks cleverly) distorts that into agreement with her narrative by redefining solipsism to mean "experiential, emotional filtering, female nature, etc." in the hopes of spinning solipsism in a fem-positive light.
Where she is dead wrong is in her presumption that female nature (her euphemism for solipsism now) in any way evolved to compliment the masculine nature. As anyone with a basic grasp of science will tell you, evolution isn't purposeful. Feminine nature and feminine solipsism are the results of selected-for, best practices that adaptively ensured the survival of the species. Feminine solipsism exists because it preserved her life and the lives of her offspring, not because it complimented male nature.
The War Brides of one tribe who found themselves and their children the property of the tribe who killed off her husband sure as shit weren't concerned with complimenting her conqueror's nature. They were interested in staying alive and thus developed psyches to allow them to fluidly turn off one set of emotions and replace it with a new set.
And just for the record, I'm glad we can all have this unabridged discussion here on Alpha Game. This rebuttal would never be allowed viewership on HUS.
Exactly. Being pissed off at women for not acting like men is futile and unrewarding.
Sounds like Henry Higgins from My Fair Lady. "Why can't a woman be more like a man?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Doz5w2W-jAY
Of course its relevant. Going from denying the Holocaust to thinking it was a good thing is still not seeing it for what it is.
You're completely failing to understand the point here. This has nothing to do with "seeing it for what it is". My discussion with Susan was solely concerned with the denial.
It seems to me she is trying to band-aid women's poor mate selection by suggesting they do otherwise, instead of simply pointing out to these young women that they are responding to their base instincts when making those poor choices. If they knew and understood their natural responses, they could then make better decisions about mate selection. In other words, if they knew what it took to make their "ginie tingle", then they could look for guys that trigger it AND have decent husband qualities as well.
That makes perfect sense. Of course, given what you've learned, why do you think her audience, most of which is entirely rhetorical, is capable of responding in such a logical manner? Susan may actually be going about pursuing her objective in the only way that can achieve results in the targeted population, namely, through rhetorical manipulation.
It's an interesting thought, anyhow.
Where she is dead wrong is in her presumption that female nature (her euphemism for solipsism now) in any way evolved to compliment the masculine nature. As anyone with a basic grasp of science will tell you, evolution isn't purposeful.
I agree... if only because I am a strong evolution skeptic. Or rather, strong scientific skeptic of Theorum of Evolution by (probably) Natural Selection, Biased Mutation, Genetic Drift, and Gene Flow. But that's not a discussion for here, suffice it to say that I don't believe solipsism in any way evolved, period.
And just for the record, I'm glad we can all have this unabridged discussion here on Alpha Game.
So am I. But don't forget that HUS helped lay the foundation for it. It can be beneficial to those not reading there even if only through inspiring tangential discussions here or elsewhere.
Antitheses are good. Criticism is good. Conflict is good. Over the years, I've learned to appreciate them.
Jimmy – “It would seem like women are easily manipulated. “
Or is it simply that women are no longer taught by their mothers and grandmothers what their true nature is? Are they easy to manipulate naturally? Maybe. But even if that is true, at some point in our history we had methods in place to control this. Of course women didn’t like those controls, and I don’t blame them. Most people don’t want to be controlled. However, if they want true freedom, then it comes with a price. And that price is knowing yourself, the good AND the bad, so that you can make smart decisions while controlling your own destiny. Women are making stupid choices, but they are largely offsetting the repercussions of those stupid choices onto society instead of taking responsibility for them on their own.
“Thus female nature can be changed given enough cultural and religious pushback. “
I disagree. Female nature doesn’t change, how they and we as a society react to female nature HAS and DOES change.
“ Not sure if it is possible to turn back women's instinct for hypergamy and I don't think it is the root of the problem. “
It cannot be ‘turned back’ because it is biological and intrinsic to female nature. However, it CAN be managed and has been in the past. Again, women don’t seem to be too fond of those controls, and I see their point. But if they want to be free to make all their own choices, then they should acquire the knowledge to do so, and be willing to take all repercussions OF those choices, good or bad, on themselves.
Rollo – “Where she is dead wrong is in her presumption that female nature (her euphemism for solipsism now) in any way evolved to compliment the masculine nature.”
The trend I noticed eventually (it took far too long) was that any time “female nature” appears to be a negative thing, she immediately tries to spin it into some kind of positive trait. I simply don’t understand what is wrong with stating fact and leaving it stand as is. Why does “female nature” have to be a positive or negative thing? I can clearly see how solipsism could serve a woman in your example. And further, I don’t’ think it is just Susan that does this. It seems there are very few women that can honestly and objectively look at their own nature and call it what it is without the need to somehow “make it all better” in the end. In contrast, most men are completely fine with admitting that some of our biological nature might be less than social, but it serves a purpose. Most men freely admit they like sex, a LOT of sex. It isn’t bad or good, it is simply fact. Men will mostly admit that we tend towards violence, and most don’t see that as some evil to be eradicated. Hell, many even find “good” ways to channel that energy into something productive. So, what is it about “female nature” that drives women to be afraid of it? Why is it that men in general seem to be much more accepting of their animal driven behavior than women, who will behave badly and after the fact do mental summersaults to justify their actions?
VD - "Of course, given what you've learned, why do you think her audience, most of which is entirely rhetorical, is capable of responding in such a logical manner"
And here we get to the meat of it!
At some point, perhaps we simply can't give them a choice. If we truly want to change things, I don't think we can keep catering to the lowest common denominator. If they won't listen to reason, then perhaps they all need their hands held to the fire for a bit. I would MUCH rather reason win, because if it comes to fire, my thinking is it will NOT be pretty.
At some point, perhaps we simply can't give them a choice. If we truly want to change things, I don't think we can keep catering to the lowest common denominator. If they won't listen to reason, then perhaps they all need their hands held to the fire for a bit.
You might find it interesting to read a column I wrote several years ago called "The Brothel or the Burqah". As Instapundit likes to say from time to time, that which can't continue, won't.
I've gone on record as predicting that feminism and modern equalitarianism won't survive as long as communism did, because the base assumptions are even less sane.
And now perhaps you understand why I think Susan has taken on such a heroic and gargantuan task, well worthy of support. The problem is that it may simply be impossible. But I am reliably informed that it is at least theoretically possible for me to be wrong on occasion.
Although "hands in fire" is an alternative to reason, it is not the only alternative.
I rarely use reason to communicate with women - in most cases, it is like giving a map to a truffle hunting pig: the pig gets confused and the map gets eaten.
But I don't use fire either.
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the few women to whom reason is an important enough supplement to be able to employ it to good ends, but in general, it is a specialized device.
So, what is it about “female nature” that drives women to be afraid of it?
Because, once correctly generalized, they are no longer snowflakes.
VD – “And now perhaps you understand why I think Susan has taken on such a heroic and gargantuan task, well worthy of support. The problem is that it may simply be impossible.”
I’m a firm believer in the saying that anything worth doing is worth doing correctly. Sure, she may have bitten off more than she can chew, but IMO she should either chew it up and swallow or spit it out and move on. Sitting there with a mouthful just looks silly.
I suppose I just don’t have much patience for half-assed attempts to do anything. If she wants women to marry and be happy, then I think she should tackle the entire beast, not try to direct it by tugging on its foot.
Daniel – “I rarely use reason to communicate with women - in most cases, it is like giving a map to a truffle hunting pig: the pig gets confused and the map gets eaten.”
I love this analogy! It is likely that I’m going to steal it and use it for myself. Hope you don’t mind…
“But I don't use fire either.
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the few women to whom reason is an important enough supplement to be able to employ it to good ends, but in general, it is a specialized device.”
Then what do you suggest? Obviously women don’t want to be controlled, so going back to dealing with “female nature” with the old Patriarchy is out of the question. What would it take to make women in general take full responsibility for their choices and decisions? How can it be possible to even talk intelligently on the subject when the immediate reaction from women is screeching and howling about misogyny and unfairness? If we keep propping up women’s stupidity they will never learn. And to be blunt I’m tired of paying (with my tax dollars and mental frustration) for those stupid mistakes. I truly don’t care if someone wants to behave badly, as long as they are willing to admit that they want it, and are willing to deal with what comes their way BECAUSE of it.
VD - I read the post. Published in 2010 but possibly more relevant today than back then.
I agree with you 100%, but I highly doubt we will ever convince Western women that the 'patriarchy' is for their own good, even if it is completely true.
Then what do you suggest? Obviously women don’t want to be controlled, so going back to dealing with “female nature” with the old Patriarchy is out of the question. What would it take to make women in general take full responsibility for their choices and decisions?
Look, I've got no desire to save the world. The people on this planet are crazy.
What I do suggest, however, is simply leading your influence group, starting with the family.
Just because women don't want to be controlled doesn't mean a) they can't be and b) they don't crave such control despite their nature.
What this means is - yes - patriarchy, starting with the family. Daddy leads, everybody follows. Everyone is a lot more secure that way.
Few (almost no) women want to actually make decisions - they want options. So it is simple: make decisions for the right reasons, and then point out how that leaves the most possible options open (even if it doesn't - keep in mind that her reality is not your concern. Her perception of options is far more important than actually having the options.)
In other words, run your family and bypass the wife's tests. Then do likewise in the workplace, applying the same metric to all women you have to deal with. Then do it socially.
Then bam. All the ladies in the house are flocking to the shelter of the patriarchy, even while claiming it has been overthrown.
It is a much better life than the confused delta alternative, or stoneground Gamma World, and far better for your sons and daughters.
Stop trying to convince women of anything. Don't you see? It's not logical do so! After all, even if they were magically convinced of something, their own natures would cause the majority of them to override their convictions anyhow!
A woman "convinced" is a woman whose rationalization for her behavior and her actual behavior match up...and frankly, it's not that important to her.
I've seen women make the right decision without certainty, and the wrong one with it.
Being convinced is a guy thing. Being persuaded is a girl thing.
@Ted D "Female nature doesn’t change, how they and we as a society react to female nature HAS and DOES change."
This sounds like it is one and the same. Whatever we describe as female nature (the unchanging part) can be influenced to have a different response. Since you admit it can be managed, it is the same as saying since we should not steal, we merely displace it and call it something else like redistribution.
Likewise, female nature can be displaced to convince women to become more marriageable and have more kids, which is the end goal, although we may still end up with many broken relationships. We cannot put cap on the bottle with regards to no-fault divorce.
----
Patriarchy of the goverment/society is not the same of the family/religion. The government/society is setting declining standards of sexual morality. Women seem to like the new low. Do whatever they want. Get free contraceptives and abortions. Stay out late. Get free daycare. This is not your father's patriarchy.
Being convinced is a guy thing. Being persuaded is a girl thing.
Hence, man leader; woman helper.
Daniel - "Look, I've got no desire to save the world. The people on this planet are crazy. "
This is where you and I differ. I have children, and I'd very much like it if they could grow up in a world better than this one. With the way things are going currently, I don't see that as a possible outcome. I don't want to "save the world" for the benefit of humanity, I want to 'save' it so my kids can grow up in a better place than I did.
I can easily see how the current state of things might be seen as a great opportunity for a young guy with Red Pill knowledge. Yeah, they can clean up and get laid like tile. But, it is exactly the environment that fosters this success that I see as detrimental to any hope of a better future. I love my children, but if I had to decide on starting a family today, there's a damn good chance I would pass. Not because I don't like my kids, but because I'm sad that they will have to grow up in this cesspool we call Western society.
What you suggest is to simply accept fate and make the best of it. It is surely a much easier solution to the problem very much akin to sticking ones head in the sand. In the end the Western world may go to hell in a hand basket, but I'll continue to call the play by plays during the entire trip.
This goes far beyond simply trying to "convince" young women to stop being slutty and marry smart. The issues at play here are far larger than the SMP. In fact, I believe that what we see in today's SMP is but a side effect of the real issues at play. It is one of the more obvious ones, but by no means is it the only one, or even the most important one.
"I am not a regular reader, so maybe I am wrong. If it is the case, then this is a disservice to all her readers as it hinders one's ability to reach the truth." - Stingray
Stingray (and any other ladies here), what was it that helped you to, for lack of a better expression, take the red pill? Was it something you understood growing up, a significant event in your life, a husband/boyfriend's influence?
I'm interested to know if you experienced what I did when it happened. I was angry that I didn't understand before, I felt awful for putting my husband through what I had, and was embarrassed. For a time I asked God why I was like that, why the truth had been hidden from my understanding. Then, after much introspection and prayer, I felt horrible for not listening to Him all along.
Respecting my husband, as commanded by God, was my first awakening. My remorse for my past behavior was overwhelming. My husband is a very patient man. After several weeks of him seeing that I was actively seeking God to help me obey that command, he told me he'd like me to read Vox Popoli. He said to read for six months before I even thought of commenting. This led to more constructive conversations between us than I can count (and I've learned a hell of a lot about economics). I may have a personality that responds better to harsh truth than other women do but the nature of discussion on that blog was pivotal to the last three years of red pill living.
Our first 14 years of marriage I read every Christian marriage book I could get my hands on. I thought I got it. It's disturbing to me what a waste of time that was. - Is this your concern, Stingray, when you say the regulated discourse on a blog like Susan's might hinder a woman's ability to reach the truth?
what was it that helped you to, for lack of a better expression, take the red pill?
It was my husband, not putting up with my crap. Calling me irrational or simply walking away. This bit hard. I didn't want to be irrational so I backed up, calmed down and I asked him about it. How was I being irrational? That's the short of it, the long version is here.
A great deal of it was also VP. My dad sent us a link there a couple of years ago now and it was about women's suffrage. I had been told of Ann Coulter's bit about how women's suffrage got us where we are today and it made a lot of sense, but I had never heard of anyone ever talking about actually repealing it. I was floored. I was also terrified of being ripped apart by the Ilk. So I shut up and read. I made myself actually explore his ideas on women and game. I clicked on Athol Kay and thought he was crazy. My husband asked me if some of his stuff was true and I said "Hell no.". But it stuck and there was very obvious cognitive dissonance going on that I couldn't let go, so I went back and read more and reread a lot of it. Lo and behold, the more I thought about it the more I realized it was true. I can't remember what concept first got me started. I think it was that the man should be the leader and the woman is more comfortable being submissive or at least something along those lines. But I remember pulling my husband back and saying, "You know what? This is true."
I think it may have something to do with my personality as well. I prefer the blunt truth. It's easier to deal with. One of the first posts of Athol's I read was the "Do these pants make me look fat?" post. When we first married I was dressing for something and I asked that question. My husband gave me the *look*. You know the one. And I said, "No, I am not trying to set you up. I need to know. I am not good at picking out clothes and if I look fat I need to change. Please be honest. I can't get mad at you when I asked for the truth." I think he said the pants didn't look very good and I changed. That was that.
Is this your concern, Stingray, when you say the regulated discourse on a blog like Susan's might hinder a woman's ability to reach the truth?
My concern is that women want to believe everything we are told when we are growing up. It is far easier to accept that we are not the weaker sex and that we are sweeter and more empathetic. It is so easy to want to stay in that place. The truth is scary and it's heart wrenching. I had a tremendous amount of guilt and a lot of "Why?????" nights. At times the guilt was almost too much to get past. Then one day it occurred to me that these things just are. I know a lot of people don't like that, but it's true. And now that I know they just are, everything I had done wrong in the past, every thing I did to cause confusion or pain, I could understand where it had come from and I could make sure it did NOT happen again. I could make amends and do much better.
I understand the need to go gentle with many women and men with these concepts, but all the concepts should be digested. Some might do it sooner and others may need a lot more coaxing, but holding anything back is a huge disservice to their ability to change and understand. It also assumes that they cannot. I think a lot more people can if given the chance.
Stingray (and any other ladies here), what was it that helped you to, for lack of a better expression, take the red pill? Was it something you understood growing up, a significant event in your life, a husband/boyfriend's influence?
Converting to Christianity and subsequently taking my role as a Christian wife very seriously was the main impetus. Having a very strong husband who won't take any crap, and having a generally male-friendly attitude, helped a lot.
I was still a bit immature (and not religious) when I married, so things with my husband got off to a rocky start. But my husband was so unwilling to put up with any garbage that I had to figure something out pretty fast or risk losing him. Just after I converted to Christianity, my minister, who knew we were having problems, had me read Dr. Laura's book, The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands. I kind of consider that my undergrad work in Red Pill studies. VP and AG have been more like graduate work.
First Hi Ted! Good to see you exploring other options for discussing this issues. :)
Then what do you suggest? Obviously women don’t want to be controlled, so going back to dealing with “female nature” with the old Patriarchy is out of the question. What would it take to make women in general take full responsibility for their choices and decisions? How can it be possible to even talk intelligently on the subject when the immediate reaction from women is screeching and howling about misogyny and unfairness? If we keep propping up women’s stupidity they will never learn. And to be blunt I’m tired of paying (with my tax dollars and mental frustration) for those stupid mistakes. I truly don’t care if someone wants to behave badly, as long as they are willing to admit that they want it, and are willing to deal with what comes their way BECAUSE of it.
How do you think women were "persuaded" on the first place that patriarchy was evil and they were getting the short end of the deal and use feminism as a way to free them from all that? You think the feminists appealed to logic? There is any logic in "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle"? Feminism was born and raised out of emotions and manipulating women's emotions making then ashame of being housewives and hate their own bodies (periods, pregnancies) pay attention to the top 20% of men that could get away with anything and ignore their peers equally miserable lives...I will add that it also manipulated men "Look instead of having 14 kids that you have to get black lung to support give your wife the option of birth control have only four and lots of sex, and then if you women are free you will have the chance to have sex because women want sex with a variety of men as men want to"
The world has been changed by manipulating emotions since the dawn of times, the church did it, the french revolution did it (of course starving helped a lot) communism did it, feminism did it...its only LOGICAL using the same methods for that don't you think?
This is where you and I differ. I have children, and I'd very much like it if they could grow up in a world better than this one. With the way things are going currently, I don't see that as a possible outcome. I don't want to "save the world" for the benefit of humanity, I want to 'save' it so my kids can grow up in a better place than I did.
I can easily see how the current state of things might be seen as a great opportunity for a young guy with Red Pill knowledge. Yeah, they can clean up and get laid like tile. But, it is exactly the environment that fosters this success that I see as detrimental to any hope of a better future. I love my children, but if I had to decide on starting a family today, there's a damn good chance I would pass.
I totally agree that's where we differ. If I had it to do over, I'd have more kids than the 4 I have, if I could, despite most human beings being insane.
It's a fairy tale to try to make the world better for your kids. You use the red pill or whatever you want to call it - the knowledge - to help your kids better navigate the asylum, not to inspire them to create the world in their image.
I'm with Rollo on this one. It seems to me that she's conceding that the thing exists, while in the same breath redefining it as something she can be proud of, even though the new definition doesn't match what we've been talking about.
None of the definitions of female solipsism that we've been kicking around were anything like "robust self-esteem and a somewhat emotional view of the world, processed through the lens of my inner experience." Those things are all neutral to positive, and if that were the definition, we wouldn't be trying to figure out how to handle it. Everyone is "somewhat" emotional, and everyone processes things through the lens of his own inner experience (who else's lens are you gonna use?). It's a meaningless definition.
The women in Ian's hilarious "notebook" story weren't just processing things through their own lenses and having robust self-esteem; they were insisting that everything that went on around them must be about them. That's what we're talking about here, and I can't applaud her for trying to move the goalposts so we'll be kicking through our own end zone.
I love my children, but if I had to decide on starting a family today, there's a damn good chance I would pass. Not because I don't like my kids, but because I'm sad that they will have to grow up in this cesspool we call Western society.
You have it backwards. Have more kids so they can change the world. The future belongs to those who show up for it.
Susan is not conceding anything, she is redefining the term to suit her own narrative.
And will redefine it or reject it again as the narrative demands in the future. Because that is what solipsism and hamsters are all about.
finally canonized the term "feminine solipsism", for the masses.
Solipsism 2.0
Which leads one to ask...
Is Churchianity (Christianity 2.0) a good thing as long as it gets people to come to a church - any church - even if the pastor argues against Christian concepts and bans Christians attempting to proselytize the congregation and tell them the truth?
Is Marriage 2.0 a good thing as long as it gets people married, even if those promoting Marriage 2.0 refuse to admit that it is broken, or say that even if it is a bit broken, it's not as broken as people claim (frivolous divorce is overstated!) and that marriage is a Good Thing that should be pursued regardless? (Man Up!)
I think Susan and the HUS commenters are valuable to the manosphere not so much as a sounding board or discussion partners, but more as examples - object lessons - of concepts more freely and honestly discussed elsewhere.
You have it backwards. Have more kids so they can change the world. The future belongs to those who show up for it.
Had you read selfish reasons to have more children? I just finished it up and this is a huge part of the argument he makes. Is an interesting take on the issue by a smart and educated person about it, since the anti-natalist/voluntary human extinction movements seems to be supported by the "smart" part of the population.
@Rollo
Where she is dead wrong is in her presumption that female nature (her euphemism for solipsism now) in any way evolved to compliment the masculine nature. As anyone with a basic grasp of science will tell you, evolution isn't purposeful. Feminine nature and feminine solipsism are the results of selected-for, best practices that adaptively ensured the survival of the species. Feminine solipsism exists because it preserved her life and the lives of her offspring, not because it complimented male nature.
The War Brides of one tribe who found themselves and their children the property of the tribe who killed off her husband sure as shit weren't concerned with complimenting her conqueror's nature. They were interested in staying alive and thus developed psyches to allow them to fluidly turn off one set of emotions and replace it with a new set.
If she was interested in staying alive and reproducing, then she should have been EXTREMELY interested in complementing her conqueror's nature. The women who were able to "turn off one set of emotions and replace it with a new set" were the ones able to extract resources from the conquerors for themselves and their children. Conquered men (if not killed immediately) wouldn't stand much of a chance at achieving a status high enough to reproduce in the conqueror's society, whereas an attractive woman could do so if she provided value to the men. Conquered men had nothing to lose (evolutionarily speaking) by standing up for their ideals, whereas the women had a lot to gain by being a bit more morally flexible. I'm not saying this female moral flexibility is a good thing- it's obviously not if the woman in question has been captured by Nazis- but it's underlying cause, female solipsism, is neither good nor evil. I have a feeling most men would like their girlfriends and wives to be interested in complimenting their natures (as opposed to competing with them like feminists) and one way in which women accomplish this is by being inordinately concerned with how other people perceive and relate to THEM (solipsism!).
On another note, thank you Vox and Ian, for defending Susan. It's frustrating to see so many attack her, when she's basically fighting the same enemy (feminism). I don't necessarily agree with her censoring comments, but I do understand that she might not want to scare off girls considering taking the red pill by allowing her comments section to become a stomping ground for misogynists. As for the misogynists- I don't use that term lightly but I agree with Susan that so much of the manosphere seems to be going on and on about how women are inferior because of solipsism/hypergamy/[insert feminine trait here]. It's the flipside of feminists demonizing men for, as an example, having a high sex drive because it can lead to rape. It can lead to rape, yes, but it's also kind of awesome in ways I hope I don't have to explain here! Men are not superior to women, women are not superior to men, they're just different- and that's a good thing!
http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/09/25/politics-and-feminism/squaring-the-circle-on-female-solipsism/
Squaring the Circle on Female Solipsism
In other words:
When one understands what female solipsism really is, they realize that it's not a negative thing at all, in fact, it's right and good. After all, there is nothing negative about femininity, and all women and most men agree with this, so I feel it's undoubtedly true. With men, well, it's quite a different matter, and again, this consensus has been reached by the herd, so it is therefore true.
The fact that women process information through the filter of emotions, doesn't mean they are less intelligent or sane than men; nope, not at all. Emotions are important when the aim is reproducing efficiently, and nothing of negative consequence stems from this approach. Just look at how properly populated the earth is, and how well-raised humanity is. Emotions have to be just a valuable as logic and reason.
Jon
Kudos, to both of you.
As you suggested though, it isn't a matter of good, bad, accepting or not. It just is. I personally think of it as a potentially powerful good. It just has to have the right setting for it to be such. Until that setting is re-established as the norm, again, and it will be one way or another, it is feeding the problem. But those who designed the modern world... planned on it. That is why women vote now.
Thank you Stingray and Stickwick.
Both of your experiences started with an understanding that your husband was not going to put up with your crap. Mine started with him actively not putting up with me. And an understanding that something's going to change. Markku's comment from a few posts ago applies so well:
"Of course, men learn very early on that women can't handle the truth, and cope with the situation with either avoiding the full truth, or telling outright lies. This works most of the time, but it always makes you wonder when the time comes when you absolutely need a woman to react like a responsible adult, because she happens to be in a position to do something you aren't. Due to location, for example."
My husband was deployed and I fell apart. When he most needed me to make logical decisions and behave rationally, I was a mess. And his kid gloves were off. He hung up on me at the first hint of irrational conversation on my part. Then ignored me from the other side of the world.
So it does seem to be a process, not a fast realization. And at least for the three of us, it was a process initiated indirectly by our husbands based on our fear of loss.
It would be interesting to know if any women grew up with this understanding. We're doing what we can to help our 11 and 12 year old daughters get it. They aren't quite there yet but are finding it difficult to relate to peers.
I didn't know you had a blog, Stingray, I'll go check it out.
Overall, Susan didn't say much wrong, perhaps we are all on a path to better understanding. I prefer to remain confident that Susan's work is fine and open minded.
If women are to be led by (good) men...
Hostility to patriarchy, the reality of hypergamy and natural female solipsism are difficult to unload when good and well-meaning women have been misled since childhood. It takes a boldness to stand alone, rethink your worldview and change it - in order to follow something better.
(In the event of the easily offended reading this: I'd like to note that I'm not taking pride in any solipsism but merely noting that exists - in me - I am not 'accusing' any women of anything but I am not willing to allowing this worship of your feelings and your moods. It is time for women to defy all this hormonal bullshit and think for once...)
I find it very hard to justify bringing another life into this world that I myself dislike so much. I'm sentencing my children to a harder life than 99% of the population because I want them to be better than average. It is a sentence of loneliness and misery.
So why would I intentionally do of again?
Ana - Nice to "see" you! It isn't about exploring options. I don't see the point in making people physically ill over a debate. I guess I'm still a little empathetic.
I realize feminism isn't logical, but that doesn't mean that *I* should be illogical. Just because the other "team" is using dirty tactics doesn't mean *I* should do the same. To me if an idea is sound it should stand on its own merits. The problem is, rhetoric doesn't allow ideas to stand on their own. Instead those ideas are attacked in the same manner as the few decent politicians left in the world: instead of focus on the ideal, they attack the "character" of the ideal. And in most cases that character is entirely a matter of perception over fact.
There is no way to combat such tactics without resorting to using them yourself, and I am loathe to stoop that low. I'll support anyone that has no issuewith it if it serves my cause, but I would feel badly doing it myself. I think k I could do it effectively, which is why I do my best not to even consider it.
I find it very hard to justify bringing another life into this world that I myself dislike so much. I'm sentencing my children to a harder life than 99% of the population because I want them to be better than average. It is a sentence of loneliness and misery.
So why would I intentionally do of again?
Because you aren't a coward, maybe. Are you seriously talking about retroactively aborting your children's existence for their own good? Are they really in such bad shape?
Illogic is not a dirty tactic. Get off your high horse thinking that you are above rhetoric. It is completely illogical to state that "you think you could do it effectively, which is why I do my best not even to consider it."
In other words, you think that getting people to do the right thing is beneath you, because you'd have to use something other than your favored tactic.
That's seriously solipsistic. Illogical thinking masquerading as reason.
You claim to have a skill that would make things better for everyone, but because it is unseemly to you, you withhold it?
Look, when my three-year old doesn't want to wear clothes to the grocery store, it isn't logical that I distract him with a cool superman shirt to get the non-nudist ball rolling, but it gets us out the door. I don't feel that such rhetoric is beneath me.
It isn't logical to reject useful communications tools based on your emotional response to them, and that's exactly what you are doing.
I'm sure you agree: it isn't about your feelings.
Daniel - "Because you aren't a coward, maybe. Are you seriously talking about retroactively aborting your children's existence for their own good? Are they really in such bad shape?"
Nice rhetoric. First, how is my courage being called into question? It would be my child, NOT me that would need courage to face the world *I* chose to bring them into. How is it courage to sentence your flesh and blood to a life of frustration and lonileness? When did I EVER say I would "retroactively abort" my children? I said that if I was a young man today, I might very well choose NOT to have a family. No where in that sentence did I say I thought my current children would be better off dead. They are already here, their dice have been cast and all that can be done is to help them make the best of it. But, why would I bring another life into this world if I feel this way? I'm intentionally sending another soldier to the front line knowing he faces certain death, so to speak. I'm fine with making such decisions for myself, but I have no desire to make such decisions for others, least of all people I love and care about.
Yes, I do think the Western World is in such bad shape that trying to raise decent young adults is almost pointless. If my children actually try to be decent AND avoid being sucked into devious or subversive tactics, they will be at a distinct disadvantage in a world full of corruption and immorality. And that is a big IF, since I'm competing with their friends, their friends parents, the school system, and the media in my task to make them decent human beings. It is a constant battle, and although I'm OK with volunteering my own time and sanity on what I consider to be a noble task, I have to wonder if I'm doing them a diservice by even trying at all. THAT is the real reason I will not have more children. The fact that I question if it is in their best interests to teach them my moral and ethical values indicates to me that this world has so little in common with my own beliefs that there is barely any common ground.
"Illogic is not a dirty tactic. Get off your high horse thinking that you are above rhetoric."
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. Using rhetoric to manipulate people through emotion is indeed a dirty tactic, regardless of your intentions. Doing something the wrong way for the right reason is STILL doing it the wrong way. The ends DO NOT justify the means.
"In other words, you think that getting people to do the right thing is beneath you, because you'd have to use something other than your favored tactic."
Getting people to do the right thing with the wrong methods is still wrong. It has nothing to do with my "favored tactic". See VD's new post for some insight into where I'm coming from. Rhetoric is pure BS. Trying to convince people to do the "right thing" with pure BS is still passing around BS. I don't want to convince anyone to do anything. I want them to do the right thing because THEY see the value in doing the right thing. Convincing them to do the right thing won't teach them WHY it is the right thing.
"You claim to have a skill that would make things better for everyone, but because it is unseemly to you, you withhold it?"
Seems you could try to use the same argument with a Catholic regarding birth control. It isn't simply that it is "unseemly" to me, I take a moral stance against subversive manipulation, regardless of the methods used. It just so happens that the most effective tool for subversive manipulation is rhetoric, so my stance on it is rather firm. I would be more than happy to sit down with anyone and go over the actual facts of any particular debate ad nauseam to help THEM understand and come to THEIR OWN conclusion on it, but I simply will not use brute force to "convince" them to believe MY decisions. I'd much prefer to make enemies by showing them the facts than an ally by deceiving them.
Daniel - I had to do two posts because there is a limit for length. I guess I'm long winded today.
"Look, when my three-year old doesn't want to wear clothes to the grocery store, it isn't logical that I distract him with a cool superman shirt to get the non-nudist ball rolling, but it gets us out the door. I don't feel that such rhetoric is beneath me"
First of all, I think there is a HUGE difference between convincing your 3 year old to wear a shirt to the store and trying to convince someone that abortion is murder. Second, I personally didn't use such tactics on my children when they were young. I reasoned with them, and when that didn't work I simply enforced the rules regardless of how they "felt' about it. As they are getting older, I can see that they are beginning to understand that I often do things that appear to be "mean" or "hurtful", but in the end what I choose to do is in their best interests, according to MY opinion of those interests. I don't deal with crying, or screaming, or shouting. My children know that if they come to me in an emotional state of distress, that I will not begin to help them solve the problem until they get their emotional state under control. I'm not implying that using such tactics on your own children is "good" or "bad", but I am implying that *I* choose not to use such tactics because *I* take personal issue with them. I don't want my kids to blindly believe me, I want them to understand why I came to the conclusion I did, so that when they are older they can do the same.
"It isn't logical to reject useful communications tools based on your emotional response to them, and that's exactly what you are doing."
I agree with this. But, it is also not logical to believe in God, yet I certainly do believe. As much as I'd like the world to be completely logical, I know it can never be. My issue with rhetoric is almost a religious one, as to me the tactic is corrupt and immoral. I know I'm good at it because I had to use it often while finishing my degree. I had to write a lot as online education relies heavily on written assignments. I got stellar grades on every paper, but I did so mostly by using a LOT of rhetoric, and mostly by arguing against the side of the debate I believed in. I learned early on that my personal views were not readily accpeted by my professors, and it was much easier to simply write what they wanted to read than to tell the truth. When I got those great grades, I mostly felt like shit for selling out. If I felt that terrible about "lying" to get a good grade, I realized there was no way I could use such tactics in my daily life without becomming something I didn't want to be. I disliked that I had to essentially lie to "get ahead", and it is exactly this behavior that bothers me SO MUCH about the Western attitude. Too many people are fine with "the ends justifies the means." If the "end" has to be attained by dirty "means", is it really worth it?
Essentially, you would not use rhetoric to save the life of an unborn child because to do so would make you feel dirty.
How does that end justify your "clean" means?
"Essentially, you would not use rhetoric to save the life of an unborn child because to do so would make you feel dirty.
How does that end justify your "clean" means?"
I'm not the one killing an unborn child. My conscience is clean.
And it isn't so much that it would make me "feel" dirty and more that I don't believe I am justified in making that decision FOR the woman in question. It is HER decision, all I can and would do is try to show her the error of her ways. I won't stop her however.
Nor would you use rhetoric to stop a blind man from walking into a busy street. It's his decision after all. You don't have the right to persuade him to do anything than what he wants.
Later you can complain about what an idiot he was because he was one of those rhetoric-only people who damn themselves by being born incapable of comprehending logic and reason.
Bonus: your conscience is clean.
This is why science fiction gets such a bad rap. The humanist ideals in, say, Childhood's End are, at heart, pleasant monstrosities.
"Nor would you use rhetoric to stop a blind man from walking into a busy street. It's his decision after all. You don't have the right to persuade him to do anything than what he wants."
I wouldn't try to persuad him. I'd simply point out that he is about to walk into traffic and be run over. If he still chose to do so, it is on him.
I want everyone to have all the facts and make their own decisions. If the blind man didn't know he was walking into a road, my telling him is simply providing him the necessary information to make an educated decision. If he chooses to ignore that information, who am I to force him to behave against his will?
Put another way, I would be a terrible choice for working on a crises hotline. If someone called me because they were contemplating suicide, I would point out where their thinking was illogical, but wouldn't try to "talk" them out of it. I wouldn't even know where to begin changing how they feel, but I could walk them through the steps that brought them to what I consider to be a bad decision. Unfortunatly what someone in that state needs is NOT logical reasoning, they need someone to appeal to their emotions.
"I'd simply point out that he is about to walk into traffic and be run over."
Just for the record, this is rhetoric, not logic.
Logic would be: There is traffic. Traffic can kill you if you are in its way. Therefore, if you step in front of it, you may die. Do not move forward if you want to reduce your risk of dying.
Rhetoric is: Hey! Traffic! Stop!
The illogical method to use in this instance would be logic! Rhetoric is the way to go!
Think of it this way: let's say that 25% of all people have the capacity to comprehend the dialectic. The other 75% are the sort who only can learn through rhetoric.
With the blind man, you could use logic, and have about a 25% chance of him being capable of following the logic chain. Or use rhetoric, and he'll have a 100% chance of learning what he needs.
The logic chain is more informative, and honest rhetoric is more likely to succeed. Both are informative and both can succeed.
But logic says when in doubt, resort to rhetoric. You can always return to the dialectic once you've identified a person's capacity for it.
"Logic would be: There is traffic. Traffic can kill you if you are in its way. Therefore, if you step in front of it, you may die. Do not move forward if you want to reduce your risk of dying.
Rhetoric is: Hey! Traffic! Stop!"
My first instinct would be option 1. If time permitted, I would most likely explain his situation in a manner similar to what you posted above. Probably more like:
"I think you are unaware that you are about to step onto a busy road. You are going to get run over."
That being said, if I looked over and saw him stepping off the curb, I would hope I'd grab him by the arm and simply stop him. Let's hope I'm not tested since failure would be tragic.
Rollo,
A couple of thoughts and observations
Solell, the biggest difference between Susan's message and my own is that I don't misrepresent myself when I encourage an open discourse about the ideas I propose.
My sense is Susan attaches a lot of importance on the idea of having a "comfortable" intersex dialogue. In fact, recently, we had a quite heated discussion on her blog where I essentially said it was more likely that your views overlapped with VD's more than hers did. Her response basically was that she could work with VD because he was interested in having a comfortable dialogue. She and I have gone round and round with respect to your blog. I don't think she gets (correct me if I am wrong) that the main if not sole purpose of your blog is basically a handbook for men...how to do you navigate today's SMP given the realities of female nature and hypergamy. I think the clinical detached style you write with is scary to women who want to feel some emotion.
There is in fact a great deal of cross over where Susan and I agree, but you will only ever read about those agreements on other people's blogs. Even Susan herself will go to other blogger's comments and debate issues she would never allow on a HUS comment section.
I think there are some practical realities. Here's the fact. Most of her female readers and commenters SIMPLY CANNOT HANDLE IT. So it is either clamp down or shut down some male voices or the female readers pack up and go away. Example. She has a number of black female commenters of which I get the sense at least a few are 30+ on the spinsterhood road. Obsidian came out basically laying out the real deal for them, and a number of them e-mailed Susan to get rid of Obsidian. What do you do? Especially if you are writing a blog targeted to women. Men simply don't behave like that unless they are total wusses. Can you imagine me e-mailing you to get rid of someone on your blog because they addressed me in the comments with something I didn't want to hear. The notion is preposterous, but that is par for the course on blogs with a lot of female participation.
Of course, given what you've learned, why do you think her audience, most of which is entirely rhetorical, is capable of responding in such a logical manner? Susan may actually be going about pursuing her objective in the only way that can achieve results in the targeted population, namely, through rhetorical manipulation.
VD,
This is fascinating statement you've made here. Is this an assumption on your part, or have you been directly informed as such? :)
I think the clinical detached style you write with is scary to women who want to feel some emotion.
It's not that a woman doesn't feel any emotion. Rollo's style creates great emotion, of the negative kind. Clinical detachment seems much more like criticism to woman. Cold detachment, given that it is so blunt, reacts extremely poorly with the solipsistic woman. One can only approach it with the same cold bluntness and if this is not something that a woman is good at, then it can be quite difficult to read.
Mike,
Wait, I just got what you were saying. They want to detect some emotion from, Rollo. Yes, that is the case. Only, if one reads long enough, it's there.
They want to detect some emotion from, Rollo. Yes, that is the case. Only, if one reads long enough, it's there.
Yup, like here:
http://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2011/10/26/whats-your-problem/
So you want to know what my problem is?
My problem is living in a world teeming with young men who’ve become so conditioned to believing that anything remotely masculine is to be ridiculed, vilified and subdued until they have no concept of what it truly entails much less pass off even the possibility that it could be something positive and attractive.
My problem is when a personal, AFC friend swallows a bullet because he literally “can’t live without” the girlfriend who left him.
My problem is watching a pastor’s pretty wife leave him and 4 children so she can pursue her hypergamy after 18 years of marriage because he pedestalized her and deprecated himself every day of their marriage.
My problem is when a 65 y.o. life-long chump cries in my lap about how he’s been consistently blackmailed with his wife’s intimacy for the past 20 years of their marriage and wont man-up for fear of losing her.
My problem is talking a close friend out of killing the wife he married too young at 19 and the man she just cheated on him with in the parking lot of the motel he’s spent all night tracking her down to find with their 3 children crying in the backseat of their minivan at 4am.
My problem is civilly sitting down to Thanksgiving dinner with a hyper-religious sister-in-law and the new millionaire husband she married just 8 months after her former AFC husband of 20 years hung himself from a tree when she decided “he wasn’t the ONE” for her. My problem is staring at the brand new tits and Porsche she bought herself with the money from the home he built for her that he busted his ass for just 3 months after he was in the ground. My problem is emphatically teaching my 22 y.o. nephew how not to be the AFC his father was, while tactfully pointing out the hypergamy of his vulgarly opportunistic mother.
My problem is watching my father, though decaying from alzheimers, still playing out the Savior Schema in an effort to get laid that he’s thought should work for his entire life at 68 y.o. My problem is watching him feebley default to a behavior that obsessively motivated him to succeed until he was forced into early retirement at 53 and his 2nd wife left him promptly after that.
Now in my view, most of the posts read like a clinical tactician discussing military strategy, but I'm perfectly fine with that. Most men don't need bells and whistles full of flowery language. I think when that gets read by many women it comes across as "adversarial" when the simple fact of the matter is it isn't designed to communicate with women...its designed to equip men with what works and why. It is up to the guy in question and his own personal/moral ethical code to decide what he utilizes when.
Clinical detachment seems much more like criticism to woman. Cold detachment, given that it is so blunt, reacts extremely poorly with the solipsistic woman.
BTW, I think this is an incredibly insightful, observant point.
Thank you, Mike.
when the simple fact of the matter is it isn't designed to communicate with women...its designed to equip men with what works and why
Exactly.
It's not a woman's sight and neither should it be. The fact that men can read the clinical tactics, get exactly what they need from it and then apply it aptly in one's life is one of the reason I love da menz. ;)
Hey Ted D, good to see you're posting. Missed you on HUS so when I heard you were here from Anacaona I came right over. Wow, Mike C is here too. haha I'll have to hang out here more. Cheers!
They want to detect some emotion from, Rollo.
Yes, because if there is emotion there, they can argue against it.
It is more difficult to argue against a clinical presentation of facts backed by studies and examples.
When it comes right down to it, they want to accept what they want to accept, and reject what they don't want to accept. In other words, solipsism and hamsterbation. Rollo makes that difficult for them, so they hate him.
@Ted D
Ted said: "If I followed my emotions, I would have strangled at least a dozen people with my bare hands by now. I would have probably run several dozen off the road with my car, and I would have been fired from every single job I’ve ever had for telling someone off"
Well, Ted, you made my night reading that. I LMAO'd uncontrollably for 2 minutes. Yes, it's late and so I laugh more easily but that was the vintage Ted I love and missed over at HUS.
This is fascinating statement you've made here. Is this an assumption on your part, or have you been directly informed as such? :)
I would describe it as more of an observation than an assumption. Please note that I wouldn't betray Susan's private conversations - or anyone else's - with me.
HanSolo - Glad you made it over.
In my current state of mind, I'm going to be nothing more than a distraction over at HUS. VD seems to think she is fighting the good fight, and perhaps that is enough. I'm impatient and finding myself trying to convince her of things that probably don't matter to her actual mission.
That being said I believe she is a genuinely good person trying to help. I may not agree with exactly how she is going about that, but that is no reason to make things harder for her.
I may stop back over, but it won't be for awhile. I will need to get over my inclination to tell her how to run her blog because I believe I know better than she does exactly what needs to be done. It has very little to do with Susan, and much to do with my own personality quirks. I may stew on a problem for months, but when I find a solution it can't be put into place fast enough. Thing is, I most likely don't know enough to have a real solution, if there is even one to be found. So I need to chill, and VD is gracious enough to let me mellow out over here.
Plus I'm building a nice reading list from the suggestions here.
@Ted D
I agree that Susan has a good mission and I agree with Vox that she is a person who will consider reasoned arguments (sometimes after an initial response that seems to discount something) and is pretty fair towards men. I think the MRA types are foolish for letting the perfect (in their eyes) be the enemy of the good. It's important to keep the big picture in mind and take "allies" where you can find them. HUS is part of the solution of bringing men and women together; it is not the problem.
I think that women just shut off when they feel attacked or even in an environment where the implicit world view is different than how they are acting. That's why you don't even really have any female commenters there that don't largely fall into the sex-with-commitment mindset while you do have a wide range of male commenters. So keeping the debate civil there and not unloading the "howitzers" on women can actually serve the purpose of opening women's minds to greater self understanding.
@Ted D
Have you given thought as to why emotions evolved and exist? I think there's some fertile ground to be ploughed there. If we divide human behavior and motivation into 3 categories we can see some interesting things: involuntary reaction, emotionally driven, and logically/rationally driven (with a good dose of unconscious or subconscious influencing both emotion and logical thought). One interesting component is the time scale that these work on.
1) Involuntary--you feel your finger burning and you pull it out of the fire (unless you consciously put and keep it in there). Short time scale.
2) Emotional--stimuli trigger an emotional response such as fear, lust, hate, greed, happiness, etc. I think that the value of emotions is that they evolved to benefit people in the tribal society and give them an environment-appropriate strong motivation to do the effective thing...without thinking about it for a month first to come to that conclusion. An example would be to feel fear and get the F out of there if a tiger comes charging through the forest. If you didn't have that emotional response and had to think it through you might not come to the correct conclusion soon enough. Maybe not the best example but you get the point. Of course, emotions can be manipulated and in today's environment that is so different than in the past some of our emotions aren't so helpful.
3) Logical--here is where we can try to avoid the manipulation that are emotions are subject to. If someone comes running out of the forest and cries wolf then it will trigger our fear mechanism and we run with them. But with more time to evaluate if the wolf never existed then we learn to discount the liar's or the nervous nelly's false warning for future times. However, the logical mind is a very devious and--to summon Gullom--tricksy creature that has many biases and is much more influenced by the subconscious than we might imagine. Hence the need to constantly be vigilant in understanding our biases, assumptions and desires that may really be driving the logical mind into just coming up with acceptable rationalizations, much like Smeagol was able to be rationalized into leading Sam and Frodo through Shelob's tunnel.
To summarize, I think emotions evolved in a way as to give semi-hardwired responses to the tribal environment so as to provide effective outcomes most of the time. Today's environment makes our emotions less applicable but since we are still dealing with other humans who are also emotional beings many of our emotions are still useful but need to be tempered by a strong dose of the logical.
Let me know what your thoughts are about this. Cheers.
HanSolo - "To summarize, I think emotions evolved in a way as to give semi-hardwired responses to the tribal environment so as to provide effective outcomes most of the time. Today's environment makes our emotions less applicable but since we are still dealing with other humans who are also emotional beings many of our emotions are still useful but need to be tempered by a strong dose of the logical"
This makes perfect sense to me actually. I'm positive that emotion is an important function of being human, or it likely would not have evolved and continued. I think emotion is a step along the path from pure animal to pure intellect. We will never be rid of emotion, but we can certainly learn to control it, in much the same manner that we all learn to control our bladder to avoid pissing our pants.
But for whatever reason, Western Society seems hell bent on taking us back to a time when how we feel is more important than what we think. And yes, I see this clearly as a step in the wrong direction. I get that "feeling bad" sucks, but in the grand scheme of things feeling bad is far better than living in hell. It doesn't feel "good" when I have to punish my son for getting a bad grade, but I do it anyway because it is my job, and the only way he will learn to do better. But more and more I see parents blaming the school, the teacher, and everyone else BUT their own children when bad grades occur. I'm not saying the public education system is peachy, but if they think little Johnny is perfect then they aren't thinking clearly.
And that is just one example. Look around. It won't take you long to find 10 more.
@Ted D
I think that we agree on a lot of things stated. I will offer some food for thought.
Some of our emotions are actually at the core of what makes us human and gives us our guiding principles of what our lives and society should be.
For example, a mother's love for her children is (usually) very strong and that's a great thing. Likewise a father's love for his wife and children (without doubt an emotion felt by most men, though there is also a rational decision taken to act in a loving, loyal and protecting way too) is a great thing. I could list more. I could also list negative emotions. The point I'm offering for your consideration is that I think there are more good emotions out there than you recognize. But correct me if I'm wrong.
So, some emotions are good.
Now, I'm sure you'll agree that logic in and of itself is neither "good" nor "bad". Rather it's a tool to look at the implications of certain assumptions. Assume a; if a then b; therefore b. The only logic involved here really is the middle component. What the assumptions and desired conclusions are is where the devil is in the details in using a logical method of deciding and governing.
I think that in the way you're wanting to have the world and your own life governed is to have as many realistic assumptions as possible--base everything on truth--and have good conclusions and then use a logical structure to make sure that happens.
Well, where do our assumptions and desired conclusions come from? In part, from our emotions. Some good, some bad.
Some extreme examples because they are very clear.
The Nazis assumed that Jews were the source of much of their nation's past woes, were intrinsically evil and were sub-human and so based on this (erroneus) assumption they (in their minds) logically went about the holocaust.
The abortion debate shows how logic can be used on either side to reach certain conclusions but the real debate has little to do with logic and much to do with values and assumptions. On the one hand, pro-choice people say that the woman's right to decide her reproductive outcomes trumps all, including any rights that a fetus may have. The pro-life people say that the fetus's rights (as a quasi-living and as time goes on living, sentient, could-survive-outside of the womb being) trumps the woman's reproductive rights.
Why do people choose which side they do? There's certainly logical reasoning going on in both directions of the logical chain (from assumptions to conclusions and the other direction) but it mostly comes down to what you value more and what assumptions or principles you'll hold the highest. Now, why do you hold those principles the highest? In the end it probably comes down to a certain gut feeling or an emotion that that is right, good, or whatever.
I'm kind of exploring this myself as I'm writing and thinking about it but based on what I've said I think that emotions are intricately tied in with our logical reasoning because they probably dictate a lot of the assumptions and desires we have.
Let me know your thoughts.
I want to point out, though, that I totally can't stand the way people can be so easily manipulated by BS rhetoric. Watching the political rhetoric (especially from the left but sometimes from the right) is rather disgusting. And it's disgusting that many people respond to it. So, I believe in being logically consistent and nurturing our better emotions and am against flighty following of whatever emotional whim we might be feeling at the moment.
@Ted One other point I didn't clarify above is that the true assumptions any logical argument are based upon are either unknown or uncertain and so sometimes people will backwards engineer the truth from their desired conclusions or outcomes. An even more egregious case of backwards engineering is when a certain truth is incompatible with the desired conclusion and so people will deny or twist that truth to something that is.
Should read "sometimes either unknown or uncertain"
HanSolo - "I want to point out, though, that I totally can't stand the way people can be so easily manipulated by BS rhetoric. Watching the political rhetoric (especially from the left but sometimes from the right) is rather disgusting. "
Well this is my problem with rhetoric prior to this conversation. The only rhetoric I recognized as such was political or religious. Put another way, my belief was that "rhetoric" was nothing more than biased speech designed to sway public opinion on a specific matter. In my mind, NO ONE should ever need to be 'swayed' since logic dictates that facts, if true, will stand on their own. I didn't understand why everyone didn't simply gather all the facts they could, and then come to their own conclusions.
What I'm finding out is, a whole lot of people are not capable of doing this. It seems that there are more people that MUST be spoon fed "the truth" than there are people who can find the truth on their own. All this time I believed politicians and the like were "bad" or "evil" because they spent most of their time trying to sway public opinion instead of simply educating people with facts. I'm finding out that people don't WANT the facts, they want to be told what to believe, which is honestly a pretty scary thing to me. I can understand how someone like Hitler can take power now. I honestly didn't comprehend how so many people could be fooled by a sharp tongue, and now I've realized that for many people that is the ONLY way they can be reached.
As far as it goes, none of this is helping me to like "people" any better. I already don't trust "people" a great deal, and now I'm finding myself a bit more misanthropic than before. I guess I don't look very highly on people that can't think for themselves, but perhaps in many/most cases it really isn't their fault. So I'm stuck being surrounded by people that can't help their lack of logic.
I can't imagine how someone with an IQ of 140+ must feel about everyone. At some point, "people" must look an awful lot like ants in an ant farm or perhaps animals in a free range zoo. Barely even human at all.
Ted, I agree with your post on logic and that most people don't use it. What are your thoughts on what to do in the face of uncertainty about the underlying truths, assumptions and premises that must be included in any logical argument or premise. Some things are just unknown and maybe unknowable or seem uncertain. For example, with many religions. Many have some sort of miraculous story about how they were founded. Catholics claim they were set up by Christ, Peter and the other apostles. But Mormons say they lost there way and a restoration was needed with a modern-day prophet and apostle Joseph Smith who claims he saw God. Muslims claim that Mohammed was visited by Gabriel, making him a prophet. Many of their followers (to some extent at least) accept these claims and then logically reason out that what they taught was from God.
So, I come back to the point that logic without true assumptions is pretty useless and even dangerous because it gives the false assurance of being based on reason and being logically consistent with the (false) assumptions.
And how do we get people to get sufficiently on the same page about assumptions, logical premises, values, etc.? Back to the abortion issue, some value life over the woman's choice while others vice versa.
I'm not trying to argue the fact that we should be logical, but I'm trying to both think through myself and am curious about your opinion about what we should do about the tricky issue of what we would do even if we got everyone using logic: how to arrive at the right values, assumptions, premises, truths and "truths". Because I think in the end some things are simply preference. You can argue that well taking set A of assumptions leads to set C of consequences and B leads to D but in the end what if half want B and half want D?
Ted, I meant that half want C and half want D. Let's say that A and B are both equally based in science or whatever valid source of truth you prefer. But since neither science nor religion nor anything else gives a comprehensive encyclopedia containing all truth and values then both A and B will also contain some elements that simply have to be chosen, assumed, whatever. You could say, well, let's look at the consequences, C and D, to see which is more effective. If C leads to peace and prosperity and D to complete annihilation then we could say that A is better (for reaching C and avoiding D). A less exaggerated example would have the consequences be not quite as different and half want C and half want D...then it's appealing to values and taste again. And even in the extreme case there will be some "nuts" that think humanity should commit suicide to save the planet. So, even if we can get everyone using logic there are still huge unresolved issues.
Thoughts?
HanSolo - "I'm not trying to argue the fact that we should be logical, but I'm trying to both think through myself and am curious about your opinion about what we should do about the tricky issue of what we would do even if we got everyone using logic: how to arrive at the right values, assumptions, premises, truths and "truths"
Hmmm. I've always believed that the truth is something we would find when most/all people come to the same logical conclusion.
Here is my take: I have beliefs on what is right and wrong, based on my logical conclusions on the subject. Surely those conclusions are biased by how I feel about the subject, but I do my best to try and compensate for or minimize that bias. I am more than happy to be proven wrong, and am willing to adjust my conclusions when proven wrong, so perhaps I'm not as committed as some people to what the "truth" really is. However, in cases where I have doubt but no conclusive evidence to prove my current conclusions to be incorrect, I stick with what I know.
To answer the question, I believe the truth would present itself quickly if everyone started using logic to create the foundation of their beliefs, values, and ethics. Logically there is only one right answer, and although I fully admit I may not have it, I will not change my opinion on it until someone can logically show me where I'm wrong. I care less about being right than coming to the right conclusion with a solid thinking process. It can be very frustrating, because even though I may know something is "right", I can't get behind it until I understand WHY it is right.
And don't get me started on religion and faith. I believe, but here is a rub. I tend to believe because the way I see it, if I believe in God and he doesn't exist, I'll die and never know. However, if I don't believe and he does exist, I'll be in deep shit. So, logically it makes sense to me to believe and "hedge my bets" so to speak. Of course, if God does exist, he knows that I'm at least partly full of shit in terms of faith, which is why I always say my best hope is that God has a great sense of humor.
"So, even if we can get everyone using logic there are still huge unresolved issues. "
True enough. I didn't say we would all agree, but I do believe that if we all used true logic (and I'm not saying *I* or anyone else alive does) there would be no argument over what someone "wants", because logically "wants" are irrelevant. What is the best possible outcome for the most people in a given situation? Find it and you've found the "truth" for that situation. How you "feel" about that truth doesn't matter, but I imagine there would be a LOT of really pissed off people.
I agree that logical and honest analysis would vastly speed our arrival at the truths we can know. And a better solution would be arrived at for the majority of people. But, as you say, it may very well piss off a lot of people who want something different (and let's assume that there's no debate about the knowable truths). But here's the rub. We can NEVER get at a full knowledge of all truth and if even if we could people will still include their desires (and let's assume they've been somewhat refined via all of this truth seeking) as part of the set of premises.
I disagree that wants are irrelevant, though I understand that you're saying that the best outcome should trump wants. I would say that in understanding human nature they are fundamental, especially when you realize that so much of our brains are governed by subconscious thoughts and impulses. Because those wants, those values, etc. are going to be what ends up defining what is "best" for the most.
Having said all this I agree that we should go through the whole process because it will make the world better. I think I'm just a little less optimistic about how good it could really get...but OTOH I can imagine that if you could get rid of the psycopathic dictators and worst offenders that the world would be better. But then you get nuts like Hitler that thought that's what he was doing.
Reminds me of LOTR where Frodo said it was a pity that Bilbo didn't kill Gollum and Gandalf replies that "many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends." (Not sayign you're trying to do this. lol I always get amused and sometimes frustrated how too often people, both men and women, take things personally or read in the worst intentions or meaning and get offended and then it starts a big argument that generates more heat than light. I think I try to go the other way and find what I agree with and give the person the benefit of the doubt instead of going around with a wounded temper stuck out, hoping to get hit. lol)
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.