Thursday, September 20, 2012

Coming to Terms

I was writing out a response to Dalrock's latest, and realized it was turning into something more substantial than a comment, it is as a post.

Seems like certain sectors of the mano-andro-call-it-what-you-like-o-sphere go through a cycle of discussing the unique nomenclature that has become accepted and recognized in our fringe sector of teh interwebz. First it was the concept of hypergamy, now it's solipsism's turn. Interestingly enough, this latest debate comes from Susan Walsh at HUS demanding a concrete definition for the term solipsism and the luminaries of our crazy little niche like Vox and Dalrock then weigh in with their own takes.

When MEN first began comparing notes on their experiences with the female gender on teh interwebz, there were a few common characteristics they noticed that were generally applicable - hypergamy and solipsism were two words that sort of fit the bill as to what they were trying to name as generalized patterns of feminine thought and behavior.

To look at the literal dictionary definition of either term doesn't really fit.

For example - the literal definition of hypergamy, is women will always seek to marry up the higher socio-economic class hierarchy.

Well....that definition was obviously arrived at when lifetime marriage was the norm. As we all well know, lifelong, monogamous marriage is no longer the norm (ENJOY THE DECLINE!), but it has been noted that women still seek to "mate up" in some form or another. So we here in the andomanofuckitsphere began to use it in a more general term that doesn't strictly adhere to the dictionary definition of the term.

Now take solipsism.

Imnobody at Dalrock's commented:

According to Merriam Webster:

: a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing; also

: extreme egocentrism

You speak as if only the first definition was true, but “extreme egocentrism” is a valid meaning too.
Just like hypergamy is literally defined as "marrying up," solipsism is one of those terms for which it fits well enough to become a commonly accepted term in describing this observable, common female trait.

"Extreme?" That judgement rests on an individual basis for how the solipsism expresses itself from any particular female...but when you compare the basic level of ego centrism between Men and Women....this is where we find the term solipsism fitting.

In a general way, women are much more ego-centric in their communications and perspectives then the average man is. So from a man's point of view (and this is the MAN-o-sphere we are talking about here) female solipsism does seem to be a good term describing ego centrism in the female as being extreme in comparison to the average man's expressions of ego centrism. (NAMALT...of course. Plenty of men were raised by single mothers and are imprinted with a solipsistic outlook on life).

That women personalize ideas whenever they partake in an online debate is something commonly recognized by many....NAWALT being the most common expression of female solipsism. It doesn't have to be extreme, nor does it have to be to the point of deviant narcissism either.

Hypergamy and solipsism - two terms used to describe commonly observed aspects of female behavior, both with Dictionary definitions that do not really fit with what we are talking about here in our little corner of the web....but for those of us who understand the concepts underlying the literal definitions, they are perfectly applicable usage of words to clearly communicate the ideas under discussion.

Finally, I must reiterate the following: like hypergamy, solipsism is not a negative trait, or a positive trait, nor is it something a woman consciously does. It just is how she was designed (or evolved, whatever you believe).

Solipsism and hypergamy are intrinsic behavioral traits of the female id. It's a feature, not a bug.


Mike43 said...

"Plenty of men were raised by single mothers and are imprinted with a solipsistic outlook on life."

Best explanation for the males at the inner city high school where I work. Now if I can just bring it up without being fired.

Anonymous said...

I've seen this a number of times in my marriage and never really knew it had a name. I would do or commit some act that my wife viewed as some transgression against her, and she would accuse me of being passive aggressive or doing it to get back at her, but it fact, when I was doing the "transgression" my wife was not even in my mind!


Ingemar said...

The song "He's A Rebel" perfectly encapsulates female solipsism:

He's a rebel and he'll never ever be any good
He's a rebel and he never ever does what he should
But just because he doesn't do what everbody else
That's no reason why I can't give him all my love
He's always good to me
Good to him I'll try to be

So he's not a rebel, no no no
He's not rebel at least, not to me

Anonymous said...

Women are different from men in that their identity, as a woman, is an unremovable base filter in which she guages everything from. First and always, she is a woman. A blameless, innocent being. The only time a woman is willing to recognize a less than flattering observation about women in general, is when she is in a position to be perceived as a superior woman.

In other words, critisize any woman, and well, you critisize all women, and her personally, because all women are women.

She will outright deny, usually with hysterical indignance, the truth of any critisism at all, point attention elsewhere (let's talk about how race plays a part in this, or, but, but, but that man...), shame and attack the awful man that somehow found the balls to shine the light, and dilute blame at all times.

A woman can kill dozens of children or men, but behold: she's a victim!

On the "men's sites", where of course she is encouraged by fools to participate, you'll see how she cannot tolerate women being seen as less than innocent and blameless. Read every single word and paragraph carefully with open eyes, and you will notice it. Sure, she will tell the men what they want to hear, about a particular subsection of women, such as feminists - (notice the frequency of rhetorical questions, which give the impression of concern, without direct blaming; hey, she finds it hard to speak directly negatively about even feminists sometimes) - but it ends there. And she is only presenting the shallow understanding because she has personally been denied pure happiness herself, and wants the status of being seen as a superior woman. And let's face it, is there any Being higher?

Men rarely, but sometimes, act from principle, even when great pain and effort is required; women act from the standpoint of women - Always.

Women are inherently sexist, men are not.

Anonymous said...

I should add though, in all fairness and reality: women are Not consciously sexist or evil.

Eric said...

It's true that certain personality traits are distinct in both genders. However, I think there's a great danger in taking the approach Susan Walsh, Dalrock, & Vox are advancing here. They are presuming that the exaggerated and perverted aspects of feminine behavior that are brought to the fore in a feminist-dominated culture is normal behavior. I would argue instead that it is dysfunctional and abnormal behavior.

I get the sense almost that some of these neologisms are brought out to excuse feminist behavior as 'normal'. Women who believe this should spend time outside the Anglosphere and watch how real women behave.

The reality is that feminism breaks down the barriers between civilized behavior and the darker sides of the feminine gender pole.

Hypergamy: women tend to 'marry up'. Do we really see any evidence of that? Or do we see husbands treated as disposable while dysfunctional thugs monopolize female attention? Isn't pleading hypergamy just a rationalization for divorce?

Solipsism: women tend to be 'self-centered'. But do we really see enlightened self-interest being practiced by women, or do we see malignant, almost sociopathic narcissism? I suppose that the abortionists could plead 'solipsism' as excuse as well.

In a normal culture, a normal woman would seek the best man for a husband because it was in her best interest to do so. A man would do the same with women. That's just common sense. But trying to apply normal social dynamics to our culture is like comparing a normal community to a mental hospital. There's no context to apply such terminology.

NO MA'AM said...

Heh, reminds me of this post at MMSL, although, obviously these women discussing this are obviously NAWALTs, it is still fun to watch them struggle with the equation.

Kinda reminds me of when I used to baby-sit my nephews, and to keep them entertained I would ask them, "How do you know the fridge light goes out when you close the door?"

Heh, heh.

Q: "... but has any researcher made a serious longitudinal study on this?"

A: "Maybe you should do a longitudinal study on the overall effectiveness of always depending on longitudinal studies."

NO MA'AM said...

In a normal culture, a normal woman would seek the best man for a husband because it was in her best interest to do so. A man would do the same with women. That's just common sense. But trying to apply normal social dynamics to our culture is like comparing a normal community to a mental hospital. There's no context to apply such terminology. -- Eric

There can be no possibility of "normal" without men in charge insisting that 1+1=2.

Else, the female hamsterbation wheel will turn it into 1+1=2.1, and so on. In other words, when women lead, we devolve back into animals where, yes, that makes sense.

This is the history of human beings, since the Garden of Eden until today.

NO MA'AM said...

Just as an apt example I had portrayed to me today.

"Baby 'M'" here in Canada was ruled to be allowed to die by the government. "Baby 'M'" will never have cognitive function, and so it was deemed that it was "in the best interests of the child for it to die." This was in opposition to many groups, and it is suspected that the parents had a hand in abusing the child, leaving it in that state.

I was having lunch with a woman when this was announced.

The woman's rationalization?

"Well, if the parents were involved in disabling the child in such a way, then it is 'right', because now they can be charged with murder instead of assault."

Me: "Holy fridge door! Don't you see the ominous threat of the government being able to decide who lives and who dies? The ramifications of this could haunt us for decades to come! In Holland, they argued for euthanasia and claimed the slippery slope would never begin... yet, today, 1 in 4 victims of euthanasia are decided by a panel of doctors absent any indication of the patient nor the family!"

Woman: "Oh well, you are just over-reacting!"

Me: "Don't you realize that Roe vs. Wade was predicated on a FALSE rape allegation? And from there, 50 MILLION babies have been butchered? In retrospect, even if she had TRULY been raped, maybe it would have been better for society if she had carried the child to term."

Woman: "You just hate women!"

Me: "Aaargh! We're doomed!"

finndistan said...

Female solipsism, female hypergamy...

Do the definitions exactly fit the dictionary definition? Nope.

Is there empirical evidence? Nope.

Would a disregard of these claimed false and unproven phrases kill a man's soul?

Would a disregard of these two phrases carry potential death of a man? (Just look at suicide after divorce etc)

So, phrases false, phrases unproven, they still bring more to the table than women, feminasties, or men demanding empirical evidence will ever will.

When I first read "solipsism", (was it at inmalafide?), I leaned back in my chair and uttered "Fuuuuuuck"... Same with hypergamy, same with all those unfounded, false, and non-proven phrases (i.e. paleo, non-universal voting rights, perpetual offendedness...) some of the most important people of our generation have been putting forward.

Eric said...

Between the MMSL comments and the story of your lunchtime interview, I still am amazed at how completely clueless Anglosphere females really are. An average 12 y/o girl anywhere else is better prepared for marriage and motherhood than these twits are, even well into 'cougarhood'.

As much as I dislike Game, I sometimes wonder if these people could actually function without some 'expert' telling them what to think and do.

krauser said...

I'd add that whenever the manosphere says "man" or "woman" it's really saying "masculine essence" and "female essence" which have varied distribution

Eric said...

'...masculine essence and female essence which have varied distribution'

Which means what, exactly?

Masculinity and femininity have nothing to do with 'essences'. They are concepts grounded in biology and psychology and, to a lesser degree, sociology.