There’s a lot of ideas I have that I have trouble getting out of my mind and on to the blog (or anyplace else spoken or written). One of the great things about The Spearhead is that other guys have the same ideas I do but can communicate them better when I can’t (and vice versa). One such case was from a comment codebuster wrote about women being locked into their own subjectivity, their own frame of reference more so then men are:
One of the problems with women’s opinions is that they are much more inclined to be locked into “their own level” (subjectivity) than men are. They have difficulty stepping beyond their own personal frames of reference, to try to see the world as others see it. So where I write to an audience of men, I anticipate that the men will mentally scan through the different ways that a word or an idea can be interpreted. For example, what do I mean when I say that “sexy” cannot be applied to men in the same way that it is applied to women? It should not require an Einstein to work this out. But it does takes a woman to come back with “Waddaya mean? I find men sexy.”
As another example. Arrogance. How many contexts can this word be applied in? In how many ways can it be interpreted? What are the subtle ways in which men assert their confidence? Of course we should expect a woman to pipe in with “no, I don’t find arrogance hot at all”, entirely missing the finer naunces that I am including within my definition.
Within the breadth of the context of arrogance as I define it, I have in mind some European men who carry themselves with a refined, urbane arrogance that is neither boorish nor overbearing. Arrogance is perhaps too strong a word, on its own, in some contexts, and something subtler is needed to describe “confidence with an edge”. But I can trust men to pick up on the subtleties. And I can rely on a woman to have to explain it to her.
Same with Game. Women will typically come with their prepackaged preconceptions of what it means, automatically presuming strange hats, whacky fashion statements, dizzy nightclubs, and cheezy one-liners. It is less likely to occur to them that there might be other interpretations of Game, interpretations that address the subtleties that are important in understanding and interpreting the behaviors of men and women. Game is not always about PUAs trying to score.
And as for how women relate to men, again, same subjective generalisations relying on anecdote. “But I don’t feel this way about men, and I don’t relate to men that way.” We know, the NAWALT argument. Resolutely, they will fail to factor in the fact that over the past 50 years, feminism has embarked on an agenda to castrate the souls of men and boys. Men today are different to what men were like before feminism.
All these relate to nuances that cannot be included in an article without making it even longer than it already is, and a thousandfold more tedious to labor through. Still, trust a woman to have to have it all explained to her, dotting all your “i”s and crossing all your “t”s.
This is something I have been thinking about but haven’t been able to properly write/speak about but after reading this comment at The Spearhead, I can now.
How many times have you written something (or said something) and a woman reading (or listening) to it goes off on some hissy fit interpreting what you wrote (or said) in some completely bizarre manner. Anyone familiar with me knows that I have had that happen to me plenty. Think about the things I have written that men had no trouble making sense of but caused women to start screaming. Part of the reason is that women are locked into their subjective frame of reference so much more than men are so they have no understanding about what is being discussed. And most likely they never will. Like the comment points out it may be possible to explain whatever you’re writing about in such a way that women will get it but you will need to be more verbose than Proust and spend hundreds of hours on a single blog post. That’s time none of us have.
Knowing this what should we do? Don’t bother trying to write something to fit women’s subjective frame of reference. It’s a waste of time that you don’t have. Don’t get bothered by BS like, “you have a small dick”, “you’re not a real man”, “you aren’t a patriarch”, etc. No matter what you say, if it isn’t supplicating to women, some women will attack you. You can ignore it, make fun of it, point out its stupidity, point out the hypocrisy of the women attacking you or whatever you like but don’t let it get to you. Trying to correct women with facts and logic is pointless because women are so locked into their subjectivity that they believe you lack facts and logic.
Your only other options for dealing with how women are locked into their own subjectivity is never speaking up about anything or being like David Alexander. Do you really want to pick either of those options?