This means not seeing “woman” as a faceless collective, but making a serious effort to see individual women for who they are.
While I briefly commented on this there, the issue of whether women should be seen as a faceless collective or not is more complex and deserves more thought. First of all, Dalrock is correct in principle. That being said there is a problem with applying that straight up in the real world. The problem can be best explained with an example.
One thing we have seen is tradcon women attack men who call out sluts. Being a tradcon means being against what a slut does, namely her promiscuity. Tradcon women should have no problem when a man calls out a slut yet they do acting as if a woman being called a slut is an attack on all women. The tradcon women doing this may not be sluts themselves (although many tradcon women are “former”/”reformed” sluts). Yet, they defend sluts for doing something they say they’re against. Even if these tradcon women aren’t sluts themselves, what’s the difference between them and the sluts if they’re so willing to rush to the sluts’ defense?
This is the problem. A man looking at this can’t know if the tradcon women are really any different from the sluts. Thus women start looking like a faceless collective due to their own actions. Women are not a faceless collective, but they will act like one when its convenient for them to do so. Thus it’s understandable when a man decides to treat women as a faceless collective. He got the idea from observing female behavior.