I don’t deny that there is probably a “general”principle or truth here that captures a particular feminine (mostly) trait. But watch that it doesn’t quickly devolve into the flip side of “masculine toxicity.” Can we stop stereotyping both sexes in a negative way so much of the time?
It's an interesting take and definitely food for thought. So thank you for providing an insight into how some men's minds work vs. women's.
Something that struck me is whether female solipsism may be due to how men and women bond with each other and share information so these different style would have a bearing on communication?
For example when going to battle, hunting or doing manual labor etc., clear concise and non ambiguous communication is key as it is efficient, prevents mistakes being made and helps the team achieve a common goal.
With women communication is used to establish mutually beneficial relationships, build community, establish social standing and due to their softer skills, highlight what they bring to an interaction vs. what they can do.
Women used to be raised not be like this, ie to know your actual value and security depends on how OTHERS relate to you and that you should have poise: not let other people read your emotions aetc . When you read older novels there is often one annoying female character acting like how you describe but she is never a protagonist.
Women are programmed to survive. It’s part of the nurturing and caretaking of their children. People, whether men or women, in survivor mode are self absorbed. That’s just the way survival works. Believe me, you don’t want to change this about women. So if they tend to be self absorbed, hey, small annoying price to pay for raising the children. Having said that, communism is feminizing. While collectivism is important to totalitarians, being self absorbed becomes de rigueur.
I remember that in Gone with the Wind Scarlett's uncle told her of something that was going on in the economy, adding that he was sure that she wasn't aware of it because she never took notice of things that didn't affect her personally.
I'm female and find it next to impossible to discuss ideas with most women. One woman howled, "I don't want to talk like that! I want to talk about food, clothes, and men!"
I've observed a strident lack of curiosity.
"Not all!"
OF COURSE NOT ALL.
One also has to tow the party line among women or otherwise be subjected to exile. The rationale for said party line is usually MORAL, and not practical. Like "defunding the police" because those poor black men in prison (for committing crimes!)
What might be the cause of this?
There is a strident difference between men and women, with various shades of gray in between. Women generally know the domestic sphere -- she can find his keys when he can't find them. Men look outward, like their genitalia. Women look inward, like theirs. Therefore, their world is myopic and subject to anecdotal evidence and subjectivity aimed at protecting their "good names" (reputations) and not soiling the discussion with anything that might hurt their children's ears.
Note that the educational system has been mangled into a center of solipsism: fears of "harm", external locus of control, "care" "social emotional learning" and so on, which is making people stupid.
On another note, I find myself reaching for how that event over there touches me, personally, as a means of comprehending it. Putting myself in the character's shoes, for example. What similar experience have I had? If I were in this position, how would I feel? What's the closest I've ever come to that?
That said, perhaps there's a difference in the intention behind the solipsism. Is it stunting the discourse, or trying to understand?
This post REALLY upset some Subaru-Americans. Which is ironic because they should be at home making sandwiches instead of gallivanting on a substack named “Sigma Game”.
I was expecting something about a kitchen or maybe some cats, but not a SANDWICH comment! I almost passed out from the stunning and brave originality displayed here.
Who says men are stupid and shouldn't be allowed to vote? The creativity shown in their internet comments is alone enough to prove that they don't need affirmative action to get into university.
You, sir, are a testament to your parents and I bet your mother is proud of the work she did. She should be. Her life would have been a waste if she didn't produce your and your genius.
One may assert that women shouldn't vote whether allowed to or not, without asserting that women are stupid. It's about the motivations and history, namely the crumbling of once-great societies in waves since they started to vote for the wrong policies, taxes, and expenditures, for the wrong reasons.
Our Forefathers had this figured out 250 years ago: women were required to STFU and make sandwiches while not being allowed to vote. The result? The foundation of the most powerful nation was created.
And subsequently destroyed after allowing women to overwhelmingly vote in support of sodomy, abortion and their own destruction via feminism.
Also far too many feminized and programmed males afraid to speak the obvious truth about women voting.
I almost feel loath to add a very striking observation from my workplace, but not quite:
I used to support two Co Heads of Department, one man, one woman. The man was a senior manager, but a visibly low performer. The woman actually knew her subject, and her job. Top management needed to do something about that, so in the next re-org, they merged their departments and he was placed under her, to report into her.
He "got the message", he started looking for a job elsewhere, and a few months later he did the honorable thing and: resigned.
During the habitual Leaving Drinks, one's manager is supposed to talk about the Leaver's career. In this case: That woman was supposed to give a short speech about the guy's achievements, even though flimsy as they were.
But that woman however talked 9 of her 10 mins speech about herself. How "she remembers how we worked in the beginning, and what MY senior manager back then said about ME back when we were just juniors" (and blah and blah). She hardly said anything about the poor guy at all!
I found that behaviour quite stunning. Nobody else really "got it" -- she's very good at "Mgmt Speak". And yes, she's much stronger at their (joint) job than he was (not only in talk, also in content). And at the time and today I very much agreed with the re-org and it's consequences.
But observably, even a high performing "senior manager woman" simply cannot escape her obligatory solipsism.
She probably didn't respect the man, and therefore she chose not to show him any respect.
Why tf would she want to talk about HIM? He didn't merit any discussion. He was incompetent. You admitted it.
If a "visibly low performing" woman was leaving a company, you wouldn't bat an eye if a male didn't discuss HER at his speech. That probably happens all the time. Moids like you just don't notice because...why? Because you're all so wrapped up in your own bullshit.
You are literally the example of the problem here. Your female manager wasn't "solpsistic." She didn't show any respect to a man who didn't earn respect. That's completely acceptable. You even admit she's superior at her job. Why should she talk about a loser like that? Because he's male?
Lol, who's displaying the solipsism here? The Y chromosome is a birth defect.
I didn't rate his work performance. I almost despaired trying to "upward manage" him and make sense of his wonky excuse of leadership based on a total lack of subject matter expertise. Given he was, at time, still a senior manager and I needed to use him as a lever to obtain budget to do some "teal" (profitable) project work.
But being a poor work performer doesn't mean that I, or his new female boss, or any work colleague at all, needs to disrespect him AS A MAN. He was a pleasant work colleague, straight talking in non-work related topics; just he wasn't good at the job. Many people aren't, and then they look for another job.
Disrespecting him as his MANAGER is totally inappropriate; amounting to bullying and is a fireable disciplinary offense.
After all, as I said (repeating it for you idiotic short-bus woman): He DID THE HONOURABLE THING and he voluntarily resigned, without much fanfare, after he "got the message" and after he (took a few months at that level) secured some other income. His "demotion" was a clear message from the board of directors: Please, go elsewhere.
Seems like you didn't understand. The whole shindig was for the guy who was leaving.
It looks like it was a company tradition, so I am sure it would have been very awkward to have hardly mentioned him in the speech. That's why.
The guy might have been out of his depth professionally, but you assume he was also a bad guy, and that he deserved to be snubbed in a speech that was supposed to be about him.
Lol, oh I didn't understand? No, I did. That's the issue.
Who cares about tradition? Since when have women been rewarded for going along with male tradition? When males disregard tradition, they're praised. So get used to women doing it.
She didn't respect him, so she had no obligation to pretend to respect him. If a man did that, you wouldn't even bat an eyelash. It's because she's a female, you expected her to fall all over herself in gratitude to a male. Pure, sheer male self-absorption. Thanks for proving it.
Nobody gives af if he's a "bad guy." He was incompetent, and he's owed nothing. If an incompetent female was leaving, you wouldn't claim she was "good" and therefore deserving a praise.
You moids are so fucking simple it's pathetic.
That's the problem. When a female doesn't tiptoe around the male ego, it's somehow translated in your brain-damaged head that it's "solipsism." Nothing but projection.
Why are you so mad, Kat? I've literally never experienced someone so angry in a comments section. What has you so furious? What need of yours is being denied?
You moids have no clue how women are treated in the workplace by men. Women are routinely treated worse than this. You couldn't see it even if you tried because you're too self-absorbed. My point exactly.
And "you haven't found"? Well, your personal experience is clearly the only thing that exists.
Looks like adored but too stupid to pick a man
I don’t deny that there is probably a “general”principle or truth here that captures a particular feminine (mostly) trait. But watch that it doesn’t quickly devolve into the flip side of “masculine toxicity.” Can we stop stereotyping both sexes in a negative way so much of the time?
It's an interesting take and definitely food for thought. So thank you for providing an insight into how some men's minds work vs. women's.
Something that struck me is whether female solipsism may be due to how men and women bond with each other and share information so these different style would have a bearing on communication?
For example when going to battle, hunting or doing manual labor etc., clear concise and non ambiguous communication is key as it is efficient, prevents mistakes being made and helps the team achieve a common goal.
With women communication is used to establish mutually beneficial relationships, build community, establish social standing and due to their softer skills, highlight what they bring to an interaction vs. what they can do.
Women used to be raised not be like this, ie to know your actual value and security depends on how OTHERS relate to you and that you should have poise: not let other people read your emotions aetc . When you read older novels there is often one annoying female character acting like how you describe but she is never a protagonist.
Women are programmed to survive. It’s part of the nurturing and caretaking of their children. People, whether men or women, in survivor mode are self absorbed. That’s just the way survival works. Believe me, you don’t want to change this about women. So if they tend to be self absorbed, hey, small annoying price to pay for raising the children. Having said that, communism is feminizing. While collectivism is important to totalitarians, being self absorbed becomes de rigueur.
I remember that in Gone with the Wind Scarlett's uncle told her of something that was going on in the economy, adding that he was sure that she wasn't aware of it because she never took notice of things that didn't affect her personally.
Is she your ex wife because of the fatness or the way she ate?
I'm female and find it next to impossible to discuss ideas with most women. One woman howled, "I don't want to talk like that! I want to talk about food, clothes, and men!"
I've observed a strident lack of curiosity.
"Not all!"
OF COURSE NOT ALL.
One also has to tow the party line among women or otherwise be subjected to exile. The rationale for said party line is usually MORAL, and not practical. Like "defunding the police" because those poor black men in prison (for committing crimes!)
What might be the cause of this?
There is a strident difference between men and women, with various shades of gray in between. Women generally know the domestic sphere -- she can find his keys when he can't find them. Men look outward, like their genitalia. Women look inward, like theirs. Therefore, their world is myopic and subject to anecdotal evidence and subjectivity aimed at protecting their "good names" (reputations) and not soiling the discussion with anything that might hurt their children's ears.
Note that the educational system has been mangled into a center of solipsism: fears of "harm", external locus of control, "care" "social emotional learning" and so on, which is making people stupid.
On another note, I find myself reaching for how that event over there touches me, personally, as a means of comprehending it. Putting myself in the character's shoes, for example. What similar experience have I had? If I were in this position, how would I feel? What's the closest I've ever come to that?
That said, perhaps there's a difference in the intention behind the solipsism. Is it stunting the discourse, or trying to understand?
Women want 2 things:
1) more
2) something else.
This kat lady is hilarious .
This post REALLY upset some Subaru-Americans. Which is ironic because they should be at home making sandwiches instead of gallivanting on a substack named “Sigma Game”.
OH MY GAWD A SANDWICH COMMENT
I was expecting something about a kitchen or maybe some cats, but not a SANDWICH comment! I almost passed out from the stunning and brave originality displayed here.
Who says men are stupid and shouldn't be allowed to vote? The creativity shown in their internet comments is alone enough to prove that they don't need affirmative action to get into university.
You, sir, are a testament to your parents and I bet your mother is proud of the work she did. She should be. Her life would have been a waste if she didn't produce your and your genius.
One may assert that women shouldn't vote whether allowed to or not, without asserting that women are stupid. It's about the motivations and history, namely the crumbling of once-great societies in waves since they started to vote for the wrong policies, taxes, and expenditures, for the wrong reasons.
Our Forefathers had this figured out 250 years ago: women were required to STFU and make sandwiches while not being allowed to vote. The result? The foundation of the most powerful nation was created.
And subsequently destroyed after allowing women to overwhelmingly vote in support of sodomy, abortion and their own destruction via feminism.
Also far too many feminized and programmed males afraid to speak the obvious truth about women voting.
It goes without saying that blacks shouldn’t be allowed to vote.
They can barely remain non-violent in a Popeyes much less make decisions on matters of state.
One of the most legendary examples of female solipsism comes from Hillary Clinton:
“Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat.”
Good thing she didn't have a son.
Blathering emotional non sequiturs in a rational discussion…
Proof of concept FTW.
"Lol well the problem is they affect the entire world with their bullshit. For example, civilian deaths in WWII.
They're still rational though! And not self-obsessed, clearly. I mean that's what's going on in the Middle East and Afghanistan.
Pure, sheer projection."
Hmmmmm..... doubling down....... I wish someone would write a book about that. /s
I almost feel loath to add a very striking observation from my workplace, but not quite:
I used to support two Co Heads of Department, one man, one woman. The man was a senior manager, but a visibly low performer. The woman actually knew her subject, and her job. Top management needed to do something about that, so in the next re-org, they merged their departments and he was placed under her, to report into her.
He "got the message", he started looking for a job elsewhere, and a few months later he did the honorable thing and: resigned.
During the habitual Leaving Drinks, one's manager is supposed to talk about the Leaver's career. In this case: That woman was supposed to give a short speech about the guy's achievements, even though flimsy as they were.
But that woman however talked 9 of her 10 mins speech about herself. How "she remembers how we worked in the beginning, and what MY senior manager back then said about ME back when we were just juniors" (and blah and blah). She hardly said anything about the poor guy at all!
I found that behaviour quite stunning. Nobody else really "got it" -- she's very good at "Mgmt Speak". And yes, she's much stronger at their (joint) job than he was (not only in talk, also in content). And at the time and today I very much agreed with the re-org and it's consequences.
But observably, even a high performing "senior manager woman" simply cannot escape her obligatory solipsism.
She probably didn't respect the man, and therefore she chose not to show him any respect.
Why tf would she want to talk about HIM? He didn't merit any discussion. He was incompetent. You admitted it.
If a "visibly low performing" woman was leaving a company, you wouldn't bat an eye if a male didn't discuss HER at his speech. That probably happens all the time. Moids like you just don't notice because...why? Because you're all so wrapped up in your own bullshit.
You are literally the example of the problem here. Your female manager wasn't "solpsistic." She didn't show any respect to a man who didn't earn respect. That's completely acceptable. You even admit she's superior at her job. Why should she talk about a loser like that? Because he's male?
Lol, who's displaying the solipsism here? The Y chromosome is a birth defect.
You are an utter idiot.
I didn't rate his work performance. I almost despaired trying to "upward manage" him and make sense of his wonky excuse of leadership based on a total lack of subject matter expertise. Given he was, at time, still a senior manager and I needed to use him as a lever to obtain budget to do some "teal" (profitable) project work.
But being a poor work performer doesn't mean that I, or his new female boss, or any work colleague at all, needs to disrespect him AS A MAN. He was a pleasant work colleague, straight talking in non-work related topics; just he wasn't good at the job. Many people aren't, and then they look for another job.
Disrespecting him as his MANAGER is totally inappropriate; amounting to bullying and is a fireable disciplinary offense.
After all, as I said (repeating it for you idiotic short-bus woman): He DID THE HONOURABLE THING and he voluntarily resigned, without much fanfare, after he "got the message" and after he (took a few months at that level) secured some other income. His "demotion" was a clear message from the board of directors: Please, go elsewhere.
You are just an intellectually challenged retard.
"Why tf would she want to talk about HIM?"
That was her job during that event. Focusing on what she might or might not want then is as they say proof of concept.
Seems like you didn't understand. The whole shindig was for the guy who was leaving.
It looks like it was a company tradition, so I am sure it would have been very awkward to have hardly mentioned him in the speech. That's why.
The guy might have been out of his depth professionally, but you assume he was also a bad guy, and that he deserved to be snubbed in a speech that was supposed to be about him.
He paid for the drinks., Yes it is tradition in London to pay for leaving drinks and invite your ex department including your old manager.
Lol, oh I didn't understand? No, I did. That's the issue.
Who cares about tradition? Since when have women been rewarded for going along with male tradition? When males disregard tradition, they're praised. So get used to women doing it.
She didn't respect him, so she had no obligation to pretend to respect him. If a man did that, you wouldn't even bat an eyelash. It's because she's a female, you expected her to fall all over herself in gratitude to a male. Pure, sheer male self-absorption. Thanks for proving it.
Nobody gives af if he's a "bad guy." He was incompetent, and he's owed nothing. If an incompetent female was leaving, you wouldn't claim she was "good" and therefore deserving a praise.
You moids are so fucking simple it's pathetic.
That's the problem. When a female doesn't tiptoe around the male ego, it's somehow translated in your brain-damaged head that it's "solipsism." Nothing but projection.
Get back to OnlyFans, sir.
Why are you so mad, Kat? I've literally never experienced someone so angry in a comments section. What has you so furious? What need of yours is being denied?
I haven't found people to be so harsh and vicious in the workplace as you are describing.
I think it would have been equally as awkward if the man and the woman had been swapped around in this scenario, eyelids would indeed have batted.
Delusion. Male delusion.
You moids have no clue how women are treated in the workplace by men. Women are routinely treated worse than this. You couldn't see it even if you tried because you're too self-absorbed. My point exactly.
And "you haven't found"? Well, your personal experience is clearly the only thing that exists.
Male solipsism, personified. Thank you.
This is why we can't have nice things.