Women don’t care about the lived male experience. They simply don’t. They can pretend to be interested, but insofar as you think the experiences you’re sharing are meant to be an expression of your specifically lived male experience, she is either interpreting it as something else or qualifying it to meaninglessness, at least insofar as the specifically male element of the experience is concerned. Women do this because they find the lived male experience distasteful and scary; men have a much higher tolerance for risk, and they can also be very blunt about their sexual desires. Women are not used to thinking in these terms, so whenever this specifically Othered experience is invoked in a person they were otherwise mentally classifying as a harmless herbivore, only to have this working model suddenly falsified, they have a kind of traumatic experience (I mean this literally; trauma and conversion are related mental phenomena). Women’s personal narratives on this point, when a boy they thought of as “just a friend” suddenly makes his maleness a factor in who he is, contains the traces of shock and confusion that strongly falsificatory experiences have.
Consider, if you will, an example of the discounting of lived male experience at Haley’s Halo, concerning men’s experiences and attitudes with dating. To summarize, Haley asks why men don’t seem to want to date anymore, to which a number of MGTOW types provide an answer, which seems not to be what Haley was looking for, as she goes on to call them “whiny.” This is a perfect example of such discounting in action. Men are ostensibly asked to supply an answer as to why they might be reluctant to date women, they go on to provide an answer which references their specifically lived male experience, and since it isn’t an answer Haley likes, she qualifies the validity of their opinion (“they’re just whiners!”) so that she doesn’t have to actually grapple with how men actually feel in modern society. That would be too uncomfortable, because it could pose a threat to her ego, since she might be forced to admit that she partakes of behaviors that she otherwise feels free to criticize in others.
Not all women are like that. Naturally; I’m referring to a behavior that is overwhelmingly displayed by an overwhelming majority of women. There are some women who have learned to counteract their own solipsism and so attempt to truly empathize with the Other, but it is a skill that is very rarely taught, because society is too busy instilling into boys and girls the notion that naturally masculine feelings, thoughts, and desires are negative and destructive, while naturally feminine feelings, thoughts, and desires are positive and constructive.
On the one hand, women will be quick to relate that of course men have feelings. In fact, they’ll even say they think it’s a good thing for men to be in touch with their feelings. But the subtext of this is that it is a way of “being in touch” which women are acquainted with. How a man tends to feel innately is otherwise undiagnosed, and insofar as a boy does have these feelings, he is left to question the validity of those feelings, perhaps even feeling conflicted over having the feelings he does for not conforming to politically correct attitudes. The constant beggaring of women for men to accommodate all manner of behaviors and lifestyles without women having to face any consequences they don’t like hijacks the man’s natural interest in keeping the women around him happy. And so the male inner life are intended as an extension, or derived form, of the female inner life. Women are naturally attuned to their feelings, while for men it is a matter of practice. The female inner life becomes the default human inner life.
The female ego is built on a foundation of creaky narratives. This is only to be expected, as most narratives women tell themselves are constructed as ad hoc rationalizations to justify a decision they’ve already gone through. This is contrary to the male use of psychological narratives, wherein men tend to construct a narrative in order for them to fulfill it.
Consider, if you will, why men and women might both enjoy the same action movie. For the man, the action hero represents an ideal of masculinity, a narrative, he aspires to. For the woman, the action hero represents a solid bedrock that can ground her inner life. Men want to be the action star, women are attracted to the action star. This sort of asymmetry doesn’t follow for chick flicks, where women are interested in a narrative they can aspire to; for men, they are less concerned with being persuaded that the girl is attractive. Seeing what she looked like was sufficient, the rest of the movie is just a good story (or not).
With an ego built ad hoc to justify decisions made in the past, it only follows that women must face the prospect of their ego construct being continuously corrected. Only a delusional amount of self-esteem could protect such an ego from a constant barrage of ordinary experiences that falsify her worldview, with the result that an ego essentially out of touch with reality becomes completely barbaric. (Just ask Matt Forney.) Lived male experience is essentially anti-feminist, in that insofar as it is an authentically male experience, not a contrived pseudo-masculinity, it falsifies the delusional feminist ego at every point. Feminism depends upon women technically being the same under the hood, but as women can really only be acquainted with their own female lived experience, and men cannot adapt their manner of expressing lived male experience except through a process of trial and error, it is most likely that men will unwittingly falsify the feminist’s working model of the world with every insistence that he does actually have a distinctly non-feminine inner life.
In other words, lived male experience, and masculinity by extension, are the solvents of the feminist ego.
Bryce, this is excellent work here. And I want to confirm everything you wrote, but first, let me say this: please don’t shoot the messenger/
OK, here goes. Prior to discovering the manosphere a couple of years ago, I had no idea that men even had an inner life or a lived male experience. Nothing could have interested me less. I didn’t consider that men had a point of view that might be different from women’s nor did I care to find out. And to my shame, my husband was included in that. I had no idea that he saw things and experienced things very differently than I did.
Reading in the manosphere was, initially, one of the most traumatic experiences I can recall. It sparked all kinds of conversations with my husband that left me in tears, saying I had no idea. My first reaction to many manosphere conversations that I participated in was one of feeling really anxious and a sense that I wanted to try to talk the men there out of feeling what they said they were feeling. Because frankly, I found the whole thing incredibly threatening.
And I think most women unconsciously find the idea of autonomous male thoughts and feelings deeply threatening. We’ve pretty much been able to control men by the social constructs that keep them from acknowledging what they think and feel. If we were to lose that control, women would be in real trouble because we need you in order to survive. No woman likes to admit that, but it’s true.
This is an illuminating corroboration. Thanks.
“Reading in the manosphere was, initially, one of the most traumatic experiences I can recall. It sparked all kinds of conversations with my husband that left me in tears, saying I had no idea.”
Really? This sounds very interesting. Are there any posts on your blog where you talk about this? Or could you elaborate here?
“My first reaction to many manosphere conversations that I participated in was one of feeling really anxious and a sense that I wanted to try to talk the men there out of feeling what they said they were feeling. Because frankly, I found the whole thing incredibly threatening.”
Threatening? What about man-thinking is threatening?
Every part. Women are dependent upon men, women are consumers. They cannot survive without us, and deep within every woman is an understanding of how this works. Women need us far more than we need them, and they know how much power we have over them if we choose.
The fact that our experience and perspectives differ from them means that our goals are also different. They need us to help them. One way is to be good women from a man’s view. Another, easier way; assuming that social pressure will work as well on us as them. They still assume our reaction will be theirs.
This is why the men going their own way are hated so much more passionately than the pickup artists. At least the cads are paying attention to women. Look at the energy denouncing cads and rakes, and then the vitriol directed towards the walkaways. Cads are misguided (they do not meet the female need in the manner of her choosing) where the ghosts are whiny, entitled, unmanly, and all the rest (because they are not meeting that need and have no interest in doing so–in fact, have built an philosophy dedicated to not meeting it).
The Shadowed Knight
Do women – did you – have a similar reaction when your kids started to think for themselves? When they reached an age where they were starting to exhibit a mental independence?
Even though most women won’t understand it…or will probably disregard it…I am glad I get to enjoy the male experience.
And perhaps women aren’t as happy these days because men are being shut down from having a place to be free to express it.
Reblogged this on A Life Un-Lived and commented:
As always, Bryce produced yeoman’s work as an apprentice-aged man. Props! I believe he missed a minor detail, perhaps because he has not endured sufficient chick flicks with women.
“Consider, if you will, why men and women might both enjoy the same action movie. For the man, the action hero represents an ideal of masculinity, a narrative, he aspires to. For the woman, the action hero represents a solid bedrock that can ground her inner life. Men want to be the action star, women are attracted to the action star. This sort of asymmetry doesn’t follow for chick flicks, where women are interested in a narrative they can aspire to; for men, they are less concerned with being persuaded that the girl is attractive. Seeing what she looked like was sufficient, the rest of the movie is just a good story (or not).”
My guilty habit is Japanese anime. My daughter teases me for watching the dramas, but, for me, these are the best. Most of the Japanese narratives still retain authentic depictions of “lived male experience” within the dramatic dialog, perhaps because the Japanese have not been quite so completely crushed beneath feminist dogma. Such dramas invariably contain love stories that accurately reflect male emotional attachments, both to lovers and comrades. So, using that as a reference, let’s re-examine “chick-flicks.”
What we in America call “chick-flicks” have a strong representation elsewhere as authentic dramas. These narratives describe the expanding relationships between friends and lovers, including how these relationships begin, develop, and occasionally fail. For me, personally, the characters permit me to vicariously experience emotions and entanglements which are largely absent from my intentionally stable, quiet, and un-dramatic life. I have noticed, however, when my wife and daughter enter the room, that they often make derisive comments such as, “Why are the women always crying?” and “Why is everybody shouting?” My favorite, of course, was when my daughter watched FLCL and said, “That’s too strange.” Of course it was “too strange;” it was all about a young man’s coming of age, all the strange sci-fi was allegorical.
The difference, you see, it that most Japanese anime is written for a male audience. Men make it; men watch it. As a result, you get the equivalent of “chick-flicks” written for men. So, now my critique.
When men watch anime dramas about the misfit boy who gets the girl, they’re watching something to which they aspire. The misfit boy STRIVES TO BECOME GREATER. This is not the comic-book hero that suddenly finds himself with powers that solve his problems; this is the comic-book hero that suddenly finds himself with powers that CAUSE HIS PROBLEMS. It is only by improving himself as a man that he is able to overcome his disabilities – even those that give him strength – and become a man worthy of his comrades and lovers.
In this regard, a “chick-flick” is a different narrative completely alien to men. It requires men to empathize with the goal of being sufficient – and often through connivance and whirlwind efforts following some sort of procrastination – to attract the attention of a lover and keep it. Comrades rarely figure in the narrative. Happily-ever-after is the end of the story, rather than an opening to a broader implied narrative following a crisis of self-worth. In the chick-flick, the protagonist is worthy, but alone, and needs a companion. In the male narrative, the protagonist is unworthy, though rarely completely alone, and seeks to establish self-worth justified by external and objective assessments. This journey earns him companions, who have similar journeys of improvement. Together, they accomplish great deeds they could not accomplish alone. When this narrative includes lovers, then the characters invariably recognize that they are stronger together than apart. Even in Japanese “girl-power” narratives where men take a nominally subordinate role, the narrative focuses on the male’s quest for worth to a completely superior woman, and his willingness to self-sacrifice for somebody who can live without him – but needs his emotional support to avoid despair.
I have watched a lot of anime and I have to disagree that “The misfit boy STRIVES TO BECOME GREATER”. Quite the opposite, in just about every anime I have watched, the male protagonist is extremely passive when it comes to women, if not downright terrified. I used to act really beta towards women and I identify anime as one of the main culprits in shaping my attitude towards them in an unhealthy way.
Joseph,
I’m short of time, here, but perhaps some examples will help. For your consideration:
Bleach (Secret Back-story)
Now and Then, Here and There (Survive Against Odds)
Space Battleship Yamato (Overcome Adversity)
Fullmetal Alchemist (Redemption for Mistakes)
Samurai Champloo (Competing Male Comrades)
Cowboy Beebop (Can’t Escape Your Past)
Any “Tenchi” series (Hard Work Pays)
and of course, Akira, which is a really bizarre buddy film, though few recognize it.
You can ignore any film with a female lead, with some exceptions such as Freezing and Elfen Lied, which aren’t really about the girls.
Of course, any such list has to recognize stuff like InuYasha, which is all about the girl. That, I contend is the difference: we don’t have guy dramas like we used to have.
Deer Hunter comes close, I suppose.
I can think of some more in this theme:
Code Geass (Saving the World [despite not receiving praise for doing so])
Clannad (Maturing by Overcoming Tragedy)
Pokemon movies (Self Sacrifice for the Greater Good)
The World God Only Knows (Self-Actualization Through New Experiences)
Of course, there are plenty of examples of very passive “protagonists,” who exist more or less for a bunch of strong-willed women to fall into their lives (sometimes literally, e.g. Sekirei). These tend to be the harem animes, and are popular because they are essentially fantasies for beta herbs who could never get themselves a girl by being pro-active (that and because, well, pretty girls).
I forgot Clannad. I really like that one.
As long as we’re in “revealing” mode, my favorite is the manga “Nana to [and] Kaoru.” There’s something about the guy who totally falls for the awesome girl, does the “fake it till you make it” bit, realizes other girls are into him, too, but he can still be focused on the one woman he wants, and still strive to be equal to her in several respects where he’s not yet met her on her terms.
Oh, and the scary reality that women crave assertive guys, and what that does to guys who maintain the facade but are thoroughly “beta” and trying to become alpha.
Yeah, I’ll just admit I’ve been there, and still have my “beta” moments,
Warren Farrel discusses this. The primary female narrative is that of *being discovered*.
This is okay, and I don’t disagree with it, but it isn’t up to your usual standard here, I think.
Really? I thought this one was pretty good. But there always seems to be a disagreement between the author and his readers on what constitutes his most important work.
It’s not that it’s bad, it’s just that it’s kind of a perspective that is relatively common, I think, even if it is true.
To me, your blog is most valuable when it shares uncommon insights on complex issues, which seems to be a common theme, and I suppose I’d prefer more of that and less of this.
I do what I can. I’ve probably exhausted myself on male-female psyche for a while now. Next up: race, formalism, and an attempt at systematizing the theory of Leftist singularity.
Novaseeker: I will disagree with you 100%. This interpretation is not common in any way whatsoever. Nobody in the MSM is saying this. And most people get their ideas from the MSM. I have heard similar thoughts before, but Bryce’s ideas here are not common at all.
Pingback: Training women to love their men: what to do when he is injured or ill. | Sunshine Mary
Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/11/20 | Free Northerner
Pingback: The Red-Pill Truth For Men | The Society of Phineas
“but insofar as you think the experiences you’re sharing are meant to be an expression of your specifically lived male experience, she is either interpreting it as something else or qualifying it to meaninglessness”
She’ll be interpreting it as a personal attack on her.
That is one thing which can happen. I don’t think it is the only thing that can happen, but the gist is that women will avoid having any acquaintance with the male perspective of reality.