Anonymous Reader: Is it just my mistaken impression, or do women as a group seem to have a real problem understanding the difference between “ought” and “is” ? “should be” and “are”?

Stingray (a woman): Feelings are, regardless of whether or not they are relevant to the topic or even in the range of the topic. What actually is at that point, is so easily rendered irrelevant.

Anonymous Reader:Then the “should be” or the “ought” is tied up with emotion, and the “is” being purely reality oriented is just not as interesting?

Next up: “some” and “all” and “me”. For a few years I’ve been banging the drum that “some” and “all” are not synonyms. First it was to the feministas, who are very often fond of sweeping generalizations of the “all men are rapists and that’s all they are” type. More recently, I’ve tried to explain to the feminized tradcons that NAWALT really is without meaning as a response to most criticisms of female behavior. Because “some” and “all”.

Reading (ahem) some recent blog posts elsewhere, I realize that the third entry – “me” – is needed. Because of solipsism, whereby women read a critique of female behavior and the immediate reaction is I don’t do that!, as if individual women are the logical center of any possible discussion.

I was watching the choir chick-flick “Joyful Noise” last night and it’s a perfect example of female think. All the ugly women are beautiful inside and out, and God’s purpose can’t be questioned; everything that happens is supposed to happen.

For women and women minded men, reality can’t be swallowed unless should can be made equal to is. An almighty intercessor must intercede to give the authority of should to is, just to be able to start to come to grips with reality.

Women’s utopian thinking seems literally insane to men.

It’s too complicated for women to understand that describing reality is not recommending a reality. They “think” with emotions that tell them that the only allowable reality must be convenient and agreeable to them personally. And they take it as a given that reality is a social construct put together by wags.

As Rollo points out, for women the distinct male sexual/strategic experience does not exist, because it should not exist. Evo-psych does not exist. Fem-centrism is all of reality.

Not Carrie Bradshaw: Shall I go out on a limb and suggest that the mental attitude of women has to do with neoteny – or the closer resemblence women have to children. Physically AND mentally. If you look at children, they have an innate solipsism and view themselves as having less agency in an environement which they have little control over. Children tend to be more self absorbed and self centred too – because their “ego” hasn’t yet “separated” from their sense of being part of a bigger whole containing other people. Funny thing is that men tend to find more neotenous women more attractive. Women with more male characteristics (including mental characteristics) are viewed less positively by men – which means, in this age of independent mate selection, that even more immature and solipsitic women will be selected for breeding, at the expense of more mature and less solipsitic ones.