Read on Twitter
Individual women think they're personally representative of women as a whole, which is why they personify comments made about women as a group, and compare what's said to how they see themselves, and furthermore overestimate their self-awareness, assuming full self-knowledge.
And yet despite believing they speak for and represent women as a whole, if they disagree with a general axiom in relation to women they will either A: state women are not like that, because they think they're not, or B: recognise its a thing, but state they're the exception.
Solipsism leads to NAWALT.
Which is funny, because they simultaneously believe they are like all women (hence personalising general statements and speaking on behalf of group) but also not like other women because the bad stuff doesn't apply to them.
Zero internal consistency!
Which is funny, because they simultaneously believe they are like all women (hence personalising general statements and speaking on behalf of group) but also not like other women because the bad stuff doesn't apply to them.
Zero internal consistency!
What do you call this again?
Cognitive dissonance?
Cognitive dissonance?
Female ego is fragile and bad at handling criticism.
You must state they're different/special/exempt from the general rules, play up to their ego as "being different" so they don't feel like they're self incriminating.
Only then will they speak honestly about female nature.
You must state they're different/special/exempt from the general rules, play up to their ego as "being different" so they don't feel like they're self incriminating.
Only then will they speak honestly about female nature.
Naturally most of the things she tells you will be a projection. Not all. Some will be observations from female family and friends, but the inner workings and understanding, the why's and the how's, those will be projections based on when does the thing she's describing.
I will delete this thread
Tick tock
Tick tock
