“Here, hold my purse.”
As an unplugged male, the words above mean that she wants you to hold her purse. After all, if you asked somebody to hold your purse (assuming you were the type of guy to have a purse), it would mean you want them to hold your purse. If you don’t actually want somebody to hold your purse, why the fuck would you ask?
After the RedPill enlightens you, you realize that when a woman uses words, the words she uses may or may not have anything to do with what she means. “Hold my purse” probably means she’s hoping you find some clever way to not hold her purse. Then again, maybe she’s trying to find the right box of shoes and actually wants you to hold the damn thing. Your job as a man is to navigate your way through her language and precious little mind, and then take charge of it. (My two favorite responses to this shit-test are to yell, “Cool!” and start going through it, or I might just take it and walk away.) What she wants, what she thinks she wants, and what she says she wants have a tenuous relationship to each other. And then there’s what you want, which is actually what she wants (probably, although she’ll never say that).
Men communicate in a much more linear fashion. “I’ll be there at seven”, man to man, means he’ll probably be there somewhere in the neighborhood of seven. For women, “the medium is the message“, there’s a hell of a lot more going on that mere words. Words are just a tiny part of it.
In your pesonal relationships, there’s a way to navigate through this. If you’re an Alpha, she’s the one trying to figure you out. You may or may not understand what she means, but it doesn’t really matter because you’re the one in charge; she’s adapting to you. But even if you’re not yet dominant, if you understand the contents of Rollo’s post I linked above, at least you won’t get confused.
However, we use language for a hell of a lot more than getting laid (at least most of us). Among the more important of these is Law. Law is written in words, words that are meant to be interpreted, understood, and followed. A law that says “don’t drive over 65” is supposed to mean “don’t drive over 65.” It’s suppsed to be consistent, clear, apply equally to all of us. You’re not supposed to be able to David Gregory your way out of a felony because you’re alpha. We’re all equal before the law, right?
Not so under the Feminine Imperative. If a beta shows up twenty minutes later for a rendez-vous with a female, “How DARE you disrespect my time!” If an Alpha does the same, she wonders what she did wrong the last time she saw him or if she used too many emoticons (or too few) in that last text. Standards are anything but objective, and Law under the Feminine Imperative reflects this.
“Justice” Ginsburg thinks we should have an all female Supreme Court. All gender-discrimination issues aside, considering how females use language, and that the Supreme Court has the final say over what the language of the Constitution is supposed to mean, how would this bear fruit?
If solipsism is a driving force behind the feminine psyche, would a female interpreter of the Law be more likely to try to figure out what that law actually was intended to mean, or would she interpret it to mean what she wants it to mean? Would this have any societal ramifications?
Hell yes, it would. How can a society operate under any consistent interpretation of the Law when the very meaning of said Law depends entirely on some chick’s feelings? How about NINE of them, setting precedents for an entire nation of over 300 million people?
We already see this, and it’s evidence of the feminization of our society. If gun control laws are a good thing, then you shouldn’t be excused for breaking them because you’re famous.
When “don’t drive over 65” has the same meaning as your girlfriend’s “I don’t want to talk about it”, it’s a world of chaos. I get away with not holding the purse because I rummage through it. Should I get away with running the speed limit because I’m Alpha enough to outrun the cop? Can I get away with murder because I”m as cute as the Menendez brothers (eventually convicted, even though female jurors kept wanting to acquit)?
I recognize that men in this regard aren’t perfect (Souter), and that females sometimes get it (Judge Judy). However, this only means that some males operate under the FI and some females are capable of rejecting it. Generally, Man more likely understands the notion of Abstract Justice, that how He feels about it doesn’t mean a damn thing. His job is to figure out what the damn thing means. She has a much harder time removing herself from the equation.
This is part of the realization of the Blood Red Pill, that things can get very ugly very fast when we disregard the Abstract, when we’re no longer able to step outside of ourselves.
What’s happening in Law is happening in our schools, our churches, our military. When solipsism and shit-tests replace objective masculine standards, we’re in for a world of hurt.
Either we turn this thing around, or God help us all.