Why don't girls hang out with me?

>>38387997
Because you're a disgusting neet with no personality who thinks an anime image board will somehow solve her problems? How about being someone worth hanging out with before complaining that no one will hang out with you.

Get guy friends?

Girls are extremely boring they all have the same personality

>>38387997
You just have to find the right ones. I've got quite a few female friends and they're all really close because of mutual interests like musicals and similar taste in books and television. Keep in mind though that Snapchat and social media only act as a window into the marketable moments of people's lives. Even close friends don't hang out 24/7 so don't worry if you meet someone you like hanging out with but aren't attached at the hip.

>>38388043
dont get guy friends. ive had so many guy meetups ruined by someone dragging his gf or girl friend there. it instantly goes from dark-souls-bonfire comfiness to babysitting her sorry ass. you cant talk about what you want, you have to ask her if every activity is fine with her...girls they never *bring* anything to the group, only pussy to her bf.
they cant relate to our feels on a fundamental level like other guys can and believe me i talked to so many girls about "life". it never works.

Something I have noticed in myself, which I believe might contribute to this.

I have more male oriented approaches/thinking than standard (this can be futher suspect due to having high levels of testosterone and many traits in childhood and now in adulthood that would be classed as aspergers/autism--which is considered the "extreme" male brain and correlates to higher testosterone exposure in utero).

This lessens my "compatible" friend group in females. It's harder to communicate with them and they are put off by my emotional coldness and desire to offer solutions to their problems instead of side with them ("What an asshole! You didn't do anything wrong! Look how emotionally charged I am for you!").

Approach to interests is also different, even in areas where I have "female" interests. IE: Animals. I have a harder time even online finding females who despite the fact that animals are often a "female" interest, are interested in technical aspects. Men interested in animals will more often discuss technical aspects relating to behavior, training, evolution, etc. Women will ask for pictures of my pets and offer "so cute!" (and continuously ask for pictures over time, which I don't really take often). All of the zoology podcasts I've ever found are also run by men. Most of the notable authors I've found who write much about zoology/ethology are also men. Temple Grandin is an exception to this, and her other big point is that she's autistic and a huge voice in the autism sphere as well.

-c

>>38387997
You might just be shy sweetmeet that would tempt any boyfriend/male attention. A lot of women do not like keeping those around if they can help it, uglier girls are always welcome.

>>38388160
Girls will unironically get mad at me when I say that I don't understand why they're upset, offering that "It hurts that you can't understand why I'm upset" in addition to the being upset/hurt in the first place.

This creates an odd situation. I am still "different" from men on other levels and so despite some similarties or more male patterned interest/behavior in some areas (still NOT to the "full" degree of an average man), they're not a suitable substitute for female friends. The final outcome is that I just end up with a very limited pool of females who can really be "friends" with me on an intimate level. These are usually autistic girls I find in various niche corners of the internet.

>>38388043
Guys aren't a complete substitute. You can have guy friends, but they aren't a substitute for female-female relationships (you NEED similar peers).

>>38388043
I have a lot of guy friends. I get along with them very well too because we do have a lot in common.

But sometimes I lose them easy when I turn them down. So it makes things uncomfortable

I do agree that girls can be extremely boring.
>>38388071
I feel like my only hope in finding a girl with similar interests with me is through the internet. And yeah I do feel like social media is fooling me to think this way. But I do envy the fun they are having.

I think this is just a fundamental difference between men and women

>OP hasn't realized yet that most humans are walking automatons following a biological imperative basically down to the tee

it's like watching an ant farm. you want to be a part of that perfect, cozy little world, where everything is sharing and co-operation, but you can't because of every single limitation you can think of that humans harbor.

the worst one is selfishness.

>>38388160
Please write more. You have managed to actually post something interesting.

>>38388223
I'm not really sure what more you want me to post. Just about this in general?

>>38388149
I like walking around in a towel at guy meetups, no homo, and if a girl was around I'd be too self conscious to.
Meetup RUINED.

>>38388160
>and they are put off by my emotional coldness and desire to offer solutions to their problems instead of side with them

I just had a backflashes to so many fights with gf. You offer a solution and suddenly you are the asshole.

>>38388160
>his lessens my "compatible" friend group in females. It's harder to communicate with them and they are put off by my emotional coldness and desire to offer solutions to their problems instead of side with them ("What an asshole! You didn't do anything wrong! Look how emotionally charged I am for you!").

i'm the same. basically, what i gathered, is that people (women) want you to "turn off" that logical, solution mode temporarily while you socialize with them.
"turning off" is part of the vulnerability i believe i have to surrender to as a man when i want to have conversations with women.
the entire thing feels so fucking forced, it's bad.

it's like if you're a mixed person who decides to talk to black people but without slang and ebonics. it's automatically 10x harder to bond with that black person and if i talk ebonics to them ("turn off"), i feel like a complete fucking faker jack ass, just like I would when I fake my emotions for women.

this is ultimately why guys are lying to women and using fake it til you make it tactics, because it's all a game.

>>38388328
I don't think pandering to women is right.
Like, I don't wear a bra for women. I don't carry a purse.
Men and women are different and that difference is part of what makes a union between them special and productive.

Anything else is false surely?

>>38388252
Yea please

Hu

>>38388494
With male-female brain patterns there's a lot of With male-female brain patterns there's a lot of variation. Most brains when looked at are a "mosaic"--different areas show more "male" or "female" activity. The standard is more "female" activity in most female brains and vice versa. These can be spread out over a spectrum with some extremely male characteristics, and some extremely female characteristics. But again, the norm is always for the biological sex to determine which side ALL of the characteristics will lean to (though different characteristics may be stronger/weaker on the "this is female/male" sepectrum).

I'm not 100% sure what determines this still. There is a lot of thought about testosterone exposure in utero. Testosterone alone wont make a female fetus into a male one--that's determined by the chromosomes from the start. The male chromosomes (SRY gene specifically) trigger for higher testosterone exposure/production in utero, which then morphs the "female" slate body into developing male traits (ie: penis). But there are cases where a female fetus will have higher than normal exposure to testosterone in utero (I'm not sure if they have some other genes that trigger it or not--there are male rats on an isolated

>>38388658
isolated island without any Y chromosome or SRY gene that just use a new gene to code for testosterone and develop exactly the same as a normal male physically, but the gene resides on their X chromosome).

You can also observe in infants from the very start, right after birth, that females have a preference for and will gaze longer at human faces, where males have a preference for and will gaze longer at technical objects, like a mobile (those spinny baby crib things, with the moon and stars dangling off them). This again goes back to the autism comparison. The "extreme" male brain of autism has a VERY HIGH preference for objects and technical subjects, and absolutely fails with humans. One of the traits of autism is problems with eye contact, looking at faces, etc. I don't remember how many studies I've read comparing later life outcomes of females who displayed more preference for the objects than faces, so I don't know if it holds much weight, but I swear I remember reading some stuff comparing that to later diagnosis of autism and finding a positive correlation for them.

You have also the "standard" difference in the male-female brain structure physically (remember the first point about them being a "mixed mosaic" though). Males have more front-back connections on each hemisphere, and less connection between the hemispheres. They can hyper focus on a single thing running it back and forth more easily.

>>38388676
They have more of those front-back connections that link their bodily movements/functions up to what they're doing as well. They have more "precise" control on average. Women have more overall connection between the two hemispheres. When entertaining ideas, they are less likely to hyper focus/tunnel vision and draw thoughts from ALL OVER both hemispheres. This is the cliche "women are better multitaskers". Again though: trope of autism is hyper focusing on a singular interest and difficulty generalising (drawing thoughts from all across the brain). Women will be "good" at more things, but men will be "masters" more often of a single thing. You could think of it as women are quantity over quality to some degree (which is opposite of their reproductive approach, interesingly).

Back to that moisaic and differences in compatability though. Create a spectrum. The left side is blue, the right side is pink. They blend in the middle. Divide the spectrum into those two halves. Most women are going to be right in the center of the right half, and most men are going to be right in the center of the left half.

>>38388696
They will then scatter across the spectrum so that you will have many men and women meeting in the middle, but fewer and fewer meeting the furhter you get into that sex's side, with only that sex existing at the most "extreme" end of either spectrum. The most masculine minded person will always be male and vice versa. But many men will be more feminine than many women (there will still be MORE feminine women than men, though).

What the OP (I think, maybe) and I are experiencing could be summed up as pushing too far into the left side--the male side, of that spectrum, so there are very few similarly-wired females around us. They're off in the pink side and we've gone into purple, touching blue, and once into the deepest blue, there are no females. There would be males experiencing the same think on the right/pink side, finding themselves surrounded primarily by females, we few like-minded males around them. You may be around similarly minded members of the opposite sex, but they're still the opposite sex. They're still different from you.

>>38388446
you're looking at it with a different perspective. socializing with people is temporary. in that moment they want you to pander to them, not every single waking moment in everything you do.

>>38388710
You will not live t he same life and cannot understand each other fully because of that. Then there is the added complication of sexual tension between you and your "like minded" male friends, which make it impossible to replicate the "normal" relationship females would have when in the same area of that spectrum.

That's putting it in a really absolute way. Like I said before with the moisaic, it isn't as simple as an absolute spectrum. Someone far onto one side of that spectrum will have MORE or STRONGER male traits, but they might still have some extremely female traits here and there as well. It can't be absolutely summed up as a simple spectrum, but it is good for a "basic" understanding of it.

(thats all i wrote)

>>38388446
Pandering isn't a good way to look at it.

In a relationship, or at least a "proper" relationship like the whole Christian view of marriage type, you are supposed to be giving yourselves to each other. You are supposed to try to serve each other well. This doesn't mean being a slave, it can also mean confronting the person when they're doing bad.

But if a woman is wired to need emotional comfort for things, and it's not as if she is using it to enable her to avoid her problems, but just genuinely experiencing emotional upset (and on average women feel both stronger negative and positive emotions), then learning to "give" to her in that way is being chartible--is being loving. "Charity" is "agape"--the greek word used to describe the "highest" form of love, of "God's love for man" and is to be aspired to.

Thinking of it as "pandering" is a really bitter, selfish mindset. You resent being asked to express charity for someone who isn't you and isn't even resembling you, because you think only yourself to be "right" and "ideal".

If it's not something you CAN do to a degree that works for that person though, that's ok. You're not compatible with that person, because you can't give them what they need. They're not "bad" for having a different body and needs than you are, though. You may find it harder to find a relationship because of that though, because there are fewer females with more "male" wiring who WONT need more emotional reassurance than the average male. You're looking for the MGTOW's "unicorn".

File: 29d8839a352990f339dcbdb59f91dadb9fba4cd0.jpg (2MB, 1414x2000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1414x2000px

>>38388728
thank you for your time anon
what a friendly description

>>38388723
I don't agree. I can't do that and I try to be genuine to everyone I meet. Bare my soul sort of deal.
I'm proud of my soul and I want to share it.
>>38388800
This makes more sense but it's a personal compromise ultimately isn't it?
You're eschewing your own virtues?
Maybe there's a finesse that allows honesty and emotional comfort to cooperate but holy heck that's a noggin scratcher.

>>38387997
>Snapchat
Get
The
Fuck
Out
Normalshit

>>38388800
Interesting read, thanks for taking the time to so thoroughly explain your feelings.

>>38388869
I don't know how you're "eschewing your virtues". You're addressing a situation to determine what is the correct response. You don't "lose" your ability to offer a solution to a problem and be more rational/analytical, you just gain the understanding that that isn't the correct response in this specific scenario, and learn to make the "correct" choice. Spraying water on a fire is a good way to put it out, but if it's an electrical fire, you need baking soda. You can still use water on another fire, though.

It's on her, too. Like I said before you need to also confront the person when they aren't behaving right. You teach each other to foster growth. If a woman finds her husband being emotionally cold in situations where she just needs some emotional reassurance, because he thinks he's being helpful by offering cold solutions (she may already have it sorted, but is still feeling emotionally distraught from the experience), it is also on her to tell him "you're making the wrong choice here".

But it's also on him to say "You want me to coddle/enable you, you come to me for comfort instead of addressing your problems" if she demands comfort of him and tells him to stop offering solutions, when that IS the right response for him to have.

It's difficult to figure out. There's no third party referee and both man and woman will have their own personal bias, making it harder for them to analyze themselves and their own reactions to determine what is "right".

>>38388869
what don't you agree with exactly? as far as i can see, we're both on the same page. neither of us can be fake for the sake of a conversation.

>proud of my soul and want to share it
really starting to sound like a woman here. what does that even mean??
you can be genuine and enthusiastic at the same time.

>>38388975
If I need to communicate information in order to offer emotional compassion, and that information is false, I've knowingly supplied a falsehood. This is wrong under any circumstance.
If I enable self destructive behavior, I am knowingly complicit in said behavior. This is wrong under any circumstance.

Sure this is all stuff I need to examine more deeply and be better equipped to negotiate on, but deep down I will not shift on my principles. It'd unmake me.

It's probably ultimately going to be learning when to shut up and to run at the mouth it seems.

>>38389029
I refuse to pander period. I don't think it's ever correct to be disingenuous.
If you just mean elevated enthusiasm then sure, I've done that before and it's saved a lot of interactions.
I won't pretend to like something I dislike for someone's benefit though. That's what I mean.

I'm very proud of myself. I've done a lot of improvement and I was a good boy to begin with. I want to share myself because evidently I can make people pleased that way.

I'm kind of interested in what girls do chat about when they're hanging out together.

Is it all about how each of them deserves a top tier Chad and how disgusting betas are?

>>38389074
>but deep down I will not shift on my principles. It'd unmake me
Do your principles include being callous when it's unnecessary? Don't get me wrong, there's a time and place for giving people you care about a harsh wake up call, but there's nothing wrong with giving them the benefit of the doubt when they're going through tough times. I swear, it's because of people like you that my favorite RPG alignment is known as Lawful Stupid. I feel like you've thought about the theory of human interaction so much that you've forgotten about the subtleties that go into it in practice.

>>38389164
>>38389164
MOST of the girls I've interacted with want to talk about their problems with feelings, family, and life situations. They want to vent and know someone cares about them. r9k is more feminine than most of 4chan for this reason (hmmm... what's with all the traps).

A lot of them also want to shit talk people and talk about how awful everything is and be sort of negative in general. It's more personally negative though. Men will shit talk people, but it's more as a group identity. They hate "types" of people or groups/labels of people, women hate specific individuals and traits. Women are me vs. the world, men are my group vs your group.

A lot of them also just want to talk about what media and stuff they're currently watching and how much they like it.

>>38389143
I like your principles.

>>38389074
"If I enable self desctructive behavior"
I just addressed this. The majority of the post was addressing this.
Needing emotional reassurance is not self destructive in itself. You have to determine when there ISNT a need for it, and the other person is using it as a means to avoid addressing their problems (enabling, self destructive, etc.) and when the way to address their current problem (emotional upset, a NEED for emotional reassurance/social connection) is to provide emotional comfort. If you're addressing it the other way, you're not "standing by your principles" since your principles seem to be "offer solution to problem".

You're still using that "I will provide solutions to this problem" aspect that you are so masculinely proud of, but you're not really understanding the problem in this area, because it's not one you really experience much of. Difficulty with empathy is characteristic of autism/testosterone/male brains as well. It's harder for you to understand another person's problems and use your solution-solving because it's not a technical problem, it's an emotional one, and you have a harder time empathizing to understand those emotional problems, vs. "if you don't like your job, just quit!" (a very straight forward and technical problem with a real world/material answer, unlike "i feel bad right now" which is more abstract and may require something more along the lines of reminding the person you love and care about them/bringing positive emotions to them).

>>38389249
I think loyalty to truth and protection from harm, harm and information having permanence, overrides concerns like feelings, which are momentary.
It's possible to deliver truths kindly and lie callously, and up to finesse in the moment to shape that means of delivery.

A long time ago I recovered from kill myself grade depression. And besides the pills I was given CBT. And ever since I've sort of discarded feelings as these things that are a consequence of thought. And that I can shape feelings indirectly by shaping thought.
If I don't place much value in accomodating someone's emotions, that's why. I've had far more success controlling emotions by being reasonable. I think it's the best way.
>>38389257
Me 2
>>38389279
I am very empathetic. I anticipate people very closely.
You're probably right. I sidestep this whole problem because I can brainwashed myself to stop feeling bad by reason alone, so I don't understand irrational means of coping.
I think that'd be a shut up and hug moment.

>>38389143
i thought i responded to this.. wtf.
anyway, yeah i was talking about enthusiam and bonding, not necessarily faking liking shit you dislike.

>>38389473
>I am very empathetic.
I have some doubts about this. You currently show you can't empathize with the notion of someone having emotional reactions that are addressed with a specific solution without calling that solution "irrational", because the person functions and feels differently than you know you yourself to function/feel, and require a different solution than you. (Note: this isn't to say you are incapable of empathy. This is to say, I don't think you are "very" or any unusually high level of empathetic for a male).

Feelings are also not "momentary". When these are not processed and dealt with appropriately, they lead to long term harm. This is such a common idea that feelings are just some silly inconvenience but hold no weight, among men and among the more autistic girls I've met (who all want to fight feelings with pure logic). When they find themselves in situations that are very emotionally distressing, they end up with problems, because they will not address them appropriately--they are not equip to do so by default.

You mention CBT, but one of the primary points of CBT isn't to discard emotions, but to allow yourself to experience the emotions, address that they are happening, understand why they are happening, and accept that they are happening, even if they are negative. Saying "I feel bad, will you please hug me and engage in a soothing activity with me while I process these bad feelings so we can return to normal" is not

>>38389473
>>38389817
irrational or against CBT. It IS bad if the person can only process those feelings by relying on the other person, though. The person should be able to engage in solitary soothing activities, but there's nothing wrong with one of those soothing activities being "socialize with loved one" unless that loved one finds it distressing to be involved with the person during that time.

You also offer "I had this happen" and need to point out the severity (kill yourself) grade to say "I did it, so can you" which is again not empathetic, but basing the "correct" response off yourself only, with a refusal to consider there are many different approaches, problems, solutions, and experiences--this is very black/white thinking where you "demonize" anything different than yourself/your own experience.

You can look into the workings of the narcissitic personality disorder mind and the borderline personality disorder mind. NPD is more masculine and common in males, and BPD is more feminine and common in females. Everyone has some of the traits and motivators behind these (they're only considered a "mental illness" and given a name when they become extreme/harmful/numerous). NPD has no empathy. BPD has too much empathy. NPD will say "look how good I did, you're wrong for not doing as well as me, any other approach is wrong, you're lesser and I have 0 need for you" whereas BPD will say "everything I'm doing is wrong, I'm sorry you're so much better than me, I'm sorry I'm failing you, I NEED you".

>>38387997
It's really simple dude. Most women have boyfriends. Most boyfriends wouldn't want their girlfriends hanging out with other guys, especially ones they don't know. So, she doesn't hang out with them.

>>38387997
You aren't a girl, they use emotive language more, and are incapable or recognizing their faults.

>>38387997
Op, find a bf.

>>38389904
Not OP, I'm the girl who posted the long autismo ramblings here, but:
I have a BF. This is a different relationship dynamic to friends, especially female friends. He is not a suitable relationship for that. There are stressors in a romantic relationship that don't come with female-female friendships (or friendships in general). Female-female relationships offer support to deal with the stressors of romantic relationships, and discussion on how to handle/approach/address them as well.

>>38389825
>>38389817
I am empathetic dude. I consider viewpoints that are not my own, accurately. And please let's call a spade a spade. If I can't call a system of thought that doesn't follow reason irrational, what may I call it?
Feelings are absolutely momentary.
The effects of their mishandling may produce long term effects. Emotions themselves are ephemeral. Anger may cause thoughts of violence, which may cause later angry outbursts, but that initial flash is just as I've described it. Momentary.

I experience but I am not consumed. Discard is the wrong word. As is ignore.
I don't grant my emotional responses my reins. I do not let them trump reason. I can be emotionally driven in a mental vacuum.
Also what's so wrong with that communication. Seems like a rational way to behave.

I happen to have a preference for proven methods. I want success. I'm not an artist. I solve practical problems. If I demonize other methods that's your impression of my preference for uncomfortable results over comfortable failure.

I'm not sure of the relevance of that last paragraph.

Anyway.
I'm just speaking from experience. If someone else has success like mine and tells me about it, it goes into the proven method bag. Likewise if I do.

In some ways you're ultimately arguing that we're all different it seems. That's an unpopular opinion.

>>38387997
OP the best place to ask this question may not be in the den of a male-dominated woman-hating incel club

unironically, I just don't get along with women as well as I do with men

>my best platonic relationships consist of constantly ribbing on each other as opposed to the "omg you look so pretty!!! I love you!!!" type of support, which I actually hate and find cringey as fuck. I can't be that positive all the time
>I find stereotypically female hobbies to be silly and unproductive ("going out", hair/makeup etc.) (full disclosure, I do enjoy doing my makeup and I wear some on a daily basis -- but it's not a hobby, just basic maintenance.)
>I don't like talking to people very often, and female friends are often much higher-maintenance in that they want to be in contact every day or multiple times a week or they get upset about you not talking to them and ask why you're mad
>in my experience, women tend to talk more about other people. I love drama but I'd rather talk about something I saw on the news or some new bit of technology or something that I made myself
>I hate to say it but there's always some competition in the looks department. it's stressful to worry about whether you're the best looking one in your group of friends, and it's kind of pathetic to seek out friendships with uglier girls just so you can be the best-looking one.

all that being said, I have some really close female friends I love and we get along great, because they for the most part don't fit into the above. but I could never have a solid female group of friends

although like you OP, I often wish I grew up to be a bit more girly so I'd understand them better. female friendships seem like a lot of fun

epic androgynous male here, never had any problem befriending either of the sexes.
are you rude? do you have bad manners?

conformation bias, i know ton of of guys who have 0 social lives - and some are very intellegent

File: 1498136721740.jpg (63KB, 500x493px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 500x493px

>>38387997
I am not girl. But, throughout my whole life whoever is my "best friend" has always been a girl. The position is open rn, the last one ended up getting engaged to me.
I'll be you man best friend if you want.

I'm Wojack tho.

Maybe it's where I live, but where I'm from girls do hang out in a group. I know that because I hang out with a bunch of girls, not by choice but rather because I have no guy friends... as a guy. Yup I am a failure as a guy. Tbh both guys and girls in groups can be pretty disgusting, I remember a guy just asking me out of the blue what porn I watch and another time whilst I was eating with my female friends they were talking about period cravings, suffice to say it was awkward and I lost my appetite

>>38387997
Just make friends with guys in the friendzone its easy to stop them and they;re total losers so it will be easy to make friends with him

>>38390089
>I am empathetic dude.
See: "Note: this isn't to say you are incapable of empathy. "
You seem to be taking "I am empathetic" to mean "I am the most empathetic there can be, no one can have any other experience than mine, because I am the most empathetic and right, if they have a different experience, its having no empathy, and having no empathy is bad". One more: black-white, right-wrong, I'm good, they're bad. Reading on the motivators behind NPD would likely reveal some of your own mental functions (this is not to say you have a disorder, these are behavior patterns present in all people in greater and lesser degrees).

>If I can't call a system of thought that doesn't follow reason irrational,
You're saying "having emotions and feeling bad is irrational", are you not? Am I misunderstanding? What are you saying is irrational? "Having stronger emotions than me is irrational"? Women generally experience higher emotions, both positive and negative. Like the borderline--they experience heightened emotions of all kinds (it becomes a problem in borderlines because it they feel SO INTENSELY that it impairs their life/overpowers them).

>>38390089
>>38390769
>Feelings are absolutely momentary.
They are reocurring patterns that happen in greater and lesser degrees. A person who experiences anxiety often is "an anxious person" in general. They have to learn how to process living as a person who frequently feels anxiety in greater and lesser degrees consistently throughout their life. If they don't process anxiety and handle it in appropriate ways, it becomes worse, the feelings become more intense, and may lead to damaging outcomes.

>I experience but I am not consumed.
Other people may experience emotions differently or to a higher degree, or even different emotions than you do. This seems to be what you are having a hard time understanding, which is characteristic of difficulties with empathy. "Everyone feels like I do. They need to handle it like I do."

>I happen to have a preference for proven methods.
These are proven for you. Emotional reassurance from a loved one is proven for others (supportive family?). Again "My methods are proven. All others are wrong."

>>38390089
>>38390832
> If I demonize other methods that's your impression of my preference for uncomfortable results over comfortable failure.
And again. "It's you who is wrong about me thinking everyone else is wrong, because everyone else is wrong and their preference is actually failure."

>I'm not sure of the relevance of that last paragraph.
That BPD and NPD are extreme versions of different human traits/behavior, and that they correlate more to one gender than the other, and your behaviors could be examined with the understanding of the functions of an NPD (or a BPD, but this is usually more relevant to women) to understand them (and the behaviors of the people you think are "failures" could potentially be examined and understood via the workings of BPD).

>That's an unpopular opinion.
How is "people are different" an unpopular opinion? Are there not people who are introverted and people who are extroverted? Who argues against that? This seems like "no one sides with you, I'm right, see" attempt to force belief (see: bandwagon).

>>38389252

>Women are me vs. the world, men are my group vs your group.

I would say this is more the other way around. Most women strongly identify with "the group" and with a us vs them mentality, where as men are more independent and have more of a themselves vs the rest of the world mentality, where everyone feels like another obstacle between them and their goals (dominance usually).

>>38391301
This was about when males/females speak about others they find unpleasant. Men more often subscribe to an ideaology and shit talk the opposing "group". Females will subscribe to a group, but they more often focus negatively on an individual, and shit talk the individual, not the group the individual is associated with. Men fight against enemy teams, women fight against specific individuals within their groups.

Differences in male-female group identity overall is that males are more fluid, and females tend to cling more strongle to one group and stay there. You can observe the same thing in primate social structures often, too. Males will form coalitions with other males and fight opposing males, even males they were previously in a coalition with. They also "make up" and reform coalitions with current enemies more often than females, if the once-enemy-male can be utilised to further their climb to dominance. Female groups are usually more set in stone and more "clique, restricted access" in nature. It is a lot more sever to be driven out of female social groups.

>>38391512

That is true but it is wrong to draw the conclusion that women have a "me against the world" mentality. Its "my group against that specific person" as you described. Males generally are much more likely to have a "me against the world" mentality, as men are not nearly as socially motivated as women. Men also dont really see coalitions as a social structure like women do, its more of a utilitarian thing, a means to an end, when interests, and to an extent ideals, align. So you have the right idea, just drew the wrong conclusions

>>38387997
Girls are automatically allowed into social circles regardless of shared interests. They gravitate towards what they perceive as the most popular group and are welcomed. they pick up on certain social trends to become more accepted, they won't bother trying to talk to someone who isn't 'in' the group

It's hard to find genuine friends who you can just enjoy time with, most people are just self absorbed.

>>38388149
This. Girls significantly reduce fun factor. reduce the amount of shit you can talk about and expect you to act a boyfriend

>>38387997
Because they have vaginas.

And all of society is a competition to get vagina.

>>38391793
Women will see themselves as against other specific individuals, even individuals within their group--EVERYONE is a potential enemy. Men will see themselves as against other groups, but acknowledge that "their" group is theirs and should not have internal conflict/enemies (and if so, they find a "new" group and the old group is demonized). Me vs. that other girl who is awful, and me and my bros vs that guy and his other bros who are all awful. Women don't have the camraderie sense that men do, which leaves them more isolated and "me, alone, vs whoever is making my life difficult currently". This is why OP finds most girls only socialize 1-on-1 and don't form groups as readily.

The difference is men are against others to achieve domination over them (to secure right to reproduce). Women are against others to maintain what they have reproduced (to keep competitor females from killing their offspring, as well as males from killing their offspring too).

Males are generally the most aggressive overall, but this is trumped in most species when you encounter females who are nursing young. They are not as physically powerful, but they display much, much more aggression than a male fighting for reproductive rights, and their aggression is displayed even against their own mates at times. They fear everything will kill their offspring. Everything is a threat.

>>38392037

I disagree. To a woman the group is everything. A woman on her own is helpless and an easy picking for enemy groups. The strategy of women is to find the strongest alpha and become part of the strongest group so the group will protect her. The strategy of a man is to become THE strongest. Not all succeed of course as only one can be the strongest, so instead they settle on a utilitarian alliance with other men they deem to be strong.

The worst possible scenarip for a woman is being expelled from the group, the worst possible scenario for a man is being weak and losing the ability to defend themselves against threats

>>38390769
>>38390832
>>38390857
Good grief.
First and foremost this is an argument and were attempting to prove points I assume. If you want to make middling statements as a mode of expression go write a song. I'm going to address anything sent through this medium as a dichotomy either in support or retraction of my statement.
Basing actions on emotions without thought is the very definition of irrational.
I see that you agree on my statement that feelings are momentary.
Proven to me because I have my frame of reference. Share your methods and we can exchange for mutual benefit.
Call a spade a spade. Anger is anger and people generally experience the same anger. My anger may not be another person's
>tfw no gf
Maybe on this board. Bad example.
Again I have my frame of reference on experience and coping. People can share or I need to put my evidently weak empathy to work.
We've been over proof.
This is again down to dichotomy. You're not giving me an antithesis to work with and it's frustrating.
It's seems these traits are more common than not because literally every male takes this dichotomy argument stance.
Is a common trait a disorder?
Lastly, congratulations on recognising a jab for what it is. I cast you as someone who discriminates between groups of people.

We'll make a sophist troll of you yet milad. I need to go to work again in 9 hours so I'm gonna hop in bed and rest my battered thumbs.