This is adapted from a comment I posted.

Women are constantly seeking out a consensus. It's astonishing how much time women spend conferring with one another on whether something is okay or not.

I see this a lot with gay men. They often talk like this: "What do you think of X?" "Right, I think the same thing." Feminine minds are always seeking agreement. Even when the speaker disagrees. Maybe he likes X and his interlocutor doesn't. He won't disagree, he'll say, "Oh, I know, right?" and hide his disagreement, and maybe express his real opinion later in a catty bit of side-gossip with someone else: "Have you heard John doesn't like X? I know!"

Masculine men are not like this. They do not think this way. They get what the rules are, but they are not born to police norms. Their conversation does not exist to establish consensus. (This is true even though men are the great law-givers.)

When a man breaks a norm in a slight or passive way, women attack him as a lawless person. This is a man they can bully relentlessly, and they do. Weak men collapse under the pressure. They are not powerful enough to escape the consensus women have made.

But when a man breaks a norm in an unusual way, women recognize this as an expression of power, and he gets a pass. If this act is especially intriguing, it will create a new norm for the women to mull over. They will all get together and come to a new consensus, based upon what the male was able to accomplish. They will then police this norm as if it were a law of nature.

This is a MTGOW version of Nietzsche's slave and master morality, as found in his book Beyond Good and Evil.