Female friends

that's your definition. I don't think it's useful to most men. It's certainly not useful to me. That's why i'm trying to shift it away from that definition and to another one. "Considering someone as a person" begs a whole bunch of other questions about boundaries, personhood, etc. It doesn't create clarity - it just raises more questions.

Not to mention your definition is purely a psychological one - where mine addresses both that aspect as well as the phenomenological one - the observed behavior.

I don't have access to other people's minds, women or men - which is why I've moved away from using categories like solipsistic, narcissistic, and psychopathic - especially when it comes to women. In my personal life as well as this subreddit, I've started to just call female behavior that I would have previously considered pathological, solipsitic, or narcissistic as just "female." I don't know if it's motivated by narcissism or if it has a tinge or more of solipsism - but I do know that it's OBSERVABLY different than typically heterosexual male behavior. If anything the use of those other categories to describe their behavior seems to me like like a projection of how a male mind may have to be ordered to exhibit that behavior. (Another big problem with the whole body of psychological literaure - men writing about female mental disorders and vice versa.)

Even stuff like the old DSM-4 doesn't have action-based, or strictly rule-based definitions of what fits under those categories. A lot of it overlaps with other types of "psychopathology" - which is also ill-specified (in my opinion).

And I dont think it's possible to see someone without some part of the brain - the parts of the brain that are responsible for manipulating the external world to satisfy desire - kicking in. And guess what - I'm almost certain that these are the same parts of the brain that kick in for problem solving - hammering nails, and the use of "objects." It might not be an either/or - in that people see each other as people AND objects, but I think a more useful focus (with respect to objectification) centers around use.

You may disagree. But i dont give a fuck. You may also not give a fuck that I dont give a fuck. But I don't give a fuck about that either.

Moreover - I don't give a fuck about your boldface, and I don't give a fuck about using flimsy, non-action based, phenomenologically weak categories to discuss observable behavior.

I think words are best used to talk about things that can easily cross the intersubject barrier - a lot of the mindspace is priviliged only to the individuals who live in that particular body. Wittgenstein said something along the lines of - if you can't speak about it - you should remain silent about it. And I think a lot of the language around narcissism, solipsism, etc is poorly specified.

For instance, even if someone genuinely came across as the nicest, most helpful person in the world, and were motivated by narrow self-interest only maintaining a false persona for their entire lives- while remaining undiscovered. Ok - so maybe he's a narcissist. but you'd never KNOW. In the thought example, I specify that he never breaks the mask.

Motivations are interesting but you can't settle argument about motivation as easily as you can about action. And what I was trying to do was put forth a USEFUL way of seeing things - rather than a perspective that has overlapping, flimsy, and hard-to-verify categories - and could only be verified if you had the same access to someone's mind that God would have. And I personally dont think it useful to talk about female narcissism because we can't crawl into her mind and check. We can look at the behavior - and we can talk about that concretely. If you care that much about the nature and content of her motivations or the shape of her perspective, talk to God - because you'll get a lot further along by doing that than trying to infer something about the quality of her or any one else's narcissism, solipsism, or any other type of mental thing that is primarily defined by the internal and not the external.