men and women communicate their observable differences differently, it seems [when approaching the idea vaguely and from a writing viewpoint]

i feel curious whether women perceive writing that affects them but that is written by men by imagining the male perspective to be an amalgamation of traits they have perceived, recalling observations they have made about men they have interacted with/heard of, and subsequently project that perspective onto men in future interactions, or if they simply transpose their experiences onto the male perspective, or both, or more...?

when i read writing (by women) that affects me i imagine similar experiences i have had (and project myself onto the female perspective), while i simultaneously contemplate whether or not the female perspective/voice is indelibly tied to a perceived, (essentially female) depth-of-reference that is consistently more fluid than the average (male) thought progression (and therefore implies/incites/accesses a more extreme depth of information than i am capable of perceiving), which excites me and causes mild-to-high anxiety during attempts to 'think critically' about text/context/subtext, due to the (emasculating) possibility that i cannot 'get it'

i think everything is inconceivably confusing/confused, and feel (mostly) comfortable (with an average 87.348% psycho-emotional stability) thinking and acting accordingly

No comments: