Drafting this post on December 9th, shortly after posting my previous post. This may come out a few days later.

So today, I think I’ve cracked a bit of the code on why I was generally unhappy with my dialogue.

The issue, I think, is fundamental to my portrayal of Alexis.

I had forgotten one of the cardinal rules in writing up that scene, focusing a lot on trying to contrive subtext while forgetting a simple basic fact- she’s a woman.

Some authors have gone on record stating that the way they have approached writing women was to first write everything they wanted to say, and then to remove all logic from it.

That, however, I think, may actually not be the entirely correct approach.

So I’ve gone down a rabbit hole which has… um… gone into some red pill territory, which for purposes of research, I think, has actually be rather useful.

I hope to provide the principles here today.

Even though I’ve gone into the dreaded red pill space, I think my takeaways are potentially decidedly non red pill? Or at least I would hope they are not misogynistic in the traditional sense. But let me stop digressing with apologies and what not and just provide you with my conclusions.

When writing a female like Alexis, it actually makes sense to take the role of a somewhat modern female portrayal. That is to say, I need to first understand that females tend to go into social interactions with an almost subconscious evolutionary survival drive.

When they interact with men, because they are historically more easily physically victimized, for survival, everything they say IS subtext. This is why men tend to say that women never say what they mean.

There’s a pretty large dearth of videos that cover the subject of “When she says X, she means Y.” While they can be seen as entertainment or humor in some instances, jaded nihilism in other instances, or pent up anger and dissatisfaction in yet other spheres, if seen through this evolutionary lens, I think it makes sense, and actually explains a lot of what can be perceived as passive aggressiveness, when in actuality, its dressing up everything they say, so as to not endanger their standing in society.

After all, for women to historically compete in the world of status, they couldn’t necessarily rise off of their own merits, but rather relied on rising socially via their social connections in the tribe.

As such, they would seek to convey their meaning with a light touch, hoping to minimize the risk of making enemies, offending others, while simultaneously seeking to convey their thoughts.

As such, they seem to take a softer approach, and are more willing to drop things/compromise, which, from a historical sense, may have been seen more as submission. This, also seems to explain why men tend to be confused when women tend to react angrily when the man does not understand what she is mad about.

This is exactly because the women comes into the social interaction from a default position of weakness, so that submission/acquiescence to the male’s leadership leads to a feeling of powerlessness “when he doesn’t get it.”

And that powerless is exactly what causes anger.

Finally, some of the videos go into the topic of the woman communicating subconsciously through many aspects of her body.

Things like where her feet are pointed, indicating whether she is feeling comfortable or nervous around you. Whether she is laughing/smiling while glancing at you.

All of it communicates essentially that there is that constant assessment of societal status, since for a woman, social standing is currency that they seek to hoard and treasure.