Ilkka Kokkarinen translates an interesting post:
[...]
The success of My emotional life is the World’s responsibility. If I don’t have a good time, the World is evil and guilty. More precisely, it is mean i.e. hostile. Let me call this the Basic Rule of the ethics of the religion of women.
Here we can see why anthropomorphizing the World is so very important. The basic duty of the World is not to be a mindless slave of Me and do exactly as I wants. In the long run that would be boring and altogether depressing. World is not a soulless mass that, in the ideal case, you could perfectly manipulate, but an active actor whose responsibility is to guarantee the happiness of Me.
This ontology is also the most important reason why women oppose using economic thinking to examine and analyse how relationships form and function in the real world. The imaginary “cheapening” connotations that the technical terms tend to have and the threat to the sense of security that comes from the metaphor of “competition” are only secondary issues. The most important issue here is that the economic approach to examining the reality of dating and relationships by itself implies that other people also have motives and emotions, and you can’t just force the others under your will without giving them something of equal value in return. Such thinking is as totally against the soliptistic Me-World-dialectic as can possibly be. For the same reason, women also oppose materialistic thinking, in which the strong subjective emotions of individuals are totally irrelevant to what reality chooses to do.
[...]
For most men, women’s writings and discussions seem quite repetitive and tedious. Assuming the ontology of the previous section, these writings are the devotional material of the religion of women. The task of devotional literature is to assure the faithful by supporting her faith.
The most common technique of support is repetition. When you repeat something often enough and when certain assumptions are included in a large portion of the daily information that you receive, these doctrines start to seep in past your conscious mind. This is why an ordinary junior high schoolgirl can easily produce in her blog twice as many words each day than a professional writer with his decades of experience.
[...]
Allow me to point out that this is not a scientific explanation but merely a story, but at least I believe that it explains pretty well what I have seen. The essential thing here is that this religion of women seems to lurk behind the women’s texts, and the diversity of topics, attitudes and the ways of expression hides this underlying religion. On purpose, I think.
Certainly these observations don’t hold true for all women, but I’ve noticed similar things in many.