There does seem to be a bit of confusion, at the very least with myself.
We do need to keep a seperation between a man call a woman a b!tch because she is one vs just calling her a b!tch to rationalize rejection away.
However, both exist. A man many times does just goes "wtvr, she a b!tch" after getting rejected. We need to keep in mind to not judge others so quickly and also remind ourselves if she really is one or we are just trying to soften the ego blow.
On the other hand, as exemplified in reports of many women, b!tches does exist. Using the line "myth of the quality women" risks a confusion that there is no difference between one women to another (and at the core too I believe). It almost as if to say there's no b!tches and no civil women, just how was the frame set up.
---
In terms of viewing the b!tch shield and just looking at the face of performing the act. It is understandable that why after seeing politeness just doesn't work. However, having a b!tch shield to keep away annoyance is one thing, but does belittling or laughing with all the girlfriend if a man approach needed? Moderation is still, if she is going to the extreme, it is usually a bad sign, perhaps not enough to make a judgement, but enough to say that wasn't necessarily.
Though I would appreciate an expansion on why we don't want to live in a more civil world if you could. I don't exactly see why if a woman doesn't act civil it is a good thing? Are you arguing that a high quality woman should act as such because lower quality don't deserve respect? Or are you arguing the Aristolian "high-mindedness" concept where a person of high-quality shouldn't been to put so much energy being more polite than needed, though I question the most extreme is necessary. Or something else?
----
(complete outside this thread, but rollo's point remind me of this)
Roll's point does remind me of that example of the bookstore girl who made an engaging conversation and the Cancun girl party girl are one and the same. If the point was that no one fit into one neat box and saying that the party girl can make a great conversation in a bookstore and the bookworm could love to drink and get wasted. However, I been leaning to disagreement if the point to say all the negative stereotypical quality of the party girl loving drama, immaturity, vapidness, and etc. is exist in both/all women just the how you met them sets the frame to show only a certain side of them.
------
In light of also the evolution of a personality, it does means they can be the same person. "Different phases of life" per say, but in the here and now, we look at the current level of "quality."
It also brings up a thought about personality. Our personality is very malleable and we are always in a state of flux especially the younger the age is. A person can become far more kinder or colder based on the circumstances and experiences that shape us all. However, in active personality change, where is the line of becoming a better person "being the best self" versus running away from who they are?
To better illustrate. One speaker I heard from was a game designer. Through his childhood, he noticed he was always a little "different," more mathematical, more interested in nerdier subjects. Of course, through his childhood, he felt shame in his interests and many ridiculed his interest. He spent a good part trying to change himself and step away from school and his hobbies. He was very much trying to change himself, was it correct to do so?
