The shrill/compliancy dichotomy

I would have said I found the communicative situation difficult because it seemed my interlocutor assumed in me interests, beliefs and values I do not hold and that ze seemed unwilling to recognize this.

This is a big one. The other issue is the one of the culturally engendered need (and avenues) for projection, as you can see in the link I posted.

But I think the patriarchal distortions come in on the basis of attributing a false character to women. It is akin to the virgin/whore dichotomy, whereby neither is true, but the person being projected upon can at times seem to be the “opposite” to what they previously seemed, according to the logic of this dichotomy.

So women are perceived, according to the moral dichotomy of Christian civilisation as “good” women — meaning women who will suck it in without complaining — or as “bad”/damaged women. In the second case, these are women deemed to be “shrill” because they speak up for themselves. This is understood as “complaining”. To speak in a non-prescriptive way at all is FELT to be complaining about the patriarchal system, as this system is FELT by patriarchal thinkers to be both good and just. It is never actually justified for women to “complain” about it — that is to speak in a non-prescriptive way about it.

Women are not just virgins or whores, then, they are well-adjusted, good, rationally compliant (although never actually deemed rational) and refined, OR they are whining, complaining, incoherent, mad, bad and sad.

And this dichotomy — this outcome of false representations of women’s characters — is why individual women are so rarely actually heard or understood.