We discuss common female archetypes and tropes, including the girl boss, supplicant, brown shirt, signaler, and shield wife/Viking woman. We explore the motivations, behaviors, and potential dangers or benefits of each one. The girl boss is insecure and desperate for control, while the supplicant serves whoever has power. Brown shirts police social norms, and signalers craft narratives about themselves. Finally, the devoted shield wife/Viking woman sacrifices everything for her family or small community. We also touch on masked signalers like Queen Elizabeth II and signs you may be marrying a dangerous aesthetics-focused tradwife.

Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] This is where tradwives can get really dangerous because, you know, we support one form of tradwife that we'll talk about in a second. But tradwives who are more interested in the aesthetics of the tradwife and embodying the aesthetics of the tradwife, they are incredibly dangerous because they do not actually care about the best interests of their partner.

Or their kids, they believe there is an aesthetic way to be a good wife. And so long as they are embodying this narrative aesthetic ideal, they are a good wife, regardless of what the evidence says. And when I say evidence, regardless, if their husband's unhappy, regardless, if their kids are sad, regardless of their husband is spending his meager salary to uphold this fantasy that they've created for themselves, they do not care.

Would you like to know more?

Malcolm Collins:

So we recently did an episode where we were talking about archetypes of men outside of just a simple beta alpha male, because I think that many men optimize around different frameworks. And what I really don't like about the beta at. [00:01:00] Alpha Sigma thing is it implies that all men who are followers are somehow like the lesser category.

Whereas I don't think that that's true. There are different ways you can be a follower. As we point out, you can be like a knight, you know, you don't need to following orders. Being a dentologist is sometimes a useful way to view the world. When you are fighting for a just cause. But you are not the person leading the troops and you have the humility and personal strengths to recognize that you are not.

fit or, or just didn't happen to be in the right situation to be the person leading. But that doesn't mean that you're not meant to play a role or that you are lesser. Until we go over that. And then someone was like, well, what about women? How do women fit? Like, and I don't even know if I've heard like an alpha, beta, whatever thing was women.

So, so yeah, it's more

Simone Collins: like, are, are they like, what number are they out of 10? Are they a mid? Are they a trans wife? Are

Malcolm Collins: they a progressive? If we're going to build like a framework for women that [00:02:00] follows this, this male framework that we built let's go into this. But I also think it's interesting to us because we realized as we were building the framework for women, well, a lot of this also kind of applies to some types of men too.

And so we can help people recognize. When they're falling into dangerous character tropes and types. So do you want to start us off, Simone?

Simone Collins: Yeah, I mean, I think this is going to come to mind for most people. So if you're watching this and you're thinking about types of women, maybe one of the first types you're going to think of is girl boss.

And I think this is because like when women stand out, it's often because they are the, the bossy one who has to be the smartest in the room in charge of everything. I'm going to tell you how it is even if there's someone more competent than them in the room. Like, no, no, no. They cannot have that.

Like often I think their oldest, their eldest siblings. So they're just used to taking command. And they're just like, no, they kind of have that, like, I know better, but also they, they often are in positions of like leadership or power or whatever.

Malcolm Collins: They're very different for male King archetypes. Yes, they are.[00:03:00]

I think is, is very interesting. They often come across as much more. Insecure and their goal isn't often to be a good leader, but to run things because they believe that everyone else is incompetent or not able to run things as well as

Simone Collins: they are. Well, I really wonder what's going on here. A common complaint on this, you know, like where this happens with both like female stars and with female executives of like, oh, well, when I do it.

You, you call me a b***h, but when a guy does it, he's just doing his job, right? Like, Oh, so I'm grumpy.

Malcolm Collins: Or was the same energy often? Well,

Simone Collins: but it's hard. Like, is it because the pitch of the female voice is higher? So, I mean, I wonder that, but I mean, I also, I feel intuitively the same way, you know, like I, I make the same judgments and I just wonder.

How much of it is societal? Or maybe, maybe it's just that like women are doing this from a place of insecurity because they're just not as comfortable [00:04:00] fighting in that sphere. I, I just don't know. Like, I mean, when I look back at some female leaders, however like historical accounts of Queen Elizabeth Cleopatra, Catherine the Great.

I don't get a girl boss feeling from them, to be honest. It's, there's a different archetype and we'll go and talk about that. That

Malcolm Collins: archetype. Cause they weren't, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Simone Collins: And they, they were, they were also acting from places of. A lot of security, honestly, masculinity, girl boss that we, we chose the term girl boss for this because there is a distinct girlish and feminine element to it.

It's not

Malcolm Collins: masculine bossiness. I point out here that you can have men who fall more into the girl boss category. than the king category. 100 percent You can have, although it's much rarer for women to fall more into the king category than the girl boss category. The core difference here between these two categories is I would say it's they are working to, like the girl boss is [00:05:00] much more in the category of Type A personalities, they are working for perfection and, and perfection of action of the organization and of what they are running and not working for a, a, a the community.

And not working to, to lead or to earn respect,

Simone Collins: earning respect, having things their way. It's less about having things the right way. It's their way is

Malcolm Collins: the right way. Right. Well, and this is one of the things with, with, with Kings that is very different is, is Kings are often primarily motivated. By two things.

What I'd say is earning respect, but the other is an inability to take orders from other people at a level of personal pride. It's not that they have trouble taking orders from other people because those orders are bad. Which is typically what the girl boss, the girl boss problem is, is that they look down on other people so much that they just can't trust the orders of anyone else, whereas it's a fear of [00:06:00] being putting oneself in a subordinate position, which is one of the core weaknesses of this king archetype.

One of the core weaknesses of the girl boss archetype is it's just not a particularly good archetype. For actual leadership, like, it works really well at high levels within bureaucracies, but it is fairly bad at actually running things of agency. So it's a skill that is really meant to rise to high positions within bureaucracies, but often not achieve real world efficacy.

Which different female archetypes are good at, which she pointed out, which we'll get to in a second. Did you have any other thoughts on this one?

Simone Collins: No, no. And I think that most people already have a lot of thoughts on this because it's also like such a thing in social media. And it's already something that's been, it's

Malcolm Collins: a dead horse.

I guess the more final thought I'd have on this that I want to really pull out is this idea of when a woman is a leader versus when a man is a leader. And as a girl [00:07:00] boss, are you embodying, you know, the stoicism that the King archetype is often embodying? Are you embodying the sort of, and they just often aren't.

There isn't a level of, of mental calm or a sort of aura of protectiveness that they are emitting. It is. An aura of agitation which is the, they misunderstand. They're like, why would I am admitting this constant aura of agitation? Are people not relating to me in the same way that they are relating to people who are projecting protection and endurance,

Simone Collins: not even just protection, just like.

Security.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, security. Um, and, and women can learn to do that. And men, like, like you often see this with, with alpha men, not alpha men. What am I looking at? Like type A men, right? Where they will project this sort of insecurity and skittishness. And it's, it comes off immediately and it, it, it, it, they too get insulted.

And degraded in the [00:08:00] same way people at this girl boss category do when they are trying to, and this is a problem, and this is where you really see this archetype is when people in this type a personality type to try to dethrone or try to replace or upstage people in the king archetype. They end up looking very sort of weak.

Yeah, not ideal. All right. What would you say the next

Simone Collins: one is? So the next one that we discussed this morning that came up immediately was supplicant. So Malcolm, you want to walk us through

Malcolm Collins: the, Yeah, I know a lot of women who fall into this trope. And it is less a trope I see with men, but it's, it's definitely when I see this woman, although it is, I've seen it like memed on for men, right?

Smithers, what is it?

Simone Collins: Smithers. Yeah. The, the supplicant to Mr. Burns. Yeah. So But I think so interestingly and this is interesting is hold on Smithers is seen as like kind of pathetic right but like missed There are pepper pots who is a supplicant [00:09:00] although like framed is sort of ironically. I rolly Oh God I'm so much better put together right like they sort of changed her from a supplicant to a girl boss But anyway pepper pot

Merci graves.

Simone Collins: Was like looser

yeah, like but like sort of this

Merci graves.

Simone Collins: trip is more seen as like respectable like a woman who Who assists a man and devotes her career and gains her power from basically representing the man as a proxy or the powerful person.

And now many supplicants we know, by the way, aren't just supplicants to male leaders. Many supplicants we know have worked with and for very powerful female leaders, politicians, etc. So like, I'm not saying this is a gendered thing. It's just that like, it's, but this concept of a woman assisting other people and acting as their proxy is much more respectable for women.

in media and tropes than for men,

Malcolm Collins: obviously. Yeah, which is interesting because in the other category we're talking about where men top typically have an advantage with this trope, whereas in this one, women typically have an advantage when they take this pathway in life. Supplicants are not, by the [00:10:00] way, usually focused on their partner.

They usually focus on whoever the most powerful person in their circle or life is, and dedicate themselves to that individual. And this can change throughout the course of their life. They don't have the type of true loyalty that somebody who is like a lifelong follower of their partner does, which is a different category we'll get to later.

They are more just interested in who's the alpha, like the true. number one big Chad in my life, in my world, and I will dedicate myself to be a soldier of that individual. And it's honestly typically a pretty respected trope and these individuals do not necessarily make bad wives. I've seen really high quality wives who follow this trope and they will, you know, they, they make a ton of money for their husband.

Women who follow this trope, if they are competent, typically are even higher earners than the alpha types. Well, and some.

Simone Collins: Are supplicants to their husbands, right? Some are the assistants to their husbands. So rarely, rarely,

Malcolm Collins: rarely in the, in the modern world, [00:11:00] your husband would need to be extremely powerful for a supplicant to be a supplicant to her husband.

Because usually if their husband is like moderately powerful, like the supplicants we know. He gives them access to even more powerful men and women that they can dedicate themselves to the supplicants.

Simone Collins: Yeah, fair. Yeah. So there is a benefit in it being outside the marriage.

Malcolm Collins: Well, it's not a benefit. It's just an inevitability if they're not like locked in at home, but I have not seen of the supplicants.

I know I have never seen one cheat on their partner. Who are women and this is something that people might be surprised about. They might think the supplicant archetype is one that is likely to cheat but actually usually not because they're pretty high honor driven. They're very similar to like the male knight archetype, but they're much more focused on a single individual, but they're also much more likely to be dentologists and obsessed with honor and integrity.

And they look for that in the individual that they act as a supplicant of. And so that person making a move on them or something like that to them would lower that [00:12:00] person's standing was in their eyes. And so you, you don't see the same risk that I think an insecure guy might think he's dealing with if he has a supplicant spouse.

Yeah. Fair enough. And okay. So, so would you say.

Simone Collins: Yeah, like if I were a guy, I'd probably rather marry a supplicant than a girl boss.

Malcolm Collins: So what's the difference between a supplicant and a knight in guys? Because guys can take on female y tropes and women can take on male y tropes. What would you say is the core differentiator here?

Simone Collins: That, yeah, that it rather than I think guys, even if they are following someone like Jordan Peterson or Elon Musk or whatever make it about a philosophy and less about the person. Cause I don't, I think from a pride standpoint, it's harder to be seen as serving a

Malcolm Collins: particular leader. I agree. I think that's the core difference.

The male category here is serving an ideology or a community, whereas the female iteration is serving a strong leader [00:13:00] within that community. Yeah, that's my thought. So you can have men in this category as well. So what would you say is the next trope? This is fun! Come on!

Simone Collins: So you called the next trope brown shirts.

And what this describes is that, and this is a trope that's been around for a long time, but in sometimes it has many different faces and it appears in different places, but that kind of busybody, social policing woman who works very hard to impose her social norms on. So the girl boss is really just trying to have things run her way and everyone doing things her way, whereas the brown shirt is trying to impose cultural views, values and norms upon you in a larger group.

Malcolm Collins: The classic brown shirt examples would fall into two categories for people. I say the classic one is A woke person would be a classic Brown shirt, like a woke person or an antifa member or something like that. And then the other [00:14:00] category would be like, the trad cast, whatever wife who's like, trying to impose her cultural value system and hierarchy on, and things that rank you within that hierarchy was in people was in other hierarchies. And, and that they're really obsessed with these internal hierarchy battles. And what drives the brown shirt, the reason they wake out of morning, the wake out of bed every morning, the thing that they are most focused on is their status within a local status hierarchy that is controlled and mediated through social shaming of not following the rules or norms of a community.

And why I think this is a useful category is because often people only see it in the groups of their enemies. They don't want how at a lower level. It can be useful. Like, there is useful in sort of norm setting was in a community and women who see it as their job to lightly shame other people.

But when. You get too many brown shirts within a community, then you get virtue [00:15:00] spirals in which a lot of women just dedicate themselves to outdoing, outdoing, outdoing, being the most, the most, the most, and constantly looking for these small failures to meet community standards. In outsiders and that there is not particularly any difference between the woke Antifa woman who's screaming about you not fitting X value set when you are not part of her cultural group, then there is, but, you know, the, the Sunday school mom who's screaming at somebody who's clearly, you know, not of her community that they're not following her community standards and, and, and shaming them.

And you'll know when you interact with these people that the I'm holier aspect, it's not like if you're a part of their community, they're pleasant to interact with because they're constantly showing you that from the perspective of art, I'm actually the superior one, regardless of what they've achieved.

This is what's really interesting and what's uniquely feminine about this. Is it is a form of status hierarchy that they are [00:16:00] obsessed with that is completely social and completely disconnected from any sort of real world efficacy or achievement or bettering the community tries to better the community by or even a supplicant tries to better a community by doing things that help individuals in that community or elevate the leader of the community The brown shirts are genuinely pretty unconcerned with what's in the best interest of the community.

They're concerned with how stringently the community follows the rules, how much people outside of the community are following those rules, and how they can utilize that to raise their status vis a vis other people.

Simone Collins: Though they believe, they believe that what they're doing is what the community needs.

Of course, if they were talking to you, they would tell you that they're absolutely helping. I just find it interesting that There really isn't a male equivalent, like, someone who's imposing. Sort of like annoying norms on other people or being sort of like a Nazi about things [00:17:00] is, is either probably going to be a knight or a

Malcolm Collins: really?

Yeah. Huh? Like, so I see them very frequently. Was it like the fitness community. I see them very

frequently.

Simone Collins: I just see them more as nights because they're just like fan boys for like weightlifting or

Malcolm Collins: whatever sport there. So consider the difference between a brown shirt and a night, right? Like a great example here would be like, okay, you are dedicating yourself to the fitness community and you're trying to elevate the community, right?

Right. You would make like logical arguments on behalf of the community. Consider when we have pissed off the fitness community and they've been like, oh, Malcolm's, how much can he lift? How much can he? Mm-Hmm. You know, I'm like, that's not part of your community. I'm not part of your value hierarchy. Why are you judging me by your community's value hierarchy?

Or the individuals who. You know, see our channel and they're like, Oh, Malcolm doesn't look manly and X and Y way. Therefore I can't follow him or I can't take him. These are individuals who are imposing a [00:18:00] value hierarchy that I am not subscribing to and not competing within to me. In an attempt to shame me into falling into their community and value hierarchy.

And of course, as soon as I do, then they are above me in that value hierarchy, because that's the hierarchy they're using to judge their value. So men do this all the time. I'm actually very confused that you are so surprised to see how often men do this. Within the red pill community, I see this all the time.

I guess

Simone Collins: I just saw them more as knights because I see knights as. As sort of following a big philosophy, but all this is all arbitrary stuff

Malcolm Collins: anyway. No, it's, it's not arbitrary at all. It's a really big difference. Knights are fighting to

Simone Collins: I mean, our categories are arbitrary, just like, you know, Myers No, no, but

Malcolm Collins: the point I'm making is It's not arbitrary at all.

So consider brown shirts are almost always toxic to their own communities. Knights are almost always helping their own communities. So look at the red pill community and you can understand why it's actually really important to draw these distinctions and they are not [00:19:00] arbitrary at all. A red pillar who is a knight will go out there And they will do something like build an organization that is meant to help men in legal battles for child custody and where the fairness in there, or they will try to create an organization that is meant to help them in dating, or they will try to.

And a brown shirt will do almost the exact opposite of that. They will police community norms. They will go around on message boards and say, this is what high status was in our community. This is what low status is within our community. Look at this individual who's not following community norms enough.

Look at this individual who is following community norms enough. And they will also attack people outside their community. So if you consider even like attack comments in a different video, right? Like suppose. You have a brown shirt versus the night in the red pill community, watching a video that it's attacking that community.

The night will create a logical argument as to why that person is wrong. The brown shirt will create a[00:20:00] an argument that denigrates to the individual they are attacking for not. The aesthetic value set of their community. Obviously the brown shirt is doing nothing but angering the public at their community.

Like they, they achieve nothing by saying you outsider don't fit our value hierarchy. It's like, obviously I don't fit your value hierarchy. I'm not competing there. Brown shirts are always a negative. It doesn't matter if they're men or women. And I would actually say that brown shirts are one of the least gendered of all of these archetypes and one of the most holistically negative of all of the archetypes.

Simone Collins: No, it's a now. Now I see the distinction you're making. That is helpful. Okay, next one. Which is probably should we save our favorite for last? Probably. So we'll go on to signalers.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, signalers are different from brown shirts in a surprising way. So brown shirts are very interested. In signaling to outsiders and using community status to signal their position was in a local community hierarchy.[00:21:00]

Signalers are primarily motivated by signaling to themselves that they fit a particular narrative that they associate with either a life well lived or a good life. So it's

Simone Collins: less about. Getting other people to do things that they think are appropriate and more about having other people see them a certain way.

So it's still kind of coercive and that like it matters to them what other people think of them. No, it's about

Malcolm Collins: seeing themselves in a certain way.

Simone Collins: So they really don't care what other people

Malcolm Collins: think then. They sometimes care. Sometimes they, and this is a really interesting thing about signalers is sometimes they really want to see themselves as the type of person that other people see a certain way.

Even when other people don't see them that way. So, I'll explain what I mean here, and as soon as I explain it, people will be like, Oh my God, I have seen somebody do this and it's so obnoxious. Oh no. This is the type of person who you'll get stuck in a conversation with, and it's very clear that they want you to think of them as like a wise mentor figure or [00:22:00] something like that.

But you have been ignoring them the entire conversation. You are just looking to get it over with because you're looking to raise money from them or something, or you're looking, but, but you are there patiently. Now, they actually don't care what you think, not in a meaningful sense. They're, they're using you to masturbate their internal narrative as a wise person who outsiders go to for advice.

They, they are not actually, and they don't like, if you question you would like, do you really care that this person actually just isn't paying attention to you and like. I don't know. You're on a Skype with them and they're, they're searching through Instagram or something just for, huh. Yeah. Wow.

That's fascinating. So that's, that's honestly, a more a less damaging iteration of the signal or personality type. Mm-Hmm. The more damaging iteration of the signal or personality type is, or the most I say is the narcissistic mother

Simone Collins: because many mother, oh God, yeah. Personality

Malcolm Collins: type. Yeah.

These are women. Who, when they are interacting with their [00:23:00] kids are using those kids to masturbate a narrative that they are the perfect mother. And they are not particularly interested in how the way that they are treating those kids is actually affecting those kids or leading to outcomes

Simone Collins: among those kids.

The most extreme example of this is a mother who is Munchausen by proxy, who really loves seeing herself as a caretaker. And as their kid gets older and no longer needs like diapers changed, they find some way. to make that child sick so that they can continue to be the caretaker. That's

Malcolm Collins: terrifying. I don't even know if I say that's the most extreme example.

What's the most

Simone Collins: extreme example? Oh my god, that's the scariest thing in the

Malcolm Collins: world. Eight passengers is a great example. What happened was that family, that was a mother who didn't actually care about being a good mother to her kids. She cared about seeing herself as a good mother to

Simone Collins: her kids. Well, she wasn't systematically poisoning them.

At least

Malcolm Collins: I'm just pointing out that there are lots of different iterations of this and yeah, it's, you have the Munchausen by proxy thing and stuff like that, but then you [00:24:00] also have people like the eight passenger situation where it's very clear. That her parenting strategies, they are not evidence based, they are aesthetic based.

They are based around her aesthetics of what a good mother is like. And even when she saw it destroying the lives of her children, even when she saw her children leaving her face, pulling away from her, building up basically camps to deconvert her kids after they left the family, she still had no level of introspection.

She just went deeper and deeper and deeper. Because for these individuals, And the interesting thing about Signalers is there is no consequentialism to what they're doing. They, it genuinely does not occur to them to ask what actual outcome will this have? They are completely obsessed with the aesthetics of the way they are performing a role.

And this aesthetic obsession destroys family units often, and it is really dangerous. This is where tradwives [00:25:00] can get really dangerous because, you know, we support one form of tradwife that we'll talk about in a second. But tradwives who are more interested in the aesthetics of the tradwife and embodying the aesthetics of the tradwife, they are incredibly dangerous because they do not actually care about the best interests of their partner.

Or their kids, they believe there is an aesthetic way to be a good wife. And so long as they are embodying this narrative aesthetic ideal, they are a good wife, regardless of what the evidence says. And when I say evidence, regardless, if their husband's unhappy, regardless, if their kids are sad, regardless of their husband is spending his meager salary to uphold this fantasy that they've created for themselves, they do not care.

Well,

Simone Collins: so then let's get to the important part. Let's say that you are looking at a wife and she seems like a trad wife, how, I mean, like the problem is these people are often very good signalers to an outsider, right? Like, so how would a guy know if he is, is accidentally marrying [00:26:00] someone who is going to be toxic in this way versus someone who's actually just going to be a devoted wife who really is, is, is, who cares about outcomes, who cares about the impact of, of what they're doing?

Malcolm Collins: Well, I mean, I suppose talk through it with her. You know, if you're talking through, like, how do you decide between X and Y way of punishing kids? How do you decide between X and Y way of raising kids? If they're just like, well, this is the X religion's way of doing things, or X cultural tradition's way of doing things.

They are very dangerous. So you're looking

Simone Collins: for someone who makes evidence based decisions. And if you can't find. Yeah, proof that they make evidence based decisions and that they will change their behavior based on evidence. Then, you know, to be afraid

Malcolm Collins: yeah, or at least some sort of logical. I chain other than this is just the way people who are good Christian wives do things.

Then he. And that's where they become really dangerous because they believe and they're like, as long as I am doing the X, the aesthetic of a [00:27:00] good Christian wife, it doesn't matter if my husband is miserable and broke and in debt. I am a good Christian wife. I am good. I am not responsible for that. And these individuals are incredibly dangerous. And I should note, so a lot of people hear this and they go, wow, you're much more negative on the female tropes than you are on the male tropes. Why is this? And I go, do you not remember that we named all of our daughters, like gender neutral or masculine names?

We have multiple videos where we talk about, like, I do not believe modern femininity is healthy. And as we've pointed out, women can embody these masculine tropes as well. And I think. That women are genuinely better off embodying masculine tropes, they are not the unique sphere of the masculine. They are just often the emotionally healthier tropes and they are the tropes.

I think men gravitate towards more in our society today than they might have historically because the gender differences in, in, in men and women and women gaining Disproportionate power within our society, which they have right now, has led many of the more [00:28:00] emotionally healthy, i. e. trying, i.

e. sacrificial tropes, to be uptaken by the downtrodden class, which is what you typically see in a society and, and so they're becoming more masculine tropes. But historically, I think that these were often seen across genders much more equal numbers, and that you really didn't have, like, it was understood that most of these tropes that we are now labeling as feminine were actually just seen as bad, and everyone knew they were bad.

Simone Collins: But in the name of not being totally negative on women, we do have, I would say the final female trope or type that we separated out in terms of what we most commonly see, I would say is more positive than any single male trope out there. Because this, it, what we're about to describe is kind of like the best of both Knights and Kings.

All together in one package. And this is what we will call the Viking woman. So what is the Viking woman? I call her the shield wife, the shield wife or the Viking woman, but doesn't necessarily have to be a wife. So what is this? And I, everyone I think has encountered women like this, both in media for [00:29:00] sure, but also like in the real world.

These are women who are extremely devoted to Their, their group, this could be an ideological group, but more commonly it is like their kids or their family or their husband or a combination thereof. So common tropes of this are like that incredibly strong willed, like somehow manages to make everything work, makes holidays amazing.

single mother who's working with very little income and very few resources who have kids that she is just like her world is for them. It, it is the, it is the actual real devoted trad wife who does everything she can, you know, to like homeschool her family, you know, with seven kids and, and to, you know, be there for her husband and to just give everyone the best education possible.

You know, despite this not being an easy thing to do, this is, you know, the, The member of a larger extended family who's able to secure a really, you know, high paying job and then manages to almost single handedly [00:30:00] carry that family sending remittances across borders to take care of elderly relatives and other nations to fly out and take care of them to do all these things while also, you know, having a husband and raising a kid and doing a really good job with it.

Like, so these are incredibly strong women. These are the people who I think of when, when I think of. amazing female leaders like Queen Elizabeth, like Catherine the Great, like they, these are people like, so Catherine the Great wasn't really that great of a mother. She wasn't really that great of a wife, but she really cared about Russia.

So, you know, she was the shield woman for Russia and, and she really cared about making it a great nation and it gave her a huge amount of resolve and confidence. What are your thoughts on this? I agree

Malcolm Collins: with everything you said, but I would not agree that these women who you're labeling here are shield bearers.

Because the core aspect of the shield bearer woman is she is a woman who makes the, the safety and security of a small group of people, her personal responsibility. But it is key that it is a small group of people, family, or it is a [00:31:00] company. The women like Catherine the great or Elizabeth or stuff like that.

Many of these women are actually just. Either King archetypes or Signaller archetypes that happen to have a positive understanding of their role. Huh. So if you look at Victoria, Victoria, right?

Simone Collins: Queen Victoria? Yeah. Queen Victoria was a Signaller, but I don't think she was a really great

Malcolm Collins: leader.

She was obsessed with, with seeing herself as, as a mother to her kingdom and everything she did was about masturbating that particular signal, this, you know, or the virgin queen archetype. Okay, now

Simone Collins: you're referring to Queen Elizabeth. Queen Victoria was a signaler and she was all about propriety and having her family look a certain way and having her look a certain way.

And she was incredibly in love with and devoted to her husband, but she didn't necessarily make life easier for him. Queen I still see Queen Elizabeth II as being a shield wife for her nation. Yes, she [00:32:00] saw herself as that, but I think she also really Acted on it in a way that led to her amazing reputation.

I think what makes

Malcolm Collins: her significant is that she had an extremely tight control of her narrative. Which is because she was not, you admire her so you are unwilling to see that she Had a view, so this is the way monarchies typically worked historically, is they raised signalers, but they tried to create a narrative archetype that was beneficial when these individuals attempted to embody it.

And many monarchs fall into this signaler archetype, where especially female monarchs where they have been given a good image of what it means to be a queen. And then they do everything they can to embody that good image from a personal narrative perspective of what it means to be a queen. A great example of this was the last queen Queen Elizabeth.

Complete signaling.

Simone Collins: No, man. No, she's different. She does. She falls outside these tropes [00:33:00] and it's because I think she's extremely autistic. I don't think so. Are you kidding? The horse obsession? No, she

Malcolm Collins: is extremely autistic. She was autistic. I don't disagree with that. But everything she did was about filling a personal narrative of what a queen should be.

And it was not for consequentialist reasons. It was

Simone Collins: about the rules. It was about the rules.

Malcolm Collins: That is what signalers do. They follow the rules, Simone. But I don't think she

Simone Collins: Had to see herself a certain way. In fact, in many cases, she did things to follow the rules in a way that made her look terrible and the way that she didn't want to be seen.

Malcolm Collins: Explain, give an example.

Simone Collins: Policies that she made with her sister and other family members, marriage choices made her pretty unpopular the way that she dealt with princess Diana.

Malcolm Collins: Hold on. Was that not all? This is not a good argument here. Was that not all about following the rules that she thought a Queen of England and a member of the royal household was supposed to [00:34:00] uphold?

Simone Collins: I think a lot of people were telling her that this is unpopular stuff that's making her

Malcolm Collins: look bad. And this is the thing about signalers. Okay. Signalers don't care about what other people really think about them. They care about what they think other people should think about them. It is very, very different from somebody who's in a popularity context, which is a brown shirt.

Brown shirts care about what other people actually think about them. What was up their community and their value system signalers don't they care what other people should think of them by their estimation? So I think that you're missing it. I think shield bearers are very unique in that they are always a local.

Targeted community. It could be their extended value family. It could be their immediate family. It could be their company. If they're, you know, we're working on some small company or something like that, but it is never, or it could be there in but it's never larger than like 12 or [00:35:00] 15 people because they are very, very community focused and focused on the.

Efficacious stability of that community. What I mean is that you know, if you look at a signal or mom and you see 1 of her kids really suffering she would be like, I don't care. I'm following the rules. It's their fault that they're suffering. Right? Whereas a, whereas a shield mom or wife would care.

They'd be like, why is that individual suffering? What am I doing wrong? And I think that this difference shows where people like Elizabeth were signalers and not shield bearers. If her country was suffering, but she felt she was following all the rules. She'd be like, what are you doing? That's wrong. I'm following the rules.

I don't need to change. She would never change based on the effects it was having on other people. Which is the core difference between the Shieldbearer and Signet. Okay,

Simone Collins: Queen Elizabeth II did show intense reticence to change attack when clearly what she was doing was not working, so that's a very fair point.[00:36:00]

Malcolm Collins: Anyway, I love you. I'm sorry to be so harsh on your heroes

Simone Collins: here. Oh, she's, I wouldn't say Queen Elizabeth II is a hero of mine, but I do love autistic women in leadership positions. Autistic women. Autistic women. Yeah. I mean, gotta support.

Malcolm Collins: You're a, you're an autistic wife.

Simone Collins: Thank you. Wonderful husband. I wonder how many different armchair diagnoses we can get for you.

You are not autistic. By the way, Malcolm is not autistic. Not even remotely. He does not show It's just

Malcolm Collins: a fundamental misunderstanding of this person acts socially weird versus understanding actual psychiatric conditions when people say I'm autistic. Wow, you guys are just like dumb. I'm sort of on the

Simone Collins: opposite spectrum.

Yeah, you're more, yeah, so like I'm, I'm on the autistic spectrum. Malcolm is more on the schizoid spectrum in that he like models other people a lot. Like more than the average person. But he's definitely not on the autistic spectrum as, but also like, in terms of like, he has no food or texture [00:37:00] sensitivities, no sound sensitivities, no transition trouble.

He doesn't, you know, like none, none of the classics are there. You are not neurotypical, though.

Malcolm Collins: Very easy time when I'm talking to somebody telling what they're thinking. Yeah. Which a lot of people are surprised by because they're like, well, then why did you offend them? And I was like, because that's how I got what I needed to get out of them.

No, that's the really,

Simone Collins: really funny thing is people assume like, Oh, well, if you model other people, you know, you're going to be like, you know, a Bill Clinton or whatever, like, you know, like some person whisperer. And it's, here's the thing. Malcolm does not give a s**t about you. And he doesn't think very much of you, and that's why he says tone deaf stuff, it's because he does not respect you, and that is so harsh, and everyone has to believe, and feels compelled to believe, that, no, no, no, it must be that he is autistic, it must be that he doesn't understand

Malcolm Collins: understand

Simone Collins: me enough!

Yeah, like, no one would ever be that insulting toward me, knowingly. No, [00:38:00] sorry, guys, that's Malcolm is. Because you know what? Quite frankly, and I'm so sorry. But he is smarter than you. He is smarter than you. He does know better. I'm so sorry, but it's true. He's smarter. He's cleverer. He's thought through this before.

He's researched this more than you have. And he finds your pompous pontificating to be incredibly tedious. So, of course, he's going to start looking away and then he's just going to walk away from you without saying goodbye.

Malcolm Collins: I'm sorry. Oh my god, you hate it when I do that sometimes. When I'll talk to somebody and I'll tell that they're dumb.

And then I just start looking and put like, walk away in the middle of a conversation.

Simone Collins: Yeah. Because when I go to an event, I'm, I'm the most dishonest person in the entire world. I'm looking happy. I'm looking typically somewhat comfortable. I'm looking interested in the conversation the whole time I'm in.

More excruciating pain than you are. You're experiencing boredom and frustration. I am like, my hand is on a stove, and that stove is on full power. And I am

Malcolm Collins: [00:39:00] like, But you say, and you're like, you can see it in my eyes, the moment somebody says something dumb, or like, the signals that they're like, that my eyes just immediately go like, start wandering around the room.

Yeah, it's, it's I'm just looking for who I need to talk to next, and standing there until I, Trying to get out. Oh no, I'm gonna be the worst politician ever. I'm so glad we're running you for office. Oh

Simone Collins: god, this is, yeah, that is gonna be a really interesting challenge. What are we gonna do with, like, all of the people who you don't find sufficiently smart and interesting?

Malcolm Collins: Maybe eventually. Society will be able to respect and understand that they might not be sufficiently interesting to talk to me.

Simone Collins: Well, we actually talked about this and you know, I guess this is kind of closing in on the theme of funny tropes and silly categories, but I want there to be a trope for a politician who absolutely and openly hates his consi constituents, but who does such a good job at making their lives better, that they just love him and they always put him in and they're like, yeah, that's like, you wanna be, he

Malcolm Collins: hate.[00:40:00]

I'll just be efficient. You're, you're like, I will be efficient and, and affable enough to be disregardable.

Simone Collins: Yeah. But what I like about you, Malcolm, is that you express on the outside what I feel on the inside often, except that also in social situations, I'm just in searing pain and I want to run away.

So it's hard. So

Malcolm Collins: anyway, I love you to death Simone. And thank you for being the perfect shield wife for our family.

Simone Collins: Thank you for being the perfect King for ours. I love you.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit basedcamppodcast.substack.com/subscribe