Chrome Barracuda Posted June 13, 2009 Posted June 13, 2009 LMAO! ..cheesebag. Seriously lady not every woman is a victim and not every man is a perpetrator. That is something maybe your mindset cant seem to grasp? Dont get woggle started, you thought I was bad news! lol.
torranceshipman Posted June 13, 2009 Posted June 13, 2009 I think some over analysis is going on here - each OW will have experienced a unique cocktail of factors that led to their getting involved with the MM, so I don't think it is possible to generalize. It is impossible to further relate it to misandry, and a misandrist would not give up their happiness (etc) for the chance of reciprocated love from a man that they want to be with. If they aren't overly impressed by the singles scene then that is their right, and, dare I say it, quite understandable in some parts!! If the woman doesn't feel chemistry or respect or whatever from the single guys she meets then why the heck should she give them a chance? Being single is a privilege as it gives you lots of time to be on your own and do fun things, and it is only when you meet the real deal that it is time to pursue that particular relationship. I see no link here between rejecting the single guys and being with the MM-again, way too many variables in each situation. Naivete, the extensive ability of the MM to lie, the MM being a colleague, lack of single talent, and other factors might lead a young OW, for example, to get and stay involved in this type of situation for some time. Don't get me wrong - its a terrible idea and there is never an excuse for being with an MM!! - but probably many of these women start out well adjusted, trusting, and find themselves caught up in an awful situation where emotions are running high...by this time logic kind of flies out of the window...
Taramere Posted June 13, 2009 Posted June 13, 2009 I have noticed that women who would be quick to dismiss a single man who is very good to them like he were a piece of trash tend to go utterly crazy over a married man. I don't understand the psychology of this. Well, I don't either. When I find out a guy is already involved, even if that involvement is just a relationship rather than marriage, I don't see him as having romantic potential for me. I think a lot might depend on how you perceived your own parents' relationship. EG If you saw them as happy with eachother, then you think "that's the way it should be, and nobody should interfere with that." But if a person's parents were unhappily married, they might grow up with a sense (even if it's just unconscious) that the marriage is a bad thing, and that really it would be best for everyone if it could just be destroyed.
jj33 Posted June 13, 2009 Posted June 13, 2009 Actually Woggle I have heard that theory before and it does make sense. Someone can be a misandrist and not actually be conscious of the fact that they have these feelings. The manifestation is twisted in this situation because the woman gets involved with men who can not or will not (in most cases) ever give her what she says she wants and so her mistrust dislike etc etc of men is confirmed. Some (and of course not all) women who get involved in As they come to being the OP having been hurt deeply by men, not trusting them, not believing in them, not liking them, in some cases the OW has been abused by a male in their life at some point in time either emotionally or physically. She may not know how to bond with someone who is a "nice guy" and the attachment style of a MM is very different than the attachment style of a nice single guy. And it is less threatening because on a certain level you can never really get hurt by someone who wasnt fully available in the first place. So for someone with a subconscious misandry, this would seem like a safe way to form a relationship with a man. Of course none of this applies universally but I would definitely agree that it applies to a statistically significant sampling of women who become the OW.
westernxer Posted June 13, 2009 Posted June 13, 2009 Oh, and conversely, would that make every man who has an affair with a MW a misogynist? It doesn't make sense. Yeah, I don't see that connection either. I think it's more about being misguided than anything else.
grogster Posted June 13, 2009 Posted June 13, 2009 Misandry is hatred (or contempt) of men or boys. If a woman is a misandrist, she's not going to prefer any males--whether married or single. Perhaps the question the OP wants to ask is why do some (not all or even the majority) single women prefer married men over single men. That question has been asked and answered many times over the years at the Shack.
LaGazelle Posted June 13, 2009 Posted June 13, 2009 Misandry is hatred (or contempt) of men or boys. If a woman is a misandrist, she's not going to prefer any males--whether married or single. Perhaps the question the OP wants to ask is why do some (not all or even the majority) single women prefer married men over single men. That question has been asked and answered many times over the years at the Shack. Actually, in the same way that a misognists can have relationships with women - albeit relationships in which they treat the women "badly", misandrists can have relationships with men. An alternative view might simply be that the OW don't start out as misandrists, but end up with such views following negative experiences they have in relationships with MM.
sally4sara Posted June 13, 2009 Posted June 13, 2009 For the most part it is perfectly natural for men and women to desire each other and pair up but feminism promotes the whole women and bicycle theory that Gloria Steniam preaches. They believe that men are disposable sperm donors and generally frown and men and women falling in love and coupling. Feminists tend to keep men at arms length because of this belief but when they mess around with a married man they forget to put the armor on because the plan all along was just a casual affair. What happens is that natural emotions take over and they fall in love. The fish bicycle comment was not a hateful thing. Only men expecting revenge for generations of inequality took it that way. Its about choosing without NEEDING to choose just to have a provider. WTF woggle? Things not so shiny on the home front these days? Misdirect anger much? What - did you hear some news about yer ma or ex recently? I don't understand why such a happy fella as yourself is going on this tangent again. Why are you even visiting the OW/OM forum anyway? Get off the PC before your BP spikes.
grogster Posted June 13, 2009 Posted June 13, 2009 Actually, in the same way that a misognists can have relationships with women - albeit relationships in which they treat the women "badly", misandrists can have relationships with men. An alternative view might simply be that the OW don't start out as misandrists, but end up with such views following negative experiences they have in relationships with MM. Good points. I was too literal, and superficial. I remember that Andrea Dworkins, the radical feminist activist and writer, was married to a man. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Dworkin
dobler33 Posted June 13, 2009 Posted June 13, 2009 Dobler, I was wondering the same thing as you, and I think your explanation is rather more appropriate, although I can see a link with misandry (see below). At least in my case, the thing I was most angry about was the way the OW seemed to hate women in general - including herself! I was really shocked by the language she used to describe herself and other women including her "best friend" whom she seemed to despise because men pursued her. I often see this in many OW who "celebrate" themselves as the "ugly" or "fat" girl who manages, or at least tries to steal a bit of the "hot" girl's action. I think a lot of this has to do with the way women are objectified. I meet so many women who think if they looked like me, their lives would be perfect. Some are catty and others just jokingly ask, what I put in my perfume. If only they thought about the way other women treat women "like me"! And besides, no matter how fabulous a woman looks, no one wakes up every day of their life feeling fabulous. Furthermore, as we age our "fabulousness" becomes less material. One could argue that the objectification of women, which is then internalised by even young girls, leaves some women who may feel they can't live up to the expectations and definitions of being "IT", with deepseated anger. This anger is both directed at other women who they feel "have what it takes" and at the men who they feel disregard them in favour of those women. Even for the woman who is "on the right side" of every man's fantasy, it can feel unpleasant to be objectified. What then for those who, rightly or wrongly, don't feel they are on the "right side" of that fantasy? I know you are likely to have a different opinion to me on what is appropriate behaviour for a woman in trying to form a relationship. We've touched on that - but please bear with me.... Partly because of the messages feminism and the misogynist agenda has fed us, women are now in a position where they have to do much of the active pursuing, otherwise they wait, for what seems like an interminable time for "the one". Many live in fear that if they don't match the fantasy, they won't ever win the prize. That makes many women angry and in my view a bit resentful of men, since they have to do all the man's hard work of pursuing (that's perhaps where misandry could come in). This, in addition to being resentful of other women who they feel, by virtue of being "on the right side of the fantasy" have won the prize without having to actively pursue. Sometimes the OW doesn't even have a clue how the wife looks, but based on the fact that the wife has "won the prize" she builds up a picture based on assumptions of what it takes to win the prize - a picture of a woman she resents, plus the rejection of the man who is highly unlikely to choose her as no. 1. I am not saying this is always the case, but it is a theme that I notice in in my observations and experience. It is sad, but we have a lot of social "advances" including (sadly) feminism to thank for this. you had me bang to rights for the first part, gazelle, but you're right, our opinions start to diverge in the second. i absolutely agree that the genderism, sexism and misogyny (they are all different, btw, although often used interchangeably) that we internalize as girls AND boys is a huge factor in what we're talking about. absof*ckinglutely. but i challenge the idea that there is "man's work" and "women's work". i am not an essentialist, in that i do not believe that biological imperatives predestine our behavior. and i actually do agree that feminism has something to do with your idea that we are held to a "fantasy" of independence and superhuman powers. where we've gotten it wrong is the same place where patriarchy has gotten it wrong - by saying "this is what all women should do/be/think/act." that is not my feminism. my female friends and colleagues are straight, queer, transgendered, married, partnered, want to be married but aren't legally permitted, wouldn't be paid to be married, monogomous, polygamous, mexican, el salvadorian, african, african american, korean, german, filipina, irish - you freakin name it. they each have a different perspective, a different experience, a different deep-seated belief about who they are and who they want to be. some of them are militant bulldyke activists, some of them are stay at home mothers married to banker husbands. i agree that there should not be a "way" we should be expected to follow. all i'm fighting for is an examination of the way these isms influence and contaminate the way we all - ALL of us, men AND women - think about ourselves and our world.
dobler33 Posted June 13, 2009 Posted June 13, 2009 Good points. I was too literal, and superficial. I remember that Andrea Dworkins, the radical feminist activist and writer, was married to a man. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Dworkin you bet she was, and it was a central conflict in her life. although i believe her husband was gay, wasn't he? it was a strange relationship that no one around them ever totally understood. yet another proof that love follows no map, eh?
dobler33 Posted June 13, 2009 Posted June 13, 2009 I personally like Gloria, she is a very kind and gentle Lady,( not PC, but true). I was privileged to meet many of the early (post WW2) feminist writers. Germaine Greer, Betty Friedan, and Angela Davis, following my service in Vietnam. They were, without exception, role models for people of every gender. Having left politics, I am not familiar with the present feminist thinkers. once again, jack, you speak my mind for me. i am unbearably jealous that you met all those badass women. and post-third-wave feminism hasn't really defined itself as yet, for which i am rather grateful. as you can see, the misapprehension that there is a Feminism which describes all feminist thought seems to seriously suck in the final analysis - as evidenced by the comments i've read about how feminists are man-hating nazis out to destroy the good order of the world.
dobler33 Posted June 13, 2009 Posted June 13, 2009 Many people come across as nice and charming when you meet them but it doesn't mean they are good people. Steniem is a hypocrite as well. After all that stuff she preached she goes out and marries a man. That's like David Duke marrying a black or a jewish woman or if Jerry Falwell married another man. Most zealots usually are hypocrites though. steinem never preached man-hating. she fought for independence and equality. the bicycle comment - "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle", for those who hadn't heard it - was about showing women they could lead independent and unpoliced lives. it wasn't about rejecting all partnerships with men. this was a huge misunderstanding that was taken and joyfully propagated by her detractors, to our lasting detriment, as you have just proven.
dobler33 Posted June 13, 2009 Posted June 13, 2009 LMAO! ..cheesebag. Seriously lady not every woman is a victim and not every man is a perpetrator. That is something maybe your mindset cant seem to grasp? Dont get woggle started, you thought I was bad news! lol. i do not believe that every woman is a victim and every man is a perpetrator. i don't think in black and white the way you seem to. that's kind of my point, kiddo.
dobler33 Posted June 13, 2009 Posted June 13, 2009 Women who hate man avoid love but emotions take over when they get involved with a MM Men who hate women still want to get laid and married women are considered an easy lay by many men. Most men don't fall in love with a married woman. This is it made simple. this is still absolute nonsense. from a psychological perspective, from a humanistic perspective, from an intellectual perspective, from a debating perspective, from a logical perspective. total whittle. sorry.
Trialbyfire Posted June 13, 2009 Posted June 13, 2009 I can't wrap my mind around misandry being a definitive part of an OW/OM. The only generalization I can make, which includes MM/MW, is that the two affair partners have little to no personal boundaries, when it comes to self-satisfaction.
dobler33 Posted June 13, 2009 Posted June 13, 2009 I can't wrap my mind around misandry being a definitive part of an OW/OM. The only generalization I can make, which includes MM/MW, is that the two affair partners have little to no personal boundaries, when it comes to self-satisfaction. yup. and that is bloody universal, isn't it? crosses all gender lines.
Jilly Bean Posted June 13, 2009 Posted June 13, 2009 I don't think Other Women are necessarily manhaters, but I do think that ANYONE who engages in an affair has seriously low self-esteem. Married men do it because they need the ego stroke, and other women do it because they don't feel they deserve a whole man. All poor self-esteem issues, IMO.
Author Woggle Posted June 13, 2009 Author Posted June 13, 2009 Things are quite good on the home front but I can't ignore what goes on outside our bubble. I don't shelter myself from the world. People who hate the opposite sex might still date because sexuality and a desire for love are natural things. You can hate men or women all you want but those hormones usually win in the end. Being an OW might be a subconcious way to scratch that hormonal itch without becoming attached to a man.
dobler33 Posted June 13, 2009 Posted June 13, 2009 Things are quite good on the home front but I can't ignore what goes on outside our bubble. I don't shelter myself from the world. People who hate the opposite sex might still date because sexuality and a desire for love are natural things. You can hate men or women all you want but those hormones usually win in the end. Being an OW might be a subconcious way to scratch that hormonal itch without becoming attached to a man. very possibly in individual cases, yes. and similarly, being a MM involved with an OW might be a way to obtain sexual gratification without the responsibilities and hard work involved in a marriage. being with an unavailable person usually has something to do with an internal conflict between what is wanted and what it is felt that one deserves, and there is no monopoly on this within any gender. that's just humanity.
Author Woggle Posted June 13, 2009 Author Posted June 13, 2009 very possibly in individual cases, yes. and similarly, being a MM involved with an OW might be a way to obtain sexual gratification without the responsibilities and hard work involved in a marriage. being with an unavailable person usually has something to do with an internal conflict between what is wanted and what it is felt that one deserves, and there is no monopoly on this within any gender. that's just humanity. MM who get involved with OW either are not getting any at home or just can't stay faithful to one woman. What these men don't get is that the less you want a woman the more she wants you and that is where the mess begins.
You'reasian Posted June 13, 2009 Posted June 13, 2009 rather I formed an intense friendship with him because he was married and I thought he was safe -- I would never do that with a single available man because I'd be much more on my guard not to do that if I didn't really like the person. Also, usually, there's a reason why MMs are married -- i.e they're usually good guys, lovely, sweet and charming [hence they've been caught] -- and so they're attractive in that way. OP its not misandrists, its just psychology. Ednadean has hit the nail on the head. Its the same reason why I'm somehow 10x more attractive when I walk in to a room with two attractive lady friends in each arm, versus walking in alone...but with the ladies I'm not that attractive (can I tease myself?) Attraction is a perceptional/emotional thing, not a rational one. Most women work on a 80% emotional, 20% rational scale - when it comes to relationships. Rationality suggest that a single, kind, generous, loving, emotionally available, loyal guy is the guy to go for. Emotionality suggests that he's desperate, creepy and has something wrong with him. Rationality toward a married male, suggests that the man is involved in a monogamous relationship (ok work with me lol) and is unavailable. Emotionality suggests that the man must have great traits since he is taken and is therefore a trustworthy guy to be with (which may be true).
NoIDidn't Posted June 13, 2009 Posted June 13, 2009 Emotionality suggests that the man must have great traits since he is taken and is therefore a trustworthy guy to be with (which may be true). So true. But the woman using that faulty logic is setting herself up for heartbreak when she finds out that just because he's married doesn't necessarily make him a good guy. But this same OW will generally decide that his W doesn't deserve him or treat him right, not really knowing if her assumptions about him and his character are true or not.
Holding-On Posted June 13, 2009 Posted June 13, 2009 OP its not misandrists, its just psychology. Ednadean has hit the nail on the head. Its the same reason why I'm somehow 10x more attractive when I walk in to a room with two attractive lady friends in each arm, versus walking in alone...but with the ladies I'm not that attractive (can I tease myself?) Attraction is a perceptional/emotional thing, not a rational one. Most women work on a 80% emotional, 20% rational scale - when it comes to relationships. Rationality suggest that a single, kind, generous, loving, emotionally available, loyal guy is the guy to go for. Emotionality suggests that he's desperate, creepy and has something wrong with him. Rationality toward a married male, suggests that the man is involved in a monogamous relationship (ok work with me lol) and is unavailable. Emotionality suggests that the man must have great traits since he is taken and is therefore a trustworthy guy to be with (which may be true). Hmm. I just read Sperm Wars which some poster recommended a while ago. Certainly it is an interesting read and different point of view on monogamy and infidelity than I had read before. Your comment about the 2 women friends on the arm thing reminded me of the theory in the book that many women like men whom other woman find attractive as genetically the sons of such men would have a higher chance of being attractive to women and thus producing more grandchildren. Personally if a man has women swarming around him, I find that off putting and go looking for more available men. But I am lazy like that.
LaGazelle Posted June 14, 2009 Posted June 14, 2009 So true. But the woman using that faulty logic is setting herself up for heartbreak when she finds out that just because he's married doesn't necessarily make him a good guy. But this same OW will generally decide that his W doesn't deserve him or treat him right, not really knowing if her assumptions about him and his character are true or not. Nor indeed does she know how his wife truly treats MM. What's more besides...the moment the OW "succeeds" in having an affair with MM, he changes from a good catch (if he was before) and immediately becomes a man who is willing to commit heartbreaking and soul-destroying betrayal. In this case, unless the OW is totally arrogant or delusional, she can never really be very sure that MM is a "good" man whom she can trust.
Recommended Posts