HopelessRomantic76 Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 f I wanted a relationship between equals, I would have to switch teams and play in the all-female tournaments. I want a relationship with someone who is so different from me that I can never be what he is. I don't want to be what he is. I just want to enjoy that he wants me, and I really want to enjoy admiring him for the man that he is. I'm so fed up with the PC Cultural Dominance that has everyone demanding a 50-50 relationship, apples to apples. Any kind of equality demands measurement and comparison and constant adjustment to mandate the illusion of fairness. I don't want to keep score...I refuse to compare a man to me or me against a man ever again....I'm not going to keep on adjusting my "performance" to make it even...if I even once start giving/feeling/creating less because I was "given less" or vice versa, give more to get more, then it is just another damn transaction. What would a relationship be like for you if you just threw the illusion of equality out the window and did whatever you wanted to do with/for and yes! TO the person? but more than that, I DO wish for a man in my life who I trust to be smarter and stronger than I am. I have no idea why. I'm smart enough and strong enough to make almost anything I need to happen, happen. Along with the smarter and stronger, I'll need to know that he has my best interest at heart, as I would his. "
GG3 Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 When you say equality or 50/50 are you meaning equal in careers, money, smarts, etc? Or do you also mean rights? You want a dominating guy who leads and makes all the decisions?
Disenchantedly Yours Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 I also tend to be attracted to men that are different from me Hopeless. I am rather artistic and I tend to like more practical men. For me, I'd like to be with a man that balances me out. That is strong where I am not and I in turn can offer the same for him. However, different people requires different relationships and some men and women do want 50-50 relationships where they might both be strong in an area. LIke two people that are into running and can run together as a couple. Or two people that are really into politics. There is nothing wrong with that and it's not neccesarily PC Cultural Dominance. But I like what you have to say about not keeping score. I think we need more of that in any kind of relationship. Too much score keeping all around for sure. I also like what you have to say about not wanting to compare yourself against your man. I think that's actually pretty healthy. For me, I still want equality in my relationship. But that doesn't mean I don't mind when a man leads. As long as he still has my best interests at heart during that leading. That's the key. And that's really something that is hard to find. A lot of guys that like to take the leadership role do so more for themselves then the desire to do what's best for their partner. There are guys that are able to operate in a manner that is leadership and still looking out for their partner first. But it's also something not a lot of men understand. But I am all for opposites attracting.
Author HopelessRomantic76 Posted November 3, 2011 Author Posted November 3, 2011 You want a dominating guy who leads and makes all the decisions? Yes please:love: Women are always going to choose the best DNA they can find, whether they are interested in reproducing or not, doesn't matter. It's not like they will suddenly start being attracted to weak, sick males who are no risk for forcing or controlling them. The best DNA is strong, healthy, and bigger than us usually. So we kept choosing and choosing this way for umpty-thousands of years and voila! We have big strong men who are horrified by women and children crying and wailing. We have big strong men who refuse to rape women or young girls and don't enjoy forced sex, when the thinking circuitry works right. We have big strong men who enjoy protecting women and they had umpty-thousands of generations of daughters who like being hugged by them. This stuff, is NEVER going away. Unless women decide they like tiny, weak, sniveling men EN MASSE for the next hundred thousand years and make breeding decisions accordingly. Not bloody likely.
laotzu Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 I also tend to be attracted to men that are different from me Hopeless. I am rather artistic and I tend to like more practical men. For me, I'd like to be with a man that balances me out. That is strong where I am not and I in turn can offer the same for him. Odd that you mention this, because I took a practical course in life (professional job, money) and I'd like a mate who took a more artistic or free-spirited approach to life, which I would have liked to have done in a "perfect" world. So I want to piggy-back off of someone else's artistry and creativity, and don't mind if I work more or make significantly more money. This is assuming that other things (sex, intellectualism, and so on) are really there.
Woggle Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 As long as a man can expect a feminine, sweet and nurturing woman.
Disenchantedly Yours Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 HopelessRomantic Women are always going to choose the best DNA they can find, whether they are interested in reproducing or not, doesn't matter. It's not like they will suddenly start being attracted to weak, sick males who are no risk for forcing or controlling them. Well, that's a rather blanket statement to make. And a strange one. Strong men = ones that will force and control you? I actually think weak men use force and control to manipulate a woman. There is a huge difference between wanting a dominant man and wanting one that "forces" and "controls" you. Men also can express their strengths in different ways. Some men are highly intelligent but don't have much brute strength. However, they can still be strong men. Some men have brute strength but aren't very bright. So while I would agree women are attracted to strong healthy men, they are also attracted to different projections of this in men. There could be short men that are very protective and masculine and tall men that are weak and abusive..too many combination to chalk up all men to one type of strength.
Disenchantedly Yours Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 Odd that you mention this, because I took a practical course in life (professional job, money) and I'd like a mate who took a more artistic or free-spirited approach to life, which I would have liked to have done in a "perfect" world. So I want to piggy-back off of someone else's artistry and creativity, and don't mind if I work more or make significantly more money. This is assuming that other things (sex, intellectualism, and so on) are really there. I think it's that whole ying and yang thing. Practical men ground me a little more while artistic women bring some different kind of passion to your life. I haven't ever developed a big crush on artistic types. Guys in bands..artists..they've never really done it for me even though we have the artist thing in common.
AD1980 Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 When i see women like this i usually think "daddy issues" and that shes looking for a father not a partner..
AHardDaysNight Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 What do you mean by equals? Because I can tell you that men and women are not the same! That is definitely not true; if it were true, I would switch teams or become bi! The truth is that men are more practical, women are more emotional. As a rule. But that doesn't mean that you can't equalize things out a bit: equal pay, equal debt, equal responsibility. If a woman expected me to pay for everything and take all of the responsibility, that would be a woman I would walk away from!
Stung Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 f I wanted a relationship between equals, I would have to switch teams and play in the all-female tournaments. I want a relationship with someone who is so different from me that I can never be what he is. I don't want to be what he is. I just want to enjoy that he wants me, and I really want to enjoy admiring him for the man that he is. I'm so fed up with the PC Cultural Dominance that has everyone demanding a 50-50 relationship, apples to apples. Any kind of equality demands measurement and comparison and constant adjustment to mandate the illusion of fairness. I don't want to keep score...I refuse to compare a man to me or me against a man ever again....I'm not going to keep on adjusting my "performance" to make it even...if I even once start giving/feeling/creating less because I was "given less" or vice versa, give more to get more, then it is just another damn transaction. What would a relationship be like for you if you just threw the illusion of equality out the window and did whatever you wanted to do with/for and yes! TO the person? but more than that, I DO wish for a man in my life who I trust to be smarter and stronger than I am. I have no idea why. I'm smart enough and strong enough to make almost anything I need to happen, happen. Along with the smarter and stronger, I'll need to know that he has my best interest at heart, as I would his. " This is honestly a little weird and leaves me casting about, wondering just how you define equality. Equal does not mean exactly the same, for one thing. If you want a man who is smarter than you, okay. I'm sure that's a need you can fulfill easily enough--that's not a shot at your intelligence, just an acknowledgment that there is always somebody smarter or younger or prettier or whatever, lurking around the corner. As for the notion that it would be a positive thing for everybody to have free license to do whatever they wanted TO other people, I wonder if you misworded that because it sounds like a poor idea to me. I for one would not want a partner who felt free to take out every baser instinct or power trip fantasy on me, as the whim struck them. Human nature being what it is that would rarely be a script that played out to a happy ending, IMO.
musemaj11 Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 Women want men who are better than them at everything so that they dont have to do anything. If its up to them, most women would rather just stay home playing with their kids while leaving their husbands working like a horse 24/7 to feed them, clothe them, and shelter them. Selfish.
maysj18 Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 Women want men who are better than them at everything so that they dont have to do anything. If its up to them, most women would rather just stay home playing with their kids while leaving their husbands working like a horse 24/7 to feed them, clothe them, and shelter them. Selfish. Yep. Basically. I have no idea why a woman would want to be dependent on a man to take care of them. That does nothing but complicate things and will get you screwed.
Ajax Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 Women are always going to choose the best DNA they can find, whether they are interested in reproducing or not, doesn't matter. It's not like they will suddenly start being attracted to weak, sick males who are no risk for forcing or controlling them. So if I interpret your opinions right, because I'm not a big strong alpha male who makes all the decisions for my girlfriend and risks controlling her, I'm unworthy of being with a woman? Ouch.
Ilovewater Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 If its up to them, most women would rather just stay home playing with their kids while leaving their husbands working like a horse 24/7 to feed them, clothe them, and shelter them. Most of the women I know don't choose to become housewives. The decision for the woman to stay at home is usually a joint decision made by the man and the woman. How about stay-at-home fathers then? Are those men selfish, lazy bastards too? Also, do you really think the women are "playing" at home? Unless you've done it yourself, you wouldn't know how exhausting taking care of children can be. I'd rather go to work full-time.
Stung Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 Most of the women I know don't choose to become housewives. The decision for the woman to stay at home is usually a joint decision made by the man and the woman. How about stay-at-home fathers then? Are those men selfish, lazy bastards too? Also, do you really think the women are "playing" at home? Unless you've done it yourself, you wouldn't know how exhausting taking care of children can be. I'd rather go to work full-time. Thank you. I don't bother addressing musemaj directly anymore because it's an exercise in futility, but I got my first job at 13 and worked regularly for the next 20 years--certainly longer than musemaj has ever worked, if the age he's related is accurate--until my son was born, and then I spent two years being a full-time stay at home mom. That was a JOINT decision made with my husband, and he actually felt pretty strongly about it. It felt like the right thing for us as a family, but it was grueling and 24/7 and not exactly tantamount to sitting around and playing all day. My husband does/did work hard for us, but so did I, and we both appreciated each other. For anyone else reading these threads who might not know much about what's involved with caring for young children, it's not just playgrounds and gentle cooing noises, and while going back to work right away and using daycare are fine options, staying at home with children is also a perfectly valid choice that doesn't automatically denote some kind of personality defect .
grkBoy Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 I dunno. I think Hopeless Romantic has as much right to ask for what she wants as Frustrated Standards does. As much right as IRC333 does, or USMChokie, U1987, and everyone else. If she can land her ideal man, then good for her. If she can't, but finds "dying alone" better than "changing the standards", then good for her. If she can't get the man she wants and doesn't want to end up alone, then she has to pick from what's available. I won't knock anyone for wanting stuff...just when they want what they can never get, and then have the audacity to blame the opposite gender for not giving them what they want.
jyoun Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 If I'm weak in some areas, generally speaking it would be nice to have a girl strong in those areas to compensate. In some cases it would be nice to have equal for comfort or other emotional reasons. Like, if you have weight issues then you might be more comfortable with another who also struggles in this regard. OR, you might want to be with a health-nut to help you get healthier. It all depends, everyone is different, etc...
Metis Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 HopelessRomantic: In a society where women have some rights to live their lives on their own terms, you are free to choose the kind of man that you are attracted to. Feminists aren't forcing you into an egalitarian relationship; no one is putting a gun to your head. That said, it seems to me, you misunderstand the concept of equality. Equality in a relationship doesn't mean you are exactly the same in every way (although, a fair warning -- significant differences in values, tastes and habits between partners put tremendous strains on a relationship). Equality means having equal rights (such as your right to say "no" to having a boob job), equal consideration for each other's thoughts and feelings and equal responsibilities. I think I understand how you feel. I think that what you are focusing on is that being married to a benevolent man who makes all the decisions in the relationship will free you from responsibility, specifically, the responsibility to weigh in on difficult, unclear matters with potentially big consequences for the family. And you assume that as long as you choose "wisely" -- which was, trust me, the marital strategy of at least 80% of people being divorced today -- that man will "take care" of you, be nice to you and treat you like a princess. Perhaps you also think that this man will happily take on the burdens of being an adult and do all the difficult and grinding work involved in day-to-day living, while you will prance around in a Stepford Wife outfit and look pretty and just bake cookies or something, without a care in the world. (You don't have to agree or disagree, or defend your views. Just ask yourself if THIS is the rosy vision you are really after.) Please be realistic. Believe me, being married to a domineering and controlling man is a sword that cuts both ways. Sure, you won't have to make difficult decisions. But you also won't have any decision-making power in situations where you really want to and should (such as, I don't know, whether or not to have an abortion where continuing the pregnancy is fairly certain to kill you). And it's not just lacking the power itself. If you are the less important person in the relationship, you must expect -- and agree to -- your feelings and wishes being treated as less important (or not important at all) as compared to those of your husband. And you won't be treated like a princess; you'll be treated like a servant, especially as you get older and your prospects for walking away and rebuilding your life diminish, while your dependency on your husband increases. You are mistaken when you assume that a man who lords over you will always act in your best interests. First of all, in a relationship like that, your best interests have no importance in the face of his best interests. That means, that even in the majority of situations, where your best interests are not actually in conflict, but are merely concurrent, yours simply won't be taken into account. Second, even if he does want to act in your best interest, he may not understand what that is, since you have no voice, and your thoughts, opinions, wishes and so on are considered unimportant. Believe me, in real life, such relationships do not nearly resemble a Harlequin novel. So do what you want. But I think you'd be better off putting away childish things, accepting grown-up responsibilities, and pursuing a relationship with a man who will treat you as a human being who is as important and as precious as he is. That's what real equality is all about.
Author HopelessRomantic76 Posted November 3, 2011 Author Posted November 3, 2011 OK, here it comes again. Women who want to argue with women over how to be women in the "right" way. Women who label others "anti-feminist" if they want something different in a relationship than the labellers would like. Thought feminism was about choice, myself, and all of us having choice. I'm just wondering who I'm supposed to appreciate, or submit to, or be humble with for all my rights as an American citizen who is a woman. (hmmm, there are lots of people who started this historical movement into the country we have today, and none of them were feminists, because they didn't exist in those centuries. Well, I think Queen Isabella could be thanked for bankrolling Columbus! but then, darn, she was born into her status too.) I doubt anyone in this thread or in general did anything to earn their legal rights in America except be born into them. I don't think Gloria Steinem or Betty Friedan is on this thread. Nor are there any Congresswomen here who can take credit. I don't think any of you labellers can spot a real live feminist when you're chatting with one, if she happens to disagree with you, or want something different than you do in a relationship with a man. I really didn't earn any right to serve in the military; it was an opportunity, and I went and earned the opportunity to serve. I did not notice any labellers sweating beside me in boot camp! I think I would have no trouble being accepted as a feminist if I simply announced that I liked to be whipped and tied up with chains, (which I don't) because that would simply be seen as a sexual fetish to explore social roles. But by golly, I don't submit to these women and change my thinking to suit theirs, and I get labelled as an "anti-feminist." Yet somehow, if you call yourself a feminist, you have some kind of carte blanche to call other women names and degrade them for their preferences. If you are another woman and you have preferences in your relationship with a man that differ from mine, I don't even care. It's your life. You are free to live it. I would and I have defended your right to live free. I guess that doesn't make me a feminist though, to believe in freedom.
Woggle Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 Don't worry about them. You can be anything you want to be as long as these kind of feminists approve of it. If not you are a stepford wife who is selling out her identity to the patriarchy. There are even some who think that a woman who is happy in her marriage is lying to herself or is a stepford wife. They give feminism a bad name just like the religious right gives christianity a bad name.
Sanman Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 Odd that you mention this, because I took a practical course in life (professional job, money) and I'd like a mate who took a more artistic or free-spirited approach to life, which I would have liked to have done in a "perfect" world. So I want to piggy-back off of someone else's artistry and creativity, and don't mind if I work more or make significantly more money. This is assuming that other things (sex, intellectualism, and so on) are really there. I used be the same way. However, it always came down me and most artistic women having very different values. Things like saving vs spending money, lifestyle issues, ideas about children and marriage, etc. It turns out that I am only free-spirited to a certain point. I found myself to be much more compatible with my current practical gf. Hopefully it works out for you though.
Metis Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 HopelessRomantic: Speaking only for myself, I would remind you that I explicitly stated that you can do what you want with your life -- it is your right. Your complaints of being labeled are rich, however, given that you opened the thread with a gross mischaracterization of equality as political correctness gone wild and impossible efforts to be "the same" (whatever the hell that means). Therefore, I will repeat myself, and please don't misstate my words: I don't presume to tell you how to live, despite the fact that you went ahead and disparaged other people's lifestyles as offensive to your sensibilities. Again -- I don't presume to tell you how to live. I merely told you what you should expect as a result of the choices that you told us you intend to make. From your posts I would suppose that you don't have much experience being married, or in a marriage-like relationship, that you haven't raised children or taken care of a family. Perhaps I am wrong on this, I don't claim to be perfect; but my bet is that you are young and most of your ideas about "strong" men and submissive women come from literature and movies that aren't meant to reflect reality. So once again -- I didn't tell you how to live, only what to expect in real life. What you want to do with that, is your business. As a feminist, I support every woman's right to live on her own terms, even if it means making ridiculous mistakes and screwing up her life real good -- just like a man. If you want to be in a relationship where you get less respect and consideration than you are expected to give -- fine. It's your choice, and it's quite possible that you are simply servile and a follower by nature. If you want to be taken care of like a child and treated as a child -- fine, your choice. If you are eager to surrender your credibility as an adult in exchange for security, however tenuous -- fine, your choice. If you, like millions of people before you, want to try to live out a dimestore love story in the real world -- go ahead, knock yourself out. It's your life. But when you posted your initial post -- were you asking for opinions or for praise? Because opinions is what you got. If it was just praise and affirmation you wanted, maybe you should have said so upfront.
Recommended Posts