A Machiavellian Guide to Dating Quality Women
Options
Replies
-
Sounds like a lot of blah blah nonsense. I'd rather hold out for someone that doesn't play games.
I actually think many of us feel the same... the problem is that we're not the majority. There are FAR more game players than not.
So you get back to P's original point... people (women in particular) are willing to settle/ compromise/ adjust their standards in order to fit with someone they're interested in dating instead of waiting for someone who doesn't play games and puts in equal efforts. What does that mean? Women played the game in some form or another, right?
All this leaves me feeling like is that there are so few genuine open people out there and why am I bothering? What was the quote on Seinfeld? 95% of people are undateable... feels more like 99%+!0 -
I should clarify that my use of the phrase "play the game" was perhaps a poor choice of words because it is taken as "game playing" which indicates someone phony,or misleading.
I meant it in the sense of accepting and going along with the apparent norm,that being ladies prefer somehow inherently jerks and guys,shallow trophies and any divergence of this is doomed to failure.
No, play the game and game playing can be the same thing. The whole "rules" of dating fall under the category. Instead of people just going out and saying up front "I like you" people are too busy wondering if it's too soon, not soon enough, will s/he run off if I express myself clearly, etc etc.
Just be yourself and if they don't like you, or you don't like them then it's not a fit and it's on to the next. Yes, you are limiting your dating pool - but your limiting it to people that are worth your while. Quality over quantity.0 -
To be kind of fair about it the vast majority of guys expressing an opinion on it here say they desire this in a woman and want her to be bold as far as making contact or asking a guy out and the vast majority of the ladies here are the ones saying no way to that and prefer to the point of it having a romantic value to be the demure,feeling protected one.
I think you are right about most women saying they want to feel demure, feel protected. But what the women on this forum are also saying is that WHEN they become more assertive the guys appreciate it, sure, but it never seems to lead to lasting romance.
Actually, a while back several of the guys said this same thing... they appreciate when women approach them, but they rarely make a long term partner out of someone who did this. Maybe I interpreted wrong, but it seemed to me that men say they want women to "initiate" or "be bold" they're talking about smiling, flirting, showing interest, coming up with the initial conversation starter....NOT what women typically think men mean when they say they wish women would initiate (which would be to ask for phone number, ask the guy out, etc).
I think you are 100% right Janie!!0 -
I chuckled to myself while reading your post.
I can definitely see your point.
To be honest, it scares the bees out of me when a man declares affection early on. I tend to RUN when that happens. Perhaps, this is why I'm still single? But I will say this... a man who appreciates me for me and is vocal about it does score more points than one who leaves me guessing whether he is into me or not.0 -
That sounds more like hitting the jackpot than settling to me.While I agree with your general premise (that women find men who care about them more attractive), I’m having a problem with your use of the word “settling.” So, it’s considered “settling” to stay with a nice, reasonably decent looking guy who cares about you?
Aha, just saw this. So I agree with you. I used "settle" to be more provocative, but it was a poor word choice, based on how women perceive the situation.
--P0 -
That sounds more like hitting the jackpot than settling to me.
[/quote]
If the man is sincere, this is a profound statement.
--P0 -
You omitted the sentence : “Any society that defines strength as a failing is on the path to its' own destruction.” Did it ring too true for comfort? That's the real problem - that strength in women is too often used, still, as a stick to beat them with. Some progress has been made, it's true, but attitudinal change in our historically-male-dominated society has not kept up with the changes in womens' lives and mentalities. I see absurdly-low numbers of women in senior executive and board positions in the world's leading companies. I see middle-aged men still trying to tell women what they can and can't, or must or must not do in regards to their own intimate health and sexuality. I see women prohibited illegally from breastfeeding in public places, or returning from maternity leave to find their jobs have somehow disappeared or altered fundamentally, as if the very act of giving birth has rendered them less capable. I still see many fewer female students and graduates of science, mathematics and engineering. I see a pay-gap that still sees most women paid significantly less than their male colleagues for the same work, and I see hundreds of thousands of women* still afraid to bring their rapists to justice, or even report a rape to the police for fear of being blamed for their misfortune. That all tells me we still have a very, very long way to go.
Not my fault. I didn't make the world like that. That's why I'm saying you either have to comply or die.
Do you not see how wrong that is?I think "strong women" are fully responsible for their failures, as much as "weak men" are.
Men are mostly expected to approach (and thus be strong), they either comply or die. Women are mostly expected to be approached (and thus approachable), they either comply or die.
If a "strong" man cannot find the guts to approach a "strong" woman, or rather, the courage to acknowledge his own desire for an equal, rather than a subordinate, then he is not truly strong.I agree that some men are not truly strong, that precisely my point. "Strong" men are only an expectation from women and society, as "weak" women are. For every strong woman who complain she is too strong for those weak men, there is a weak man who complains about these strong women.
This problem is completely symmetrical.
Women are empowering themselves, men are losing their traditional power (in the grand scheme of things), roles are not as clearly defined as they used to be (for the benefit of everyone IMHO) but men (weak or not) now don't have a guaranteed partner or place in society either.
On the contrary to you, though (and more in line with what Kitsune thinks) I think "strong" women can definitely find a place and partner in our modern society, and although there is still sexism in places, it's mostly a case of just moving somewhere else where people are more accommodating.
Of course strong stubborn women who make a point of never backing off are as much a nuisance (and digging their own grave) as strong stubborn men.
The "oh, you're too strong/you intimidate men" card is old, and does not reflect well on men. It refers back to a time, and an idea of society, that is past, or should be. Women's empowerment does not require that men are weakened, but that they accept women as equals - with a few notable exceptions, women do not seek to dominate, but rather to have a real equality of opportunity and respect. If individuals can't cope with that, or see women with strength of character and purpose as a threat, then their 'weakness' is of their own perception and making.
By the way - where do you suggest I might move to find this "accommodating" society? The situation I describe above seems to be fairly standard throughout the western world. This forum has many very strong women from a wide variety of locations and backgrounds, all of whom encounter the self-same problems.
As for your comments about stubbornness, I very much doubt any significant change has ever happened without a good dose of that quality: Magna Carta, the founding of the USA, for that matter, the founding and perpetuation of the French Republic, five times. The adoption of voting rights for all men, rather than just the nobility and merchant classes, took a lot of stubborn people a long time to achieve. The abolition of slavery also. Universal education, the development of penicillin and the harnessing of X-Rays - not much happens if no-one grits their teeth and makes it so. Women's suffrage took a whole lot of determination, struggle and a refusal to be turned from the right path. The Pankhursts et al certainly made a nuisance of themselves, in the eyes of the authorities, and certain elements of the public, but they achieved their objectives in the end. I rather think it's time we women stopped playing the game, gritted our teeth and made the world move forward, rather than accepting the half-hearted pretence of equality that seems to be the status quo - a status quo in which we are told our strength is in fact our failing.
[/quote]
I'll let my male friends know. That's a start.The wider male mind must adjust to reality as it is, rather than as it would wish it to be, or we, as a species, are in a whole world of trouble.
Please do. It might just plant a seed of doubt.
*Yes, men can also be victims of rape, and their reporting rate is no better, but the statistics in the US at least give a best guess of 1 male victim for roughly every 9 female victims. While I have enormous sympathy and compassion for all victims of rape, regardless of gender, 1 in 6 women or higher, depending on the source - some say as high as 1 in 4, as opposed to 1 in 33 men, represents a significant bias in the likelihood of experiencing sexual assault.
http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims
Edited for quotation clarity.0 -
To be kind of fair about it the vast majority of guys expressing an opinion on it here say they desire this in a woman and want her to be bold as far as making contact or asking a guy out and the vast majority of the ladies here are the ones saying no way to that and prefer to the point of it having a romantic value to be the demure,feeling protected one.
I think you are right about most women saying they want to feel demure, feel protected. But what the women on this forum are also saying is that WHEN they become more assertive the guys appreciate it, sure, but it never seems to lead to lasting romance.
Actually, a while back several of the guys said this same thing... they appreciate when women approach them, but they rarely make a long term partner out of someone who did this. Maybe I interpreted wrong, but it seemed to me that men say they want women to "initiate" or "be bold" they're talking about smiling, flirting, showing interest, coming up with the initial conversation starter....NOT what women typically think men mean when they say they wish women would initiate (which would be to ask for phone number, ask the guy out, etc).
*sighs*
I guess then does it boil down to what the OP says is true and that BOTH men and women will say they want one thing but almost always do the polar opposite?
Maybe the bottom line for many of us here is that we won`t do that or play the game so we are inherently locking ourselves out.
It's not so much what men and women do, rather than say, but what they mean, I think. Too much gets lost in translation - it's like we need a cross-gender dictionary.0 -
@Castadiva. I've been reading all your posts and I just had to chime w/ my opinion, because it's so vastly different from yours.
There is a perfectly good reason why men don't like 'strong' women and it's mostly biological. Besides the obvious masculinity/femininity argument, think of it from an evolutionary standpoint. Most career driven females are completely self sufficient, meaning they can take care of themselves, put of a roof over their head, feed themselves, etc etc. The whole idea of evolution is for two people to mate and produce offspring that has the best characteristic of both parents and can become self sufficient in the world. This has been 50,000 years in the making and it seems that you have achieved this. Congrats.
However, there's no reason why men should feel the urge to date, marry, and have children with you (or any strong woman). Most men would rather go for women who possess desirable physical characteristics, but who *can't* support themselves. Therefore, they *need* us to provide for them. We don't want a perfect partner, we want someone who compliments us in hope that our children take the best qualities from each of us. In short, **we don't want to procreate with strong, self sufficient women, however we deeply want our offspring to become that.**
This is that pesky evolution, wanting our kids to be better than us, type of mentality kicking in.
What I'm trying to say is this. I'm sure you make your parents proud because you are self sufficient child. However, you're not what men go for. In my opinion, you (and other strong women) have evolved yourself right out of the human race. Not to sound mean or anything, but that's how I genuinely feel.
Also, you don't like the fact that women are brought up to "seek the approval of man". You also stated you disagree with the way society wants you to be modest about yourself and have a "must please others" type of attitude. Have you ever stopped to think that society is trying to help you? Maybe society wants you to have certain vulnerabilities in order to attract the opposite sex and keep this whole evolution thing going? Society isn't trying to keep females down, they are trying to help you in becoming a good partner and live a happy life with a man. Having this whole independent female attitude will leave you.. well, independent and alone (and rightfully so).
However, you've been too busy questioning the system (or giving the middle finger to it), that you never took the time to truly understand it.
I'm not meaning to pick on you, but the same can be said for a lot of women on here.0 -
I get the sense that Mike's last post is not going to sit well with a lot of the ladies on here. I saw two nuggets in there that I'd like to expand upon.There is a perfectly good reason why men don't like 'strong' women and it's mostly biological. Most career driven females are completely self sufficient, meaning they can take care of themselves, put of a roof over their head, feed themselves, etc etc.
Most men would rather go for women who possess desirable physical characteristics, but who *can't* support themselves. Therefore, they *need* us to provide for them. We don't want a perfect partner, we want someone who compliments us.
Although I don't 100% agree with this (and this quote was spliced from two separate sentences), I agree with the overall message. I don't want someone who can't support themselves at all. Ideally, I'd like someone who can support themselves in a basic sense. But I'd like someone to be an economic complement, not an economic parasite. The idea that together we can accomplish more together than being separate is a good thing. And yes, the desirable physical characteristics should be there, along with a very good attitude. A partner who complements us well is the ideal.Having this whole independent female attitude will leave you.. well, independent and alone (and rightfully so).
There's wisdom in this. It explains some things. The independent female attitude is much more common in women 30+, never married than 21-25 year olds who are unmarried and childless. This is a part of the reason why most men, if given a choice, and knowing that the women would want them, would choose younger. On the whole, men want to feel wanted, and the independent female attitude doesn't play well with a lot of guys.0 -
In the end isn`t it just simply the case that there is no way to explain or rationalize or intellectualize why 2 people become attracted to each other?
It is frustrating when it happens with someone you know and they go for exactly the opposite of what they have always claimed to desire.
Doubly so when it ends badly as is often the case and then when they turn around and do it again.
It is nevertheless what is going to happen whether by some biological instinct or social conditioning.0 -
Yes.I get the sense that Mike's last post is not going to sit well with a lot of the ladies on here. I saw two nuggets in there that I'd like to expand upon.
The idea that together we can accomplish more than being separate is a good thing. And yes, the desirable physical characteristics should be there, along with a very good attitude. A partner who complements us well is the ideal.
And yes.
On the whole, men want to feel wanted, and the independent female attitude doesn't play well with a lot of guys.Having this whole independent female attitude will leave you.. well, independent and alone (and rightfully so).
I don't really have too much time to type, but to expand further:
- There is no such thing as a person so perfect and independent that they cannot benefit from someone else: a partner who complements us is the ideal.
The best pianist in the world would hugely benefit from meeting the best vocalist in the world. They've all achieve perfection on their own, yet together they are even better than on their own. Compliment is the keyword.
I get that all the women on here are strong and all, but I'm pretty sure they have tons of weaknesses too, which they shouldn't be afraid of showing. Which brings me to my second point...
- The independent female attitude doesn't play well with a lot of guys: I think this is true. While I want a strong, beautiful, intelligent woman (and I mean it), it gets old when the girl is attempting to diminish you by playing the "I don't need you, I don't want you" card. My answer would be: well then let's split, you seem better on your own.
I think a lot of it comes down to acknowledging your own weaknesses and using them as a basis to realise that you're not that different from anyone else, and that other humans have a different set of strength and weaknesses from yours.
I wanted to start a topic related to some of these things... I might do it in the near future.0 -
@Castadiva. I've been reading all your posts and I just had to chime w/ my opinion, because it's so vastly different from yours.
Somehow I'm not surprised... I wondered when you'd pop up.There is a perfectly good reason why men don't like 'strong' women and it's mostly biological. Besides the obvious masculinity/femininity argument, think of it from an evolutionary standpoint. Most career driven females are completely self sufficient, meaning they can take care of themselves, put of a roof over their head, feed themselves, etc etc. The whole idea of evolution is for two people to mate and produce offspring that has the best characteristic of both parents and can become self sufficient in the world. This has been 50,000 years in the making and it seems that you have achieved this. Congrats.
Unsurprisingly, I disagree with you. On two levels. Firstly, while strong capable women may not 'need' a man in a financial-security/provider sense, the vast majority of women (obviously not those who identify as lesbians) still 'want' male companionship, because male and female, as you observe, are complementary. That need not mean that one is weaker or stronger than the other. Physically, we can't do much to alter the inherent differences of our bodies - nor can I imagine a scenario in which we would wish to do so, or where doing so would serve the further development of the species. However, where we do not differ significantly is in our intellectual capacity and our sense of self. The idea that women should be the weaker personalities, the less-intellectually-capable half of the species is a purely social construct, and one that we should have left behind some time ago. However, our society, still predominantly patriarchal, has held onto that construct and those ideals in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, long past their sell-by date. Too many men are so intimidated by the idea that a woman can look after herself in a purely financial, functional sense, that they completely overlook the fact that women still want them - not to provide a roof and food, but for the fun stuff - for companionship, for sex, for feeling like they have a partner against the world and its' vicissitudes.
Secondly: " The whole idea of evolution is for two people to mate and produce offspring that has the best characteristic of both parents and can become self sufficient in the world." Yes, so it is. In a race for survival, one seeks to produce the offspring with the strongest body, mind and spirit - the will to survive, as well as the tools. The female parent contributes 50% of that. Logically then, it would make sense to seek out a woman who shows the greatest predisposition to this sort of strength. It seems to me that your argument suggests that all of those skills, all of that drive, should come from the male parent. I hate to disillusion you, but that's not how genetics works.
Not sure what you mean by "the obvious femininity/masculinity argument". Care to elaborate?However, there's no reason why men should feel the urge to date, marry, and have children with you (or any strong woman). Most men would rather go for women who possess desirable physical characteristics, but who *can't* support themselves. Therefore, they *need* us to provide for them. We don't want a perfect partner, we want someone who compliments us in hope that our children take the best qualities from each of us. In short, **we don't want to procreate with strong, self sufficient women, however we deeply want our offspring to become that.**
This is that pesky evolution, wanting our kids to be better than us, type of mentality kicking in.
So, in fact, you are saying that men seek to procreate with weaker women, because that will enhance the species? You're seeking a partner with less-desirable (speaking in terms of survival) qualities to pass on to your children...? Because that will make them better than you? I'll grant that looking good helps, but looking good and not having the brains or drive to back that up doesn't really get you terribly far. Bill Gates - not the best-looking individual, but certainly one with brains and drive - was still significantly wealthier, last time I checked, than any supermodel or pretty/handsome Hollywood star you care to name. Ditto Wu Yajun, the wealthiest self-made (ie. no inherited wealth at all) woman in the world in 2012, worth a cool $5.7 billion.
It seems to me that men following the thought patterns you describe are not seeking to create the strongest children, but rather those who will emulate them most closely. Now, I'll grant that's an evolutionary urge - you want to be able to be sure of your paternity, no cuckoos in your nest - but not really the one you were aiming for. Nor the one best adapted to the most successful survival in the world we live in today.What I'm trying to say is this. I'm sure you make your parents proud because you are self sufficient child. However, you're not what men go for. In my opinion, you've evolved yourself right out of the human race. Not to sound mean or anything, but that's how I genuinely feel.
Lovely. Just me, or all strong, capable women? Like everyone, I have my weaknesses and my strengths, but perhaps, as with most people, my weaknesses are better hidden upon first meeting than my strengths. We all want to put our best face on when meeting someone new.
However much it sometimes feels like I might be looking for a needle in a haystack, I'm reasonably sure there's a fully-evolved man somewhere out there who relishes a good debate, doesn't need a subordinate wife in order to feel like a man, and just might happen to find a top-flight brain, a sesquipedalian vocabulary and a quirky sense of humour (and a weakness for gelato and good wine) with a 5'8", natural blonde, green eyes, curves and legs for days package thrown in for good measure, totally irresistible. I come from a very long line of strong, capable, intelligent and independent women. Strangely enough, they all found partners and husbands, or I wouldn't be here. Mine might not be easy to find, but I'm sure he's out there.Also, you don't like the fact that women are brought up to "seek the approval of man". You also stated you disagree with the way society wants you to be modest about yourself and have a "must please others" type of attitude. Have you ever stopped to think that society is trying to help you? Maybe society wants you to have certain vulnerabilities in order to attract the opposite sex and keep this whole evolution thing going? Society isn't trying to keep females down, they are trying to help you in becoming a good partner and live a happy life with a man. Having this whole independent female attitude will leave you.. well, independent and alone (and rightfully so).
However, you've been too busy questioning the system (or giving the middle finger to it), that you never took the time to truly understand it.
I'm not meaning to pick on you, but the same can be said for a lot of women on here.
On the contrary, my dear chap. I've spent a long time looking at what society in its' infinite wisdom wants me to do. I've observed the submission of wonderful, strong individuals to its' demands. I've even tried to be what society wants, and discovered that society is not as altruistic an entity as you seem to think. What society - a society still mostly defined by men, for men - wants is not what's best for women, or even what's best for the species (as you yourself proved with your suggestion that men seek out attractive, weaker women to pass on those characteristics to their children). What society wants is to avoid real change. To return to a status quo from an older time that keeps power and strength in its' traditional repositories. A status quo that prevents women from truly taking their places as undisputed equals in the human race - valued not for their female-ness, but for their capability, their gifts, talents and capacity for thought, for their emotions, their ideas and their uniqueness as humans.
I'm not so delusional to think that I, on my own, can change the way the world thinks. Nonetheless, it is my duty - to myself, to my friends, male and female, to my mother, grandmother, to my grandfather, great-grandfather and great-great-grandfather, who ensured their daughters had educations just as good as their sons', to my future husband and to my daughters and sons - to speak up where I see lip-service and hypocrisy that pretends to liberate women, whilst quietly ensuring they cannot be their full selves.
Our species is best served by using the full and diverse complement of abilities and talents we are miraculously born with. Not by suppressing or minimising the gifts of one half of the race because they might make the other half uncomfortable, or challenge an outdated status quo. My purpose for existence is not actually to "becom(e) a good partner and live a happy life with a man" - my purpose, my job, is to live my life to its' fullest. To exploit every last particle of the gifts and abilities I was born with. To be the best 'me' I can be. There'll never be another, and I only get one chance. If that means sticking my middle finger up to a society that demands I suppress the best of me, so be it.
I might be more outspoken about it than most here, but I can guarantee you that almost every woman in this forum has at one point or other wondered "What's so wrong with being me!?". The answer is " absolutely nothing", but the fact that we're still asking that tells me a hell of a lot about the state of our world, and the future in store unless the way our society thinks undergoes a fairly massive shift.
Don't worry - you'll still find your socially-acceptable, not-too-clever, needs-you-to-provide, conventionally-pretty wife. The sort of shift I'm talking about takes time, and not every woman is prepared to face the slings and arrows society (or you, as society's representative, in this case) throws, and has always thrown at someone, particularly a woman, who dares to break the mold and does not put up the pretence of conformity. Call me what you like, tell me my future is dark and meaningless because I'm "not what men go for" - I really don't care. What you mean is that I make you uncomfortable, that I challenge your assumptions, and that I'm not what the average man - the men like you - goes for. I already knew that, and strangely enough, I'm not losing sleep over it. I doubt many of the other strong women here are either.
Edited for typos and spelling.0 -
The idea that together we can accomplish more than being separate is a good thing. And yes, the desirable physical characteristics should be there, along with a very good attitude. A partner who complements us well is the ideal.- There is no such thing as a person so perfect and independent that they cannot benefit from someone else: a partner who complements us is the ideal.
The best pianist in the world would hugely benefit from meeting the best vocalist in the world. They've all achieve perfection on their own, yet together they are even better than on their own. Compliment is the keyword.
I can't think of a single woman who would disagree with either of these statements. The point is that we want to be equal partners, not automatically assumed to be the weaker. That we bring just as much to the partnership as a man does, in whatever way (I'm not really talking about finances and practical things - those will always be variable, but more about the intangible essentials - personality, courage, intellect and integrity), and that we bring the most we can, offer the greatest complementariness, and in a way, the greatest compliment, when we are fully free to be our best selves, rather than suppressing part of who we are in order not to be seen as a threat or 'intimidating'.0 -
What I'm trying to say is this. I'm sure you make your parents proud because you are self sufficient child. However, you're not what men go for. In my opinion, you've evolved yourself right out of the human race. Not to sound mean or anything, but that's how I genuinely feel.
She's definitely evolved her way right out of the interest of cast members of Jersey Shore, and also fans of World Wide Wrestling. I think that leaves plenty of intelligent, self-confident men that would appreciate a strong, intelligent woman like castadiva.
--P0 -
What I'm trying to say is this. I'm sure you make your parents proud because you are self sufficient child. However, you're not what men go for. In my opinion, you've evolved yourself right out of the human race. Not to sound mean or anything, but that's how I genuinely feel.
She's definitely evolved her way right out of the interest of cast members of Jersey Shore, and also fans of World Wide Wrestling. I think that leaves plenty of intelligent, self-confident men that would appreciate a strong, intelligent woman like castadiva.
--P
Thank you, Prahasaurus :flowerforyou:0 -
The idea that together we can accomplish more than being separate is a good thing. And yes, the desirable physical characteristics should be there, along with a very good attitude. A partner who complements us well is the ideal.- There is no such thing as a person so perfect and independent that they cannot benefit from someone else: a partner who complements us is the ideal.
The best pianist in the world would hugely benefit from meeting the best vocalist in the world. They've all achieve perfection on their own, yet together they are even better than on their own. Compliment is the keyword.
I can't think of a single woman who would disagree with either of these statements. The point is that we want to be equal partners, not automatically assumed to be the weaker. That we bring just as much to the partnership as a man does, in whatever way (I'm not really talking about finances and practical things - those will always be variable, but more about the intangible essentials - personality, courage, intellect and integrity), and that we bring the most we can, offer the greatest complementariness, and in a way, the greatest compliment, when we are fully free to be our best selves, rather than suppressing part of who we are in order not to be seen as a threat or 'intimidating'.
Didn't want to go back and quote everything you wrote Casta so I justs picked 1 statement.
I am a strong independent female. I moved out of my parents home at 19 and had a nursing career before I graduated high school. I was the only working partner in both of my past relationships. I have a career, children and a life. I also have never had this problem finding a male partner. I have never had a guy tell me I intimidate him. I think it has a lot to do with my attitude though. I'm fun lol. I go out with a high population of males. I try to be friendly.
Now what flim said is true I want someone to blend with a partner. Sometimes that involves pulling back some of my extremly dominate stlye tendencies. Since I have an alpha type personality I look for alpha style men.But I know I cant always be right or always expect things to go the way I want to , there has to be some give and take. I've noticed with some independent women (my sister for example) they feel they have to always be in control and always be the dominate personality. Its almost as if she is afriad that if someone else has input or a different opinion it might diminish hers. I'm not comparing you to her at all. Just saying she is at the far end of the spectrum. When she asks why she is single you have to restrain the impule to tell her to tone it down a little.
Also maybe the guys in your area are a bunch of blind wimps. Come to Miami I'll introduce you around lol0 -
Since I have an alpha type personality I look for alpha style men. But I know I cant always be right or always expect things to go the way I want to , there has to be some give and take. I've noticed with some independent women (my sister for example) they feel they have to always be in control and always be the dominate personality. Its almost as if she is afraid that if someone else has input or a different opinion it might diminish hers.
I've seen this a lot... and the more controlling a woman is, it seems like the more likely she is to end up with a beta-type guy. I think this is why so many high ranking military women are single. My one friend is extremely controlling and her hubby who adores her is very laid back (too much so for me) and rarely expresses an opinion.
I guess I was under the impression you aren’t typically going to end up with two alphas. One partner is going to bring the alpha, masculine “git-r-done NOW” energy to the relationship wheras the other will bring the beta, feminine, softer, emotional, receptive energy to the relationship.0 -
The idea that together we can accomplish more than being separate is a good thing. And yes, the desirable physical characteristics should be there, along with a very good attitude. A partner who complements us well is the ideal.- There is no such thing as a person so perfect and independent that they cannot benefit from someone else: a partner who complements us is the ideal.
The best pianist in the world would hugely benefit from meeting the best vocalist in the world. They've all achieve perfection on their own, yet together they are even better than on their own. Compliment is the keyword.
I can't think of a single woman who would disagree with either of these statements. The point is that we want to be equal partners, not automatically assumed to be the weaker. That we bring just as much to the partnership as a man does, in whatever way (I'm not really talking about finances and practical things - those will always be variable, but more about the intangible essentials - personality, courage, intellect and integrity), and that we bring the most we can, offer the greatest complementariness, and in a way, the greatest compliment, when we are fully free to be our best selves, rather than suppressing part of who we are in order not to be seen as a threat or 'intimidating'.
Didn't want to go back and quote everything you wrote Casta so I justs picked 1 statement.
I am a strong independent female. I moved out of my parents home at 19 and had a nursing career before I graduated high school. I was the only working partner in both of my past relationships. I have a career, children and a life. I also have never had this problem finding a male partner. I have never had a guy tell me I intimidate him. I think it has a lot to do with my attitude though. I'm fun lol. I go out with a high population of males. I try to be friendly.
Now what flim said is true I want someone to blend with a partner. Sometimes that involves pulling back some of my extremly dominate stlye tendencies. Since I have an alpha type personality I look for alpha style men.But I know I cant always be right or always expect things to go the way I want to , there has to be some give and take. I've noticed with some independent women (my sister for example) they feel they have to always be in control and always be the dominate personality. Its almost as if she is afriad that if someone else has input or a different opinion it might diminish hers. I'm not comparing you to her at all. Just saying she is at the far end of the spectrum. When she asks why she is single you have to restrain the impule to tell her to tone it down a little.
Also maybe the guys in your area are a bunch of blind wimps. Come to Miami I'll introduce you around lol
Well.. they are mostly Brits, ergo. very reticent in emotional matters :laugh:
The thing is (and I can see that it may not come across in my posts), I have no need or desire to dominate or to always be right in any relationship - just a profound wish to be a real equal. That means give and take, and being complementary - my strengths and weaknesses should ideally complement my partner's, and his mine. We don't need to be exactly the same -heaven forbid! - but the important factor is that we should both be able to respect and support each other fully, in all our myriad human facets. To me, it means to live honestly - full disclosure between us about who I am, and who he is, rather than adopting the personas we are 'supposed' to have.
What I'm not willing to do is to compromise myself - who I am fundamentally - in order to placate someone too insecure and convention-bound to cope with, or appreciate me, for my full self, with all my quirks, abilities and failings, rather than as some construct of what society says I 'should' be. To the man who can handle that, I'm absolutely ready to extend the same courtesy, appreciation and support to jointly live a fairly unconventional, in the true meaning of that word, life. Unfortunately, I do think that women are pressured in this regard rather more than men, even now. Heck, you need only look to these forums to see that. Hence my passionate defence (or offense?). If we do not stand up for ourselves, and our right to express that self fully, (without harming anyone else in the process), who will, and how can we expect that right to be acknowledged?0 -
Damn! I'm from London too! Guess that makes me a wimp.Also maybe the guys in your area are a bunch of blind wimps. Come to Miami I'll introduce you around lol
:sad: (there ya' go, crying again!)
I think this is a bit extreme. I don't care about this "status quo from an older time" and most men don't really care about this either in my experience. I'm sure some men do but that would hardly make it a rule, a "masterplan".What society - a society still mostly defined by men, for men - wants is not what's best for women, or even what's best for the species.
To return to a status quo from an older time that keeps power and strength in its' traditional repositories.
A status quo that prevents women from truly taking their places as undisputed equals in the human race - valued not for their female-ness, but for their capability, their gifts, talents and capacity for thought, for their emotions, their ideas and their uniqueness as humans.
The facts are that women, homosexual, black people have now more rights than before - which makes absolutely no sense if the society wanted to hold on to the previous distribution of power ("heterosexual white male"). Clearly our society is evolving in this direction.
Sure, when the laws were voted, not everyone woke up the next morning suddenly accepting homosexuals, thinking black people should share their daily lives and women should now hold the highest positions of power. So I get there is a fight to be fought.
But mostly, you seem to have started a fight against society as a whole, by thinking slow to change = rejection.
I think you might not live to see the mentalities to change so much that black people, homosexuals, women are considered as pure equals (completely indistinct from a white heterosexual man).
However we've lived to see a black-ish american president, a woman prime minister in the UK - unthinkable 100 years ago.
Yes. But I really think you just haven't met the right men - and I'm really wondering about your social circles if the people you know make you feel this way.The point is that we want to be equal partners, not automatically assumed to be the weaker. That we bring just as much to the partnership as a man does, in whatever way (I'm not really talking about finances and practical things - those will always be variable, but more about the intangible essentials - personality, courage, intellect and integrity), and that we bring the most we can, offer the greatest complementariness, and in a way, the greatest compliment, when we are fully free to be our best selves, rather than suppressing part of who we are in order not to be seen as a threat or 'intimidating'.
Maybe in your profession (opera) the people are more traditional (that's how I would assume opera anyway, without any prior knowledge of it). I know in my circles, people have never considered women as a "weaker" partner and want women who shine - at least in some aspects.
To be honest, I hardly think a "strong" woman who was: more intelligent, richer, more beautiful, more stable and more fun than me would be interested in me.
But then again, if she was interested in me, then she saw something in me that she felt was great ("Oh, he is X - I really like that") so then is she "strong"... or rather "stronger" than me? if she tells me she likes me because of X, I've got no reason to feel intimidated, I'd rather think: "oh great! She is a great woman and she likes me. Why complain!?"
I believe everyone has at least some qualities, something in what they excel, so to me everyone is "strong". It's more a matter of finding someone with who your strengths are compatible, someone who can handle (most of) you - someone who is a good complement to you.0
