What I See As The Romantic Ideal honoring the differences between men and women
Replying to this video clip:
(Link)
I wrote:
How I feel about it, as a masculine man:
This tells me that the woman hasn't yet (and might never) take full responsibility for her head-space, attitude, and behaviors.
So they need a man who will be a father, to wield discipline over her.
But what I find attractive and functionally-best in a partner is a woman who has matured to the point where she can reliably self-discipline.
Even more importantly,
it's crucial that she doesn't really have some adolescent or chaotic storm of emotional dysregulation.
If she has such problems, then it will become *my problem*.
Some women think it should be like this.
They think it's what a man is supposed to do for a woman.
But I don't agree.
The man that I am
should really never accept responsibility (especially not a life-long social contract) for disarming a woman's occasionally-weaponized personality.
When I hear a woman admit to needing, seeking, and/or feeling entitled to such a relationship,
that is worse than a red flag.
I mean no offense.
I'm not judging anyone here.
I'm just saying what the facts are.
Fact is:
Everyone is unique.
Some men actually welcome that dynamic.
But I find it exhausting;
especially whenever I fail to prevent or correct her behaviors.
Because then the consequences immediately become some form of abuse.
She can't help it.
I sometimes fail to prevent or correct it.
And somehow that's MY fault.
--
No thanks.
There isn't anything a woman can look like, smell like, sound like, provide, be, or DO ...
that can fully compensate in trade for that dysfunction.
--
I don't mind taking the lead in the relationship.
I've seen very-left-ist couples aim for complete power-equality and social-dynamic-homogeneity.
In principal, I love the idea of that.
But it's unrealistic.
It causes predictable problems, as it defies our biologically wired psychologies.
So then I always say "let's seek balance";
where we aren't ironically dampening the amazing chemistry between the masculine male and the feminine woman.
The man really does need to lead.
But there are some things a woman must provide/do/be for herself.
In the past, when I've accepted responsibility for "handling" a woman's need for an external force of discipline or emotional and behavioral reset, ... so that she doesn't become either passively or actively abusive, ...
I have always regretted it.
It's not cute.
It's not attractive.
It's a voluntary disability that just ends up making both our lives harder; even when I'm good at managing it.
For those women, I always say:
Own your self.
Finish growing up.
Call me when you get there
In reply, a woman whom I admire wrote:
My answers to those questions and points:
Fair questions.
Fair points.
This is why I said
"The man that I am ...",
to start with.
This sets the context in which everything else is said.
It's also why I added "I don't mind taking the lead in the (hypothetical) relationship."
It's also why I clarified "Some men actually welcome
*that (other) dynamic
[*exaggeratedly imbalanced power that comes with needing to dominate an irresponsible, abusive, and immature woman]
But I find it exhausting"
It holds no appeal, for me.
It's also why I further clarified
"I've seen very-left-ist couples aim for complete power-equality and social-dynamic-homogeneity. "
Notice I said:
"In principal, I love the idea of that. "
In fact, I've attempted it; with every woman I've LTR'd with.
But then their biology takes over
and I'm simply left with two choices:
take the lead
or yield the lead.
Whenever I yielded the lead, they lost respect for me.
From there, they felt and behaved even worse.
When I took the lead, they bucked against it;
but only because they weren't equipped for a real relationship.
They said they wanted and needed total equality; but they really didn't.
Maybe some women out there really does.
But I've never seen it work; not for anyone.
Even if someone out there has made that work, ...
I just don't think it works ~as well as~ a gently non-homogenous social dynamic;
one that honors the differences between men and women;
-a consideration that (as you pointed out) is only relevant when each person is well-enough equipped for that dynamic.
Granted, I didn't mention anything about couples who flip the script where the woman is dominant
(~as needed~; either greatly or gently) in a relationship with an ... under-equipped man.
But this is why I added
"everyone is unique"
and
"let's seek balance".
But you're right.
Most men make terrible leaders;
in general, and in personal relationships.
And that's a shame, because they'll never be able to experience and maintain their part of the ideal Yin/Yang
(imho, the best possible romantic dynamic; based on human biological wiring; what some might call "spiritual energy");
which I was writing about.
--
I recognize that most men aren't capable of it.
Neither are most women.
So then their "ideal" relationship-dynamic is a whole other discussion.
It's like someone talking about who should lead when slow-dancing.
And then someone pointing out "What about if the man has to walk on crutches? Or is confined to a wheelchair?".
Valid questions.
But that doesn't invalidate the points made about:
men who are capable of a specific form of dance;
so capable that they'll never step on her toes (or worse).
It also has nothing to do with single people.
It's also a problem avoided in "Relationship Anarchy";
which I think is probably the most practical alterative,
in a society where hardly-any men and women are equipped to maintain ANY paradigm.
R.A. is probably what I'll have to find, in a society where so few women can be (or even want be) 1st-officer on a ship captained by a man.
-Especially since that normally requires that the man makes a lot of money;
which (as of yet) I do not.
In R.A., all such concerns become moot.
From there, their dynamic either flows and co-mingles naturally and beautifully ... as balance between them just naturally forms ...
or doesn't.
But then again, ironically, most people aren't mature enough for that either.
So then their "ideal" is something else;
something less peaceful, less stable, and less fulfilling;
being all that they're capable of.
In any event,
my entire point is "I need/want (someone) to build & achieve dreams with, not to power struggle with."
And yet,
as I said originally,
there are some things that every woman really needs to provide/do/be for her own self; even in a relationship.
This is true for men too.
To help put this into perspective,
here is a very intelligent explanation of the same set of ideas;
- except that she (Teal Swan) actually goes a bit further than I do about the ideal relationship.
I agree with the gist of what she's saying here.
I just think she goes a bit too far.
I plan to set aside time to further reflect on the things we don't (or, don't seem to) agree about.
I'll be honest.
I cringe, every time I hear here use any form of the word "own".
I also think men should have a few less responsibilities, in that equation.
I honestly can't imagine any woman making that much sacrifice (time, energy, attentiveness, responsibilities, etc)
worth his while.
But if the man is making less than that much sacrifice?
Sure. "She" could make that worth his while.
But Teal Swan's full list and full amount of what the man is supposed to be doing?
Even just hearing her list all those things
was exhausting.
More importantly,
I've never even seen a woman who could repay fully in some form.
No woman is THAT pretty,
No woman is that helpful.
No woman is that flattering.
No women can blow hard enough to replace what he's spending.
But I suppose that's a different discussion.
Perhaps I might reach 100% agreement later?
Perhaps not.
In any event, she and I agree with the gist of what I originally said/meant.
These differences between a man and a woman are very real
and should be honored.
She just explains that differently.
Again, .
only some of it would apply to R.A..
But it does apply to couples attempting to merge their life into
one whole and durable structure.
Comments
Post a Comment