Why Do Men Keep Falling for Women's Manipulative Shaming Tactics?

[dasein]

I don't see the parallel. I was not questioning his masculinity at all there. The phrase "real man" is designed to question a man's masculinity if he does not do certain things.

 

They both question the quality of the man whether talking about something she wants him to do or possessing an attitude she approves or disapproves of. "Real man" can also be descriptive of a masculine state, but in the way OP cites it, no, it's general quality or aptitude of the man. "Bitter" also translates into low quality man. "Real man" = high quality man; "bitter" = low quality man. See the parallel now?

 

Base female manipulation phrases are usually easily spotted in their wording, which is indefinite and imprecise. What does "real man" even mean? I've rarely if ever heard men use the phrase, simply preferring "man." There is certainly no parallel "real women" in common usage. What does "bitter" even mean? It's a taste sensation. Men hardly use the term otherwise until they learn it from women or femculture. It's interesting that you used the term three times in one relatively short sentence. It's like you stuck your tongue on OP three times and drew back with a scowl.

 

"Bitter" is actually the female equivalent of a man calling a woman a "bitch" in terms of manipulation. She doesn't think or act as he wants... "bitch." He doesn't think or act as she wants... "bitter." See how good natured and tolerant men are about being called "bitch" over and over here? Isn't it amazing that we put up with it so much longer than a woman would tolerate the equivalent? We men are some incredibly noble creatures, especially the involuntarily celibate among us.

 

In my next post I will reveal the secret of successfully seducing women using their manipulation techniques against them. Might take awhile, busy day.

[betterdeal]

The topic that Im raising in this thread is not about women wanting to be treated this or that way, but about women using manipulative shaming tactics to get treated this or that way.

 

Its the use of psychological manipulation that Im focusing on.

 

I agree with you that people do use asinine phrases such as "real men X Y Z" and "grow a pair" (as though an extra pair of testicles will solve your problems) and women are often quite two-faced about this. It does cause harm, especially for men who are feeling pretty down on their luck at the time. Being goaded and told you're not adequately male can sting. It's no coincidence that my ex applied these double standards relentlessly and me attempting suicide. I know how harmful it can be, trust me.

 

But there are flaws in your argument. First, it's not just women who use this form of emotional abuse. Second, I strongly suspect the etymology of the "real men" crap started with men, not women. Third, most people, men and women, are inconsistent in how they treat others and how they expect to be treated, so its not just a thing women do.

 

So, really, in my opinion it's a matter of lack of manners on behalf of the person making the attacks, be they men or women. As for what to do about it, as I suggested before, creating a fog rather than fighting back is probably more effective a response, for example:

 

Attack: A real man fawns over my every whim!

 

Parry 1: So get yourself a real man!

or

Parry 2: So I'm an imaginary man!

[zengirl]

They both question the quality of the man whether talking about something she wants him to do or possessing an attitude she approves or disapproves of. "Real man" can also be descriptive of a masculine state, but in the way OP cites it, no, it's general quality or aptitude of the man. "Bitter" also translates into low quality man. "Real man" = high quality man; "bitter" = low quality man. See the parallel now?

 

Well, I totally think it's fine to suggest people are high or low quality, regardless of gender, if it's based upon their choices and actions. That doesn't threaten or call into question their actual identity. I do think bitter people (men and women!) are leading low quality lives, since they're unhappy, and I think perpetually unhappy people who reinforce their own unhappiness are, yes, low quality people, or at least people I don't want in my life! I pity them.

 

As to what bitter means; here are all the definitions. 3-5 fit what I was speaking of. Embittered is perhaps a better word, but I was trying not to be too fancy.

 

bit·ter   [bit-er] Show IPA adjective, -er, -est, noun, verb, adverb

adjective

1. having a harsh, disagreeably acrid taste, like that of aspirin, quinine, wormwood, or aloes.

2. producing one of the four basic taste sensations; not sour, sweet, or salt.

3. hard to bear; grievous; distressful: a bitter sorrow.

4. causing pain; piercing; stinging: a bitter chill.

5. characterized by intense antagonism or hostility: bitter hatred.

 

"Bitter" is actually the female equivalent of a man calling a woman a "bitch" in terms of manipulation. She doesn't think or act as he wants... "bitch." He doesn't think or act as she wants... "bitter." See how good natured and tolerant men are about being called "bitch" over and over here? Isn't it amazing that we put up with it so much longer than a woman would tolerate the equivalent? We men are some incredibly noble creatures, especially the involuntarily celibate among us.

 

Bitter also has no gender discrimination, as I said. I could call a man or woman bitter (and have) with equal ease. Whereas "bitch" has a distinct gender connotation, and when you call a man a "bitch" that gender connotation is still at play.

[ThsAmericanLife]

In my next post I will reveal the secret of successfully seducing women using their manipulation techniques against them. Might take awhile, busy day.

 

This reminds me... I dated a guy briefly who had a copy of 'The Professional Bachelor Dating Guide - How to Exploit her Inner Psycho' on a side table in his living room.

 

I thought it was hilarious when he tried his moves on me. Although, I suppose that stuff is 'fun' for people who enjoy drama.

 

alot easier to just stop responding to emails/calls etc... They go away eventually.

[musemaj11]

You don't have to either. If some ladies say they feel all warm and fuzzy when you pay for them (as an example), then they aren't for you. Really simple. Seek out women who want a partner... The ones who want to be taken care of just aren't your style.

Seeking such a sophisticated young woman in her 20s (my age) is harder than finding Osama bin Laden.

 

That said, you will have to deal with the other characteristics of independent, assertive women that maybe you haven't squared with either. Perhaps that is the source of your cognitive dissonance?? You want the girly-girl types who love and nurture you and fold like butter at your command, but you don't want to comply with the macho stuff those kind of girls like? Yea, I can see how that would be a recipe for frustration.

Actually Im very attracted to assertive women. They make me feel respect toward them.

 

If it's a check-list then I only score half-marks, yet I'm currently dating someone. On our first date I made her find her own chair from the other side of the bar. Turns out she's capable of doing that all by herself, and she can open doors. Amazing!

Oh my god! You are such a jerk!

 

Exactly.

 

And in addition, it's not like women aren't going through any lengths either to help please their man.

 

I, like most guys, like girls who:

smell great

in shape (a nice pair of legs for me:love:)

passionate about something

beautiful smile

sexy

smart

charming

take care of their man sexually

 

Now, funny enough I don't see most women complaining about these. Most are out being these things. Maybe some of us guys can take a lesson and start being the things women love instead of complaining about it.

And men dont do all those things as well?

 

Here's the mistake men make.

 

They never make "real women do..." statements.

Thats because the same exact tactics dont work as well on women.

 

Unlike men, women arent prideful in nature. In fact, generally (not all) women actually take pride in being perceived as the weaker sex because they realize that such perception in reality proves to be to their advantage. It grants them a lot of convenience in life often at the expense of men.

[oaks]

Oh my god! You are such a jerk!

 

I know. I'm terrible.

[Untouchable_Fire]

"Real men treat women special."

"Real men act like a gentleman."

"Real men do this" and "real men do that" are very common manipulative tactics that women often use in order to get men do what they want them to do. They are simple yet very powerful and effective tactics that even men themselves have learned to accept and even use them to shame other men.

Personally I would never have recognized the existence of these manipulative shaming tactics that are routinely used by women had I not read the book "The Manipulated Man" two years ago.

But it saddens me to see that the majority of men are still ignorant of the fact and gleefully strive to meet the psychological deceptions that women constantly throw at them.

I wonder what can be done to enlighten men around the world to recognize that women are exploiting their prideful nature in order to do their dirty works?

 

Why don't I ever hear someone say "real women do X, Y, Z"

 

I'm Ok with complying with some rigid as hell gender standards... but not if it isn't applied in a fair way.

 

I really can't even think of 1 thing women are supposed to do?

[Metis]

Why don't I ever hear someone say "real women do X, Y, Z"

 

I'm Ok with complying with some rigid as hell gender standards... but not if it isn't applied in a fair way.

 

I really can't even think of 1 thing women are supposed to do?

 

I can think of a few.

[ThsAmericanLife]

Seeking such a sophisticated young woman in her 20s (my age) is harder than finding Osama bin Laden.

 

Do you mind if I ask what country or part of the country you live in? Geographic differences can be huge in terms of expectations. You may have to move to a more liberal part of the world/country.

 

Unlike men, women arent prideful in nature. In fact, generally (not all) women actually take pride in being perceived as the weaker sex because they realize that such perception in reality proves to be to their advantage. It grants them a lot of convenience in life often at the expense of men.

 

Women ARE conditioned to be somewhat more passive-aggressive. We aren't 'allowed' to be aggressive and have alot of social stigmas about even being assertive. So, yes, I suppose women could be percieved as being manipulative only because (in general) it takes a fair amount of courage for a woman to speak her mind without being considered a 'bitch'. (see my earlier post about being considered evil, domineering and emasculating if we do our share in a relationship).

 

I'm not sure about the convenience part. There have been alot of studies that show that women tend to turn their frustrations inward... leading to depression and eating disorders. Men turn their frustrations outward... leading to the perception of anger management issues, drug/alcohol addiction... and for some, violence.

 

I personally believe this is more social conditioning than biological. I'd argue that there are lots of ways to be an a-hole. Being overly aggressive or passive-aggressive are both unhealthy behaviors.

[Taramere]

The topic that Im raising in this thread is not about women wanting to be treated this or that way, but about women using manipulative shaming tactics to get treated this or that way.

 

Its the use of psychological manipulation that Im focusing on.

 

You mean like when I go into victim mode....standing beside a chair, pointing to its back and crying? "Me no move it. Why no Real Men to help?"

 

Or, alternatively, going into dominatrix mode so that he has to up his "I'm the Man" game?

 

"I could tell you were the jittery, nervous type, but don't worry...I'll be pulling out your seat at the restaurant in order to deal with any unexpected cobras. I've got a powerful mongoose that's more than a match for any snake. Don't you dare even think about taking that wallet out, wee man. Lady Galahad's here to take care of all that. All I ask is that you sit there looking pretty and sparkling like the jewel you are. Now then. Tell me about your day. Anything exciting happening on the soap opera front? What do you mean some woman called you bitter. That's completely unacceptable language. What an abusive f*cking bitch. Don't you worry though, wee man. I'll sort her out..."

[zengirl]

Why don't I ever hear someone say "real women do X, Y, Z"

 

I'm Ok with complying with some rigid as hell gender standards... but not if it isn't applied in a fair way.

 

I really can't even think of 1 thing women are supposed to do?

 

If you open your ears, you probably do. Re: the word "ladylike" I went on and on about above. And women have generally had FEWER options than men historically and only within a few generations had the same opportunities open to them that men have, in terms of gender expectations.

 

I'm all for a true and illuminating look at gender expectations (which come from both genders and which both genders direct at each gender) for true issues, like women's limited role in the military/the unfairness of the male draft or the fact that people who blur the lines of gender identity, re: MrLonelyOne or a Kurt Hummell (gay or not---I'm speaking more toward's the interests and appearance than the sexuality) are often ostracized.

 

Or the fact that women are not taught to be assertive as men are, or that men are not taught to embrace their feelings and cry as women can. Or many actual social issues.

 

Who pays for dinner or pulls out a chair simply does not have those kind of stakes. Nor is it usually women manipulating men into doing those things, but rather something certain MEN do and think all men should do and that perhaps women like, generally based on the comparison and experience of meeting and knowing those men who truly like doing those things. And again, these are all SOME. A poster already posted she's been told she's unfeminine for not accepting chivalrous gestures. That certainly happens as well.

 

Do you mind if I ask what country or part of the country you live in? Geographic differences can be huge in terms of expectations. You may have to move to a more liberal part of the world/country.

 

 

 

Women ARE conditioned to be somewhat more passive-aggressive. We aren't 'allowed' to be aggressive and have alot of social stigmas about even being assertive. So, yes, I suppose women could be percieved as being manipulative only because (in general) it takes a fair amount of courage for a woman to speak her mind without being considered a 'bitch'. (see my earlier post about being considered evil, domineering and emasculating if we do our share in a relationship).

 

I'm not sure about the convenience part. There have been alot of studies that show that women tend to turn their frustrations inward... leading to depression and eating disorders. Men turn their frustrations outward... leading to the perception of anger management issues, drug/alcohol addiction... and for some, violence.

 

I personally believe this is more social conditioning than biological. I'd argue that there are lots of ways to be an a-hole. Being overly aggressive or passive-aggressive are both unhealthy behaviors.

[GorillaTheater]

"I could tell you were the jittery, nervous type, but don't worry...I'll be pulling out your seat at the restaurant in order to deal with any unexpected cobras. I've got a powerful mongoose that's more than a match for any snake. Don't you dare even think about taking that wallet out, wee man. Lady Galahad's here to take care of all that. All I ask is that you sit there looking pretty and sparkling like the jewel you are. Now then. Tell me about your day. Anything exciting happening on the soap opera front? What do you mean some woman called you bitter. That's completely unacceptable language. What an abusive f*cking bitch. Don't you worry though, wee man. I'll sort her out..."

 

You'll beat her up AND pay for dinner?? I'm in. Should I wear something, you know, special?

[Taramere]

You'll beat her up AND pay for dinner?? I'm in. Should I wear something, you know, special?

 

I'm low maintenance....so you can wear anything you like, so long as it's a boob tube. Fitting snugly around the dick.

[GorillaTheater]

I'm low maintenance....so you can wear anything you like, so long as it's a boob tube. Fitting snugly around the dick.

 

It's my burden to be nothing but a sexual object.

 

Okay.

[Taramere]

It's my burden to be nothing but a sexual object.

 

Okay.

 

No pressure honey, no strings. You're a free consenting adult and it's entirely your choice to get that frigging sequinned boob tube onto your dick right this minute and do exactly what the hell I tell you."

 

Woah! This feels great. I am the pink fist of empowerment.

[dasein]

I don't want this to be a tome, as short and sweet as possible. It's still going to be long. This is not some earthshattering revelation, very basic, nor is it a PUA technique, though it does explain the reasoning behind some PUA techniques. This is a generalization, replies of "I'm not like that" are irrelevant. I am posting this to try to help men who are frustrated in their dealings with women and want to even the playing field somewhat. Not really posting it for female critique, so not interested in lots of back and forth, he said she said on it.

 

In deciding whether to have sex, men have one "switch," women have two. The first switch for each gender is the same, raw physical attraction. It is a powerful switch. Once that switch is flipped, a man "would" and likely "will" have sex given the opportunity. It explains why men form imaginary relationships with women they don't even know, mooning on some girl, and women are less prone to this. Women may moon on celebrities, but they don't navigate these false relationships in the ways many men do "there's this girl in class, I hang around waiting for her to turn up" Remember that we all share masculine and feminine responses to an extent. The following only works once the first attraction switch is flipped. And it's also important to note that you don't have to meet all her physical criteria to get the first switch flipped only enough of them. This isn't "perfect man" just "man I could possibly conceive of sexually."

 

Both sexes are subject to a phenomenon called "limerence" (read up on it, it's potent stuff). This is briefly defined as the uncertainty that feelings of attraction will be returned. Men are used to this feeling, it's the standard male state for average men when approaching and dealing with women. For women, the limerence response takes some manipulation to achieve, especially by a man who expresses some level of attraction and compliance in the act of approaching (he starts off at a disadvantage for limerence purposes, she is relatively sure he is attracted), but by utilizing their own manipulative conditioning can be achieved very quickly.

 

The second switch that men don't possess is where the magic happens. This is where the female sizes up the potential "tool worthiness" of the man. She would have sex with the man who has flipped the first switch, but she WILL only have sex with a subset of those (provided she isn't compulsively promiscuous due to some mental disorder). Every early interaction with a new woman is like being a tool on a rack in a store among other tools. She will buy the best tool. She will immediately be sizing up a man's toolworthiness (not just his "tool," that's part of the first switch... get your mind out of the gutter).

 

Toolworthiness is composed of two indices, social value and rarity. Social value is your perceived social worth and comprises a very broad group of traits, everything from humor to strength to acceptance by other females, and much more. This post isn't about social value, so we will stop here on that.

 

"Rarity" is the domain of both "manipulation response" and limerence. Many women love to shop. They respond to value and temporality, "Sale ends soon! Limited time offer!" In early interactions, the woman will shift into shopper mode, she will begin to test the man conversationally, intellectually, "laundry list." They will defend this as merely information seeking, but it is really the beginning of manipulation, "how compliant is he?" Too compliant is bad, must be inferior goods, not compliant enough is bad too, they express this as "I hate arrogant men." (men who are completely intractable who aren't going to do anything I want them to do). If someone offered to sell you Excalibur for $1 at a yard sale, you won't buy it. If OTOH, you have to quest for it, the value multiplies. If you have to fly to Venus to get it, though, no thanks. The quizzing, manipulation process is the root of their undoing as far as being seducible, because they open the door to their emotions in the process, and emotion land is where the limerence response is triggered and accelerated. In short, they are more focused on a manipulative agenda than they should be (We have been out twice, is he the one?)

 

Getting a woman out of rational land and into emotional response land is easy, most of them live there all the time, only shifting to rational land when put "on guard" by a man. Get a woman talking about herself, her passions, her feelings, her work, one way or the other, and she will start feeling heightened emotional response (watch women talking to gay men for the difference between guarded with a man and not). She will rationally think of you as exciting and interesting, witty and smart, when in actuality you have merely pressed emotional buttons. Don't ask her how to bake a cake if she's a baker, get her talking about her favorite cake and why.

 

Start out focusing on positive emotions, once you get good at it, negative is just as good if not moreso (guys who show scary movies to their dates get laid more). It is important to distinguish this from attempting to "please" the woman, you are pressing buttons, not seeking any kind of acceptance. You are absolutely not trying to impress her, or tell her anything, merely heightening the "touchy feeliness" in the air. I have several stock stories I use to get the ball rolling. They are loaded with emotional button pushing and are true, never made up. The way I pick them among all the possible stories I could tell is if a strange woman tells me, "I love you," after hearing one of the stories, it's a keeper. (Sue me, people repeat stories their whole lives, it's neither dishonest nor creepy)

 

She still thinks she is sizing you up, beginning the process of manipulation, when in actuality, she is becoming artificially emotionally involved with a stranger and leaving herself open to manipulation. You start out very compliant, and here's where the special sauce comes in.

 

The limerence response is like a light switch being turned on and off repeatedly. "Butterflies." "Rollercoaster." "Up and down." Once you are in emotion/passion land, start flipping that switch on and off. PUAs do things like "we have got to get married!!" then a minute later, "Oh oh, we are getting divorced now!" That is a blunt instrument example. Another is the movie "The Tao of Steve" where a fat guy gets lots of action by "creating interest and then withdrawing." Another example is "negging," where a guy tosses out extremely subtle insults, "You have lovely nails, did you do them yourself?" or "Your hair is beautiful, who is your colorist?" Flipping the switch on and off, but very easy to spot and again, blunt instrument. Even so, most women who claim they are immune to such aren't in reality. These techniques are like training wheels. What you want eventually is to do this naturally in the legitimate process of sizing up whether a woman is worth YOUR time.

 

Getting the limerence switch flipping back and forth without crass techniques takes practice. Blunt disagreement, or showing overt signs of noncompliance with her manipulation agenda, brings her back into rational land, you don't want her there.So flipping the switch back and forth is done on an emotional or temporal level. Examples of doing this are another whole post, suffice it to say you are letting her know that you haven't bought into her emotionally and you are not automatically accepting of her. ("I'm not really interested in talking about that, it's a personal thing" and then act like you might disengage entirely) Also that your attention towards here may terminate in an instant, and that she has no control over that. I have found that after 3-4 limerence switch flipping cycles, advance and retreat, her second switch will flip and she will be ready for sex. Whether you choose to do it right there or later, is another matter. If it's a woman I haven't decided about yet, I will usually stop at making out in a very public place that she initiates, or sometimes will move ahead to sex. Depends on how I'm feeling. I have never used this merely to notch bedposts, and actually have sex with only a small portion of the women I manipulate in this way whom I have decided may make a GF.

 

Physical contact is a trigger to flip the limerence switch back, when she touches, respond for a few seconds, then withdraw, maybe even removing her hands in a playful, subtle way, making her reach out to touch you further. PUAs may say "hey hands off the merchandise." Blunt instrument. Training wheel that works too though. I have a blank stare that confuses them as to whether it's smoldering or disapproving when they start touching. You are doing it right when they literally reach out and grab you and say something like "Whaaaat, are you a touch me not?" You have passed this lesson when you can reliably get women to come in close and start either rubbing their breasts on you or running their hands up and down your sides, maybe all the way down to your ass. To distinguish, the crazies may start out touching you all over, bad sign move on. Normal women need some manipulation to get there.

 

Now if the female didn't have this conditioned manipulation response, this technique might still work, just not nearly as well. Allowing them to think they are in control of a rational information gathering and nascent manipulation/compliance process, when in actuality you are in control of an emotional limerence process sums it up in a nutshell. As more and more women become equivalent to men in their use of tools as discussed previously, this technique will likely fade in effectiveness, for now, it's the fastest, surest way for a man to take the reins and keep them that I have ever found. You keep it up throughout dating. NEVER EVER let any woman thinks she HAS you entirely, no matter if it's your wife, fiance, etc. Once you do, the end is only a matter of time.

 

And of course, this process can be interrupted by noise, flak, coming from her, the environment, or others, if such happens, just take a break and start back up when the distraction is gone. Dates are the best place to do this process due to fewer uncontrollable distracitions. It is not foolproof and certainly doesn't work every time, but has gotten some amazing responses for me out of very good looking women known only briefly.

 

And to preempt, if you think the above is dishonest or gamey, stop painting your face and calculating aspects of your appearance to manipulate someone sexually, then we can talk.

 

One last thing, crazies will flip out and implode under this process, may start crying or who knows, I had one start babbling in baby talk after 2 hours of this. It's an excellent screen to get rid of those.

 

Sound too mechanical and contrived, guys? Well hell, look what they do, why should you prepare any less? It's much simpler done than typed out.

[betterdeal]

So yeah, flirt, basically.

[Jynxx]

...

 

Read all of it... Seems like you've put in alot of effort reading or even studying from alot of different sources, but are terrible at connecting the dots. Can I have my 5 minutes back?

Edited November 7, 2011 by Jynxx

[A O]

^ ^ ^

 

Actually, its quite a fascinating post. Good effort dasein and really appreciate the historical perspective of your earlier post. That was even more informative.

 

Not a fan of game playing but the background, the environment that lends rise to it is interesting.

 

.

[Dusk1983]

Surprise, some people didn't understand dasein's post. What he's done is no less than elucidate the mechanisms of female sexual arousal and WHY these specific techniques stimulate them. In everyday reality, most of these behaviours are perfectly ordinary and familiar parts of succesfully managing the affections of a woman -'flirting', 'playing hard to get', 'treat em mean keep em keen' and other truisms all men understand in terms of application, without knowing the basis underpinning their effectiveness.

 

What was newer and more interesting to me was pushing the scope of explanation back a level, to draw on and link to the evolutionary imperative for a woman to ascertain the compliance/manipulation dynamic of a prospective mate, as she would any other tool to achieve a specific outcome. Seems to me he's nailed it. In many ways, the entire, apparently inscrutable female mate selection process can be described and understood under this concept of 'toolworthiness'. I genuinely thought that was one of the finest posts I've ever read on this site.

[ThsAmericanLife]

Surprise, some people didn't understand dasein's post. What he's done is no less than elucidate the mechanisms of female sexual arousal and WHY these specific techniques stimulate them. In everyday reality, most of these behaviours are perfectly ordinary and familiar parts of succesfully managing the affections of a woman -'flirting', 'playing hard to get', 'treat em mean keep em keen' and other truisms all men understand in terms of application, without knowing the basis underpinning their effectiveness.

 

What was newer and more interesting to me was pushing the scope of explanation back a level, to draw on and link to the evolutionary imperative for a woman to ascertain the compliance/manipulation dynamic of a prospective mate, as she would any other tool to achieve a specific outcome. Seems to me he's nailed it. In many ways, the entire, apparently inscrutable female mate selection process can be described and understood under this concept of 'toolworthiness'. I genuinely thought that was one of the finest posts I've ever read on this site.

 

Appears pretty obsessive...

 

looks about as fun as carving Mount Rushmore on a pinhead.

 

Some of you guys worry way too much...

 

the focus is totally on the wrong place. It's no wonder why some of you jump on every new gimmick, trick, and fad when it comes to dating.

[RiverRunning]

Threads like these perpetuate a senseless gender war. There -is- a problem with one partner expecting to be treated like a queen while a man falls at her feet...and she contributes very little or nothing in the way of finances, emotions or other contributions.

 

My brother married a woman like that. He's the one doing all of the housework...on top of working a physically demanding job. Until his wife moved out of her parents' house, her father was taking her car, her sister's car, her mother's car, and his own car to fill them up with gas. She couldn't even get her own gas. I've helped move them out and into new places several times, and every time I'm lucky to see my sister-in-law carrying a single pillow or a single bag. I keep my mouth shut out of respect for my brother, but it really infuriates me. Her sister is just the same. Why the sister even volunteers to help them do anything requiring manual labor is beyond me, as she's the type to just sit there and look pretty.

 

My SIL still blames my brother for their financial trouble, despite knowing from the start that she was the breadwinner and that wasn't likely to change. She quit her job, which meant for sure they were going to lose their house. Yet because he quit his $9/hr. job, she blames all of their financial difficulties on him. Both made absolutely stupid decisions, but it's very infuriating to see that she and her family blame my brother for their financial hardships alone.

 

And that's what's so depressing about it - I'm an average-looking woman and I have things to offer, but those women are picked time and time again by men in their 20s and 30s it seems. They are totally thrilled to have a living doll until they realize that she's only good for staring at. She literally offers little else, if anything else, to the relationship.

 

I guess it was because I was raised in a matriarchal household - my mom did EVERYTHING around the house, paid the bills, worked part-time, etc. - and for the most part my dad just went to work, then came home while my mom acted like his servant.

 

I think I've often made the mistake of 'emasculating' the men I date by trying to do as much as possible to please them...including manual labor. I couldn't get away with being a pretty good-for-nothing. i think in some ways I learned to overcompensate for my perceived lack of beauty by doing as much as possible to convince them to stay with me.

 

But I would never expect a man to pay for every meal nor to act like I'm the very center of his world - that's just scary. But I would expect him to hold down a job and to better himself - and to contribute to our household. I thought my take on my role in a relationship wasn't that unusual, but then again I've met plenty of men who say otherwise.

 

My partner's grandparents loved me because I helped them move some things in their place a few months after my partner and I started dating. Apparently his grandfather approached him and said, "i like that girl. She isn't LAZY like so many of the other ones."

 

And while I hate to say it - when appearance is the primary motivation for so many men, what do you expect to get? I'm not saying that ALL beautiful women are necessarily good-for-nothing dolls who just lie around, but frankly they don't have to work as hard as a less attractive person. They can get away with more by virtue of being beautiful - by the mere fact that so many men covet that trait above everything else (or at least as highly as other traits). How many times have we seen a man around here who's absolutely sick and tired of the girl, but he doesn't want to give her up because he thinks she's hot? Bingo.

[musemaj11]

Threads like these perpetuate a senseless gender war. There -is- a problem with one partner expecting to be treated like a queen while a man falls at her feet...and she contributes very little or nothing in the way of finances, emotions or other contributions.

 

My brother married a woman like that. He's the one doing all of the housework...on top of working a physically demanding job. Until his wife moved out of her parents' house, her father was taking her car, her sister's car, her mother's car, and his own car to fill them up with gas. She couldn't even get her own gas. I've helped move them out and into new places several times, and every time I'm lucky to see my sister-in-law carrying a single pillow or a single bag. I keep my mouth shut out of respect for my brother, but it really infuriates me. Her sister is just the same. Why the sister even volunteers to help them do anything requiring manual labor is beyond me, as she's the type to just sit there and look pretty.

 

My SIL still blames my brother for their financial trouble, despite knowing from the start that she was the breadwinner and that wasn't likely to change. She quit her job, which meant for sure they were going to lose their house. Yet because he quit his $9/hr. job, she blames all of their financial difficulties on him. Both made absolutely stupid decisions, but it's very infuriating to see that she and her family blame my brother for their financial hardships alone.

 

And that's what's so depressing about it - I'm an average-looking woman and I have things to offer, but those women are picked time and time again by men in their 20s and 30s it seems. They are totally thrilled to have a living doll until they realize that she's only good for staring at. She literally offers little else, if anything else, to the relationship.

 

I guess it was because I was raised in a matriarchal household - my mom did EVERYTHING around the house, paid the bills, worked part-time, etc. - and for the most part my dad just went to work, then came home while my mom acted like his servant.

 

I think I've often made the mistake of 'emasculating' the men I date by trying to do as much as possible to please them...including manual labor. I couldn't get away with being a pretty good-for-nothing. i think in some ways I learned to overcompensate for my perceived lack of beauty by doing as much as possible to convince them to stay with me.

 

But I would never expect a man to pay for every meal nor to act like I'm the very center of his world - that's just scary. But I would expect him to hold down a job and to better himself - and to contribute to our household. I thought my take on my role in a relationship wasn't that unusual, but then again I've met plenty of men who say otherwise.

 

My partner's grandparents loved me because I helped them move some things in their place a few months after my partner and I started dating. Apparently his grandfather approached him and said, "i like that girl. She isn't LAZY like so many of the other ones."

 

And while I hate to say it - when appearance is the primary motivation for so many men, what do you expect to get? I'm not saying that ALL beautiful women are necessarily good-for-nothing dolls who just lie around, but frankly they don't have to work as hard as a less attractive person. They can get away with more by virtue of being beautiful - by the mere fact that so many men covet that trait above everything else (or at least as highly as other traits). How many times have we seen a man around here who's absolutely sick and tired of the girl, but he doesn't want to give her up because he thinks she's hot? Bingo.

You are bitter.

[soserious1]

I remember announcing that I wanted a career in the hard sciences and being told that "real women " pursued careers in teaching or nursing.

 

I remember being told that "good mothers...don't" carry their infants to grad school in a baby sling... usually by the sae people who said that I shouldn't have been given the seat in grad school because I'd just quit when I had kids & not use the education.

 

I remember hearing that "Real women stick it out in their marriages for the children" heck I can even remember people who rationalized spousal abuse back then "well she should have just done what he said" or "he just slapped her around,it isn't like he beat her or anything"

 

So I'm not into shaming men or telling them what they should or shouldn't be, not only is it morally wrong IMHO but it's a real time suck, if a person lacks qualities you feel you need in a partner, just leave them be & look elsewhere. No man is obligated to change his life just to fit the vision some self-serving woman put together of what a "Real man" looks like.

[Disenchantedly Yours]

Real men can kill a water buffalo with his teeth while he wrestles down a crocodile with his bare hands, while he's got an apple pie baking in the oven and a load of delicates spins in the washer. He also can talk in french while doing mathematical equations to figure out the specs for his latest architectural endeavor. And when he's done with that, he's going to get started on his novel about a japanese monk that turns into a professional baseball player and his tale of injustice, courage and strength. Oh yeah..and inbetween his writing sessons he takes soup to kids in orphanages and plays Candyland with them.