For the Guys: A Reality Check

[Blackfrost]

Hmmm.....if men were pretty much not needed by women any more, this board would definitely speak differently.

[mental_traveller]

We lag behind in academics. We're more likely to commit murder or suicide. We die earlier. We have more trouble being without a partner than our female counterparts. More of us are in prison. We're more likely to become addicted.

 

In other words, we're more interesting - and that's why women will always be into us.

[mental_traveller]

How strange.. I just had this conversation with my bf last night. He wants to feel "needed", and he's unhappy I only "want" him in my life.

 

WTF?

 

Like it's some how better to have a person leech onto you for your financial abilities but you'll never know if they really want to be there, or if they only stay because they're trapped.

 

Maybe he wasn't talking about finances & money? Perhaps he meant that he wanted you to need him emotionally.

[norajane]

Maybe he wasn't talking about finances & money? Perhaps he meant that he wanted you to need him emotionally.

 

That's what I was thinking. Maybe he wants to be wanted, and also wants you to need him in your life to feel happy. Perhaps he fears if you don't need him to be happy and fulfilled, you can easily "walk" if you go through a rough patch when you're not particularly wanting him right then.

[serial muse]

Yeah, us ordinary guys could never compete with the Orkin man... Kills bugs and wears a uniform? If I was a woman, I'd do him myself.

 

this conjures up images of a whole new kind of role-playing...

 

...honey...would you wear the uniform tonight? you know the one i like...

 

[mental_traveller]

That's what I was thinking. Maybe he wants to be wanted, and also wants you to need him in your life to feel happy. Perhaps he fears if you don't need him to be happy and fulfilled, you can easily "walk" if you go through a rough patch when you're not particularly wanting him right then.

 

I don't think it's so much fear of you walking. It's more like someone who is fulfilling a key role, knowing that others rely on them. Like a fireman at a blaze, or a doctor when someone has a heart attack, they take on a big responisbility and find a lot of satisfaction in fulfilling it. Maybe your man just likes the idea of being there for you to rely on when you need it, helping you out when things are tough etc. Whereas if you are totally indepenent and self-sufficient, he'll see that you have no need for that role, and he'll feel a bit at a lose end.

 

Maybe that's why independent financially successful career women are often a bust in the dating game. They don't need a man, and men spot that and realise there is no major place for them in this woman's life. Why would you be with someone when your role in their life is essentially peripheral rather than pivotal? You'd only do that if you were fairly casual about this person - so you'd be in it for a fling or something, but not for the long haul.

 

Food for thought, ladies

[serial muse]

I don't think it's so much fear of you walking. It's more like someone who is fulfilling a key role, knowing that others rely on them. Like a fireman at a blaze, or a doctor when someone has a heart attack, they take on a big responisbility and find a lot of satisfaction in fulfilling it. Maybe your man just likes the idea of being there for you to rely on when you need it, helping you out when things are tough etc. Whereas if you are totally indepenent and self-sufficient, he'll see that you have no need for that role, and he'll feel a bit at a lose end.

 

Maybe that's why independent financially successful career women are often a bust in the dating game. They don't need a man, and men spot that and realise there is no major place for them in this woman's life. Why would you be with someone when your role in their life is essentially peripheral rather than pivotal? You'd only do that if you were fairly casual about this person - so you'd be in it for a fling or something, but not for the long haul.

 

Food for thought, ladies

 

i'd venture to say there's truth to this, if you look at it from a slightly different angle. i think the problem isn't so much that these successful women don't "need" a man and men "spot" that - i think it's more that men might indeed be searching for a such a role and are frustrated that they can't find one - because they are only looking at a limited set of roles that satisfy what they're looking to fill, not what the woman might be looking to fill.

 

in other words, sure, there's a role for him, and it's very often pivotal. but it isn't necessarily bug-destroyer or mammoth-killer or even bread-winner. that doesn't mean there isn't a place for him in her life, however, and that it isn't equally masculine. i'm not suggesting he can be her shopping buddy or stand around holding her purse or anything else damaging to the male ego. but times change, and mammoths are extinct. let's all figure out how to make it work.

 

food for thought, indeed.

 

seriously, i grew up in florida, where the roaches are the size of small dogs. of course i can handle that bidness. is that all a guy can think of to do, though?

 

<-- in case there is any doubt.

[Outcast]

They don't need a man,

 

We're going back around the same circle. Apparently, many men feel they should perform physical functions to be useful. Is the concept of being needed/wanted as emotional support and companion that foreign and unpleasant? Or perhaps too abstract? Why would you think you are more 'needed' if a woman's screaming on a chair due to the presence of an arachnid but not if she wants you to be in her corner when she goes for the important interview or the results from the biopsy?

[Nicholas]

But, currently, there is no such thing as studies of maleness.

 

What about the classics? What about every other course in the humanities department that doesn't have "female" or "women" in the course title?

[lindya]

The whole needs versus wants thing is an issue I've noticed troubling the relationships of a couple of people close to me. There's a conundrum that seems to go something like this:

 

The initial male attraction to the female was enhanced by her independence. These are men who want a smart, sophisticated and well travelled girlfriend/wife to be proud of. Many (maybe most) sophisticated women have that air precisely as a result of their independence. Put them in an unfamiliar city, and they'll cope well because they're smart, adaptable and fairly street savvy survivors....and whatever the men on this board might be saying, there are a lot of guys in RL who do gravitate towards women like that.

 

However, somewhere in the past frequently lurks the spectre of the needy ex-girlfriend. The woman he split up from because her emotional needs were too chaotic, too full on and too disruptive of his life. It made for an impossible relationship.

 

The spectre of the needy ex becomes more powerful when problems develop in his current relationship. People often deal with relationship problems by making destructive comparisons with idealised exes. They try to promote some desired change in a current partner by making references to said ex - failing to mention that the person they're now holding up as a paragon of qualities A, B and C also presented severe difficulties that inevitably accompanied those qualities and speeded up the demise of the relationship.

 

Mr "I need you to need me to make me feel like a man" forgets the times he felt depressed and stressed out due to that perceived failure. He focuses on the times the ex told him "I just can't live without you" "What will I ever do if you leave me?" "I'll just die of a broken heart...". On reflection, it makes him feel powerful and desired. He forgets that at the time it made him feel trapped and afraid.

 

Picking up on this, the current girlfriend/wife strives to find ways to let him know that notwithstanding the independence she needed to cultivate in order to survive in this very demanding world, he does in fact enhance her life to such a degree that the loss of him would be something she would find very hard to recover from. She exposes her vulnerability in the belief that this is what he's looking for her to do.

 

To her dismay, he starts to flip in the same way that he flipped with his ex girlfriend. He begins to question whether she's too emotionally needy. That he doesn't know how to meet her needs...and doesn't particularly want to, because she isn't meeting his. Mixed messages go back and forth. Both accuse the other of presenting a false image that was stronger and more stable than the reality. Both feel let down by the other.

 

What it frequently seems to come down to is that there is no such thing as a 100% strong and together person. People's survival skills and capacity to manage independently tend to fluctuate according to whatever is happening in their lives at the time. With a specific example I'm thinking of, the man wore away at his partner's confidence with repeated comparisons between her and his more needy ex.

 

As her confidence ebbed, she did become more needy and unsure of herself. On the face of it, this is what he wanted....but the reality is that Ms Needy is a fantasy he uses to make himself feel strong but doesn't want to have to deal with in reality. He isn't the fairytale knight who has the ability or the desire to slay dragons (and nor should he feel he has to be). He knows that...but he doesn't want other people to know it. In order to make the fantasy of being that man seem real, he needs a woman who is dishonest enough to collude with him in pretending he's that boundlessly courageous hero, yet strong enough to cope with the knowledge that it's a facade...and that when it comes to the crunch, she'll have to deal with a lot of life's crap on her own.

 

I'm not suggesting this is a situation that by any means applies to all men...but I think there are quite a few couples who are caught in that dilemma. The Doll's House by Henry Ibsen captured it very well.

[stoopid_guy]

We're going back around the same circle. Apparently, many men feel they should perform physical functions to be useful.

Of course we do, it's in our genes, it's reflected in our physical differences. It's not often needed in a modern, civilized society though. (On the other hand, if a man and a woman are in a car and there's a flat tire, which is more likely/expected to change it?)

 

Is the concept of being needed/wanted as emotional support and companion that foreign and unpleasant? Or perhaps too abstract? Why would you think you are more 'needed' if a woman's screaming on a chair due to the presence of an arachnid but not if she wants you to be in her corner when she goes for the important interview or the results from the biopsy?

There's no reason at all that a man can't be supportive. On the other hand, women are usually emotionally stronger and tougher. (True story: When they were taking blood for my last physical, I noticed smelling salts taped to the wall by the chair and asked the nurse how often they were needed. She said a few times a week, and almost always for "you big, strong men." )

[lindya]

Of course we do, it's in our genes, it's reflected in our physical differences. It's not often needed in a modern, civilized society though. (On the other hand, if a man and a woman are in a car and there's a flat tire, which is more likely/expected to change it?)

 

I remember several years ago I got a puncture on a country road, and (shameful admission here) glibly standing by the car waiting for someone to drive along and help. In my utter laziness, I didn't even attempt to start fixing it on my own.

 

Along came my white knight. Conversation:

 

"Flat tyre?"

 

(me - adopting "stupid me" expression) "Yep. Ummm, I wonder if..."

 

"You want me to change it for you?"

 

"Er...that would be great. I haven't a clue..."

 

"No, you haven't have you? Bloody disgrace - you young women out driving cars when you don't even know how to change a tyre."

 

(recognising "in no position to adopt moral high ground" situation) "I know. Hahaha. Awful, isn't it!"

 

(unsmiling response) "Yes, it is. I'll tell you how to change the tyre....but you'll damn well do it yourself."

 

So he did, and I did...getting my skirt covered in grass and cow merde in the process. Such is the messy process of becoming an independent woman. Don't throw even more cow merde at us for managing it!

[Walk]

uses to make himself feel strong but doesn't want to have to deal with in reality. He isn't the fairytale knight who has the ability or the desire to slay dragons (and nor should he feel he has to be). He knows that...but he doesn't want other people to know it. In order to make the fantasy of being that man seem real, he needs a woman who is dishonest enough to collude with him in pretending he's that boundlessly courageous hero, yet strong enough to cope with the knowledge that it's a facade...and that when it comes to the crunch, she'll have to deal with a lot of life's crap on her own.

 

You just described my relationship.

 

Problem comes in when I have a problem that doesn't fit into the "dragon slayer" mode. Then suddenly, I find myself "solving" the problem on my own.. I get pissed off because he's still pretending he's the white knight, while I'm slugging through the mud to try to resolve the problem. Which takes away all my desire to continue "pretending" he's my fairytale knight. Then he feels like I've betrayed him because for X amount of time I've been telling him he's my knight.. and suddenly I'm not playing anymore. Then he gets insecure because he thinks if he's not my fairytale night, then I'll leave him. He tells me to come to him with my problems, but then can't handle my problems. Freaks and throws them back at me... shifts blame onto me.. like if I caused the problem, then his illusion of being the fairytale knight is still intact. It wasn't him that failed in his eyes, it was me who failed him...

 

Its stupid.

[lindya]

You just described my relationship.

 

Problem comes in when I have a problem that doesn't fit into the "dragon slayer" mode. Then suddenly, I find myself "solving" the problem on my own.. I get pissed off because he's still pretending he's the white knight, while I'm slugging through the mud to try to resolve the problem. Which takes away all my desire to continue "pretending" he's my fairytale knight. Then he feels like I've betrayed him because for X amount of time I've been telling him he's my knight.. and suddenly I'm not playing anymore. Then he gets insecure because he thinks if he's not my fairytale night, then I'll leave him. He tells me to come to him with my problems, but then can't handle my problems. Freaks and throws them back at me... shifts blame onto me.. like if I caused the problem, then his illusion of being the fairytale knight is still intact. It wasn't him that failed in his eyes, it was me who failed him...

 

Its stupid.

 

I think that's a fairly frequent thing that arises, Walk. We look for people to be consistent, but nobody can demonstrate absolute consistency between their words and actions. I know a lot of people who claim they do, but I've yet to meet anyone who lives up to their own hype in that respect. To be honest, I suspect such a person would both find and create insurmountable relationship difficulties in life.

 

It sounds as if the two of you are so locked in combat that you've lost sight of the valuable aspects each of you brings to the other. There will always be some problems you encounter that he can't slip into dragon-slayer mode to fix...but, of course, that doesn't mean he isn't supporting you in other parts of your life. You have strengths that he lacks, and vice versa....nobody can claim superiority in every possible avenue of life.

 

Would it help if he gave you a bit more recognition for the times you've had to slug it through the mud on your own? Would he be able to give you that recognition without feeling that it was some sort of admission that he was "less of a man"? Likewise, would you feel able to give him recognition for the times he does support you? For the times that you do feel cherished and valued by him? Something's keeping you in this relationship, Walk....and I'm assuming that some of those things are positive.

[FataMorgana]

I think most woman would fall over from a coronary if their husband came home and did a few substantial chores on his own without having to be told.

 

:lmao: oh dear, how true is this..... just happened to me the other day and I almost fell over, my other half cooked dinner on his own, without asking anything, firsttime in almost 6 years of us being together!

[blind_otter]

I'm so sorry for using that catchphrase without permission, how about' tell it to the judge"

 

Hey! That's my Catch Phrase. Now I'm going to have to put that in my signature or something. Jeez, man, you don't post for a day and suddenly everyone's stealing your one liners.

 

For the record today is the anniversary of the loss of my daughter, Aislin, in 2002, to miscarriage. My Mom told me, these feelings never leave. They get easier to deal with. (she had severeal miscarriages and my oldest sister passed away at 5 days)....and you have no other option, really, than to get better and move on. It does no one, not yourself, not your wife, not your children who have passed -- any good to dwell on that which causes you pain.

 

I'mjustsaying.

[blind_otter]

The matchmaking game used to be so much simpler.

 

Every time I see a post of yours that's waxing poetic about the days of yore when things were much simpler and life was much better I have to choke back the vomit. No, kidding, but my Dad is 76. He was born in 1929. My Dad's family is a bunch of story tellers. I inherited this trait, somewhat. My mother's family lived in a third world country, I dunno how much more "back to basics" you can get.

 

In any event all these random ideas that the old days were better and simpler are just utter crap. Completely untrue, it was just as horrible, but people talked about it less openly. That's the only difference I can tell. Oh, and wounds got infected easier, and people died randomly much more often. That's about it.

 

I'm just SAYING.

 

So what do we, as men, do about it?

 

Every journey starts with a single step.

 

For me, personally, I no longer worry about what a potential partner may think, or how they perceive me. I am what I am, and I refuse to play by anyone else's rules.

 

If that means that I go without sex for a while, then so be it.

 

Comments?

 

Well get ready for some long, lonely nights. The whole point of having the large brains that we have, as primates, is to manage the complexities involved with social interaction. If you no longer pay homage to the whole foundational concept of social interaction, is playing by someone else's rules and attending to what others may think of you, then you may find your popularity steadily decreasing.

[Walk]

Well get ready for some long, lonely nights.

 

If you no longer pay homage to the whole foundational concept of social interaction, is playing by someone else's rules and attending to what others may think of you, then you may find your popularity steadily decreasing.

Not sure he was looking for "compansionship", or popularity. Mostly just a receptical that moved while he was getting off.

 

If that means that I go without sex for a while, then so be it.

 

Doesn't exactly show a concern for finding a woman who will enrich his life mentally and emotionally. Only physically. So he probably doesn't have much of a need to interact as a socially adjusted person should. Just needs enough money to pick up that girl on the corner.

 

I'm just kidding.. at least.. I hope you weren't just looking for a hole for sex.

[Outcast]

He isn't the fairytale knight who has the ability or the desire to slay dragons (and nor should he feel he has to be). He knows that...but he doesn't want other people to know it. In order to make the fantasy of being that man seem real, he needs a woman who is dishonest enough to collude with him in pretending he's that boundlessly courageous hero, yet strong enough to cope with the knowledge that it's a facade...and that when it comes to the crunch, she'll have to deal with a lot of life's crap on her own.

 

Perhaps the unintended side-effect of requiring men to be emotionless and 'tough' for so long is that they were taught that their only value was to be dragon-slayers and so when they encounter women who don't need dragons slain, they are lost and find themselves without identity. They're not allowed to be emotional because the alpha males will ridicule them so whether or not a woman values them for their emotional contributions to the relationship, the men still need to climb onto their donkeys and have Sancho hand them their branches so that they may best serve their Dulcineas.

[superconductor]

Completely untrue, it was just as horrible, but people talked about it less openly. That's the only difference I can tell. Oh, and wounds got infected easier, and people died randomly much more often.

Certainly, advances in medicine and whatnot have made life better for most of us. I agree, for those who pine for the "good old days" I have just two words: dental care.

 

With that said, for all the advances in science and technology, the dynamics of relationships have become more, not less, difficult.

Well get ready for some long, lonely nights. The whole point of having the large brains that we have, as primates, is to manage the complexities involved with social interaction. If you no longer pay homage to the whole foundational concept of social interaction, is playing by someone else's rules and attending to what others may think of you, then you may find your popularity steadily decreasing.

Exactly my point, though you said it much better than I. When the foundational concepts of social interaction change, or when about half of the population - that is, men - are thrown into chaos because their father's world is so much different than their own, then there are obviously going to be difficulties.

[Walk]

I think that's a fairly frequent thing that arises, Walk. We look for people to be consistent, but nobody can demonstrate absolute consistency between their words and actions. I know a lot of people who claim they do, but I've yet to meet anyone who lives up to their own hype in that respect. To be honest, I suspect such a person would both find and create insurmountable relationship difficulties in life.

What did you mean by this (above)? In relation to my post earlier... (asking because I'm confused)

 

Like.. did you mean I'm looking for him to be consistent? Or that I think I'm consistent? Or that he expects me to be consistent?

[blind_otter]

men - are thrown into chaos because their father's world is so much different than their own, then there are obviously going to be difficulties.

 

I think, this is JMO, but from my work with children....that the biggest problem is the lack of father figures. Many men are present, but not invested in fatherhood. Then there are the multitude that are completely absent as a male role model in their childrens lives, for whatever reason.

 

Even in volunteer programs like Big Brothers, Big Sisters, there tends to be more women involved.

 

Granted men are no longer necessary, in terms of certain functions. But the roles that they very much need to play, still, are not being fulfilled, either.

[serial muse]

Exactly my point, though you said it much better than I. When the foundational concepts of social interaction change, or when about half of the population - that is, men - are thrown into chaos because their father's world is so much different than their own, then there are obviously going to be difficulties.

 

hey super. i have to say, i find historical idealization like this amusing. honestly - i'm sure every generation bemoans the loss of the good old days, when they walked to school uphill both ways in the snow and things were so much simpler and so on and so forth. my father does that sort of thing; he idealizes the wild west and strong, silent men on horses with windburned faces, and the days of white hats and black hats lovingly retold by louis l'amour. he'd yank us back by a century or two, if he only could.

 

of course, his father was a pharmacist, and his dad's dad was something equally innocuous, and so on down the line.

 

point is, the reality is always a lot less glamorous than the idealistic non-memories people dredge up. i just think it's funny that there are people in every generation, bar none, that are absolutely certain that theirs has gone to the dogs. consequently, the "good old days" are a constantly moving target. :lmao:

[superconductor]

I think, this is JMO, but from my work with children....that the biggest problem is the lack of father figures. Many men are present, but not invested in fatherhood. Then there are the multitude that are completely absent as a male role model in their childrens lives, for whatever reason.

That is a very good observation.

 

The meteoric rise of single-parent (usually mother/child) families is one part of the equation.

 

But there's another part that needs to be answered too. In two-parent households, the male is expected to bring home the lion's share of the wealth, plus invest themselves in child-rearing, housework and partner support.

 

I'm sure you've seen this yourself, because I have too. The husband/father spends extra hours at the office (or whatever) to earn the big dollars to ensure that his family is well-off financially. Then he's criticized for not helping with the housework, being there for the kids and wife. So, he takes more time away from the office to attend to his family, and is criticized for not bringing home enough money.

 

I personally have seen this happen over and over and over again. No matter what the guy does, he loses.

[blind_otter]

I'm sure you've seen this yourself, because I have too. The husband/father spends extra hours at the office (or whatever) to earn the big dollars to ensure that his family is well-off financially. Then he's criticized for not helping with the housework, being there for the kids and wife. So, he takes more time away from the office to attend to his family, and is criticized for not bringing home enough money.

 

I personally have seen this happen over and over and over again. No matter what the guy does, he loses.

 

Eh, I haven't but I'm sure it exists. In my family my sisters stay at home or have part time jobs, and their husbands bring home the larger part of the income, or all of it. But in turn my sisters believe their job involves managing the household.

 

Unfortunately, in most parts of the country this is nearly impossible because very fwe families can afford to live on a single income. So when both partners are working it's only fair to expect that both partners are involved in managing the household.

 

The fact that men still earn more, dollar for dollar, than women do is a vestige of the "old days" -- pre-gender equality movement. It doesn't have much to do with competency, although I think that the fact that women tend to take more sick days due to family related issues, like caring for a sick child, impacts the earning potential at least in the mind of employers.

 

So as a result we have this contentious pull between the partners based on external factors very much outside their control, which are a reflection IMO of societies' inability to keep up with the evolution of the modern day partner/parenting roles.