Girls don't want an a**hole, they want:

Post Reply New Topic

Yes it was too long. How can any one concentrate reading that long
and I do understand [contradictory] didnt you read my posts.
Just because it might n of started out with a trust trust relationship to begin with. Doesnt me it cant develop one.
I know what love is but I dont have to show it.

I can't really shake off the feeling that this thread is a bunch of hot air and bickering over badly chosen words (read : nothing).

Why would anyone want a partner that can't take control of a situation, or has no leadership capability? I don't know about you people, but I find the idea of having to share my life with a useless person who more often than not needs their hand held off-putting. Don't you? I could be wrong, but I'm guessing this is closer to what the original poster meant.

No one needs hands held for the rest of there life. Who would.. it would drive me insane
Some relationships just start out that way.
Not every thing is so black n white like some aspies keep putting it.

Semantics are import to some of us; some people do desire a malleable partner without their own needs. What works for one will not work for another. Without having that measure to develop understanding, where exactly would we be? How would we progress?

SL: No, I do not know that you understand when you say you don't understand those 'long posts' and do not respond to anything contained therein. There are some words, but no context, no meaning.. I have no idea what you are trying to say; I find most of it incoherent because there is no point of reference. Just where I'm coming from.


M.

Well, sorry but I find other peoples incoherent n really dont understand where theyre coming from.
I get some points but not others and then the whole thing is lost to me.

Yes, life is not black and white. That's exactly why it's my opinion that the ideal of an equal partnership and having one of those persons be a male leader do not conflict. Nobody, at least nobody worth listening to, is saying that the female shouldn't also share leadership responsibilities. Is that not equality?

Eh? Not entirely certain about what you're trying to say there, but responding to those bits I think I can understand:

You concentrate by taking each paragraph as it comes and not moving onto the next until you've fully grasped the meaning of the preceding one. Or if the meaning of each paragraph is linked to its neighbours, you read the entire text a number of times until it sinks in (which it always eventually does). (I once read a book 10 times on the trot before all the information therein ameliorated on a mental level wherein I could make sense of it in its entirity (Marvin Minsky's 'Society of Mind' (neurology) (don't try that one at home, folks!).

I'm not sure why you're saying 'just because it mightn't have started out as a trust-trust relationship...doesn't mean it can't develop into one'. That's precisely my point: trust HAS to be developed, not granted blindly without important evidence to prove that it's giving is warranted. (We're agreeing, you 'nana! )

What do you mean by 'I know what love is but I don't have to show it'? How can Love - which is basically the motivational feeling behind the interactional quality between two egos at any present moment - be developed or maintained if you hide your strength of feeling from the person concerned? Or do you believe that love between two people WON'T automatically perish if not continually rewarded in kind? I believe that it's in fact a given that if you don't show someone you love them (via your behaviour towards them), trust is withdrawn. Don't you? xoxo

PS: I must have missed your tongue-in-cheek contradiction - which post no. was it?

It's one thing to be able to take control of a particular situation, especially if you have the aptitude for doing so.

But it's quite another to try to control of a person, especially one who is already quite capable of controlling his own actions.

My asian wife manages the household finances, while I manage the property itself. We discuss expeditures and projects, and try to determine which home improvements have what priority, and how much we should spend on each. We keep our home in good condition, and have had realtors offer to sell it for us even though (1) we're not selling, and (2) it's a buyer's market.

My neighbor's wife (a self-described 'American Amazon'), tries to control not only her husband's actions, but the activities of everyone whose property abuts to hers. She also complains if anyone along our street has left their trash barrels out at the curb too long, if their cars aren't washed, if their lawns need mowing, if their houses are painted the 'wrong' color, et cetera ... and we live in a covenant-free neighborhood! She's a one-woman neighborhood committee, and is the most unpopular person on our street. Her poor husband does the best he can, but it is never good enough for her. If he did it right, he took too long. If he did it quickly, her did it wrong. If he did it fast and right, then he should have been doing something else.

I will never understand what he sees in that fat old witch, why he puts up with her crap, or even why he stays around.

Last edited by Fnord on 23 Jul 2008, 3:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Sounds like you and your wife have good balance; your neighbor's wife... your account alone has me crushing garlic, suffice it to say - I would have started walking away years ago and probably would be walking still. Surprised to find you in here, but I like your distinction made - very well put.


M.

Good point well made, and a superb springboard for another of my closely held beliefs (- here! - have a Tenner ), which is:

Equality in transgender relationships is utterly impossible. (That's like trying to judge whether an apple or a pork pie should win the competition for most satisfying foodstuff - only same or highly similar entities can be compared...which men and women are most certainly not.) EQUITY, on the other hand, is not only entirely achieveable but is the only method for allowing men to lead where their particular superiorities lie and women where theirs lie.

E.g.
- men GENERALLY have greater spatial awareness: if you got lost when out on a walk in unfamiliar territory then it makes sense to let them navigate.
- women GENERALLY are better at handling egos other than merely their own as well as multi-tasking in 'minor' practical matters: it makes sense to let them lead in childrearing (including discipline tactics) and be the housekeeper.
- men GENERALLY are better at fixing practical problems that cause emotional turmoil as an offshoot (male-brained female Aspies are an exception amongst women in this respect): it makes sense to let them fix what to them is perfectly fixable but which gets us gals into a tizzy.
- women GENERALLY are better at fixing problems that have their root causes in emotional issues....
- men GENERALLY are better at 'bringing home the bacon' (possibly due to lacking distractions and time-constraints from not having a sense of 100% responsibility where home and child welfare matters are concerned)...
....and so on.

Where men and women's skills overlap or where they go against their own gender stereotypes, thus encroaching into the male's skills territory, that's where flexibility and compromise comes in in order that BOTH partners feel needed and valued, both by their own self-opinions as well as to each other.

You could say all of this goes against Feminism. However, no 'isms' can change the human's base needs (that live in the part of the ego called the Id and which are millions of years old). Id and Ego Needs have to be met irrespective of societal trends (which that part of the psyche doesn't even acknowledge, let alone understand!) or else relationship problems begin to manifest.
Proof: No matter that some women are top execs who earn a superb wage, they still don't traditionally go after the low-earning males when choosing a life partner, even when practicalities as a direct result of their independance of earning power would actually allow that thus widen their choice of available males.

So I'm back to my original point. Yes - women DO want men to be leaders, but only in their gender-led fields of expertise. It's when a man tries to dictate to a woman and/or overrule in her particular field that she gets rubbed up the wrong way and then tries to wrest his areas of strength from him (or vice versa, even). Flexibility, Adaptability and Compromise are the key (the See-Saw Relationship). xoxo