Emerald

Maybe… but her make-up look probably only takes like 15-20 minutes because it’s fairly simple. Perhaps she spends all day in the mirror preening throughout the day. But it really isn’t necessary to have this look.

Why would anyone be upset that you’re attracted to blondes? It’s not sexist to state a preference as long as you’re not saying “non-blondes are garbage” or “all women need to dye their hair blonde” or something like that. It would be like a woman saying, I prefer ginger guys… or guys who are tall, dark, and handsome. Or I like if I prefer husky bearded men or tall, skinny guys. It’s just an aesthetic preference. And everyone has them.

It would be very upsetting. That’s one of the main reasons that breaking up would be a good idea as it would allow her the ability to find someone else. But these feelings are common to come up for people… especially men who are conditioned to equate their self-worth with sexual validation from attractive women. And this mythos is very commonly reinforced by society. Plus, there could be other more personal dynamics at play… like transferring the need for parental validation onto women. And this, always seeking new women to validate them… like feeding a hungry ghost. And there is a dynamic that I call ‘relationship mirages’ where a person goes seeking for repressed aspects of themselves in another person. But once they know that person, that person becomes a poor screen to project their repressed traits upon. And so, they go seeking another blank screen. Some brand new person. And the cycle continues. But as triggering as this can be, it’s important to understand these dynamic are complex and never consciously chosen. And they are not something that a person can just decide not to want. And shame only exacerbates the issue. These dynamics require a lot of deep work or the person afflicted will never feel truly content in a relationship… even if they really want one.

I have two children… one is 11 and the other will be 8 next month. And I’ve been a mom since I was 22. And I find that the way I could describe how this has impacted my personal development is in the statement, “The obstacle is the path” Taking care of another human being is difficult and it matures you in ways that you can’t mature otherwise. And you learn a lot about family and the cycle of life. And it can be a limiting factor. I can’t just go and travel and go on spiritual retreats willy nilly. And I have to focus on what’s best for them, which sometimes requires sacrifice. That said, the sacrifice and limitation is also a learning experience. I feel that my personal development has shaken out differently than it would have had I not had kids. But I suspect that things are probably equivalent as I don’t see many non-parents that I’d describe as more developed than me for their independent focus. I don’t feel behind in any way. Plus, I will have two adult children at age 43. So, if I want to, I can spend my 40s doing all the independent adventurous things that were not possible in my 20s as a young parent.

This type of thing creates a weak foundation for the relationship, because it puts things in a double bind. Part of him wants the relationship to continue. And part of him wants to seek experiences with other women. And if you chase two rabbits, you catch none. This drive could come from a desire for experience which can eventually be satiated. Or it could come from a psychological dynamic around shame and the desire for validation, which can be understood and unwired with deeper work. But until one or both of these things happen, the biggest nightmare will be if a romantic relationship is going well. And part of him will hope for its demise. And this is not a good relationship to be in for either partner. His girlfriend will feel this ambivalence and it may create insecurity. And I view it as a relationship best practice that a woman should not stay with a man who doesn’t properly appreciate her. Let her find someone who is sure about her.

Break up with her, and let her find someone else who does find her attractive. That’s the first thing. But if you want to explore into this and not run into the same problem in your next relationship, then you’ll have to figure out exactly what need this fantasy is serving. Once you know where the fantasy is coming from, you can figure out what you’re really looking for and can go directly toward it. Edit: I suppose you can work through this in this relationship if you really want to keep it going. But it’s common for people who have this issue to exhaust the fantasy and find it empty of what they’re looking for. And you probably won’t be able to do that in a relationship.

@mr_engineer Well. Good luck in love and life. With those philosophies, you’ll need it.

Yeah, exactly. A lot of these types of chest-thumping anti-woman positions have to do with deep levels of insecurity, powerlessness, and shame. They project certain powers to validate/invalidate men’s existence onto women that women don’t actually have… and then they feel small and threatened and get aggressive as a result. And these types of guys choose the fight response to try to solve that internal problem. And they try to make women smaller in their minds in any way they can. And they become like glass cannons… dishing it out constantly but being unable to take it. I never met a man who felt good about himself who was hung up about women or the existence of Feminism.

Go ahead and report me if you want to. All I said is that you’re imagining battles with women in your head that don’t actually exist in reality. And that you have an issue with victim’s mentality. And none of the moderators nor Leo will disagree with me. They’ll tell you the exact same thing.

Some Feminists might do that. But others not so much. If you knew the first thing about Feminism, you’d know that it’s not a monolith and that there are many things that Feminists fiercely debate. As for what Teal said about containment, it can be difficult to grapple with distinguishing your genuine desires/needs and what has been constructed specifically to oppress women. The reality is that women have historically been oppressed on the basis their femininity… as well as any divergence from feminine societal norms. So, their femininity has been constructed into narratives that both idealize and disempower them. These are constructed in such a way that applies a limiting narratives to women and femininity in general. So, it is designed to squelch the feminine power. So, if women are feminine, they get disrespected and infantilized. And if women stray from those narratives in certain ways, they are judged a shrewish and masculine. There’s really no way for women to win in this conceptualization. And that’s the whole point of these narratives to give women no philosophical foundation for power and personal sovereignty. So, women tend to have a fraught relationship to their femininity because of these patriarchal narratives around femininity. And less conscious Feminists can have perspectives that simply rebel from anything that resembles the patriarchal narrative to get as far from it as possible. But more conscious Feminists often look to separate the wheat from the chaff in terms of what is conditioned in as a result of patriarchy versus what is their genuine desire. And this requires a lot of introspection. So if a woman wants to be contained/held by her partner… this can bring up feelings of powerlessness and shame if she hasn’t unpacked her own femininity and personal sovereignty from those limiting narratives and hasn’t debunked the notions of masculine supremacy.

What battle? You’re imagining battles in your head that don’t exist.

The philosophy behind chivalry is itself a form of benevolent sexism because it’s a system of expectations placed upon men to live up to that maintains the patriarchal narrative. But it is nice when a man is just kind because it’s part of his character, as opposed to living up to some arbitrary standard of chivalry. And there is nothing wrong with men playing more traditionally masculine roles if it resonates with them. But the notion of chivalry itself is steeped in benevolent sexism.

So much victim’s mentality in this post. You’re shadow boxing with imaginary people in your head.

I was responding to what you said. So I assumed that you did put at least enough emotional weight into the topic to want to put in your two cents.

That’s in a scenario where your species or tribe is about to be annihilated. You’ll want to keep the women alive then to re-populate. But in a life-boat scenario, that logic doesn’t apply there because there are plenty of people to keep society going.

There are some general differences that can be noticed. But there is a reason why men try to exaggerate these differences and that women tend to downplay them. It’s mostly because the patriarchal forces in society take a handful of genuine differences betweenness men and women, exaggerates them, and weaves them into a male supremacy and dominance narrative that tells a story of why men are more entitled power than women just by virtue of being men. And it soothes the soul sickness of men who feel shame and powerlessness by constructing a reassuring narrative where they are better and more powerful just by virtue of being male. And it makes it pretty impossible for women to embrace their femininity around men who do this because it automatically puts the woman on the defensive. And that’s because their femininity gets used as an insult and as a means to impose a narrative that strips them of power. And then the very same men are like “Women aren’t feminine anymore. It’s must be those pesky Feminists.” They look everywhere but themselves.

Exactly. It also communicates to men that they are responsible for being stoic and invulnerable. And this creates a ton of resentment for men towards women... because they perceive that women are allowed to be human and vulnerable in a way that they are not. And this creates tons of shadowy behaviors towards women in men who ascribe to these benevolently sexist ideas. They are jealous and get competitive, catty, and spiteful for what they perceive as a privilege. But the price that women pay for this ‘privilege’ is to have our capabilities questioned and our autonomy restricted under the guise of protection… all while a significant portion of the male population tries to drag us off the pedestal that they projected onto us.

Somewhat different than what you guys are talking about. But one thing that’s interesting is that the general tastes of men in poorer societies do favor bigger women. They did a study of men and women around the world in a variety of sociology-economic statuses. In poorer societies, the women favored hyper-masculine men with big muscles, narrow eyes, and barreled chests. And the men favored chubbier women. In wealthier societies, the women favored men who have a mixture of masculine and feminine traits (like most Hollywood actors). And the men favored thinner women.

Conscripted doesn’t necessarily mean “on the front lines”. There are plenty of roles in the military. But yes… it’s fair if there’s a draft that women get sent to war. But I disagree with the draft anyway.

?

I’m sure that the Feminists are relieved that you’ve scratched them from consideration. ? But I feel like you’re feeling threatened for no reason. Women are just trying to live their lives… they’re not competing with you. And women who want an equal partnership will just go for a man who shares their values and also wants an equal partnership and will avoid the men who want her to conform to traditional gender roles. She won’t waste her time trying to convince you to share her values. She’ll just sort you from consideration because of the incompatibility. And women at your work are genuinely going to appreciate you treating them the same as you treat men. Women will not care if you don’t open doors for them. They won’t even notice, tbh. And if you’re ‘leading your female co-workers by the hand’ already… why on Earth are you doing this? Sounds like you’re making it up… or they’re using your benevolent sexism to take advantage of you and get you to do their work for them. - But benevolent sexism is different than simply noticing general differences between men and women. So, it isn’t sexism to say “men are generally taller than women” or “women tend to be physically weaker than men.” These are just general patterns that can be noticed. Benevolent sexism creates a narrative that puts women up on a pedestal in some way. And it strips us of our basic humanity and typically casts us into narrower roles. So, benevolent sexism is like “Lizzie Borden couldn’t have possibly killed those people because she is a delicate flower and would certainly faint at the sight of blood because her refined feminine sensitivities.”

They are probably of the notion that logical = intelligent… when very logical people tend to get things wrong quite a lot. They think logical equals true. But logical just refers to what makes the most sense given certain pre-supposed assumptions about reality. That means, if we assume that the world is flat… then it makes good logical sense that we could sail off the edge of it. It’s a false premise. But it is totally logical. And I’ve noticed that men do fall in these traps a bit more than women because men tend to be systematic algorithmic logical thinkers while women tend to be more intuitive emotional thinkers. And if a man holds a great deal of false premises, his logical orientation will make him an simultaneously intellectual and foolish. I’m sure you know the type of person I’m talking about. The issue is that the social scientists are so steeped in patriarchal thinking that (even in their attempts at Feminism) they don’t realize that they’re biased toward masculine principled orientations and against feminine principled orientations.

Thank you ?

I agree with this. On one question, it said something about men and women’s emotional intelligence. And I would say that women are generally more attuned to the emotional/social matrix… observably so. And a good bit of that comes from how we’re wired, as testosterone tends to blunt emotional awareness. And this comes in handy for earlier times when it was necessary to hunt and kill for food and protection. So, it does seem to take the perspective that all general differences between men and women are nurture-based and not nature-based… and it lumps in noticing these generalities with benevolent sexism. But the reality is that some things are conditioned in… and other things are just general patterns of behavior that can be noticed.

I would think that this is pretty obvious. Hostile sexism is negative feelings and sentiments about women like “women aren’t rational, so only men should be politicians”. Benevolent sexism is like the “women should be protected at all costs”… which actually means, “women are weak and fragile, and the men who own them should protect them at all costs.” Benevolent sexism casts women as the fairer, weaker sex who is idealized as a caricature of femininity that is both above and below the humanity of men. Hostile sexism and benevolent sexism are two sides to one coin.