PeakOil is You
Gender Relations East and West
Re: Gender Relations East and West
by BlisteredWhippet » Thu 30 Nov 2006, 01:33:47
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mercurygirl', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gideon', ' ')From my perspective, however, I'd rather dig ditches for 5 bucks an hour than spend my time making up for the aggravating inability to communicate of others - whether they are male or female.
You sound just like my husband.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Running through your post is the idea that your way of communicating is superior and any other way is inability to communicate. This is far from the truth, that being that there are many different styles of communication. If you spent a little time discovering them and seeing them as just different instead of inferior, you'd put others at ease and save yourself much frustration.
Men invented a disambiguous language to prevent "the many different styles of miscommunication".
If women parsed communication all conversations would be like a spoken-word poetry slam.
My last relationship ran aground of this fundamental divide. "Listening", I learned, was some sort of whole-body divination.
She: "Blah blah blah blah blah. How do you feel about that?"
He: "How do I feel about what?"
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BlisteredWhippet', 'I') think men's frustration stems from seeking the kind of unconditional love they got from their mothers. They seek someone who loves them for intrinstic reasons, who they are as opposed to what they do, etc.
Hmm. I thought that's how we loved. I could not care less what a man does, maybe that's just me. I'm always turned off by a person who always has to trot out their accomplishments.
Well, I mean that the essential paradox is that we want to be validated by someone who will not judge us. Mom does not judge child, for instance. But women do judge men. We want acceptance without the insecurity of possible rejection. Not that we would know what to do with it if we got it, or even recognize it. So yeah, that is how you "love". And when you're done "loving", the ex reads off her litany of complaints (the judging part). "True Love" is mom's love, mythical love of movies and poetry. "Unconditionality" and "forever" are apparently useful to Evolution in terms of short-term pair bonding and child-rearing. Only "patriarchy" (and I use this word sparingly) invents a device like marraige to try and corral "le passion". Evolution is a bitch. She don't "love" us. She laughs at our strategies of seduction while she plays her part insofar as it amuses her. For these reasons, I think a long-term seduction strategy like Kylon describes is doomed to failure, for the same reason most marraiges are doomed to failure. The better strategy for the male is to keep in mind the natural principles behind his primary drive: obtain as many partners as possible and invest as little as possible in each one.
There is one storyline in romantic literature (and media, movies, etc.)- agreat fantasy that comprises a great theme: Boy meets girl, they fall in love, boy loses girl, and wins her back. This is so compelling because this is what men do as they fail at relationships. It is failure because his efforts are in vain. The "proof" of the indestructiveness of love is temporary and eventually she validates the love as conditional. Women do not get back together with guys they dump. Ironically, it is when a man is trying extra hard to win the girl, that it is most exciting for the girl. Evolution applauds effort.
The other is female: Girl meets boy, Boy's a player, Girl converts player into stable man, end of story. This is compelling because this is what women do as they fail at relationships. In the movies, it works out- that is the fantasy. But it is failure because the player cannot be "fixed". He ditches her shortly after childbirth most if not all of the time. The lower-order women (in their heirarchy- yes, women do have heirarchy) must be satisfied with getting whatever they can.
In each case, neither a woman's love can be converted to "mom's" love, or a player conversion are realistic for most, most if not all of the time. Both are fantasy. Both are scenarios which never last or work in the real world (though it seems possible, at least in the shorter-term.
So men's strategies should avoid ending up persuing women who won't "stay in love". It only works out in the movies. And there are plenty of women, on the other hand, who are eager to participate in the adventure of trying to "flip" a player. Problem is, all men are players to some degree.
So there you have the dynamic of sex war: Men trying to play, women trying not to be played. The pathology of the "mom's love" problem is that men who persue this sooner or later lose their identity within that cauldron. The pathology of the lower-order female getting played and ending up raising baby alone is similar. Society steps in to "wrecktify" things by enforcing "mom's love" contractualism and safety-net paternalism for the low-order females through child support and other penalties.
But underneath all the glitz and glamour, men retain a certain lustiness far beyond their prime years. The gears get rusty but we still want to party. The mind is willing but the plumbing disobeys. The bottomless need opens up too soon and closes too late. Our entire lives, looking for the perfect woman to clean up our crap. What a joke. I suppose the challenge for moms and men of all ages is to surmount all this, and adaptation to more creative mating strategies is one aspect. But ultimately we need to pull the plug on "mom's love". I think women (and men) today are all too willing to feed young women mythologies about men and themselves, and be far too overbearing and overprotective of boys. Children are poorly served by what passes for parenting these days.
-
BlisteredWhippet - Tar Sands
- Posts: 848
- Joined: Tue 08 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
![[smilie=XXpuke.gif]](https://udev.peakoil.com/forums/images/smilies/XXpuke.gif "XXpuke")
