I have not come across a partnership where the woman is infatuated with her man if the man lets her walk all over him. Nagging, throwing tantrums, irrationally questioning the authority of the man in the relationship, being argumentative, these are not things women ever do in good faith. They don’t do it in bad faith either. It’s just an emotional outburst. If you don’t know how irrational and emotional women can be, I guess you’ve never been in a relationship with one (I know you are, so I know you know). As I said, women are emotional with their partner or possible mates.
That does not mean that adequate critique of myself is not registered or handled in a genuine manner. It means that irrational, inadequate critique is taken as such and playfully rejected.
Do you know what the Socratic method is? When my girl wants to argue and spouts stuff at me, I genuinely and calmly ask her what she means by that, where the problem is and what she is now mad about. Oftentimes she just can’t explain any of that. So instead of arguing against a facade, I question if there’s something behind that. If it isn’t, it is not a logicak critique but an emotional outburst.
Women convey their unhappiness to their partner with emotions, not with logical assessments. Therefore the appropriate response is not to logically discuss all issues and take everything at face value but give her the feeling she needs. Giving her love and affection when she’s in need and giving her dominance and cockiness when she needs that. After all, a males relationship role is to be simultaneously reassuring and provoking. One shows her that you love her, the other that you are worthy of loving by her (from her perspective).
If you have not understood these principles, I don’t think your wife/girl can truly be happy. Women need men who can take them seriously and also know when not to take them seriously. In mnbens post it sounded to me very much like situations in which he would do better not to take it at face value (which is very often what women want). That’s why my reaction here was advice to err on the side of not serious until proven otherwise. Women despise a man they can walk all over.
I believe I should warn any men reading this that if they are involved with a woman from a Mediterranean or Southern European culture, and I would include Latinas in that, or a Caribbean woman, don’t take the above as advice.
In all seriousness though, the advice is made for women like that. I mean, they are known for irrational emotional outbursts and that is what you are referring to. Clearly, there has to be some tweaking to the specific woman. As I said, the questions should be logical and genuine, not provoking. Provoking a pissed woman can be fun and work too, but most of the time it just backfires. As I also said, a man has to know when to take her serious and when not.
But if the woman can’t engage in a conversation without throwing tantrums (or frying pans), I don’t think I’d want that woman in a relationship anyways.
It’s like the argument black women often make against black men who date white women “He just can’t handle a REAL woman!”, when in reality, he just doesn’t WANT to deal with this domineering behavior. He doesn’t want to be a handler.
With all due respect…what are you even trying to get at? Because there’s a SLEW of issues regarding that statement and any like it.
Talk of anything regarding black men and women will always conjure up…something. There’s so many societal and cultural issues about black people’s “behavior” that I honestly have lost count how many times I’ve heard that overused statement.
By and large, the black women who say that have insecurities that span far beyond who a black man decides to date. It’s convenient to blame it on not being able to “handle” a black woman. Familiarity being the scapegoat. But for every time I hear or see that, I would also be rich if I had a dollar for every instance I’ve seen of when a black woman dates a white man and gets called a “race traitor”, “Uncle Tom”, “hateful of their own skin color”, “in love with their oppressor” by the same black men who are dating whoever they like.
Only reason I feel your comment is doing a disservice is because I am under the assumption that most of what you know about black people comes from the indirect observation of them. And I’m not talking about the “I have ONE black friend”, “I’ve worked with plenty of black people”, comment people make to suffice for very overly generalized conclusions they’ve come to regarding black people. If I’m wrong, forgive my assumption.
There’s thousands of reasons both black men and women tend to date other ethnicities. Some black women get upset because that same black man can be so good to a woman of a different ethnicity, but be extremely abusive, and unproductive to a woman of the same skin color and ethnicity. Some black women are upset because there’s too many black men who date outside of their ethnicity because they do so to get back at black women. The reasons are many, but a lot of it is perpetuated by social stigmatizations in the US either from people and their own preconceived notions of black people, or black peoples viewpoints of how they view their own selves.
But it is in no way equal to this:
Because skin color has nothing to do with an individual’s outward behavior. All of that resides internally on a mental level regardless of the amount of melanin someone possesses. It can seem like it does, but that’s because society conflates behavior with skin color. Both for the people conflating things about other people, and people doing things on their own accord because they themselves are doing the conflating.
Not trying to be rude or anything, I’ve just seen way too many over generalized statements made like that.
Your response seems oversensitive. I’m not saying all black women are saying or like that. But I’ve never heard a white woman say “he can’t handle a real woman” when he dates other colored women. I’ve seen it with black women and of you wanna see it, the internet is full of it. That’s why I invoked race here, because this statement is only made by some black women.
This is also not the point of the discussion, the point was that men should generally not have to “handle” their woman. You handle a uninvited guest, you don’t handle your partner.
No. You are wrong, it’s not society that thinks it is like that, it is sometimes like that. But it still has nothing to do with skin color. It’s culture. That’s why it only occurs in some black women who were taught that. It’s just that white women don’t get taught this stuff by anyone (I guess this will change in a generation or two).
Again, if you’ve never seen it, just go look it up. I may have the minutes to search out a few clips but I think I’ve explained it enough that race is not the central point here.
I think there just may have been a misunderstanding about what type of arguments we were having haha. It isn’t this type of stuff. Often times I am mutually to blame for the disagreement.
I think what you are describing here is a “shit test”. We are past that. In fact, I didn’t go through shit tests with her.
In all fairness, Chris Evans doesn’t speak for Disney, right? He’s a voice actor for the movie. This particular quote doesn’t exactly prove anything about Disney’s intentions or motivation. I don’t see how you can read an actor’s quote, and extrapolate that ‘his word choice makes it clear that they want and will do more of those’. Evans doesn’t fucking know what Disney plans to do. Everything I’ve read from actual Disney employees/execs refers more to representation in film, rather than ‘a new norm’ that would replace or overshadow more traditional relationships.
I think anyone who thinks we’re all of a sudden going to see homosexual relationships as more prominent than heterosexual relationships in Disney content has lost their fucking mind. Yes, they want it to be ok to show homosexual relationships in Disney films, without having to ‘disguise’ them or make them ambiguous. That much is very clear. BUT I don’t think their intentions go beyond that. It’s about making those relationships less taboo, more so than trying to convince the public that everyone should become gay, lol.
I guess? She’s also an actor who doesn’t speak for Disney… I’m not sure what comparison you’re drawing.
If you’re saying that the MULTITUDE of things she put out on social media resulted in her being fired, you’re absolutely correct. Disney felt that the things she said didn’t align with their values. The gender-related stuff was FAR less impactful to this decision than the other stuff. Comparing her ‘persecution’ for her political views to being a holocaust victim was pretty damning.
Is there something more specific you’re referring to?
I won’t ever spend another dollar there or anything they produce and my circle won’t either. I know, I know the big billion dollar corporation could care less, but eventually it will start hurting them financially as all the people with money I know are jettisoning them in all facets.
I just mean the duality that isn’t even remotely hidden when considering the two of them.
One says some things, while not speaking for disney, and isn’t warned or fired.
The other says some things, while not speaking for disney, and is ironically fired because it goes against Disney’s values.
I mean, yes, she was warned, but not being able to speak your mind under threat of termination is a form of censorship - one of the first steps in cultural engineering which can result in holocost-like outcomes.
It’s kind of like Twitter saying “we’re not censoring conservatives, we’re just not giving them as much visibility”. Like, it’s not illegal, but shady AF nonetheless.
