ApertureLash
Posts: 34
Joined: 11/14/2011
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MariaB
From early on in life we are programmed to try and live up to other peoples expectations, though we often confuse what those expectations actually are. An example of that is, I was expected to achieve or at least that's what I believed. I was praised when I achieved and because its normal to seek praise I carried on achieving. For most of us, this is carried through into adulthood. During my years as an at home mum, I received very little praise for cleaning up baby sick and crawling round on the floor playing with my infant. It wasn't missed on me when my friends got promotions and appraisals at work and wrongly, I subconciously believed I'd been left behind and would perhaps never catch up with them when I did eventually return to work. I do believe this is paranoia that many at home mums go through; at the time I believed I was being judged. I have seen many mums go through what I went through but when I look back at my own experience, never once did someone openly judge or condemn me for my choices; on the contrary, women were often very envious of me.
Yes, it is all somewhat pavlovian - achievement/reward cycle - it's usually healthy, but as you mention, it can accidentally work backwards - lack of appreciation for things that are considered everyday or normal.
quote:
ORIGINAL: MariaB
We can't attribute any of this to one thing. I would suggest that if there has been a rise in women fantasising about being raped, its because they crave a more traditional relationship where men have the stronger dominant role.
Yes, this was my (perhaps somewhat obfuscated) point too. That perhaps it's just something women want in their DNA.
quote:
ORIGINAL: MariaB
Its nothing to do with desiring to be weak but more about defining the difference between the sexes. Women don't tend to fantasise about being raped by a stranger, they fantasise about being sexually controlled by a lover. I'm not talking D/s, if I was writing this in the Guardian none of this would have anything to do with a BDSM type relationship but about the concept of roles between man and woman becoming foggy. Modern man has become more effeminate and women have become more masculine. Modern culture says its possible to blur the boundaries but is it? If we stepped back to a more natural lifestyle would we quickly slip back into more traditional roles?. For a consistent role you have to accept each others definitions. its about making those definitions clear and accepting them. I see myself as a dominant woman but for me its merely a kink. Within the marital home I am in charge of the running of the house and Steve is charge of maintaining the house; being clear about our roles creates a happy harmony and a consistent relationship.
I didn't mean to suggest women were weak, or wanted to be, but rather that when women feel equal to men, I wonder if that can bring out their desire to feel feminine, sexually appealing and to feel the natural contrast with their man's natural masculinity. I believe that women generally like sexual matters to make them feel feminine, beautiful, downright sexy to the point of practically being impossible to resist. Generally speaking, of course. And that they like men to be masculine, be big, strong, maybe even rough and dominant.
So my point was that if you make women feel equal to a man, make them feel a bit "manly" and make them see men as a bit "effeminate", that the more a woman feels this, then it would make sense to my mind that her desire for a mills and boon or a 50 shades of grey type sex life would naturally grow.
This is all assuming that the growth in the number of women admitting to having these fantasies is real growth, and not simply a growth in the number of women comfortable enough to admit it. I'm going to throw that out there too, because I'm aware I'm right on the edge of talking utter nonsense here, and many women are probably thinking I fell over that edge long ago.
quote:
ORIGINAL: MariaB
I believe many women are hindered by their emotional core. The emotional side of our brain works both for us and against us; whilst it allows us to feel compassion and show empathy in the appropriate places which is good, it has a tendency to make us think irrationally. Its more likely to jump to conclusions and fill in the missing details. It also makes us judge people too quickly. Although women are more prone to tearful emotions than men, men are more prone to anger than women and that anger comes from that same place in the brain as the emotional thinking does in a woman.
I do think this is why a male brain and a female brain, when both take into account the strengths and weaknesses of the other, can be a great compliment to one another. In a given situation, a man alone might react to something purely rationally, with no regard to the feelings of others, resulting in a coldhearted decision. Maybe a woman alone might act purely emotionally, resulting in lashing out or an illogical response.
But (at least in theory) the two together can sum up the logical and emotional aspects of a situation and help each other not to make heartless or rash decisions. Although having said all that, I will say that if you watch "brainsex" you'll realise that men don't necessarily have "male" brains and women don't necessarily have "female" brains, and that the distinction between the two is often more to do with our perception of what is and isn't "male" or "female" than with reality.
quote:
ORIGINAL: MariaB
Nobody can think logically when they are emotional, be that tears or be it anger. We do all have the ability to allow those emotions to pass and then sit down and think logically but some people cause a lot of damage or make a fool of themselves long before they take control of that anger. We only have to look here on this forum to see evidence of an irrational emotional reaction...and that wasn’t by a woman!
Getting angry easily suggests emotional pain to me, or a lack of self-control. Maybe just pure immaturity. Perhaps all of the above. I know what I'm talking about here, I used to have serious anger management issues, and I still have buttons (who doesn't?) but generally I'm pretty long tempered these days.
quote:
ORIGINAL: MariaB
When it comes to our emotional core, we really aren’t that different; yes, women generally have more empathy and feel more outrage at a wrong doing but men tend to have more anger towards the unfairness of another. Men though, are more likely to calm down more quickly because they are less likely to over think things. They tend not to seethe inside like many woman do...but if we are going to compare logical thinking, why is it that men are ten times more prepared to have unprotected sex than women?
I hadn't thought of it that way. I can be a quite emotional person, but my biggest "button" is unfair treatment. I just can't sit back and watch someone be treated unfairly - I have on several occasions, stepped into a situation that's nothing to do with me to point out to someone they're being unfair.
I remember seeing a worker being shouted at by a manager in a store for something she hadn't done. I couldn't sit by and be all "Nothing to do with me" - I told him to grow up and stop blaming others for his shortcomings as a manager. Neither of these people are anything to do with me, but unfairness just burns my breeches.
quote:
ORIGINAL: MariaB
I like the idea of a ‘nothing box’. Women do internally worry more than men. When Patricia seems a bit cool with Susie at a party Susie may well go home and worry about it. She will think through every possible reason why Patricia was off with her and by the time she’s finished, the world might as well be coming to an end!! I call that sort of thinking “destructive white noise”. Women are much more prone to this than men. A man is far more likely to think, “oh dear, Patricia is obviously having a bad day” and not give it much thought.
Its fascinating stuff!
I have found in my relationships that men and women also deal with stress in different ways. Men go to their nothing box, women want to talk it through. Or men want to work the problem out and find a solution and/or do something about it, women just want to be listened to. Then if you can find a solution, fine, but first, LISTEN!
I've found in my relationships that often I end up with feeling like a stress toy. My woman comes, dumps all of her stress on me, walks away smiling widely, and I'm left feeling like I'm carrying two loads but I don't have a chance to deal with stress the way I need to.
Rough sex seems to be the only way out of that conundrum, as it's the only way I can think of for a typically male brain and a typically female brain to work out their stress in a mutually beneficial way. And yes, I mean that - rough sex seems to me to be nature's main way of recharging men so they can deal with stress. It's theraputic.
And then women start to get headaches all the time and start to wonder why their men aren't interested in listening to their problems anymore. *DON'T* take sex away from him! You'll shut him down for sure! Just my opinion, but one I can tell you is 101% true for me. Also, I love your "destructive white noise" thing. I know for a fact it's true, I have never had a girlfriend who didn't do that to herself. The only women I know of who don't do that are survivors of abuse, but I think they've got completely different mindsets.
Although I have had an ex who was a survivor of abuse who *did* do it too, so...
quote:
ORIGINAL: ResidentSadist
My mask is sheep's clothing so as not to scare the tourists about my true nature.
Funny . . . I was raised in a non judgmental atmosphere with artists, doctors and scientists. Being a nerd or being gay was ok. My dad wasn't a super macho type. He was a doctor and more of the academic professor type. Even without a macho dad stereotype, I turned out to be a man's man kind of guy.
I developed my masculine id on my own and I am a real live macho type dude underneath at my core. I didn't become that way from suffering or repression as a child. It was quite the opposite, I had the freedom to grow and develop my own personality.
I think being macho is a natural state of being for some, not others. And I don't rank it against other stereotypes as being less or more. Somebody has to take point, take up the rear and watch the middle. We all have our niche and the sum of those niches makes us work as a group. So why would an A type personality or any of the others be a fault?
"Man up" . . . I just don't see that in itself as being a bad thing somehow. Using it wrong, to suppress yourself is the problem. "Man up" and get the job done is good thing. "Man up" and suppress your feelings is bad thing.
When I meet people, a silent assessment runs in the back of my mind. "If we were on a plane and survived a crash in the jungle, would this person be lunch meat, just survive or thrive?" That is my assessment of macho and many girls get higher macho survival quotients than men. I guess my image of macho is not the typical social chest beating, Rolex wearing shenanigans you see in society, It's more about how you would stack up against nature or your level of awareness. I respect that more than your ability to suppress your emotions.
I know what you mean about the mask. If people saw what went through my head, 99% of people would want me locked up for the good of society as a whole.
I think you bring up good points, but I do have one problem with it all - you describe "macho" in a way that doesn't seem "macho" to me at all. It just seems masculine. For example, you say "man up and get the job done" is good. I agree. But to me, that's not machismo.
I think, fundamentally, we agree on everything except the definition of "macho". I think you're a lot more tollerant of the word than I am, but my father wasn't a tolerant, balanced fellow. He was the type who thought feelings were for girls, that sex should be called "fucking" even around a 4 year old, and that his worth as a man was directly linked to his bank account. Driving a big Mercedes/BMW made him, in his mind, a somehow better person and more of a man than the people around him. His idea of macho *was* and probably is the social chest beating, rolex wearing, multiple woman shagging crap you spoke of, and I guess that's what has given me a bit of a negative idea of what "macho" is versus what "manly" is.
Perhaps it's time for me to try to redefine "macho" in my own brain...
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesFIP
I'd love to see that study because it has zero relationship to any of the CEOs I've known.
My father, my father in law, their friends with whom we socialized.
“The Wisdom of Psychopaths: What Saints, Spies and Serial Killers Can Teach Us About Success” — author Kevin Dutton
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesFIP
David Rockefeller of Chase was a most well respected man not known for anger or any such behavior in the workplace.
I think that the psychologists went out looking to prove this hypothesis and ignored anything that didn't coincide with their pre-conceived notions.
It reminds me of nothing more than a study set up years ago to prove that morning sickness was caused by women secretly not wanting to be pregnant. Unfortunately, the researchers made the mistake of also testing hormone levels and were chagrined to discover that the faster the pregnancy hormones rose was the only correlation they could find.
Well, I can't say the study wasn't "loaded" as you suggest, I wasn't involved - but what I read made sense. And bear in mind that if these people are psychopaths, they're not going to exhibit anger. That's not a psychopathic trait.
Psychopaths are masters of disguise, so saying "they seem nice to me" isn't proof they're not. I'm not saying the people you knew *were* phsychopathic either - simply that if they were, you wouldn't have been able to tell. Putting aside kids/sickos going into schools with guns, most serial killers are described as nice people by their neighbours, many have wives and families that think they love them. Many vounteer or help out at the local church.
Also bear in mind that "Psychopath" does not mean "Killer". You don't have to have the urge to kill other people to have a psychopathic mind - the psychopathic mindset isn't always linked to being a serial killer. In fact, in most cases it's not. Most people know several people who are clinically psychopathic - they number in the millions. But we don't have millions of serial killers.
But until you describe a psychopathic mind to someone, they can't get past the link between it and serial killing. The fact is that psychopathy gives people the skills to get away with serial killing, it does not necessarily give you the desire to kill. It's that skillset that makes the psychopathic mind so good at big business - the ability to make hard choices and not flinch, because you're genuinely not worried about the negative possible outcome.
So when I say they're psychopaths, I'm not saying they're evil. Just that they have a psychological skillset that some evil people also have, and which *those* evil people use to harm people. Being a psychopath is only automatically bad in pop culture, not in reality. Some psychopaths are genuinely good people (lets not think "dexter" here either).
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
Interesting video. It seems to suggest that anyone who utters phrases like "Be a man" or "Man up" are indirectly causing violence to occur. That may be part of the problem, since "being a man" has degenerated more into a slogan and a caricature, without any firm guidance or positive role models. I don't doubt that it can be a contributory factor in violence and crime, since any time someone suggests that a man is "not a real man," the natural reaction is to find a way to prove them wrong.
The trouble with that is that our competitive nature causes us to be very stubborn and persistent, where we can retaliate and escalate to the point of an all-or-nothing fight to the death. That is, after all, what "being a man" is all about, at least as it gets to its most primal state. Challenging a man's masculinity can always be a rather volatile proposition either way you slice it, and there are times when it can get out of control. That's the key thing, to find balance and to keep oneself under control, but if there are no safe emotional outlets and the only acceptable "manly" emotion is anger, then it can get a bit dicey and dangerous. Anger is the only emotion a man can express openly and not be considered a "wussy," so it shouldn't be much of a surprise if that's the only emotion we see in many men. "It's better to burn out than fade away." 
Yes, you know, you raise a great point - "Be a man" is a phrase that seems to be part of a problem. I've found myself deliberately trying not to use that phrase anymore, but the truth is that it shouldn't be about words. Those three words should not be destructive.
As ResidentSadist pointed out, you should be able to say "Be a man" in the context of "get the job done, please" without feeling bad about saying it. I know men who're lazy, and don't do the job they're paid to do - allowing others to take up their slack. I, or any other person taking up their slack, should be entitiled to say to them "Pick up your tools, and stop being so lazy. Be a man and work for your money like the rest of us".
It's when people use it as a weapon that I think we should be wary. "You want that jacket I'm trying to sell you sir? I'm going to insinuate that not buying it somehow makes you unmanly" or a woman telling her man to "Be a MAN" because she wants him to do something he has an objection to like committing an act of violence against someone she doesn't like.
Or a man telling his son to "Be a man" and stop crying when something upsets him. My brother has never tried to get his sons to "be a man". He's just disciplined them. He's fair with them, loving, kind. But not soft. Tough love type stuff. He encourages them when they fall down, he doesn't mollycoddle them, he doesn't scold them for crying (except when they're doing that manipulative type of crying to try to get ice cream or whatever). He gives them corner time when they bully each other. Result?
He's got a 3 year old and a 4 year old who're genuinely more "manly" than most men I know. Anyone with daughters roughly their age, watch out - these two are going to be popular...
_____________________________
Every opinion I give is probably wrong, and as such you run the risk of injury or death if you listen to my inane ramblings.
|
RE: The mask you live in - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread