Life is a journey. The destination is death. This blog is all about the musings of a sojourner in her thirties, curious about the stops, the fellow passengers, the driver(s), the conditions of travel and the highlights and lowlights. All the while in a place of tranquility: the sanctuary.
Friday, November 23, 2012
The big brother of PVC
I need help...
No, no! Before you start sending me the phone number of your therapist, I don't mean that kind of help :-)
It is more a literary kind of help.
I am searching for a word.
And so far, my cerebral 'Google' says, 'No results found'.
So I seek your help.
I have recently taken a step or two back from this blog.
Whilst I could use laziness/'busy, busy busy' as my excuse, this would not be the whole truth.
I have been doing what Danny asked me to do almost a year ago.
Which is to spend less time blogging and more time perusing other people's blogs.
This
1. Gives my blogging cortex a rest.
2. Gives me material to blog about.
3. Helps me establish that I am part of a blogging community and not an island.
Ahem!
That's the last time I listen to a man...
Just kidding, Maestro :-)
Me getting into a bit of trouble was not your fault :-) But thanks for saying that if you coulda, you woulda sat me down and given me some advice as to how to proceed...i.e. with caution, lol.
And your blogpost earlier today reminds me of an encounter with my big brother when I was about 5.
I got erm...beaten up by a boy of about 6 (yup, little ST got beat). I had no fighting skills, and even though I was bigger than him, the boy beat me up good.
I went crying to my big brother later.
Sympathy? Are you joking me?
This was my big brother's response:
"You allowed yourself to get beaten by a boy smaller than you? For sure, you deserved to get beat!"
My brother was treating me as though I were a boy. Always has, always will.
At least now I can have a sense of humour about it.
And after dusting myself from the latest clash with the Titans, in which my hamster got shot at point blank range, said hamster is now fully resuscitated and is ready to do business again, and I am back with you with a smile :-)
And to those men who are opponents of The Manosphere who would no doubt say the same thing my brother said and start off by saying, "What did we tell you about playing with those boys...?"
:-)
I know, I know, I got no right to come crying to you...
Joking aside, I want to do 2 things with this post:
1. Outline certain lessons I learned from my interaction with people on that post at TPM's.
(And I promise, no more rants from me. I got their message and I am cool with everybody involved. Honest. If you detect a rant, tell me and I shall give my hamster a slap).
2. And this will spill into the next post on this blog, where I shed some light on why I think JV's contribution to that post is important, even if not to the men on that post.
(Now, whilst it is no secret that I rather like JV (no homo), this is not the reason I supported one or two of her comments on that post about M3. I shall do my best to explain it as clearly as possible...).
Well, I told you I was slow...
The thought to bring the topics of interest (to me) that occurred to me when I read M3's post should have passed through my mind much earlier than it did.
In many ways I forgot I have a blog! I was so used to being a 'commenter' lately :-)
I like to make parallels between male and female 'ways'. I have previously done this with the hamster and 'frame' using the 'brother-sister' analogy.
I am about to do it again.
One of the lessons I learned on my recent brush with the Manosphere law is that sometimes, even good intentions from a woman can be viewed as BAD BAD BAD by a man. This can be so frustrating for a woman. But in the same way as women cannot expect men to act like a woman, I guess I can only expect a man to act like a man.
I, like most women will soak up empathy whenever and wherever I can get it :-)
This is closely linked, I think, to (in a nice way) our tendency towards what I call 'Perpetual Victim Complex' (PVC). Not all women have this problem, but I think the majority do. Now, what one does with this complex is up to the individual woman. I know some women, for instance, who only use their PVC not for themselves, but for others :-)
But some men (and definitely not all) prefer to stew in their own pain and exclude everyone from it. I guess this is part of the 'Quiet Man' phenomenon, although I must say, I have never encountered a man in real life, 'Quiet Man' or not, who didn't make it known that he appreciated genuine empathy when it was offered.
So this episode on TPM was 'virgin territory' for me.
The man is so deeply buried in his problems that he refuses any displays of affection. Even from a woman who is standing well outside of his 'cave' (like miles away) and waving a white flag and not offering anything remotely resembling 'help'.
To the man, all of that is 'noise'....? (Yes, someone used that word).
Anyone know how to better define this phenomenon in one or two words?
I was thinking...maybe 'leave-me-alone!' complex' or even 'stay away from me!' phenomenon, but that's more than two words...
Well, it helps to know. Lesson learned.
If the point of this blog is to understand a bit better about men, then here is a lesson from the College of Manhood. (Oh, I was so tempted to say 'University of Man', but they are no longer with us...).
And...very importantly, I think it is wise to know a particular man's tendencies when it comes to this.
As I found out, the men at TPM were polarised on this 'empathy' issue, some refusing it (which is fine) and some welcoming it (which is fine). But the problem was, I was not to know who wanted what, so I was like a reed in the wind...
Luckily, M3 himself was a 'yes please, I'll take it' kind of man in this respect.
Phew!
I think it would be a shame for a woman to provide it when it is not wanted, and to not have it handy when it is needed.
Anyhow, now I move onto JV.
But before I do, a quick word about 'solipsism'.
As with 'hypergamy' and 'preselection', I have my own take on this.
The Manosphere view this as a predominantly female disease. I don't.
It cannot be.
Whenever we encounter a situation, we judge it by making it 'about us'.
Case in point: many men responded to M3's post by starting off saying something like.
'Man, this is so what I went through...'
'God, this is so familiar...'
The only reason they are not judged for their reaction is that their reaction is identical to M3's (or similar enough) and therefore deemed acceptable, on a forum that deals with men's issues. Which is fair enough. I get that.
M3 gave a wonderful analogy to explain why he thought (as JV and I did) that it is indeed possible to empathise with someone even if you don't have an identical experience as them.
"Very few people on this planet had someone they’re related to die on 9-11. But for a day, the whole world stopped. Empathy brought the planet to a halt."
As someone who was neither anywhere New York nor knew someone who was, how can I 'make this about me'?
Easy. Find something similar that I can relate to.
IRA bombings in London, for example...
I HAVE to first make it about me, in my head, before I can relate.
If I can't, I'm done. It won't be possible to relate. If I tried to, it would come across as fake. Which would be clear for all to see.
JV and I tried to do that. Solipsism, yes. But necessary solipsism in this case.
I provided an example of a good woman who couldn't get a commitment from a man she loved.
PVW, you are right, I didn't make this analogy tight enough, and the picture you provide on Danny's blog is exactly what I would have said, if I had had a chance to.
But as you can see, it would have been the wrong time and place :-)
JV gave two examples, bless her :-)
The first one really ruffled feathers.
It was the example of a bad woman who was suffering the consequences from one too many 'pump and dumps'.
The unfortunate thing about this was that many commenters made the assumption that JV was equating M3's situation with this female situation.
I know she wasn't - like me before her on that post, she was simply saying that the way these women feel is similar to how M3 felt, and not that the path that took those women to where they were presently is similar to how M3 got to where he was - but it is a hard case to argue, especially when the issue of 'choice' came up.
So in fact I saw a reason to abandon this analogy.
The second analogy is much more apt.
For two reasons:
Because it is more an appropriate analogy for JV to have used, because it was her experience. Which means it is the best analogy she could use to help her see M3 as 'fellow sufferer'.
I shall go more into that analogy in Part 2. Because I think there are other aspects to it that deserve to go under the microscope.
With this solipsism in mind, I can now say that this suggestion by someone, cannot work, for the target audience intended:
A woman who wants to understand it better can imagine how she’d feel like if
* Men stopped paying attention to her
*To get any sex, she has to ask 100 men before one says yes, and a lot of rejections are brutal. Some express disgust.
*Guys she likes fuck anyone but her
*She is constantly horny like during ovulation, just constantly.
This would not work because women simply do not live this experience. If to understand M3, a woman used this strategy, it would be no more than an intellectual exercise. It would NOT take her to the place of pain that she needs to go to (that is still nowhere near M3's place of pain, granted - but is better than nothing).
I agree better with that same commenter's statement (elsewhere):
"Using parallells to understand how someone might feel is the only way we can understand anything. Were they asking you to imagine a color you’ve never seen before? Of course you can only imagine something with things you already know about/experienced."
Solipsism. We need it. All of us. And it ain't a bad thing if used correctly.
The third and final lesson is....
As ever....
Vive la différence!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
Nicely put.
Hi, ST, thanks for the acknowledgement...
Yes I did think the analogy could be tighter, insofar as the closest similarity to the problem he faced, of a commitment-oriented man who wanted sex, one would have to think about the commitment-oriented woman who wanted companionship but all she got in turn was nothing because she wasn't offering no-strings sex, while the women who wanted sex primarily were the ones who got relationships.
For M3's type of man, the men who wanted no commitment got sex and devotion from women while the commitment oriented man was left with nothing.
So I could not relate directly to his post of wanting sex but getting nothing, because when I was younger and unmarried (right before I met Mr. PVW), I once felt like I was in the box of wanting a relationship, but being offered sex, and that was not palatable.
It really struck home with me when I was chatting once with a friend from graduate school. We were friendly, running into each other at social events and around campus. I knew he was dating someone, albeit long distance, so I wasn't interested.
He once mentioned in passing that if I was ever interested in a NSA relationship, he would be interested.
I remembered being crestfallen at that. This was someone whom I thought admired and respected me.
From a male perspective, perhaps yes, as M3 was thinking, sexual access is one of the highest compliments a woman could give a man. I'm skeptical, though, because that leads women to think sex is all they have to offer.
Perhaps he was saying, "I like and admire you, you are of a high enough smv to attract me, but I can't date you, however, I wouldn't mind enriching our connection in that way."
From my women's point of view, I heard, "I am attracted to you, but I don't really respect you, so I'll offer you something cheap and tawdry, because that is what I think you deserve."
I felt shamed. And here is the thing, if I had the chance to date him without being the "other woman," I would have been skeptical, because I would have known about his tendencies to cheat.
Talk about giving a man an open invitation to control me by instilling dread. I was not interested in that scenario!
As I said on Danny's post, I saw M3's essay, read it, thought about it, but did not leave a comment.
Why? Because I believe that certain spaces are by their existence, or by necessity, men's spaces and others are women's spaces, and as such, I have no role in saying anything in contribution.
This obviously came from having a more traditional type background, that as I grew out of childhood, these differences would become more apparent.
And this has only been reinforced by my observations of the manosphere, as I put on my INTJ hat.
So yes, M3's space might be women-friendly on occasion, but I saw instances where it was not, and I thought that this would be one of those, where the bitterness would abound.
I might peek into the locker room, but I will only venture in if it is a women's locker room or where the men's locker room is a space hospitable to women.
I'm surprised, though, that you haven't had the same understanding, seeing that you grew up with a brother.....
Hmm, this statement was not fully accurate:
"I knew he was dating someone, albeit long distance"
She was actually his marriage-minded girlfriend who might have thought they were in an exclusive relationship, and who might have thought he wouldn't be stepping out.
He, however, didn't feel ready for marriage....
Speaking to your ideas of women and the "perpetual victim complex," when I thought about it and chatted with my girlfriends, we came to the conclusion that both his girlfriend and I were his victims, and he was the alpha cad perpetrator.
ST,
I have had a post going about solipsism for quite some time in my save posts that I haven't gotten to working on yet. Do you mind if I use some of what you wrote here for it?
Also, regarding what happened at Private Man's, I completely understand what you and JV were trying to do. I was sitting here doing the same thing in my head. However, something I have learned about men is that, sometimes, no matter how much we truly want to understand how they feel, we just can't. We have to just accept that. And the same goes for things that we might go through that they will never be able to understand.
The key is that we still need to support them through it. Basically saying, I am here. Just tell me should you need anything at all. If you turn it around too soon to really try and figure out what they are going through when the pain is still to raw they will get angry. As even though you are trying to help, in trying to understand we are still making it about us in attempting to learn about it. In my opinion, something like this would have been much better to do your own blog post here and start asking questions (maybe even a day or two after PM's post, just to give some time for these guys).
I think men do want us to try to understand certain things as far as we can, but we have to learn the best time to do this and in a way that doesn't make their pain more raw. When it comes to our own men, we also have to accept their answer when to just drop it, support them and let it go.
Eesh, does this even make sense?
PVW and Stingray,
Yes I know you are right.
Shoulda zipped it :-)
I won't forget this one in a hurry...
This post is all about lessons learned.
Stingray, please go ahead. I'd be interested in your take on 'solipsism'!
PVW,
"I'm surprised, though, that you haven't had the same understanding, seeing that you grew up with a brother....."
Told you I was slow...
JV,
Thanks and...come over for ice-cream. Bring a movie :-)
ST, some further thoughts.
Your lessons provide a reminder to me of something, that it is important to remember that interactions in the manosphere are not fully reflective of interations in real life. There are parallels, but they are not the same.
The men in my family freely talk about what is on their mind; we have that intimate emotional connection. Of if they need space, I know them well enough to understand and give it to them. I didn't need the manosphere to teach me how to understand men, negotiate a relationship or build a marriage. I got that from my upbringing.
And yes, I know, many people didn't have that, and so the manosphere is useful.
But things are different in the manosphere, many men have serious emotional issues they can't talk about with anyone, and if anything, there is a lot of hostility towards women. A woman in the manosphere who tries to talk to them, is more than likely to get her head ripped off, because that is what the anonynimity of the internet enables. That is why I stay out of the locker room.
Beyond that, I find it interesting that so many women in the manosphere seem to have something to prove, that they are red pill, they undersand, they feel empathy, and some almost want to wear a crown of thorns in solidarity. And because they want to prove something, they wade in where their interest and response is not appreciated.
I say, save it for the men in your life....
PVW,
Everything you say is so profoundly true.
"I say, save it for the men in your life...."
Don't worry, I will (and do)!
You are right, in that to know one particular man or group of men (i.e. one's own male entourage) is crucially important.
I do know my own entourage well, thank God, so I probably won't make the same mistake I made online, in real life.
Everything we say or do here in internet space is but 'practice' for real life. It is definitely not the same as the real thing and should of course not replace the real thing. Absolutely.
If some angry guy somewhere needs a cyberspace punching bag in the form of a woman commenter on his way to getting himself out of the abyss of despair, well, I can't say it bothers me too much to be that woman occasionally. (Angry women also do this to men, of course - both genders are guilty of this).
Precisely because I have enough mental awareness to distinguish between real life and an abstract (albeit interesting) discussion with faceless anonymous fellow-conversationalists.
Thanks for making that point. It is an important one.
Do you have a name for this phenomenon of which I speak?
The closest thing I can call it is some kind of 'persecution complex' although I can immediately see the problems with this term.
But I only use it to describe how women can see it as a man (a close man, that is, we are talking husband or boyfriend here) pushing her away because he feels 'persecuted' (rather than comforted) by her attempts at kindness because he is simply not receptive to it, either because of wrong timing, wrong communication style of the woman, wrong place, wrong...there could be a myriad of reasons...
Is this a recognised phenomenon with a name?
Anyone know?
ST:
If some angry guy somewhere needs a cyberspace punching bag in the form of a woman commenter on his way to getting himself out of the abyss of despair, well, I can't say it bothers me too much to be that woman occasionally. ....
Precisely because I have enough mental awareness to distinguish between real life and an abstract (albeit interesting) discussion with faceless anonymous fellow-conversationalists.
Me: It is funny, I use your reasoning, of having enough awareness to distinguish between the two, but I reach a different conclusion. I am bothered by the person who needs a punching bag in cyberspace.
It is incomprehensible, a ridiculous waste of emotion that I find draining, most likely because I'm an INTJ.
If you want to work through anger and despair and you need a punching bag, talk to a real live person, ie., get a therapist who is trained to work with these issues!
Anonymous people in cyberspace are not responsible for your pain, and because they have no means of making a truly personal connection in cyberspace, they can't be held to the same standards of communication that would enable greater clarity and understanding.
A therapist is more likely to know about the phenomenon you are struggling to define.
I don't have any idea what it would be called.
@ Spacetraveller
What was your specific reason in commenting on The Private Man's post?
@ ST
You're on! Movie and....chocolate sauce for the ice cream,lol.
PVW,
Again I agree with you that cyberspace ranting when one has a specific issue to work through is not (for you at least, and not for me either) the best option. But as they say, everyone is different. For some, it may be the perfect 'therapy' to engage with like-minded individuals online.
I must say, I am acutely aware that the Manosphere is a 'man-only' space. The fact that I am welcome there is somewhat a privilege. I won't go where I KNOW for sure that I am not welcome. TPM's and Danny's sites (and M3's for that matter) are woman-friendly sites. At least I perceive them to be. Which is why I comment there.
And if any man on those sites says something from his heart, like 'don't sympathise with me, I don't want or need it', I won't qibble with that, per se. His delivery method may not sit well with me, eg. (and I said this on Danny' blog), I have a real problem with the 'women, STFU!' approach, because it immediately gets my back up, as I only 'hear' the swear words and not the genuinely sincere message behind the swear words.
(Again I say, women, in general, and I in particular, are very 'word-sensitive'. This is not the same as'thin-skinned' though).
Hey, it is what he feels. To tell him HOW to feel is just as bad as him telling ME how to feel.
I just need to make a decision when I know how he feels about my 'empathy': if I can accept to continue interacting with a man who will throw back my empathy in my face, then I continue. I am sure there are women who can do this. I am sadly not one of those women though...
But the fact remains that the man has said how he feels about a woman's 'empathy'. It is how he feels about it, whether permanently, or just 'in the moment'. To argue with him about that is to demean his feelings and that is not what I am about.
Which is why I replied to Deti and co that I accepted what they say.
Now this brings me to another point. I wonder if the men on Manosphere sites feel it is a 'distraction' if more and more women are commenting on their sites? I always think it is rather cool to have men and women discussing issues of interest to them together, and not be at war all the time. But then again, I would :-)
But what about men? Do they really want a man-only space?
I'd be interested to know. If for one minute I suspected that it is hurting them if I comment on their sites, I will stop immediately. Honest. The only person who I am SURE loves women to comment on his site is Danny. Everyone else, I simply don't know. At least not with certainty.
Ceer,
I commented on TPM's post about M3 because that story really touched me. Like any normal person, I was 'giving my condolences', so to speak. I never expected the furore which followed!
Well, that'll teach me...
LOL.
A lot of people say I should never have commented. Which on hindsight is true. I should never have.
But I did not have the benefit of hindsight of course WHEN I commented. And besides, my comment was somewhat misunderstood. And then I spent my next 30 coments explaining myself...
(Just kidding, I really did not post 30 comments...).
Also, TPM specifically mentioned in his introduction that women should read it. Looking back, he did not say anything about women commenting though, but I did see that as somewhat of an 'invitation'. A clear case of where presumptions can be fatal. M3 also stated later that although he had not written the post to 'bash' women, he really wished that more of them would read it and reflect on how their actions affect men. So at the end of the day, that post was an important one for BOTH men and women. There's something for everyone there, in other words.
I felt it was the perfect post to comment on!
How wrong can a girl get...LOL.
Tell me (honestly), Ceer. I stress the honesty bit because I won't judge you for your answer, whatever it may be. Are you happy to receive 'empathy' from a woman even if you know she does not fully understand something you are going through?
Let's say you and your wife both lost your jobs. Let's add some extra pain to this scenario. Let's say you already have 4 kids and she is now pregnant with the fifth. She loves you like you are the best thing since sliced bread. She thinks the sun shines out of your....
She says to you: 'I love you and I know what losing your job means to you. I lost mine too, remember? I know things will work out fine in the end. Don't worry'.
How will you feel about the phrase 'I know what losing your job means to you'?
Because of course she doesn't.
To her, her job was never the source of her self-worth, right? Her self-worth was deeply tied to marrying you, the man she loves more than anyone else in the world.
To her, the equivalent situation (that your jobloss is to you) is if you were found in a motel room with a 20 year old 'hottie' because your wife is now fat and 'not hot', you know, ala Petraeus. That is the equivalent for a woman.
You on the other hand, on losing your job, are now feeling like you are less of a man than you did a year ago. You are no longer able to provide for your (large) family. To you, your job loss is CATASTROPHIC.
How would you react to your loving wife's empathy in this situation?
Would it be, 'Oh the poor dear, she has no idea...but, she is doing her best to cheer me up rather than divorcing me because she is not haaaaaapy' or 'Woman STFU and leave me alone!' or ...something in-between, and if so, exactly what?
By the way, can you improve on my 'persecution complex' term for this 'thing' that I am hoping to get the right terminology for?
JV,
Mwah mwah! It's a deal!
ST:
I just need to make a decision when I know how he feels about my 'empathy': if I can accept continuing to interact with a man who will throw back my empathy in my face, then I continue. I am sure there are women who can do this. I am sadly not one of those women though...
Me: It depends on the context; is it a man in your "entourage," or is it an anonymous man on the internet? If it is the former, well, learning how to calibrate is about building a relationship, so if he doesn't want your empathy, don't give it!
Now if it is anonymous man on the internet, I would tell the woman she needs to get a life and get out from in front of her computer: don't waste the pretty! There is nothing sad about refusing to engage under those circumstances!
ST: Now this brings me to another point. I wonder if the men on Manosphere sites feel it is a 'distraction' if more and more women are commenting on their sites? I always think it is rather cool to have men and women discussing issues of interest to them together, and not be at war all the time.
Me: The blog host sets the tone, but as you mentioned, even though the host might be hospitable, the other participants might not. I gauge my response based upon blog host and tone of topic, the discussion.
ST: M3 also stated later that although he had not written the post to 'bash' women, he really wished that more of them would read it and reflect on how their actions affect men.
Me: Yes, I realize that. But as I was thinking in my earlier responses, he seemed to be speaking to a certain type of woman who is quite unrestricted in her sexuality (like many men might be) and/or extremely hypergamous in using sex to get men. Not relevant to me as a woman, so nothing for me to "prove," if I were so inclined...And definitely a male locker room thing to stay out of!
@ST… “…I always think it is rather cool to have men and women discussing issues of interest to them together, and not be at war all the time…”
I completely agree.
“…But what about men? Do they really want a man-only space?...”
Yes, just as women want women only spaces sometimes.
“…A lot of people say I should never have commented. Which on hindsight is true. I should never have…”
I disagree. I think both yours and JV’s comments were good contributions to the discussion. They flushed out a comment from Deti – best in the thread – had you not commented he would not have posted that.
“…Are you happy to receive 'empathy' from a woman even if you know she does not fully understand something you are going through?...” (asked of Ceer)
I would rather get what you call validation than empathy. In the M3 thread that might have been something like this… Those women who friend zoned you and turned you down made bad short sighted decisions. You have (good quality) and (good quality) I can tell from your posts. Tell me please what can we as women do to be more perceptive so as not to let a good man like you slip through our fingers? I am sorry to hear of the pain our shortsightedness and bad choices causes –I know it is too late for you but what can young women do to prevent this pain from happening to the good young men in their lives?
You validate, acknowledge ownership of the problem on behalf of team woman, and ask how it can be fixed. I can’t speak for the guys on that thread, but that kind of approach would work for me (and a good deal, but not all, of what M3 wrote resonated with me).
Grasshopper
@ Spacetraveller
“…Are you happy to receive 'empathy' from a woman even if you know she does not fully understand something you are going through?...”
Intentions matter. Since we've talked here quite a bit, I understand where you are coming from regarding your worldview and demeanor.
Perhaps some of the others don't have this. Given the experience many men have with women of low agency, it's reasonable to for them to be wary of that low agency commenting on such a post.
Personally, I think it's possible for anyone to feel at least a little of what others feel, even if they would never come across a comparable situation.
@ PVW,
All your points are taken with cordial agreement :-)
Great points.
You are fast becoming the female Deti in my eyes :-)
@ Grasshopper,
"I would rather get what you call validation than empathy. In the M3 thread that might have been something like this… Those women who friend zoned you and turned you down made bad short sighted decisions. You have (good quality) and (good quality) I can tell from your posts. Tell me please what can we as women do to be more perceptive so as not to let a good man like you slip through our fingers? I am sorry to hear of the pain our shortsightedness and bad choices causes –I know it is too late for you but what can young women do to prevent this pain from happening to the good young men in their lives?"
Wow, Grasshopper, if only you had posted this on TPM's blog!
NOBODY else had taken this approach!
Can I just say, this would TOTALLY work for me!
In fact, now I remember that I am usually about, 'What can a woman do?' but on TPM's blog, somehow I forgot to take this path. Your suggestion takes me right back to that. And for me, this is something I would REALLY appreciate.
This is why:
The way you approach me is to side-step my 'empathy'. You don't make it an issue at all. I have no idea whether you want my empathy or not. So however you feel about it, I am not given a direct opinion about it so I have nthing to b*tch about, in the event of your not actually wanting said empathy.
But, and this is VERY important for someone like me who likes to feel as though they are contributing something positive (even if in reality I am not, lol) you are giving me a task. You are asking me to think about what I can do for you, rather than wasting my energies 'feeling sorry' for you, which you may not like. This is great for me, because I get to be useful in some way. I love that.
Grasshopper, I absolutely LOVE this answer. In asking me to validate you, you are also indirectly validating me, because you are showing me HOW I can 'help' you - something I am actually willing to do, but am afraid to unless you hint that it would be welcome.
If YOU had posted this on TPM, that thread would have been a lot shorter! Because I would have immediately stopped ranting and just followed your advice...
Seriously. Because I would have no complaints about whether or not you want my empathy, etc. I would simply have found myself with a mission that you have provided for me. And that would keep me busy...
That is some serious Game right there :-) But in this case, I would GLADLY be Gamed...
This is a very clever approach, Grasshopper, (I wonder if you realise this??) because although you might well be saying exactly the same thing as other men, you do it in a way that appeals to me (your target audience).
I guess this is what TOM is always going on about - i.e. 'speaking the language of your audience, so that they engage with you'. You certainly did that with me just now.
This is excellent. Grazie mille!
Ceer,
Thank you also for your comment. As I said, I won't judge any man either way.
I certainly do appreciate the diversity of opinion on this subject.
Very interesting subject. One that I am likely to chew on for some more days to come.
@ST… “…if only you had posted this on TPM's blog! …”
Done just now as a response to you, although I would not blame you if you did not want to go back and respond to me there and reopen what was a can of worms for you.
And thank you.
Grasshopper
ST: You are fast becoming the female Deti in my eyes :-)
Me: Thanks! I liked reading Grasshopper's response, that the goal should be validation.
His response got me thinking back to my early dating relationship with Mr. PVW, and some moments when he told me about some difficult challenges he dealt with in his life.
I can't say I validated in that way, but I remember asking non-judgmental questions in trying to understand. Perhaps that was enough?
Most importantly, though, I was interested in hearing of his coping mechanisms, how did he rise to the challenge? Did he change his responses through trial and error? I was looking for evidence of his capabilities, and particularly his emotional maturity.
I might have said something akin to, it wasn't right, what happened, but I like the way you managed that in the end.
Or even if I didn't say it out loud, I was certainly thinking it, and I wasn't being critical or condescending in responding--just listening and asking pertinent, non-judgmental questions could have been sufficient.
Grasshopper,
I braved it back there to say 'thank you' :-)
Thanks for doing that. It was a great comment and I am thrilled that women who lurk there (of which there are many) will see it.
PVW,
I join you in hailing Grasshopper as a unique snowflake (in a good way, Grasshopper, lol).
That comment of his was pure gold, no question about that.
Thoroughly enjoyed it. Glad you did too.
Great comment Grasshopper! I'm kicking myself for not going that route.
@ Spacetraveller
In the middle of being busy, I neglected to mention a few things that probably should have been said.
I'm sorry about your treatment over at PVM's blog. I understand it, but don't agree with it. For most women, it probably would have been necessary, just not you.
Grasshopper views your questioning frame as giving you validation. Usually, I see validation seeking as value-taking, but my opinion of you differs from this. Do you derive pride from reading on the mannosphere and helping where you can?
@ Just visiting
Hindsight is 20/20.
As long as you stick to a value-giving, inquisitive frame, I find it fine to see your comments pretty much anywhere.
@ST, further thoughts on validation.
I didn't need to validate Mr. PVW in the way Grasshopper described, because I already knew the answer to the question of how to work with him.
Once he described the problems he was dealing with, I could tell from his own assessment of the problem and my own, what would make things better.
I just quietly went about doing what I knew would be more conducive! Those behaviors just happened to fit naturally with my own personality, awareness and upbringing.
for a man, droning on and on when we explain something matter of factly gets under our skin.
we say what we mean, and that's it.
on said post SEVERAL guys were saying the same thing, after a while, it riles us up. i knew where you were coming from; unfortunately i didn't have the means to ask inform you 2 to "let it go".
i'd NEVER be able to fathom childbirth, and that's fine. that experience is uniquely feminine.
Incel is NOT necassarily a feminine issue. remember, women are the gate-keepers of sex.
@ Ceer,
Thank you for your nice words. I really appreciate them.
"Do you derive pride from reading on the mannosphere and helping where you can?"
Like most people nowadays, I slowly came to the realisation that something was gravely wrong with our current society. I didn't know anyone with M3's specific experience (although, on hindsight, maybe I actually do, but was unaware because I have never heard this from the horses' mouths).
I was more familiar with the pain of the older man going through divorce pain. I of course have never been divorced, but I felt bad for these men nonetheless. And moreover, I could see that the path to this misery started far earlier than 'I do'.
So for me, it is imperative not to be that woman who causes pain to a man. I would be fine with 'neutral', but not to be the harbinger of pain.
Too late for those I know, but not of course for erm, the one for the future. The Manosphere just provided a forum to see how and why things go wrong from the male side of the fence. There are many female sites which aim to steer women in the right direction (away from feminism). I am equally a fan of those sites.
I take my lessons from wherever I ca get them. In this regard, I am not at all fussy.
"Usually, I see validation seeking as value-taking..."
This is correct, Ceer. Because men prefer to assess their own self-importance by what they accomplish, they need no validation from external sources usually. They just want respect for what they have accomplished. Women, on the other hand, are designed to lap up external validation, so any validation to a woman allows her to 'take'. So she receives something, yes. Now, what she does with said gift is up to her.
Someone has addresses me on TPM's site recently, but I'm afraid I won't go over to reply to his specific comment there, because a flurry of comments there make it clear that women are no longer welcome to comment. Which is fine. I comply with this wish.
But that man made a specific reference to the idea that sympathy or empathy is a gift that the donor gives themselves, rather it does nothing to the receiver.
This stunned me! And this is the reason I was dying to respond to that man (but alas, as I have explained, my wings have been clipped :-)
It is my opinion that this man is not aware of the fullness of empathy (at least when given by a woman).
To a man a woman loves (so not The Manosphere in general, lol), her empathy is only the starting point that will take her places she never intended to go before she felt said empathy. PUAs exploit this well, of course.
Empathy (from a woman) will get a man what only a woman can provide for a man. This means empathy will get a man laid (if the conditions are right). Empathy will get a man prefential treatment over all other men (whether he deserves it or not). Empathy will get a man a specially cooked meal. Empathy will get a man...
The list is potentially endless.
So empathy, in my opinion is not just a gift for the woman. She can quite quickly turn it into a gift for him too :-)
If she wants to, of course.
@ PVW,
"Those behaviors just happened to fit naturally with my own personality, awareness and upbringing."
Yes, these behaviours ARE indeed innate. We have little control over them. But of course they CAN be modified (cue feminism). Although I don't see why, since they are an intrinsic part of femininity, something which is sadly missing in this day and age anyway.
Danny,
As you know, I was born with no 'edit' button :-)
Once people get past that, I would hope I am easy enough to engage in written conversation. Interestingly enough, I am not so talkative in real life...My 'talking' brain is not as developed as my 'writing' brain. Same for you perhaps?
ST,
I just wanted to say thank you for this post; and to all who left comments. Reading several perspectives does help for greater understanding.
I saw the exchange over on TPM, and the post Danny wrote and the one from M3. There was much of it which was difficult for me to read.
I've read several blogs around the Manosphere in wanting to learn. I tried commenting on a few but mostly now I just read. The internet being what it is there is no inflection, no facial expressions to help read what a person means, just words on a page which are mostly taken with the mindset of the reader, not the author. In a heated debate anyone's comment is more likely to be taken in a way which may not have been intended.
I've felt the need to step away from commenting on other blogs almost completely. It may be just because of who I am, I tend to feel things much more deeply than most. There have been many times when I would read the hurt and anger posted by a man and try to understand knowing that I could not fully, but it didn't mean I didn't feel anything from it. In my own default, reading about many women causing pain in so many ways and reading so many posts about the shortcomings of women and how they should be treated (sometimes poorly), there were times when I wanted to apologize for being a woman. I know it may sound crazy, but this is where I am, who I am. I have some of my own personal baggage I'm still dealing with, just as I know that the Manosphere is filled with men dealing with their own and thus the reason they stumbled on this area of the net.
If I take anything away from what I have read here, is that I have a little deeper appreciation for men in general, and my husband more specifically. The more I read the pain from men who were hurt by women, the more I want to shore up my own relationship with my husband and be sure not cause him the same kind of pain. Again, I know that probably what I write sounds crazy. I just hope it's not taken out of context. My appreciation for men, that's the best way I know to explain it, has caused me to see men in places I haven't seen before, the jobs which men hold which you don't see women doing. I admit I hold a deeper respect for men in general. I thought it was just me at first, but then my husband read to me a portion from the book he's currently reading called The Myth of Male Power by Warren Farrel, and he writes of the very same thing. So perhaps its not so wrong of me to notice and want to do something. Just as you, ST, wanted to offer what you could in the comments. It is difficult when we mean well and want to do something, but we cannot. An yet it's all just a learning experience in the end, is it not? We are a sum of our life experiences; but can we not also be influenced by the experiences of others?
ps- I guess I have not edit button either. lol
@ Ceer
Thank You.
@ ST
Thank you for the wonderful comments and explanations. I feel like I haven't been carrying my side of the conversation very well. Perhaps a few of the other intj types will understand. When under attack, there's the usual calm cool and collected and even humorous side to us. But occassionally, there's the "all hell is about to break loose" part. Usually if we've been stung. And I didn't want to go there, so, a retreat into cool aloofness for a bit, until a cooler head could prevail,lol. I'm back to myself again. Thank you for saying everything that I wanted to say.
@ Danny
Part of the problem that ST and I got into was addressing the comments coming our way on that thread. Normally, we wouldn't have commented nearly as much, but we were addressing questions and statements made directly to us.
And then there is the question of empathy, which was asked of women, and which we attempted. At no time did we say that we understood what it was like. In fact, we stated several times that we wouldn't have anything resembling a complete understanding.
There's an old saying that pertains to humanity. Obtaining perfection isn't the goal. It's impossible. It's the struggle to obtain that's divine.
Though we wouldn't have a perfect understanding, the journey to try to get in the ball park isn't a wasted one. Without an attempt at empathy, it's easy to fall into indifference. On a humanity scale, failing the attempt doesn't just lead to indifference, but even contempt.
It was a topic that hit a raw nerve with a lot of men. Emotions were running high, so I've let it lay quiet for a bit because it's not my intent to hurt.
There's a manosphere saying, about words and actions. Empathy might have been asked (words), but the response (actions) was mixed. As a female, the safer bet is to err on the side of empathy, but not in this case. Though some welcomed it, the very act of trying was insulting to others. And as one commenter put it, he wanted an apology from the women for all of the women who had contributed to his incel.
Sometimes healing requires the venting of spleens. I own that I got caught in that. That grasshopper's route would have been better.
But,
how much of the outrage was cultivated in order to have a female target to spew gastric juice on? Venting is a part of healing. So is owning.
That last part may open a can of worms. For those who disagree, all I can say is that there are worse female sins than the attempt of empathy.
Or to put it another way, the edited version ....
Supporting gives. Supplication is incapable of it.
I can't support by supplicating.
that post was the post heard round the sphere. it made the rounds of all the heavy hitters. there's a lot of "behind the scenes" crap amoong the bloggers that....well...
will remain "locker room". THAT place is def forbidden for women.
i know you 2 quite well and knew you weren't trying to piss off the guys.
kisses.
@ Danny
Thanks, lol.
There was no offence intended toward the men of the sphere.
Post a Comment