Two Basic Errors Women Make

I received the following question from a friend (not a client, since client communications are confidential) asking for dating advice. I secured her permission to reprint her (modified) email and my response in full. It demonstrates a couple of basic errors that women make in their dating lives, which they pick up from our Oprahized culture.


Dear JJ:

As you know, I'm a very outspoken, loud, strong and opinionated woman. I speak my mind and know what I like and what I don't like. I am always upfront about my past (cancer) and problems stemming from it. Particularly, as you know I have both scarring and limping as a result of my bout with cancer.

I think my strength, independence, and opinions are awesome attributes for myself to possess, but I honestly feel like it intimidates and/or scares guys away.

I refuse to change who I am, but I thought some outside opinions and thoughts could help me in realizing what or how I could do things differently.

I find that the men that I meet tend to drift off and basically stop talking to me. I'm curious as to why this happens as well.

What do you think?

Girlie

Here is my response:


I don't honestly think that limping or scarring would scare most guys off. If it did, then you didn't want them anyway.

On the other hand, a couple of things that you write about - if I saw them in your profile online or if I noticed them in your character, I would never ask you out. Here's why -

1) "I think those are awesome attributes for myself to possess...." This is a basic mistake that many women make because Oprah tells them it is so. Philosophically, it goes like this: "Whatever makes me (the woman) happy will also make him (the man) happy. What I find attractive in a man is also what men find attractive in a woman."

Utter and complete Balderdash.

First, dating is not about you being happy with who you are - all self-esteem and feminist empowerment nonsense to the contrary. Dating, and building any kind of a relationship, is about making someone else happy. Love is about meeting someone else's needs - selfishness is about insisting that your needs are met. You reveal a self-absorbed outlook in the mere typing of the above sentence that reveals someone who does not have the character to build a long-term relationship with a real man. Sure, you can find somebody with a foot fetish or slave fetish that would just be into worshiping someone sexy - but there would never be a healthy relationship with a real man if you really think in the way that sentence indicates you think.

Secondly, it is NOT true that men find the same things attractive in women that women find in men. Women find independence, self-assurance, and strength attractive in men. Real men find softness, demureness, and a certain vulnerability to be attractive in women. Let me rephrase that - men find those traits desirable in the women who they want to have long term relationships with. Sure, we like loud, brash women too. But those are for short-term flings, if you get my drift.

2) "I refuse to change who I am...." You also, in refusing this, refuse to build a healthy relationship with someone else. Because change and accommodation is a necessary part of living with someone for 40-60 years.

Now, let me clarify for a moment. What I am saying has nothing to do with your status as a cancer survivor. Sure, we are all given the experiences that we are given by God/fate/whatever, and we can't run from who we are. So again, if someone came along and your status as a person scarred by cancer (or whatever) "scared them off," you are better off without them.

But on other matters - should you be willing to change the essential quality of who you are? Again, I realize that fool Oprah Winfrey and the feminism-lite that controls the non-thinking of most of Western culture implies (when it is not screaming it) that if a man is dissatisfied with any aspect of a woman's existence, he is "controlling" or "abusive" or he "ought to accept me [the woman - of course the same rule does not apply to women who want to change men, for in truth, society considers THIS quest to be quite noble] as I am."

Worse Balderdash than the previous.

Only if you postulate that you are perfect and therefore need no improvement or change in your life could it be true that a man mentioning, "Hey, kicking the pit bull may not be a great idea. Maybe you should control your anger." would be abusive or controlling in any way. But again, the feminist-oriented culture (read: utterly non-thinking culture) that is the West assumes that women's character and morality is innately higher than that of men, and therefore women need no change, while women desperately need to change all those deviant men.

But even if it were true that women have higher character than men (and it manifestly is NOT true), your attitude would keep you from building a healthy relationship because it gives off the vibe that you refuse to accommodate others. Love is not affection, lust, or attraction (though most in the ignorant feminist culture believe that it is). Rather, love is a settled commitment to meet the needs of another.

Meeting the needs of another necessarily implies that those who possess such a commitment are willing to change as needs change.

If I am allergic to seafood, then I would expect my significant other to lay off the fish when in my presence. And such an attitude is not "abusive," "controlling," or unreasonable in any way. If my significant other has an allergy to cologne, I will stop wearing it post haste, and it is not unreasonable of her to expect that I would do so. And on a thousand lesser matters, the only healthy relationships are those in which both parties accommodate each other constantly - at least on matters that do not touch on matters of right and wrong (on which matters, of course, there can be no accommodation).

Yes, if your conversations with men are anything like what you write, you are probably scaring the right kind of men away. Because if you really think consistently with what you write, you are very definitely NOT long-term relationship material.

Making Room For Love

Our feminized culture tells women that they are fully in control of the romantic process - that they can make all the rules, "be empowered," and dictate to men the terms on which they will be available.

But it doesn't quite work that way. It seems that somebody forgot to tell the men....

Take the issue of kids. For whatever reason (right or wrong, good or bad) it seems that with astonishing regularity, women end up with primary custody of kids after a divorce. When a woman then begins to date again, many women adopt the attitude that whoever dates her is going to simply have to make a boatload of allowances for her because she has kids. After all, she is worth it, she tells herself (and her culture tells her).

But while she is thinking, "He is going to have to understand that I can't go out often because I have child care issues." Or, "He will have to come to my house every day because I have kids." Or, "He needs to understand that some of our dates will involve him going to the ballet to watch little Andrea dance." Or, "He will just have to understand that the kids are going to go on dates with us." Or, "We can have just a nice a date sitting on my couch watching TV as we could going out alone."

He is thinking, "It's not my fault that she wound up with the kids. She asked for them, after all. Why should I be alone? Why should my romantic life be turned into an extended episode of Spongebob? This is a ROMANCE, not a free babysitting service. She should be spending time getting to know ME."

Or perhaps it is career. Our culture says to a woman, "You can have it all. Bring home the bacon, fry it up in a pan, be a good mom and a great lover too!"

But career women, like everyone else, have only 365 days in a year, each composed of a mere 24 hours. "Well," she reasons, "he will just have to understand that I am committed to my career and my kids first. After all, I have worked hard to get to where I am."

But he is thinking, "How can I build a marriage when I am third in line? Genuine romance should be a priority, not an afterthought."

Or perhaps she is convinced that, now that she has finished school, her kids are in junior high, and her career is on track, now she is ready - at age 35 - to start dating again. But understand, of course, she only wants to have "friends."

But he is thinking, "Why should I waste time, effort, and money on a woman who is not serious about building a relationship? After all, I want to get married and maybe have kids again. Can I invest the next 4 years on a chimeral friendship that may or may not turn into the marriage and family that I want?"

Or perhaps she is willing to try to build something long-term. But everything will be separate. Her house and his house. Her money and his money. Her kids and his kids.

But he is thinking, "Why would I risk the investment of another period of years and perhaps taking nuptials again with someone who is standing so close to the escape hatch?"

Love, romance, relationships - they involve two people. And it is no accident that, as our culture has foisted the erroneous idea that the female is the center of the relationship, the center of the family, and has the right to make all the rules, that men have run from relationships, become players, or simply left the dating game altogether.

In 2006, for the first time since such statistics were kept, there were more unmarried women in the United States than married women. Men are voting with their feet about these new arrangements.

Our culture is wrong. Women do not have the right to make the rules.

Love is about two people. It is about the rights, wants, dreams, desires, and fulfillment of two people - not one. It is about sacrificing self - not about insisting that everything revolve around our every notion.\

Got love?

If not, maybe it is time to start looking at whether priorities need to be adjusted to allow someone to both love and be loved by you.

Want love?

Better make room for a lover, then....