When asked, “How many relationship fights do you start?” Men stare vacantly.
Why the blank, uniform stares?
Initially, they are a result of being caught unprepared by a never-before-asked question. With a little reflection, however, and a little prompting, the blank stares give way to a realizing grin.
Women start a lot of damn fights!
In my latest book New Rules, I wrote: “Involving themselves in relationships is the beginning of sorrows for modern men.” Proving the claim, I listed some researched complaints from men as to why their women get mad at them.
A few of my favorites:
- “She got mad at me over a situation that she completely made up in her head and hadn’t even happened. It was a three day fight.”
- “She asked if she ever gets mad over stupid little things. I said she has. Guess who got mad.”
- “She got mad because my feet were pointed away from her [in bed]. To her, it meant I didn’t love her because of my ‘body language.’ I was sleeping.”
- “I called her my little pumpkin-butt and she didn’t talk to me for two days.”
- “Woke up to a slap in the face. I should not have cheated on her in her dream.”
And this is but a small sample from a much larger, equally as insane collection.
So, because men are subject to these sorts of insane provocations, and to the constant arguments and fights these provocations incite. Like I said, involving themselves in relationships is for men the beginning of sorrows.
To hear women tell it, men are selfish and inconsiderate.
They’re poor communicators, always saying things the wrong way.
They are insufficiently committed and complimentary.
Basically, men are everything except correct. They’re never bestowed that honor, clearly because they’re such awful creatures—banging other chicks in women’s dreams, and all.
Being such awful creatures, the criticisms and accusations—the provocations—from women are routine, which of course demonstrates that men are always saying it wrong, doing it wrong, and getting it wrong. And because men are always getting it wrong, they need to be corrected, which of course manifests as the fruitful, if insane, criticisms and accusations from women, which of course provokes the fighting, which then demonstrates that women start a lot of damn fights.
Now. Claiming it was they who were provoked—You shouldn’t have called me pumpkin-butt, asshole!—women aren’t likely to agree with the charge. Yet, in humble disagreement I would render this clearly observable evidence to the contrary:
- Men closely monitor what they say and do around their women.
- Men are calculating in what they say and do.
- Men strategize before addressing matters verbally.
- And men do all to prevent emotional, defensive, and insane eruptions.
Clearly, men want to avoid fights.
Because they’re provoked into too many as it is!
And examining these circumstances, this isn’t a relationship.
It’s a prison!
Like walking around a prison yard, keeping your mouth shut, minding your own business, staying on your own turf so as to avoid getting shanked—this is prison life!
The only things missing are orange coveralls, razor-wire, and guard towers.
The fact is men aren’t prepared for all the petty and illogical drama modern women bring to relationships, or to deal with the incessant fighting that results.
And for that matter, who would be prepared for such insanity?
I mean, seriously. The term pumpkin-butt invites two days of silence?
Mentally concocted things that never actually happen result in a three day fight?
A man’s feet pointed the other way in bed is an unloving gesture?
Women giggle and finger-twirl their hair as if this insanity is cute, as if their feminine kookiness is somehow adorable. And perhaps it is to an extent. That extent being where the insane becomes reasonable, and where men should agree and comply or get themselves shanked!
Men aren’t prepared for such insanity. And it’s a major handicap.
The insane accusations and criticisms begin—and worsen. Unprepared and under attack, men respond poorly, if naturally, with self-defense and pacification. And as a result, a pattern and strategy emerge.
A pattern in that men endlessly defend themselves and pacify women.
A strategy in that women use criticism and accusation to both control disputes and to get what they want.
Like I said, this isn’t a relationship. It’s a prison. And unprepared for relationship life, men become inmates as opposed to respected relationship partners.
To be fair, I don’t think men or women either one receive adequate preparation for relationship life. However, given it is men who become the criticized and accused, and who must contend with the illogical and even insane provocations of women. It is men who desperately need preparatory training.
So, beginning with a few fundamental ideas, principles one might equate to warm-up calisthenics, following is that training …
The Question is: Why?
Men don’t involve themselves in relationships with women to become perpetual villains living under constant suspicion, or to be recipients of consistent criticism and condemnation for that perception, either one.
Men don’t involve themselves to become a relationship’s sole, perpetually sub-par problem, or to bicker and fight all the time for women’s emotion-driven BS, resentments, and eternal discontent.
Men don’t involve themselves to become interpreters, deciphering what women don’t mean and actually mean.
And men certainly don’t involve themselves to become orange-clad inmates who, to avoid shanking in the prison yard, keep their mouths shut, mind their own business, and keep to their own turf.
Yet, when men do involve themselves with women, this, to varying degrees, is exactly what they experience.
And what do the circumstances inspire?
A lot of damn fighting.
The question men need to routinely ask themselves is: why? As in: why am I in this relationship, anyway?
Do men sign-up for this sort of experience?
No. No they don’t.
And why must men ask themselves the “why” question routinely?
Because men become accustomed to prison life. Because a subordinate, dictated way of life becomes normal.
It isn’t normal. It’s abnormal—prison-yard abnormal.
Women expect their needs and desires to have supremacy. If unspoken, this is both the premise of modern relationships and, more significantly, the female expectation.
It used to be different—more, balanced. In the era of male oppression, however, everything women do for men is now a subordinate act and a challenge to equality. So goodbye service to men and subservient acts, and hello women expect their needs and desires to have relational supremacy.
And what happens when men fail to meet this expectation?
A lot of damn fighting.
Women claim compromise is crucial to successful relationships. That’s because they—head-flick to the premise—expect men to do all the compromising. And if men don’t compromise, there’s a fight, which then trains men to compromise. And, of course, it is through these concessions that men are being subtly introduced to their orange jumpsuits, and to prison life, to which they are also being slowly and methodically accustomed.
See how it works?
So in terms of preparation, men need to recognize, one, the premise and related expectations for modern relationships, which is, again, women expecting their needs and desires to have supremacy. And two, that they don’t have to abide by that premise or meet those expectations.
Men’s needs and desires are no less important, and those needs need to be met and those desires fulfilled.
It’s the new premise.
Researchers at University of California-Berkley came to this not-so-profound conclusion: “If the wife is happy, then so is her husband. And as a result, so is the marriage.”
It’s a long-winded version of the age old aphorism, “Happy wife, happy life.”
And what does this conclusion imply?
Essentially, that men aren’t allowed to be happy unless their women are happy.
And if you think women aren’t warm to the idea, quote the aphorism to them:
“Hey, ladies! Happy wife, happy life. Right?”
They’ll grin and say, “That’s right, buddy!”
And they mean it.
So, men aren’t allowed to be happy unless their women are happy?
Well, men can be whatever they want—happy, sad, indifferent. Including free—free from women who demand and expect their happiness to reign relationally supreme.
Besides, as Draper said, “Happiness is the moment right before you need more happiness.” The line pretty well describes the problem for men, relationally. Make women happy today, and they wake-up tomorrow wanting and expecting more happiness. And considering modern women are loath to make men a sandwich for the act implying subordination and inequality, the duty-bound manufacturing of happiness is a one-way street.
Female unhappiness is what most relationship conflict is about. Evidenced by their abundant criticisms and accusations, women are constantly unhappy about something. It is displeasure and discontent they attribute to their men, who then set to rectifying the unhappiness, which usually means men subordinating and sacrificing their own happiness, which creates but temporary happiness for women, which then necessitates the manufacturing and reestablishment of more happiness for women tomorrow, so as to rectify that day’s unhappiness.
And what takes place for all this discontent, and during all this happiness engineering?
A lot of damn fighting.
Women like to believe they “deserve” relational happiness, that they are entitled to it—because that’s what they tell each other. Girrrl, you deserve to be happy!
Naturally, this provokes women to demand happiness not only be supplied by their men, but at their men’s expense.
So in response, men need to understand this principle: it’s not their job to keep their women happy. Women need to keep themselves happy. Further, they need to make a few sandwiches and relearn how to keep men content.
The happiness load evenly distributed, there’s nothing to fight about.
I’m a decent guy—honest, fair, responsible, of good moral fiber. I try to do things the right way, and have no desire to treat people poorly or unfairly, particularly women, and certainly not the woman with whom I’m sharing a relationship.
I’m certain most men are like me. And indeed, more men should recognize in themselves these virtuous qualities.
Because via their criticisms and accusations, women would have their men believe otherwise.
Well, what are criticisms and accusations exactly?
They’re claims of disapproval and of wrong doing.
And issuing plenty of both, what are women then implying?
Well, they certainly aren’t implying that men are virtuous!
Ergo, it is vitally important that men not only recognize their virtuous qualities, but the good intentions associated with those qualities, too. Because via their criticisms and accusations, women would have men believe they haven’t any virtue or good intentions at all.
Simply, men need to realize they aren’t the evil of which women routinely imply and would have men believe. Thereto, men should recognize the genuine evil, which is the inconsiderate criticisms and accusations routinely hurled at and leveled against them, and the unjust effort to convince them of their ill-intent and wickedness.
That’s the real evil. And incidentally, it’s responsible for a lot of damn fighting.
Emotional fights are a loser—guaranteed losers.
For one, nobody’s listening. For another, there is no critical thinking taking place. Conflicts absent both, nothing gets accomplished or solved.
And which gender is intensely, hair-trigger emotional?
The female gender.
So relationally, which gender is destined for the loser’s bracket in emotional fights?
The other gender.
So, gentlemen. Here she comes, spoiling for a fight. The subject matter is insignificant, really. Angry, feelings hurt, feeling threatened, irritated, PMSing, and thusly emotional—she launches into her indictment. And what can men say that will satisfy?
Emotion can’t be satisfied. That’s all there is to it. It’s like, Rule Number One.
“You don’t care about us! When’s last time you took me on a date?!”
“Uh, last week, dear. Del Quavos. Cocktails, dinner—a movie after. Remember?”
“Oh please! That was just, stopping for a bite to eat. When’s the last time you planned anything?!”
“Uh, the trip to San Francisco last summer. Remember? Booked the entire thing—hotel, flight, theater tickets. Surprise!”
“Well, when’s the last time you brought me lunch at work?!”
“Well now, that I haven’t done in quite a while, dear. You work across town now and it’s impossi …”
“Ah-ha! See, you don’t care about us!”
This dispute continues this defiant and disagreeable course, why?
Because emotion can’t be satisfied.
Women feel a certain way, and they aim to have those feelings validated no matter how deep and illogical the accusations must run, and despite how routinely their feelings are shown to be unwarranted and unjustified.
So, the question: if emotions can’t be satisfied, then why try to satisfy them?
It’s precisely what men do wrong.
Women aren’t interested in logic or fairness in these circumstances. They are interested in their feelings being validated. And there is but one acceptable outcome: men validating those feelings by confessing their sins—having sinned or not.
So screw date night at Del Quavos and the arranged weekend in San Francisco. Women are going to continue with the emotional accusations until they find one that allows them to say, “Ah-ha! See?! You don’t care about us!”
The problem with men in these situations is they get hung-up on the blame. They feel attacked, wronged—feelings often justified. They take offense and become angry, start defending themselves.
Except, Exhibit A. Any response merely invites the next criticism and accusation, and continues to escalate the fight.
Simply, emotional women aren’t going to allow men to be correct or to win either one. Therefore, emotional arguments are for men guaranteed losers.
So when the attack begins, rather than be provoked to the loser’s bracket, here’s the line for men: “I’m sorry. I don’t do emotional attacks and arguments. Try me when you’re reasonable.”
Men aren’t the one’s emotional. Hence, they don’t have to match emotion, or even become emotional at all. They don’t have to fight, either.
I like winning. And winning in an emotional fight is remaining unprovoked, unemotional, and non-participatory.
The Contention Strategy
The Contention Strategy is a rather effective tactic. Here’s how it works:
If women propose something to their men, say like, “Let’s go to the movies.” It isn’t really a proposal. Women have decided they want to go to the movies, and that they are indeed going to the movies.
Women want what they want. And as with virtually every desire they have, they fully expect to get what they want. And then there is the nightmare of disappointing them.
And if you don’t believe me, ask their daddies.
So if men say, “Not tonight, honey. I don’t feel like it.” Or, “… the game is on and I want to watch it, instead.” Women can simply turn this desire-denying result around with contention, or with the Contention Strategy.
“The game is always on!” they say condemningly. “All you do is watch the game!”
And then in dramatic exasperation: “The Game! The Game!!’”
And there’s the guilt projection, too:
“You never take me anywhere!”
“When do I-eee fit into your schedule? When am I-eee as important as, The Game?!”
And, voilà! Men set the DVR and start getting dressed for the movies.
Now. Women see the result and think: Hmmm. Now this tactic gets results!
So thereafter, women open-up the ol’ manipulation toolbox whenever necessary for a quick, contentious fix.
In other words, the contention strategy becomes for women desire fulfillment protocol. Just make men the bad guy, the problem, the obstacle. Whenever they say “No” or disagree. Whenever they don’t comply with desires. Criticize them sharply. Accuse them. Ladle them with guilt. Yell at them. Basically, become immediately contentious so that men say “Yes,” agree, and comply.
And that the strategy works so well is the reason the criticisms and accusations become so abundant and freely issued. And the criticisms and accusations becoming more abundant, men start to expect a fight every time they say “No” or disagree. Thus they stop disagreeing, stop saying “No,” stop resisting, and basically stop communicating all together.
Initially, men just want the attack and the drama to stop. Eventually, they don’t want the attack and drama to take place altogether. So what do they do to prevent it?
Subject themselves to prison life.
Like I said, it’s a rather effective tactic.
Put an end to it.
When the initial assault is over, men should say: “So. You want something. From me. Why, I believe we’ve entered what’s called the negotiation phase, dear. Let’s try to be civil, shall we? In regards to this trip to the movies you so desperately seek, I think courtesy will perhaps work in your favor.
“Now. Let’s begin our negotiations with what you might be wearing underneath that exquisite frock. I’d very much like to have a peek at that—for starters. And to my proposal you say…?”
Who’s running the show now?
Guilt or Innocence
The attack from women full-throated and the charges flying, the immediate question on every man’s mind should be: am I guilty of this charge, or innocent?
Collected and unaffected amidst the verbal assault, men should ask themselves that exact question. Nothing else matters—not the feelings, not the implied blame, not the discomfort or embarrassment. Just—am I guilty of this charge or not?
The accusation—did I do it?
Fess-up. “Yes. I was checking her out. She’s rather attractive.”
The Criticism—is it an accurate criticism?
Acknowledge it. “Yes. I do watch The Game. I like sports.”
Men shouldn’t deny what they did, or who they are characteristically, or what they feel or don’t feel.
What’s the truth? Tell it. Immediately.
Honesty progresses the fight. Progressing the fight, men control the fight. Otherwise, they find themselves languishing in an emotional ordeal that not only can’t be satisfied, but that has no direction or conclusion.
The accusers and aggressors, women get to indict. They don’t have to have a direction or a conclusion in mind, other than getting the answers they want and, warranted or not, an ultimate confession.
When they get neither?
Why, they issue more criticism and accusations, and project more guilt.
Thus men controlling and advancing a fight is infinitely better, and actually necessary.
Women want honesty? Men should give it to them—instantaneous and full throttle. Because honesty and directness are a major ingredient in …
Nearly Perfect Problem Solving
Relationship conflict is mostly political. Meaning, men and women obfuscate issues and avoid the truth, because neither one want to admit the facts or to acknowledge their responsibility.
Both of which they escape by what means?
Confusing the issue and avoiding the truth.
It is precisely why couples end-up paying relationship counselors to help them have a basic conversation. I type again: to help them have a basic conversation.
A result of which raises this question: if two people can’t have dialogue and solve their own disputes, then why the hell are they in a relationship?
“I think we need relationship counseling.”
Me: “No we don’t, baby. We need to start dividing up the stuff. So, do you want the coffee pot? Or can I add it to my things?”
Paying! someone to help me communicate with my relationship partner, for chrissake?
Why, I’d rather use the money for a new coffee pot—a deluxe edition, with a timer and all.
A new coffee pot purchase is necessary because men and women can’t be individually honest and take responsibility. And both look at the last sentence and say, “Yes, precisely! That is sooo true!”
Only, they say this thinking the remark applies to their partners and not to themselves!
See the problem?
As Crichton said, “Self-awareness—the most difficult awareness of all to achieve.”
Nevertheless. There is a remedy to the political nightmare that is relationship conflict: honesty and directness.
If couples are interested in good communication and thus genuine understanding. If they are interested in keeping conflict to a minimum and fomenting mutual respect. Honesty and directness afford the surest and quickest path to those things.
Try this: the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. So then, to get from a problem—point A, to a solution—point B, the quickest path is a straight line. The line in this example represents the truth.
So then, provide honest answers, stay on the straight line, and resolution comes more quickly and leaves the least carnage. Stray from the path for feelings and politics, and arguments can rage endlessly, and can cause significant and often irreparable damage.
Honest communication is difficult because feelings and the resulting politics make it difficult.
Who likes to admit they are emotional, and that they are being unreasonable?
Who likes to admit they’re selfish, and that they’re being manipulative for a selfish agenda?
Worse, who likes to admit they are wrong, and that they have been subsequently unfair?
Politics make it possible to avoid all that. And the feelings make it easy to justify the politics.
Political conflict is much easier, natural even. It’s easier on the ego, too.
Only, it doesn’t solve problems. It only makes them bigger, and to last longer.
Taking to political conflict, couples take a disagreement off its point A, point B, straight-line, quick resolution trajectory and wander off into the conflictual wilderness for hours, days, weeks, and longer.
If couples ever want an issue resolved, they will have to return to the truth eventually. And if they don’t return on their own, they will return in counseling sessions where, what occurs?
A stranger forces them to be honest with one another, for chrissake!
So. Rather than confuse an issue. Rather than avoid the truth, and lie. Rather than generate all those hurt feelings, and create resentment and dysfunction. Rather than waste time and energy. Rather than pay someone to forcibly extract honesty, for chrissake! And rather than buy a new coffee pot—the deluxe edition, with the timer and all.
Why not be honest and direct? Deeply, unflinchingly, vulnerably honest and direct?
It seems worthwhile.
“When I was working at a hospital someone would ask me how becoming a doctor would affect my future family. You would never ask a man that question. People think women can be one thing or the other—beautiful or intelligent. But we can be everything. That is what I’m most passionate about.”
So said a young woman, 22. She’d won a beauty contest and was suddenly a celebrity with a platform, which she then frequently used to communicate this particular message to women.
And the subtle, if inescapable, undercurrent in this message?
And to be clear—Resentment: a feeling of indignant displeasure or persistent ill will at something regarded as wrong, insult, or injury.
And that “something” regarded as forever wrong, insulting, or injurious?
It has a penis.
The question is: does this young woman’s remarks represent the feelings of every woman?
To varying degrees and extents, they do. And despite the certain protestations of some, it is easy to momentarily prove.
So given the resentment, for what are women then “most passionate?”
Well, it isn’t convincing women they can be ‘everything,’ as the young woman’s remarks suggest. It’s ending perceived male dominance and sticking it to men—the obvious enemy.
And both socially, and more specifically, relationally, what does the resentment create and the objective entail?
Conflict. Lots of damn conflict.
Women like to pretend they don’t view men as the enemy, specifically the men with whom they share relationships. Asked if they see their own men as enemies, women make That’s absurd! faces, claim they don’t agree with feminism and that they don’t like feminists, and so on.
Yet, look at the things women conclude about their men, and actually say to them—that they are selfish and inconsiderate, insensitive, verbally and emotionally abusive, cold, heartless, disrespectful, and not to exclude supremacy-minded, patriarchal assholes.
Do men sound like friendlies? Like trusted allies? Like supporters and defenders? Like well-intentioned partners interested in women’s happiness and well-being?
No. And like I said: despite the certain protestations of some, the young woman’s remarks representing the feelings of every women is easy to prove. I mean, there it is—cold, condemning verbal evidence from virtually every relationship.
Men sound like ill-willed adversaries!
And despite the That’s absurd! faces and the pretending, it is exactly how women view them—if only subconsciously. And despite the point—men being the enemy—continuing to be made by women in so many subtle ways, men seem reluctant to acknowledge the reality.
Men are like the frightened, middle-aged cancer patient who continued refusing surgery he desperately needed. A group of young, diplomatic doctors finessed and coddled him, went to great lengths to inform him thoroughly, and to assure him everything would be fine. Yet, despite their comprehensive and delicate efforts, the patient refused.
Finally, a tough veteran physician, irritated at the lack of progress, walked authoritatively into the man’s room and said, “Mr. Smith, you have cancer. And I’m going to take it out.”
The patient burst into tears and agreed to the surgery, which, incidentally, was performed successfully.
As to being viewed as women’s enemy, men need the same authoritative approach, apparently.
Someone needs to say to them: “Women see you as the enemy—and if not the enemy, the problem. So before involving yourselves in a relationship with them, you’d better come to terms with that fact, and understand what it means to a relationship and to your subsequent lives.”
So, there. It’s been said both authoritatively and clearly—and yet again.
Of course, men could just believe the routine messages they hear delivered by women from every public platform. In fact, being called selfish and inconsiderate, insensitive, verbally and emotionally abusive, cold, heartless, disrespectful, and supremacy-minded, patriarchal assholes by their own women, men could just believe their own ears.
The dirty little secret is women like feminism’s power, and find it useful. While they make That’s absurd! faces and pretend to loath feminism and feminists. While they pretend not to view men as their enemy, yet define men as such with so many adversarial characterizations. Women still employ feminism’s muscle against men whenever necessary and beneficial.
Men doing a little too well in an argument—emotional abuse.
Speaking a little too authoritatively—verbal abuse.
Men saying “No,” not conceding, and not giving women what they want—patriarchal supremacy.
Again, do men sound like enemies or allies?
Precisely. And this is what the enemy gets to look forward to in modern relationships—the beginning of sorrows.
Simply, women bring their insecurity issues and resentments and the related drama into relationships. They slowly, methodically project those issues onto men, which creates conflict. And totally naïve and unprepared, men try to manage the drama and conflict, eventually tire of the drama and conflict, and ultimately concede to avoid the drama and conflict.
And, voilà! Prison life for men—a lifestyle occurring in a so-called “loving relationship,” no less.
“Now then” women say with a satisfied grin, maternally straightening men’s collars and whisking their shoulders. “Don’t you look handsome in your orange jumpsuit? We’re going to be sooo happy together.”
As long as men are behaving like model boyfriends and husbands and fathers—the relational standards being determined by women, of course—then women approve and remain content. Let men slip out of line or fall below standard, however, and … BAM!
Conflict. Lots of damn conflict.
It seems a terrible way to have to portray relationships. Yet, given the adversarial circumstances of modern gender relations. Given women’s insecurities, their resentment, the resulting competition, and the need for self-securing dominance and control. A conflictual struggle for supremacy is precisely what relationships eventually become.
Michael Crichton wrote a terrific piece for Playboy Magazine in the 90s entitled How to Fight, in which he not only expertly explained the dynamics of gender conflict, but advised men on how to survive—which is basically all men ever do in conflict with women: survive.
It is an insightful piece—helpful even, and worth a read.
However, Crichton was married five times. That’s: five times. So, men learning to fight and to merely survive doesn’t seem all that, effective. It is to say I thoroughly enjoyed both Crichton’s perspective and piece, which was a perspective derived from and a piece written in a much different social era, incidentally. I just think his approach is a loser, ultimately, which the piece and the divorces collectively and clearly prove.
Crichton’s and elite writer, and perhaps an elite filmmaker. He just never achieved such status romantically, apparently.
It’s one thing when men are lying, philandering, disrespectful jerks who can’t be trusted. Such men deserve the conflict—deserve to be kicked to the curb, actually. Only, there are plenty of men who aren’t lying, philandering, disrespectful jerks, one. And two, those sorts of issues aren’t what most relationship conflict is about.
In fact, what most relationship conflict is about leads to those sorts of issues.
Conflict occurs because women are emotional and insecure.
It occurs because women manufacture situations in their heads that never happen, and turn those fabricated beliefs into three day fights.
It occurs because women get mad over stupid little things, like men’s feet pointing the other way in bed being an unloving gesture.
It occurs because women are spoiled, and because they expect their needs and desires to have relational supremacy.
It occurs because men say “No,” and simply disagree.
It occurs because women become an emotional juggernaut incapable of reason and objectivity and fairness, and because they’re determined to be correct, to have their way, and to get what they want.
It occurs because men are viewed as the enemy for always “wronging, insulting, and injuring” women, who nonetheless manufacture the wrongs and insults and injuries for their emotional bent and insecurities, and who then harbor considerable and often times unjustified resentments.
There is no winning for men in this scenario, which they eventually realize sitting on the counselor’s couch and at the respondent’s table in court. Fighting—and even learned, improved fighting—is merely delaying the inevitable. Meanwhile, men endure the unnecessary dysfunction and abuse.
And how long should men relationally endure? Two years? Five? Fifteen? Forty?
Teaching men How to Fight isn’t the answer.
The answer is: men not participating.
It is men saying: “I’m not involving myself in this insane BS,” and sitting it out.
And if that strategy doesn’t curb the conflict, men need to then save themselves the years and decades of misery, not to mention the counseling fees, and exit the relationship.
Just, get out! Write the last few lines of that relational horror story and close the chapter.
Because, in regards to the conflict, are women taking any responsibility and amending their behavior and expectations?
Are they being less insecure, less emotional, and exhibiting more emotional control?
Are they being more honest? More direct? More reasonable? Less insane?
Are they being less critical and accusatory? Less demanding? Less resentful?
Women keep the conflict going so that men take responsibility, so that men amend their behavior, and so that men fulfill women’s expectations and demands. And all so women can feel less vulnerable, more secure, and in control.
And that is a “relationship?”
Well, it is if you like prison life, and orange jumpsuits, and having your collar maternally straightened and shoulders whisked.
Conflict is a strategy—a self-serving strategy.
I take a lot of heat for my views on relationships.
Because they threaten women and the current feminist order.
When you can criticize and accuse your way to keeping relationships in order, and to keeping men in line, as women do, life becomes quite comfortable.
Therefore, whenever you criticize women. Whenever you point out the things they do wrong and their responsibility in relational distress and failure. You disturb life in the relational hammock, and women get upset. It’s discomforting, disconcerting. Women don’t like it.
Why the unease?
Because women have worked long and hard to wrestle power away from men, and to relegate men to subordinance. And women have been so successful that they’re now able to relax and doze in the relational hammock.
And modern gender relations being so femininely advantageous, does anyone think women are going to take kindly to having their new lifestyle challenged or taken away?
Does anyone think women are going to welcome the insecurity, vulnerability, and the comparative powerlessness of the past?—not that the powerlessness aspect was ever true.
Does anyone think women are going to relinquish the control and dominance they have secured?
Women aren’t going to take kindly to any of that. And justified or not, when you start pointing out their relational flaws and failures, and their ultimate responsibility, they’re going to raise holy hell to maintain the current order and their hammock lifestyle.
Which means there will be conflict. Lots of damn conflict. On top of the already existing conflict.
And relationally speaking, what are men supposed to do?
Endure the insanity, the conflict, and a miserable relationship indefinitely?
Remain obliged and loyal for their commitment, and as matters of love, duty, and honor?
Women wouldn’t. In fact, they didn’t.
They took to feminism and resentment and fighting.
In terms of conflict, the problem is people are lazy. They don’t ask enough questions of themselves to understand what is beneath their superficial feelings and subsequent complaints. They don’t move enough rocks, don’t drill down deep enough. And for the laziness, they neither contact nor understand the deeper, more substantive and consequential feelings and ultimate truth. Thus, they can’t then be honest about those feelings for their own benefit, much less articulate them for the benefit of someone else.
In other words, people live on the emotional surface where things come much easier—the criticisms, the accusations, the feelings of right now and the corresponding grievances. People live on the emotional surface where they don’t have to self-evaluate; where they don’t have to do any honest, soul-searching, intellectual work; where they can dismiss their own short-comings and responsibility and blame everyone else.
It’s a human problem, certainly. Yet in terms of relationships it’s predominantly a female problem. Women are highly emotional. Attacking men, women cause men to become emotional, too, which causes conflict—lots of damn conflict. Lots of unnecessary conflict.
This isn’t to suggest that men never do anything wrong, or conflict-worthy. It is to point out that women set a relationship’s emotional tone, one. It is to suggest that women acknowledge that reality, two. And three, it is to suggest they be a little more thoughtful, move a few more rocks, dig a little deeper, be a little more honest, be a little more in control of their feelings, be a little less resentful, and that they be a little more invested in keeping the tone reasonable, and the conflict reserved for the real problems.
It’ll make a tremendous difference.