Conversation with a psychologist: a strong woman in the shadow of a man

Conversation with a psychologist: a strong woman in the shadow of a man
Conversation with a psychologist: a strong woman in the shadow of a man

Why do men degenerate? Such steels are weak, unadapted…

A conversation with a psychologist: a strong woman in the shadow of a man

It is interesting, by the way, to note that, as far as I know, men do not talk about what kind of women have become belligerent, tough, strong, they don’t want to obey for anything … So, why do you think this happens? And have men really become so irresponsible and weak? And if they did, then why?

Pay attention to what women like to talk about this topic.

It is hard for me to imagine that a quiet, gentle woman, who knows how to be in the shadows and is ready to give the palm to a man - whatever he may be, will lament about the weakness of men. She got a soft, obedient and not too independent man - so be it, we will obey this. And "strong" women are theoretically ready to obey, but only in those cases when a man always makes decisions that, according to some objective criteria, will be more correct than women's? Then it turns out that a strong man is one who always makes absolutely infallible decisions. Wow pride: to dream of loving God, and at the same time hope for reciprocity …

Ladies, let's get back to reality: where can you find so many gods? Among people, as you know, there are no eternally right, and our level of development of civilization, by definition, implies monotheism … I'm afraid that is why the topic of male degeneration is much more often exaggerated in the companies of women who are decisive, self-confident and successful in a purely social sense. Does that mean anything to you?

Many people always have an answer ready for this question: it is really difficult for such women to find a man who would be stronger and more successful than them - that's why they suffer. But the question arises: these women first became cool business women, and then discovered that there were no men to match them?

Or did they become so cool because they were initially not ready to be on the sidelines and accept the world and its population as they are - they liked to remake the world more? And if the second assumption is true, then do they need strong and determined men?

After all, a strong and decisive man really makes decisions, and he doesn't care if a woman agrees with it. That is, a woman who says: "Yes, dear" - regardless of whether the man's decision suits her, is very different from the woman who says this very "Yes, dear" only in those cases when the man says exactly what she would like to.

It turns out a funny picture: strong men are looking for women who do not need such men at all. Then why are they looking for just such - or at least say they are looking for? Maybe only in order to try to subdue them - and then enter a new round of conversation: they say, I met one such, I thought - at least this one would turn out to be a “real colonel”, but no! The same as everyone else. However, there is another possible explanation. Isn't it always more interesting to win against a strong partner?

By the way, think about the expressions that we often describe the relationship between men and women. “Problems ON THE PERSONAL FRONT”, “relationships with the OPPOSITE SEX”, “be proud of your love victories” … As we say, so we think - and in what way, pray tell, with what is “opposite”, “at the front” can no problem?

And one more thing is very interesting. Even physicists, they say, are already quite sure that whoever observes some phenomenon inevitably influences what is observed. And in life, for some reason, people manage to ignore this fact. That is, a woman is looking for a man who would exactly meet the necessary criteria. Then she finds a candidate - but, in order to determine whether he really meets these criteria, you need to somehow communicate with him! So she communicates - as best she can. And thus she herself has a certain influence on him. And then he has only three ways.

First: to succumb to influence - and thereby confirm her innocence regarding male degeneration. Second: to leave, rightly judging that if love is a front, then losses are inevitable on both sides and there is nothing to get involved in such a war. And the third: to stay and fight this very war with the intention of proving that he has his rights and his opinions.

Only those who are not sure of it try to prove their strength: after all, if a person knows for sure that he is strong, then it is obvious to him that others understand this too, and if they don’t understand, then this is purely their personal problem, and why then something to prove? It turns out that on the third path, a woman has no chance to make sure that strong men are found in the world. In general, wherever you throw - everywhere a wedge. There is only one conclusion: men have become weak, and women have become strong.

True, while women also manage to complain that men do not let them into power and business. It turns out the inconsistency turns out: if men are weaker, how do they manage to not allow women to do something? He is more modestly endowed with physical strength, but he still won - it means that he is mentally stronger, or more cunning, or more technical … So, all the same, he is stronger in something. So what is it about?!

Think about a funny thing: the word "femininity" when applied to a man in our language is always perceived as something clearly not too laudable, almost derogatory. But "masculinity" as applied to a woman is practically an order for innumerable human virtues. You can, of course, and this is attributed to male chauvinism: here are the bastards, they don’t want to be like us. But why are we so proud to be called courageous?!

Popular topic