Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
I think (and this is very much my opinion, though I've heard other writers voice it as well) that men become more masculine in the presence of a "feminine" woman. Some of the comments I made in the "Will feminism replace patriarchy?" thread were meant in this vein - that women who like being women - who like pretty, lacy things - who like things like nail polish and earrings and such - are very, very attractive (and this has little if anything to do with their actual looks - it has to do with their joy at being a girl). I think many women are disappointed in how men act these days - but I wonder if part of our "wimpiness" isn't due to the fact that many women attempt to be "masculine" (i.e. "I don't need a man - I'm self-sufficient") when, in reality, the woman who "needs" a man is very, very attractive to a man - it brings out our protective "white knight" nature. Anyway... thank you.
Indeed women are disappointed in how man act nowadays but i think it's a valid theory the other way around also...... and both sexes are to blame, that's for sure.
Women have been working on developing the masculine side sometimes at the expense of the feminine side, and this 'liberation' has placed men in the role of the enemy, and this has prevented many women from using their feminine side in interacting with men. That's where i believe we went wrong. Although i hate generalisations.....
I think the 'I don't need a man - I'm self-sufficient' theory is just a cover up or a myth ..... although it's definetly better being alone than in a bad relationship.
And just like you said about men being more 'masculine' in the presence of a 'feminine' woman, it does work the other way around, the sad thing is that although we seem to want the same things, there are not so many good examples out there...... not so many happy ' accidents'.