Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Why seek out dangerous men?

There's an interesting discussion thread over at View from the Right on the issue of why some Western women seek out dangerous men. I thought this quote from the discussion particularly noteworthy:
Patriarchy valorizes qualities that men value in other men, dominant or not, "beta" qualities such as loyalty, honesty and industriousness, and converts these into a currency that women value: social status and the financial resources that accompany it. In this way male and female values become aligned.

5 comments:

  1. I think the quote is incorrect.

    It's not that women don't value those qualities -- they do -- it's just that they don't value them over and above dominance. So we will look for the dominant man who has the highest portion of those qualities. We're not going to sleep with a submissive man because his entire persona is essentially dishonest. He'd sell his soul to sleep with us, and we can tell. He's a sexual beggar and it's a major turn-off. A dominant man can take it or leave it, so we're always sure about who's in charge and that confidence is reassuring.

    Even the more thuggish men have their own sense of honor and integrity (even if it doesn't necessarily align with Christian mores -- as in the reference post) and women admire that, even if it's intimidating or dangerous. This is how you end up with odd pairings, where the man and woman disagree vehemently on something important like religion or politics, but the woman is attracted nevertheless because... well... at least his knows his own mind. At least he stands for something. At least we can count on him to be him. We're so naturally changeable ourselves that the indecisive and placating nature of most Western men is positively frightening.

    Also, industriousness isn't limited to a tax-withheld paycheck, so having a decent desk job wouldn't necessarily be valued higher than playing guitar in a band or writing political screeds. Something women are attracted to is the sense that a man is "going somewhere" or "doing something" and we get to go along for the ride.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Alte, thanks for a female perspective on this.

    Your comment reinforces the idea that supplication is not a good strategy for men to follow.

    The one quibble I have with your comment is a single phrase "A dominant man can take it or leave it".

    A man who is capable of love and commitment generally doesn't have a "take it or leave it" mentality. He's smitten and really wants it. He might play it cool so as not to appear needy or desperate - so as not to lose a self-confident bearing - but he is sufficiently "intact" to still be able to pair bond deeply with one woman.

    That's one of the problems, the illogicalities, of male/female attraction.

    A man who is really capable of love and commitment won't appear so blase, and therefore might not appear as dominant, as a man who no longer loves and so doesn't care as much.

    And yet it would be unwise for a woman to choose the blase man, even if such a man demonstrates an appealing devil may care attitude. She's much better off with a man who is capable of a big love.

    A passionate man is going to admire the woman he loves, want to be with her, crave her physically, almost want to possess her. He will be angered when she is not giving, when she withholds or withdraws. He will be protective of her, he will be jealous of her relationships with other men. He will want her to give herself to him as an act of love. He will think her beautiful, lovely, vulnerable.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes, that's the central conundrum of our times, isn't it? The men who appear more "desperate" get turned away, while the men who appear more "aloof" are sought after. So women are inclined to choose men who don't really value them over those who would cherish them.

    But complementarianism is the best answer to our fallen nature. Christian men who have a natural disinterest (the pagan virtue, which implies impartiality) borne of adhering strictly to principles and taking their leadership role very seriously, rather than allowing themselves to be swayed and manipulated by every female whim -- even when it comes from the woman they desire most. So their integrity is... well... sort of hot.

    I struggle with that a lot. I complain whenever my husband doesn't do what I want, but then I obsess over him and fantasize about him, which he finds rather funny. So he's learned to listen to me, then do what he thinks is right (even if it's not my recommendation), allow the chips to fall where they may, wait for the inevitable pouting to pass, and then let me crawl back. Once a man's had that happen a few times, he just resigns himself to the tedious process and does as he pleases, while rolling his eyes that women insist on making everything so complicated. Women love to complain about such men and paint them as tyrants, but we keep having sex with them, so actions speak louder than words. We're just giving voice to our perpetual inner conflict. We know, deep down, that they'd bleed for us, but they don't walk around with it written on their sleeves and embarrass themselves. Shrewd women can discern that deep love, but appreciate the overlying integrity and the strength of character that dichotomy implies, so they tend to make better mate choices.

    A man who understands that is perhaps not as "scary hot" as someone who is outright dangerous and coarse, but he's much more valuable to any woman who isn't completely touched in the head. We want to be taken seriously, but we don't want to lead. Together with their higher fidelity and fathering skills, and an increased likelihood of provision, such men are essentially a jackpot. They are also, unfortunately, rather rare. Most women are stuck dealing with unprincipled men of the promiscuous or monogamous variety, although in that case the wiser choice is obviously the monogamous one. At least he'll stick around and help you feed the children, and you don't have to worry about his attention being spread all over town to his various bastards.

    I hope that made some sort of sense.

    ReplyDelete
  4. @Alte

    This nonsense is what holds back progress and causes endless distraction. "we are attracted to this, we are attracted to that" blah, blah, blah. The majority of you are always thinking with your snappers. Really, in light of civilization, who cares what you like and are attracted too? Will you ruin the West over your tuna taco? Apparently so. Nevertheless, if you people can't choose properly, in the future, some principled, "dominant" men will have to choose for you, throwing your "attractions" to the wind. Such utter childishness. Meh!

    ReplyDelete
  5. A passionate man is going to admire the woman he loves, want to be with her, crave her physically, almost want to possess her. He will be angered when she is not giving, when she withholds or withdraws. He will be protective of her, he will be jealous of her relationships with other men. He will want her to give herself to him as an act of love. He will think her beautiful, lovely, vulnerable.

    Well yes, once she has proven both worthy and trustworthy. Additionally, a secure man will definitely not allow himself to become a sniveling, supplicating wimp out of fear of his wife's emotions.

    This, this tendency of many a Western man to lean into and accept his woman's deep desire to rule over him, is the root of many unhappy marriages which end in dissolution.

    The majority of you are always thinking with your snappers. Really, in light of civilization, who cares what you like and are attracted too? Will you ruin the West over your tuna taco? Apparently so. Nevertheless, if you people can't choose properly, in the future, some principled, "dominant" men will have to choose for you, throwing your "attractions" to the wind. Such utter childishness. Meh!

    In a perfect world I might agree with you, as I suspect Alte might. Unfortunately, we live in a world where attraction matters. It always has to some degree, but it was kept in a proper perspective. The idea that a man wants to live with and love a woman who doesn't feel a deep passion for him is naive.

    We are all for better or worse somewhat marked by the times in which we live. Better that we recapture the essence of masculinity and femininity (which I believe would help increase the level of attraction between marriage minded men and women on the whole) than dismiss what is.

    Just my .02. I could be wrong I guess, LOL.

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.