women are not YOUR protector

[iqqi]

And hey. I didn't bring that up. You did.

And no the hell I did not! :box: YOU did! Remember how you :wave:

*raises hand*

My ex is proof of this thread.

 

[ThunderMaverick]

No, I brought up that certain FACET of my past relationship to SUPPORT the thread. Jokerr and others were right and my own personal experience (and theirs also) IS PROOF. I didn't ask you to throw other parts of my relationship with the ex back in my face to prove this thread wrong. Like her being a "low down ho"?

You know exactly what you're doing, Icky. And not that I care what you think, but I've already said in anther thread:

Please guys don't turn this into another fighting thread with Icky Lakers vs. the Sosuave Blazers.

I don't want to derail this thread already more than it is. This seems to be happening a lot with you. I'm wondering if it's really your point of view or just your attitude towards people here that's your problem. It's really sad, but I don't want to see you as a troll. Honestly. It's getting to that point.

 

[iqqi]

No, I brought up that certain FACET of my past relationship to SUPPORT the thread...

Well the WHOLE "facet" of that LTR you brought up supports MY point, homie. That you can't trust and love just anyone. Pick your woman carefully, before you trust her with your heart.

You can't pick and choose parts of a LTR, lol, to make points with. It is what it is.

If it is such a sensitive topic, why do you keep bringing that specific LTR up?

 

[iqqi]

(violating rules again, I know,)
There two messages from this; no woman will stick around if you unload all your burdens on her and do nothing to help himself. Men are not looking for a dead weight woman; women are not looking for a dead weight man. The other message says you can’t trust your wife to have your back at all. That I say, I’m willing to contest.

Thinking a bit more on this several things come up to my head. Iqqi have a point, we are aiming to find a quality woman, a woman with loyalty. I don’t think Guru is mad, he has a point too. The point of this is as you said: to depend on yourself and not on others. However, it is not correct to say “I’m all alone and I can’t trust my wife.” Then there is also the common yet easily forgotten thought among many people to “don’t be a burden to others.” To follow Aristotle, moderation is the key in follow the correct ethic.

To follow one end of the extreme of fanatical loyalty is just hurting the girl when a really bad situation comes (like… I don’t know… abusive person… don’t start hijack to talk about that, it’s just an example), however it is not correct for her to be the “sunshine patriot” and I don’t think it is unreasonable to lean on her a bit in tough times, not unconditionally forever, but more than a few minutes as you seem to put it.

While you argue that she can’t be the warrior, this doesn’t mean that she can be a great auxiliary (support troops who give support though avoid direct engagements, not the Roman ones if you know that much history). Now this stuff reminds me that one of the advocated advices of “walk away.”

Here’s my thought, I say you are both correct in this argument. Iqqi (and guru) is basically trying to attack the issue that says women are all “sunshine patriots” and giving up on the idea of having a standard that includes the women standing by in hard times, you did make it look like she will leave in a moment’s notice in that situation. It is not madness to not let go of the idea that if a man decided to do a full time job and go to school as exemplified earlier that she will support his endeavor. I don’t think that is unreasonable or unrealistic, though if a man turn into a depressed alcoholic who becomes a complete dead weigh, according to my memory, the female equivalent calls to walk away, should the female have that right? Joekerr you advocate that men need to be protectors and not expect the girl to be a mommy, it is said the worst nightmare for the woman is to turn into the mom who is nagging her husband for everything.

A middle ground is therefore be the idea of the girl have to be the wife and the not the mommy (perhaps the title can be better worded then to "women are not your mommy"). Wife supports and stands by him, but it has to be conditional in many ways, she can only tolerate so much BS as do the husband. Mommies on the other hand, protect him unconditionally. That’s the difference. This means that the man can turn to her, not avoid her at all cost (this means a mentality that he is all alone), but do not forget that a mature man don’t go around bringing burden to others either.
Depression? BBD? I’m not going to address that, that beyond the scope of this post and I’m not even qualified to even say this, it is just my thought, both sides are too extreme, a middle is needed.

Good post, as usual.

 

[ThunderMaverick]

Well the WHOLE "facet" of that LTR you brought up supports MY point, homie. That you can't trust and love just anyone. Pick your woman carefully, before you trust her with your heart.

Sorry, but the heart can be a fickle thing sometimes. No one is made from rock and iron. No one is perfect. If the girl is not in such a good place herself then that is also a recipe for disaster. Sometimes people change. You can trust someone to a point but in the end some people tend to grow their own way.

It's not so simple as saying "Pick your woman carefully". They can sell a good product in the beginning. They can also say they love you and will do anything for you and then alluvasudden get buyer's remorse.

You can't pick and choose parts of a LTR, lol, to make points with.

lol. I can't? Says who?

If it is such a sensitive topic, why do you keep bringing that specific LTR up?

Your the one who is obsessed with capitalizing on my ex. Not me.

 

[iqqi]

^^^

Ok!

 

[iqqi]

A great post by Microphone Fiend in the Gay Dollar thread, regarding this thread:

this thread brings to mind another SoSuave theme that is recurring to me at least. The mature men are extremely educated and well-versed in the world of women, but at times (and there are a handful of them) the posters come across as misogynistic and deluded. Even some of the better posters I have to say, like this post by joekerr31 who I normally enjoy:

Originally Posted by joekerr31
they [women] are weak because they cannot shoulder anyone elses problems other than their own.

even when it comes to their children they tend to be horrible problem solvers / bearers.

although i will say, there are definitely some strong black women out there. theres been lots of stories of black men raised by their grand mothers for instance who turned out great because their grand mothers were STRONG - they were protectors in the full sense of hte word.

but generally speaking, women are HORRIBLE at solving others problems. becuase women are very poor at putting themselves in someone elses shoes. they are genreally much too concerned with their own problems and dramas.

women are NOT protectors. they are NOT leaders. they ARE weak.

generally speaking that is.

I mean, maybe in the environment that the Mature Men grew up in, this seems much more 'true' but in the post-modern world we live in, I have to question a lot of what is said or implied in the post. The funniest thing is that some of the posters they talk about the matriax or matrix or whatever the new lingo is, and they do not realize how they are stuck in a system of their own, trading one false reality for another. Here are some of the things I think is wrong with this post

1) Men are supposed to shoulder everyone's problem's not just their own.
If you insinuate that women are weak for not protecting men, then you are insinuating that in order for men to be strong, one thing they must do is protect women. SS teach us to just listen to women's problems and try not to offer advice? It teaches us to live our lives and let women be icing on the cake, not the cake itself, it tells us to GFTOW and that there are plenty of fish in the sea. So i ask, why should I be responsible for someone other than my offspring? Because I was born with an extra chromosome? Or is it because society deems it acceptable in the matrix...

2. Women are terrible problem solvers Based on the scientific study you concocted? Based on the recurring type of of women you've met thus far in your life compared to the ever-growing number of women in the world? Your OWN parents? Generalizations based on women in the 1980s?

3. Black Women are the only women who struggle I laughed out loud at that statement, rife with bullsh!t. Do you honestly think only black women struggle? Do you identify more with black women? Perhaps you were one in a previous lifetime? Do you assume that black men have no parental figures other than grandparents? Is this the only example of a strong woman you have seen in your lifetime? What is your reasoning behind singling out this race and excluding all the others???

4. Women are poor empathizers I would go as far as to say women are as good if not better empathizers as men. Look at the idea of seduction and ask yourself which sex seems to be faring better in the world we live in. What is seduction other than putting yourself in your target's shoes and deciding what is the next best step?
Perhaps women are poor empathizers when it comes to the opposite sex, but is that really worth pointing out if we as males are the kettle calling the pot black?



I love 99% of the stuff in the Mature Men's section but sometimes you guys just go off the wall. I'm not saying iqqi is a good poster, but I think some of you need her there to keep yourself at least somewhat grounded in reality. I don't agree with any of what she says when it comes to theory or actual field techniques, but most of the time she is defending women it is imo rightfully so and you guys are two steps away from revoking their voting privileges.

 

[ThunderMaverick]

Eww. Fix the format of your post!


Edit: Never mind. My eyes are adjusting.

 

[joekerr31]

gotta love it when people take sound bites out of context, toss out the rest of the conversation, then summarize your position (or their bastardized interpretation of your position).

its like we have our own mini USA primary debate going on here

at this point ill have to spend so much time arguing against the smearing that its not worth the time.

 

[iqqi]

I think he made some great points.

 

[ketostix]

A great post by Microphone Fiend in the Gay Dollar thread, regarding this thread:

this thread brings to mind another SoSuave theme that is recurring to me at least. The mature men are extremely educated and well-versed in the world of women, but at times (and there are a handful of them) the posters come across as misogynistic and deluded. Even some of the better posters I have to say, like this post by joekerr31 who I normally enjoy:

Originally Posted by joekerr31
they [women] are weak because they cannot shoulder anyone elses problems other than their own.

even when it comes to their children they tend to be horrible problem solvers / bearers.

although i will say, there are definitely some strong black women out there. theres been lots of stories of black men raised by their grand mothers for instance who turned out great because their grand mothers were STRONG - they were protectors in the full sense of hte word.

but generally speaking, women are HORRIBLE at solving others problems. becuase women are very poor at putting themselves in someone elses shoes. they are genreally much too concerned with their own problems and dramas.

women are NOT protectors. they are NOT leaders. they ARE weak.

generally speaking that is.

I mean, maybe in the environment that the Mature Men grew up in, this seems much more 'true' but in the post-modern world we live in, I have to question a lot of what is said or implied in the post. The funniest thing is that some of the posters they talk about the matriax or matrix or whatever the new lingo is, and they do not realize how they are stuck in a system of their own, trading one false reality for another. Here are some of the things I think is wrong with this post

1) Men are supposed to shoulder everyone's problem's not just their own.
If you insinuate that women are weak for not protecting men, then you are insinuating that in order for men to be strong, one thing they must do is protect women. SS teach us to just listen to women's problems and try not to offer advice? It teaches us to live our lives and let women be icing on the cake, not the cake itself, it tells us to GFTOW and that there are plenty of fish in the sea. So i ask, why should I be responsible for someone other than my offspring? Because I was born with an extra chromosome? Or is it because society deems it acceptable in the matrix...

2. Women are terrible problem solvers Based on the scientific study you concocted? Based on the recurring type of of women you've met thus far in your life compared to the ever-growing number of women in the world? Your OWN parents? Generalizations based on women in the 1980s?

3. Black Women are the only women who struggle I laughed out loud at that statement, rife with bullsh!t. Do you honestly think only black women struggle? Do you identify more with black women? Perhaps you were one in a previous lifetime? Do you assume that black men have no parental figures other than grandparents? Is this the only example of a strong woman you have seen in your lifetime? What is your reasoning behind singling out this race and excluding all the others???

4. Women are poor empathizers I would go as far as to say women are as good if not better empathizers as men. Look at the idea of seduction and ask yourself which sex seems to be faring better in the world we live in. What is seduction other than putting yourself in your target's shoes and deciding what is the next best step?
Perhaps women are poor empathizers when it comes to the opposite sex, but is that really worth pointing out if we as males are the kettle calling the pot black?



I love 99% of the stuff in the Mature Men's section but sometimes you guys just go off the wall. I'm not saying iqqi is a good poster, but I think some of you need her there to keep yourself at least somewhat grounded in reality. I don't agree with any of what she says when it comes to theory or actual field techniques, but most of the time she is defending women it is imo rightfully so and you guys are two steps away from revoking their voting privileges.

This is fvcking retarded. When many males independently observe women do xyz, then there's no debate unless you're a feminist with an agenda (iqqi), an AFC, or just some head in the sand nerd who needs "scientist" to tell you what your own eyes can tell you is true. This whole site is based on what works collectively for men. But you have iqqi and a few AFC colloborators telling you AFC approaches work.

 

[Last Man Standing]

The effeminates and those upholding and promoting the effeminate stance must be banned from this forum - if it is to survive to do it's intended purpose!!! Homos and their thinking go against this sites purpose and mission!!! They are disruptor's of truth!!

 

[iqqi]

This is fvcking retarded. When many males independently observe women do xyz, then there's no debate unless you're a feminist with an agenda (iqqi), an AFC, or just some head in the sand nerd who needs "scientist" to tell you what your own eyes can tell you is true. This whole site is based on what works collectively for men. But you have iqqi and a few AFC colloborators telling you AFC approaches work.

LOL, Microphone Fiend definately just asserted he is NOT, I repeat, NOT a "colloborator".

What part did you disagree with?

 

[penkitten]

(violating rules again, I know,)
There two messages from this; no woman will stick around if you unload all your burdens on her and do nothing to help himself. Men are not looking for a dead weight woman; women are not looking for a dead weight man. The other message says you can’t trust your wife to have your back at all. That I say, I’m willing to contest.

Thinking a bit more on this several things come up to my head. Iqqi have a point, we are aiming to find a quality woman, a woman with loyalty. I don’t think Guru is mad, he has a point too. The point of this is as you said: to depend on yourself and not on others. However, it is not correct to say “I’m all alone and I can’t trust my wife.” Then there is also the common yet easily forgotten thought among many people to “don’t be a burden to others.” To follow Aristotle, moderation is the key in follow the correct ethic.

To follow one end of the extreme of fanatical loyalty is just hurting the girl when a really bad situation comes (like… I don’t know… abusive person… don’t start hijack to talk about that, it’s just an example), however it is not correct for her to be the “sunshine patriot” and I don’t think it is unreasonable to lean on her a bit in tough times, not unconditionally forever, but more than a few minutes as you seem to put it.

While you argue that she can’t be the warrior, this doesn’t mean that she can be a great auxiliary (support troops who give support though avoid direct engagements, not the Roman ones if you know that much history). Now this stuff reminds me that one of the advocated advices of “walk away.”

Here’s my thought, I say you are both correct in this argument. Iqqi (and guru) is basically trying to attack the issue that says women are all “sunshine patriots” and giving up on the idea of having a standard that includes the women standing by in hard times, you did make it look like she will leave in a moment’s notice in that situation. It is not madness to not let go of the idea that if a man decided to do a full time job and go to school as exemplified earlier that she will support his endeavor. I don’t think that is unreasonable or unrealistic, though if a man turn into a depressed alcoholic who becomes a complete dead weigh, according to my memory, the female equivalent calls to walk away, should the female have that right? Joekerr you advocate that men need to be protectors and not expect the girl to be a mommy, it is said the worst nightmare for the woman is to turn into the mom who is nagging her husband for everything.

A middle ground is therefore be the idea of the girl have to be the wife and the not the mommy (perhaps the title can be better worded then to "women are not your mommy"). Wife supports and stands by him, but it has to be conditional in many ways, she can only tolerate so much BS as do the husband. Mommies on the other hand, protect him unconditionally. That’s the difference. This means that the man can turn to her, not avoid her at all cost (this means a mentality that he is all alone), but do not forget that a mature man don’t go around bringing burdening his problems to others either.

Depression? BBD? I’m not going to address that, that beyond the scope of this post and I’m not even qualified to even say this, it is just my thought, both sides are too extreme, a middle is needed.

there is a middle ground.
remember kenny's song the gambler?
"you gotta know when to hold em, know when to fold em, know when to walk away, know when to run"?

 

[mrRuckus]

What exactly are women offering again?

Don't expect this, don't expect that.. what positive things DO I get to expect?

I don't need her praise, i don't need her protection, i validate myself with 'inner game' etc etc... then I have to offer her protection and emotional support and all this other stuff... what the hell is she providing me in a LTR? MAYBE sex without a sandpaper condom that i had to train her to perform properly because most don't have a clue without instruction? I don't even want kids.

This stuff sounds more and more like the only real solution is a series of short term relationships. I'm a commodity to them where they can lose interest in me in a heartbeat, so I might as well treat them as a commodity too.

Of course if I just stick with that and doing my own stuff for a fulfilling life I still get to feel like a loser with everyone telling me I need to find a woman or i'm a big loser. Yeah yeah, who cares what other people think, but the point is I shouldn't have to deal with that at all. Whine whinte, but who the hell wants to constantly deflect annoying probes into one's personal life and be told they're bitter just because the better, happier solution for them is NO MAAM?


I started seeing a girl who makes more money than me (and i make a good living myself) and i'm already thinking that i have to keep my value up so i don't look like an underling she can't respect. Oh sure everyone will claim it doesn't matter, and i personally don't care, but that doesn't change the woman's psychology that i should be making more than her so she can 'look up to me.' How am i suppose to know if she's one of the rare ones who won't give a sh1t in the long run and that my other qualities are far more important than if i make 100k instead of 150k? (made up salaries)

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

A GOOD WOMAN will be supportive to her man.

However when push comes to shove, a GOOD woman will be your rock.

BUT HE KEEPS IGNORING THE SIGNS THAT SHE IS A LOWDOWN H0!!!

All you're both doing here is personalizing and perpetuating the Myth of the Quality Woman. Any woman who self-deprecates her own best interests "through thick and thin" in spite of the adversity her man faces is by default a GOOD woman. This is horsesh!t. Battered women's centers are full of GOOD women who did exactly this. And on the contrary there are GOOD women who left their AFC boyfriends and husbands for a bigger and better deal and were patted on the back with a hearty "you go girl!' for doing so.

You see, it's very convenient to tar a woman as a "low down ho" when her behaviors don't match what we'd ideally want her to do. And conversely she's a GOOD woman for complying with our expectations irrespective of her true motivations or the conditions that prompt them. So lets just cut the crap with low or high quality classifications. People, male or female, will do whatever it is their conditions dictate they must. If their actions agree with their convictions, they're champions of virtue; if they don't then desperate times called for desperate measures. Either way, only behavior is the true estimate of intent.

The truth of the matter is women are NOT fickle, weak creatures.

I'm glad you think so, because at every instance the feminine would have you believe women are random, irrational, fickle, ambiguous or otherwise unaware of what their behavior's implications are. You are entirely correct, they are not fickle; they are calculating to such a degree that it becomes an autonomous second nature for them. In fact so calculating that it's a subconscious process. Back this up with societal conventions that constantly reinforce this calculation and discourage men, even shame men, from ever attempting to understand it and you'll never think a woman fickle or random. Women are taught that they have the feminine prerogative - she can turn on a dime and "change her mind" with little or no societal repercussion. And even in the worst light she can claim a victimhood that is universally shared and empathized by all of her gender.

Does that all sound misogynistic to you AFCs? I'm sure it does, because by the very fact that I'm aware of it I have to be marginalized by the feminine social conventions established to suppress it. And this includes your being offended and calling me a misogynist in order to identify with women.

It's behaviors that we see manifested so many times and with such predictability that we draw conclusions from them. The last thing I want anyone to come away with is that I'm in some way resentful of how this all plays out or I'm crying foul about this from a moralistic view. In fact I'd say this is exactly how it ought to be, like it or not. Biology and personal conditions will trump conviction every time - it's just when they happen to coincide that we're lifted up as saints.

Women SHOULD leave losers. They SHOULD do what's in their best interest. And sometimes sticking by their man IS what's in their best interest. I get into this discussion with STR8UP a lot about how a Man must stay on top of his game AT ALL TIMES. Half the reason successful men talk about the strengths of their wives is due to the constant anxiety that she WILL bail on him if he doesn't measure up, or at least pick himself up and kick ass the next time. Don't wish it were easier, wish you were better. Men can use this anxiety constructively and grow, or they can use it destructively and decay.

There's a lot of fluffy pejorative about how "supportive" strong women are for their Men, as if they owed their success to this "support". What does this nebulous "support" entail? Does this mean a Man cannot be successful without a woman? No, but it does imply that women have a demonstrable desire to be associated with that success. They want to be the wife of the Man other women want to ƒuck and other men want to be. That might come off as me thinking women have an egoistic need for this; I don't think so because even the most humble of women will still see the inherent value of a Man in such a position. It's not so much ego (I'm sure there are cases of this), but rather our simple capacity as human beings to make unconscious comparisons and naturally want what's best for us.

 

[guru1000]

You cannot generalize the behavior of ALL women. That is like generalizing the behavior off all men. There are no two human beings alike. Bottomline.

You can say some, generally or most, not all.

If you are married and your wife puts on 250 lbs. Would you leave her? MOST men would. Not all. Do ALL men leave their wives who put on such an enormous weight gain? Can a GOOD man leave his wife who put on 250 lbs? I would say absolutely! She didn't hold up her end of the bargain. Am i justifying?

This isn't rocket science. I have seen women stand by their man for 10 years while locked up in federal prison. What was their motive? Under most your presumptions, she should have taken off. He was not a provider, a LOSER, not a provisioner , not even physically there.

I also see MOST take off after the first few years.

There is GOOD and BAD in everyone. CHOOSE. Your thoughts and beliefs dictate your destiny and reality. So think positively and to your advantage. Do not be naive in either direction, be AWARE and do not generalize.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

generalization

n 1: the process of formulating general concepts by abstracting common properties of instances [syn: abstraction, generalisation] 2: reasoning from detailed facts to general principles [syn: generalisation, induction, inductive reasoning] 3: an idea having general application; "he spoke in broad generalities" [syn: generalisation, generality] 4: (psychology) transfer of a response learned to one stimulus to a similar stimulus [syn: generalisation, stimulus generalization, stimulus generalisation]

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University


Generalization gets a bum rap. It ougt to be used in the way it was actually intended - drawing hypothesis and conclusions from a greater, general whole of observed behavior. Pay close attention to #2, "reasoning from detailed facts to general principles [syn: generalisation, induction, inductive reasoning]." I am sorry if this process offends you, but I'm interested in the general Rule, since it,_ and not the exceptions to it, better help to predict an outcome.

Like it or not generalizations are useful and we use them all the time to see the forest for the trees. It's not isolated abnormalities in a system that we use to describe the circumstances of that system, it's the whole. We study majorities to assess overall condition, not isolations. That's the scientific definition of generalities, but when they refer to things that are close to us we tend to put ourselves into the generalization and cop the "not-in-my-case" menality. We'd like to think that our experiences are unique and special (and they are, to us), but in the generality we're simply statistics. So the word 'Generalize' gets a negative connotation and the person using it is vilified, because it's an afront to our "special" conditions.


Really GURU, you should rethink all these "Think and Grow Rich/The Secret" platitudes. You can parrot back all the binary GOOD and BAD mantras till you're blue in the face, the sky is still blue and not green when I go out to look at it. Learn Pragmatism son; expect the best, but prepare for the worst and you're rarely disappointed.

The only Good is wisdom. The only Evil is ignorance. - Socrates

 

[guru1000]

generalization

n 1: the process of formulating general concepts by abstracting common properties of instances [syn: abstraction, generalisation] 2: reasoning from detailed facts to general principles [syn: generalisation, induction, inductive reasoning] 3: an idea having general application; "he spoke in broad generalities" [syn: generalisation, generality] 4: (psychology) transfer of a response learned to one stimulus to a similar stimulus [syn: generalisation, stimulus generalization, stimulus generalisation]

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University


Generalization gets a bum rap. It ought to be used in the way it was actually intended - drawing hypothesis and conclusions from a greater, general whole of observed behavior. Pay close attention to #2, "reasoning from detailed facts to general principles [syn: generalisation, induction, inductive reasoning]." I am sorry if this process offends you, but I'm interested in the general Rule, since it,_ and not the exceptions to it, better help to predict an outcome.

Like it or not generalizations are useful and we use them all the time to see the forest for the trees. It's not isolated abnormalities in a system that we use to describe the circumstances of that system, it's the whole. We study majorities to assess overall condition, not isolations. That's the scientific definition of generalities, but when they refer to things that are close to us we tend to put ourselves into the generalization and cop the "not-in-my-case" menality. We'd like to think that our experiences are unique and special (and they are, to us), but in the generality we're simply statistics. So the word 'Generalize' gets a negative connotation and the person using it is vilified, because it's an afront to our "special" conditions.


Really GURU, you should rethink all these "Think and Grow Rich/The Secret" platitudes. You can parrot back all the binary GOOD and BAD mantras till you're blue in the face, the sky is still blue and not green when I go out to look at it. Learn Pragmatism son; expect the best, but prepare for the worst and you're rarely disappointed.

lol. My Think And Grow Rich is my life. Give it a shot, trust me, you will not be disappointed

The problem is this discussion does not hold water. Of course you are going to have all the AFC's jump on the bang wagon with their TALES of how women burnt them. 99% of men on this site have been burned by women. They are willing to take anything in to justify in their minds why their women have left them. Their minds are like sponges soaking up whatver they can to have PIECE Of MIND.

Truth be told "Being a Man" is 90% of it.

However, I do not agree with women taking off at the first hardship or not opening up to your wife or you must ALWAYS provide, support and provision at ALL times. I know of many in the contrary. And one thing these men whose wives never leave them have in common , they are MEN.

That explains why real MEN can more or less do eveything in the contrary of what is told not to do and keep their women at bay. Tricks and ploys do not work. It is that simple. BEing a MAN emcompasses all you need to know. You cannot teach AFC's tricks and tactics of MEN. What must be taught is to be a MAN.

 

[Master Bates]

I think there is mostly truth to this. Granted, if a quality girl cares about you and you're in a jam, she'll stand by your side and stick up for you. But in a relationship, it just seems men are almost always far more likely to stick around when things get crappy for their partner than women will, even if it's entirely out of the man's control. It seems to get more equal the older the couple is. There are women out there who stick by their husbands with health problems/injuries/etc for decades.