MilSpecs wrote:Speaker to Animals wrote:MilSpecs wrote:You have a mind that seeks to make sense of the world by logical categorization, but it leads you to try to put things in buckets that aren’t that neat. You have had bad experiences with women. Maybe those women had similarities, but remember that you are the commonality between them. As long as you see women this way, you will attract that type of woman.
Huh?
I only had trouble with one of them and, sister, I was exactly what you say you want. I gave her too much control. I tried to make everything equal.
And you’re doing the same thing; generalizing. What I want? Everybody’s different. You don’t know what I want, which may be entirely different from what Kath wants, which may be entirely different from what another woman wants, and so on.
You are unwilling to consider that you may be getting what you want. But what would I know about self-reflection?
I am not generalizing at all, though.
There exists an evolutionary psychological explanation for this behavior. That's not generalization. That's the reason for it.
Go back to my earlier question you cut out:
Have you not considered the possibility that, while women want power, careers, and access to lives lived as men do, they would have been happier living traditionally as women?
Women *want* all these women's lib things, but the result is that they continue to sink into unhappiness as they choose those lives. Women are far less happy today than they were before women's lib. It's been a steady decline across the western world since the 1950s.
So, once again, I state the obvious fact: what women think they want and what they really want are not the same at all, and probably in conflict. I would add that what they *think* they want is probably yet another thing that has nothing to do with what they *say* they want and nothing to do at all with what they really want beneath the surface.