Conversation with a psychologist: a strong woman in the shadow of a man
|Psychologist and TV presenter Galina Tymoshenko discusses strong men and wise women|
It’s interesting, by the way, to note that, as far as I know, men don’t talk about which women became belligerent, tough, strong, never want to obey ... That's what you think, why this happens? And have men really become so irresponsible and weak? And if they did, why not? Pay attention to what women like to talk about this topic.
It is difficult for me to imagine that a woman who is quiet, soft, able to be in the shade and ready to give the palm to a man, whatever he may be, will lament the weakness of men. She got a man soft, obedient and not too independent - that means, 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 will be more true than women according to some objective criteria? Then it turns out that a strong man is one who always makes absolutely unmistakable decisions. Wow pride: to dream of falling in love with God, while still hoping for reciprocity ...
Ladies, let's get back to reality: where are so many gods to find? Among people, as you know, there are never right people, 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 this mean anything to you?
For many, the answer to this question is always at hand: it is really difficult for such women to find a man who is stronger and more successful than them - that is why they are tormented. Only the question arises: did these women first become cool business women, and then found that there were no men to suit them?
Or are they because they were so steep and became that they were initially not ready to be on the sidelines and accept the world and its population as they are — did they like to remake the world? And if the second assumption is true, do they need strong and determined men?
After all, a strong and decisive man really makes decisions, and he does not care if the woman agrees with this. That is, a woman who says: “Yes, dear” - regardless of whether a man is happy with her decision, is very different from a woman who says “Yes, dear” only when the man says exactly what she I would like to.
It turns out a funny picture: women are looking for strong men 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 to try to subjugate them - and then to enter a new round of conversation: they say, I met one such person, I thought that even this one would turn out to be a “real colonel”, but no! The same as everyone else. However, another explanation is possible. Isn't it true that winning is always more interesting with 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”, “relations with the OPPOSITE FLOOR”, “be proud of your love VICTORIES” ... As we say, we think so - and in what way, please tell me that “opposite”, “at the front” can not be a problem?
And one more very interesting. Even physicists, they say, are already quite sure that whoever observes a phenomenon inevitably influences what is observed. But 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 she knows how. And thereby she exerts a certain influence on him. And then he has only three ways.
First: succumb to influence - and thereby confirm its correctness regarding male degeneration. Second: to leave, rightly reasoning 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 wage this very war with the intention of proving that he has his rights and his opinions.
Only those who are not sure of trying to prove their strength: after all, if a person knows for sure that he is strong, it is obvious to him that those around him also understand this, and if they don’t understand, this is purely their personal problem, and why then to prove something? It turns out that on the third path a woman has no chance to be convinced that strong men meet in the world. In general, wherever you throw - everywhere a wedge. There is only one conclusion: men became weak, and women became strong.
True, while women still manage to complain that men do not let them into power and in business. It turns out a discrepancy turns out: if men are weaker, how do they manage to not allow women something? He is more modestly endowed with physical strength, but he nevertheless won - which means that he is mentally stronger, or more cunning, or more technical ... And that means that he is still stronger in something. So what are we talking about ?!
Think of a funny thing: the word "femininity" as applied to a man in our language is always perceived by something as clearly not too laudable, almost derogatory. But “masculinity” as applied to a woman is practically an order for innumerable human dignities. Of course, this can also be attributed to male chauvinism: these bastards do not want to be like us. But why are we so proud when we are called courageous ?!