Our feminist-tending friends are particularly impatient with me, as they project things I do not actually demonstrate.
And they cannot understand how my vivacious wife stands me.
None of their business.
And it keeps me out of other people’s drama.

At the same time, in a kind of cognitive dissonance, some, including our feminist-tending friends, think I’m p-w-ed because I do dishes and laundry. I can do that stuff when I’m half awake and thinking of six other things. The amount of credit I get ought to be illegal. What moron wouldn’t take advantage of that?

“emotional maintenance” is a Rohrschach term. It means anything and, therefore, nothing.

I have a friend who went through a number of medical tests–none particularly invasive–because his wife told their doctor he “stops breathing” when he’s asleep when she meant to say he stopped snoring. He’s now getting “Thank God” cards from well-wishers who found he’s okay. So, yeah, it takes a wife to get a guy to the doctor. Most guys bust themselves up–me among them–often enough that they show up at the doc’s on a reasonably frequent basis anyway.

The idea I’m getting from the above posts is that too many guys are not self-sufficient men when they get married. I understand that self-sufficient can be taken to mean emotionally unavailable or whatever the meme du jour is, if the other party needs to demean the concept. But it also means that the guy can let his wife lead her life without unduly burdening her with his own emotional welfare.

Whence the lack of self-sufficiency? Most feminists seem to believe that things are horribly, awfully, intolerably oppressive now, to an extent never known before–except before. So, as unspeakably bad as things are now, it is acceptable to admit, when tactically useful, that things might–might–have been worse in the old days. Which is to say, change has happened.

Is it possible that the weakening of the patriarchy (accepting the concept as real for the moment) has led to more men who are emotionally unfinished? Do we know if there are more now than before? Fewer?

Is it the artificial extension of irresponsible adolescence into the early or mid twenties through higher education?
There is an island north of Britain which has a Neolithic site, Skara Brae. By looking at the remains in the graves, few people lived past their mid-twenties. Which is to say, their society, including impressive architecture of their homes and graves, was run by teenagers.
The capability exists in us, has for uncounted millenia. Stifling it, or letting it lie unchallenged, might be an unseen cause of a number of problems.
I’ve worked with kids of varying ages for years. They like to play. But when they get turned loose on a worthy project to complete by themselves, the concentration is almost scary. It’s not an accident. Unfortunately, we have worked to remove the necessity for worthy work from the lives of young people. Does this mean they fail to grow?

Point is, there are lots of possible reasons for this phemonenon besides the malign effects of gender role fixations, or whatever the hell people are talking about when their toolkit–consisting solely of a hammer–makes everything look like a nail.

l think emotion can work like this and that ego driven psychological identity constructs like gender are redundant in that context. Pushing everything through these perceptual filters is the stuff of delusion.

As l get older, l am finding that much benefit accrues, on myriad levels, by merely being who l am, feeling what l feel and thinking what l think without conveying any of it. lm not really big on validating the contextualisations of my sentience, nor do l feel the need analyse, by conciliation, the experiences of my conciousness.

In short, there’s a lot of benefits by not letting people think you are particularly intelligent nor emotional. It makes the inherent simplicity of life itself so much easier to grasp once the contrived complexities are left to sail over one’s head.

Again, l doubt that most people have the requisite degree of maturity to really handle a truelly deep and committed relationship. The depth and health of a relationship is inversely proportional to the amount of analysis, discussion, illucidation and coddling required. A bit like a long satisfying silence and a simple shared look that can convey in the emptiness of silence the knowledge that a 1000 libraries could not begin to touch.

Much of the discussion regarding the amount of coddling that goes on is a reflection of the person doing the coddling. it speaks to their own insecurities and their propensity to project this onto others.

After a while in this life, it really does become tiresome having to defend someone else’s issues like its your fault. This is not maturity, it lacks self awarness and its light years away from trying to ‘grow’ past the inherent limitations of ’self.’

All this stuff works both ways.

Peopel who seem to have all the insights into the failings and flaws of others generally have control issues. Unhapy with themselves, their poor choices (in a partner), its all someone else’s fault.

No one is perfect, which is a useful bit of psychological self medication one someone is pointing the finger at you.

Perfect people do nothing and go nowhere.

At a guess, l’d say that prolly 50% of the general population are not cut out for commitment and certainly not marriage. Egos are way too big these days. Its all l, me, my needs and wants and its all they them, your fault.

There’s no shame in admitting this to ONESELF , refraining from tormenting another soul and just gettiing on with a postive and purposeful life.

Hypothalamic Dakota Rae Patrick smart coach time pussy gushing first virgin gave first time virgin gushing pussy?! Cup hen us, Lisa Daniles gushing first virgin time pussy employment retirement struck?! …

And Christina, I was the main socializing force in my daughter’s life, and she’ll testify to this by virtue of the Mother’s Day cards I have received from her for years. (Of course, instead of flowers for Mother’s Day, I get carnivorous plants, but that’s an in-joke). If you do your job as a parent, that is the way it turns out. If you wish to slap the label of arrogant on that, I’ll wear it, but point out that if you really can do or have done something - it isn’t arrogant!

How many children have you actually raised to adulthood, through college, and got out on their own supporting themselves?

You are not the only socializing agent in your daughter’s life. I presume that she goes to school, has friends, watches television, watches movies, listens to music. Perhaps she reads books and goes to church or temple. Maybe she’s in the girlscouts or some other organization for girls. Go to summer camp? Have a mother? Grandparents? You said that she has a brother as well. All of these things are socializing agents. Aside from that children are not “blank slates.”

To presume that your daughter’s personality is the absolute result of one of two things, either how you raise her or biology, is a false dichotomy and incredibly arrogant.

I’ll buy the part about “jumping”.

You make an assertion, and when I ask if it is true when the genders are reversed, you refuse to answer and claim it is a “dilemma”. When I ask if I am incorrect that you have less respect for women than for men, you refuse to answer that directly, too.

*shrug* It doesn’t matter. Sometimes the fact that somebody refuses to give an answer it itself all the answer you need.

I didn’t ask if you knew people who put up with, coddle, or make excuses for such behavior–I’m sure all of us do.

I know exactly what you asked, and it’s a false dilemma I am jumping the horns of. I know of a great many people who coddle and indulge emotional fragility, and give it no more account for respect or disrespect than if someone orders the grilled chicken sandwich, or the fried chicken sandwich. It merely is, like the color of hair.

Do I coddle it? No, and you can ask my daughter if you like. I never put up with it out of her, and despite my best efforts to raise her not to be a “typical female” (NOTE THE SCARE QUOTES) it would be generous in the extreme to describe my success as even “partial.” She does tend to be more emotional than my son, and in many respects I was probably harder on her than my son.

And this is a thing I count as one of my biggest mistakes, because I used to believe that women were that way just because they were allowed to be, and was determined to break her of it.

I suppose pouting is easier than actually answering. Am I incorrect in thinking that you have no respect for women? Not as a class of people, I mean, or in the sense that women are supposed to be “better” and thus entitled to a higher degree of respect than men *eyeroll*; but you seem to think of femaleness as something that automatically makes a fellow human being a pain in the ass, and you’ve posted at least once that you do know people who are smart, good at their jobs, etc. (I’m paraphrasing as I don’t recall the exact positive adjectives you used), and “they’re called men”.

If you don’t want to be answered with snark, I suggest you refrain from it in your questions.

And I respect nobody by default. I put up with people by default. Respect or disrespect is earned with me.