The most annoying typically male qualities

Remove all ads!

First, let me reveal it to you that this topic is not what it seems at first glance. Now that you are properly warned, we can begin.

In a Polish forum which I grace with my worthy contribution (though that forum can hardly compare to our wondrous boards, I just have to use my native languague sometimes ), I have recently sighted, to my utmost surprise, a valid and interesting problem being discussed. As you will understand later, I was for obvious reasons coerced and compelled to reply and that's essentially what this topic will address.

Among the usual, in such cases, malicious and unfair *****ing not worthy of quoting in whole and practically identical with my list of most annoying typically female qualities, my weary eyes spotted the following:

A lady remarked that what first draws us to people is what later annoys us supremely. Some two paragraphs later she claimed that it was lack of responsibility that was the most annoying thing in men.

Consequently, I logically concluded that

what women find alluring in men is lack of responsibility

I urge you to elaborate on the subject.

Later, another lady made the following point:

Lack of courage

Although she mentioned that she did not in fact mean bullrushing every other man encountered (such salvatory clauses are sometimes needed in the said forum), but that was about all. She was quite clear, however, that men are typically lacking in courage while it's their primary duty to protect their women (where I essentially agree wholeheartedly but not in the context in which it was said) and critique was running rampant.

As you see, I was compelled and coerced to reply with words of reason Please allow me now to quote my reply, translated freely in order to sound better in English, and feel free and encouraged to comment.

So, now that I feel confident that you realise the gravity of the problem , please share your reflections on the points above and what the most annoying typically male traits actually are

A few hints from me are: contradicting expectations, illogical expectations, and whose domain fondness of brutality in fact is despite it being suggested otherwise

[ September 17, 2003, 03:59: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

I'll bet Eze'll have a field day with this thread.

 

I have no rebuttal, that was perfect.

 

It's funny how a woman will want you to defend her honour, because the only reason we'd do it is for a "less than honourable" reason.

 

cheers Chev! Courage is not hte most wise of things, to quote

"he has courage? So has a dog, but it's exactly the ability to compromise that's makes a man noble."
or something along those lines
(from Robert's father in braveheart)

 

On the subject of courage: I was once assaulted in the hallway of the apartment building where I lived. When I unlocked my apartment door, the assailant grabbed me from behind and tried to shove me into my apartment. My then-fiance came to the door, saw that I was fighting off a man much bigger than myself, and took my keys out of the door and locked me out of the apartment so that my assailant wouldn't get him too. Then he got back in his bath and when I'd finally driven off my attacker I had to convince him it was safe to open the door and let me in. I don't think a man has to go around knocking heads in my name but when someone you claim to love is in danger, regardless of your gender you should do what you can to help.

Most typically annoying male quality: thinking that remembering family birthdays, sending cards, buying Christmas gifts, calling his mother etc is his wife's responsibility, even for his own family. My brother and father are terrible about this. But my husband doesn't, or have any other any annoying qualities, except maybe for hogging my computer to play ALFA. And I know *he* would fight for me if I was in danger, as I would for him.

[ September 17, 2003, 16:01: Message edited by: Sprite ]

 

@Oaz: hehe. I'm looking forward to seeing a militant feminazi in this thread

@Sprite: I hope his genes don't spread...

@Lokken: Wise or not, well... It's surely not a wise thing, in most common human standards, to move in despite the odds when a woman is in danger. So perhaps I'm an idiot. But it actually pisses me off when women think that it's done to impress them, as a tribute to their beauty of body or soul, to advance your standing with them, to speed up things or whatever. Or that it's in any way done *for them*, in the first place.

[ September 17, 2003, 16:32: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Well, I think regardless of gender, one should know how to defend him/herself. If I was out with a man (not bloody likely) and some other guy would come over and start to flirt/hit on me/insult/attack or otherwise make me feel bad, I would just beat the sucker up myself. Or tell him to sod off. No need for violence unnless it gets to unwanted physical contact.

There you go. And I don't know why those women were whining anyway. Learn to protect yourself and be bloody conscious of what you do and all will be fine.

There you go. I hope I wasn't to feministic as you put it.

 

Sprite, you didn't marry this guy did you?

 

Hmm... Eze, how nice to agree sometimes

Personally, I'd rather have the woman hide, call the cops, go find a metal tool or something, but then again... the concept of mutual aid is not all so alien. Too much Jaheira romance, hehe

But I would like to know your opinion on what I said above: that when I defend a woman with odds being quite fishy for me, that I'm doing the right thing and I'm not actually impressing anyone or making a trade-off (there is actually no way it's an even one, so I don't bother - despite the fact that a plain 'thank you' makes the subject closed). And that, in fact, it's not personal and it doesn't matter who on earth the woman is, be she a current crush, a complete stranger, an annoying enemy, whoever.

New thought, anyone: don't you think that when some stinking drunken thug whistles after the woman being with you and makes some stupid remark, don't you think that when you start a fight you're in fact not defending the lady's honour but degrading her? Like acknowledging the guy's being capable of offending her? As though she were even in the slightest affected by his judgement? (actual tangible danger is a completely different thing, as has been and will be more than sufficiently noted)

As for mathematical calculation of odds: as I have said, I myself have the unhealthy habit of just going in. I have to go, I don't have to come back. But if a woman expects a man being with her to initiate a fight when he's arithmetically sure to get beaten up (ie, let's say, a highschool lad vs a gym freak or one man vs three people etc), I am prone to believe that she actually wants her man beaten up and herself enjoying what comes later... Both a reasonable and an honourable man will instead deliver her to safety no matter what she says, if each for different reasons, but that's another matter.

And, as I said above, but want to bring up again and try to attract a reply or two, even if the odds are in the man's favour, the matter doesn't get much simpler. I won't hit someone for a woman to have something to look at and talk about (another thing if he just won't shut up when ordered to). Such love for gore is somewhat improper, especially in those who don't actually fight

OK, now I'm pretty sure this was so blunt that it will not be overlooked like the first, milder, statement

 

Heh- glad to see other people find his behaviour unacceptable too. His family was like, "what? you can defend yourself, why should Jon have put himself in danger?" Which was his attitude too. He always used to joke that if we got mugged, he'd say, "my fiancee is gonna get you now!" and run like hell, but I always thought he was kidding. Sigh. Anyway, what did I do? Something very childish. I couldn't afford to kick him out because my income alone wouldn't pay the rent, so I continued living with him while having an affair with, I'm just going to come right out and say this, a Real Man. Shortly afterwards the Army sent me to British Columbia for six months and I never saw him again.

I am now married to a (different) Real Man who would have, I'm quite sure, come out and killed the schmuck even if he did have to do it stark naked and dripping bathwater.

[ September 18, 2003, 22:22: Message edited by: Sprite ]

 

Oh, right, another real bad quality is long-windedness.

(I've just read your latest post in RC, Chev.)

 

@Oaz: Combine long-windedness with sterotypical male uncommunicative-ness and you have the recipe for a total boor.

...or the perfect politician!

 

Sure, women, who expect their male companion to go and beat up some idiots only to impress them are stupid. I say this, as I don't belong into that category. Rightly, I despise them. Gods, do you really want someone beat up only to defend your bloody honor? Pfeh. Go and defend it yourself, not have another person do it.

There ya go again.

Stupid people like that. *mutters*

When somebody isn't physically a danger to you, you should manage to get rid of him yourself. If he is a physical danger, it's okay if your male companion helps you, if you are uncapable of defending yourself. An example: You're broken you're leg or arm and are out with some guy. Then a bloke comes and attacks you. In that situation it is perfectly agreeable, when another person does something, if the victim is not capable of fighting back.

Okay. *stutters off*

 

On lack of responsability: YES, THAT'S WHAT MOST OFTEN ATTRACTS WOMEN, just until it becomes unbearable or until they finally marry a milionaire (responsible or not ).

On lack of courage: I think the polish girl was just trying to explain (badly) that she likes "strong" men; I think that every couple has a different balance, and while probably most of them have the male playing the "brave" role, it doesn't always have to work that way.

Anyway, Sprite's case was tragically hilarious!

 

"what? you can defend yourself, why should Jon have put himself in danger?"

Jon? Jon Irenicus? Man, he's a puss without his magic ain't he?

Just kidding, of course. If this was any other place than Sorcerer's I'd view that story as a plain lie. So unbelievable it is that someone can be so much of a wuss.

I know out of experience that I have a kill-switch what will trigger immediately once anyone I care is threatened, or their honour deeply insulted. And I don't care one whit what law states about that.

There used to be a commercial here in Finland that used the age-old joke of what a woman really wants. Some woman was on her couch and saying all the features she wanted in a man, and beside her was a man that kept changing appearance according to whatever she said. In the end the man became a dog and the woman was happy.

Just in todays paper some researcher had published some new information on the subject of self-esteem in bullying ~12-yearold kids. Traditionally, the bullying and other agressive behaviour has been explained with low self-esteem (as is the way of things, to undermine those who don't fit into the society instead of actually thinking what's wrong and coming up with ways to fix it). It turns out that in fact this aggressive behaviour is not there because of low-self-esteem. It just might be there because of different priorities than with normal people. The research results try to prove that this more aggressive behaviour speaks of desire to get power over other people, and because of this, they have less desire for "equal" social relationships. Combine this with what you know about how easily women fall into this type of people, and, well, there's nothing new really.

I will say this clearly and plainly. I believe most women are idiots. Not any more than men, only, just as much. They are as much slaves to their primal desires as men are to theirs. The only thing people really need to 'love' eachother, is the fact that they get along with each other, and that they genuinely care for each other. As long as you keep looking for these primal qualities that guarantee "survival", you won't be receiving qualities that guarantee "genuine care and comfort". This is what I think at least. In this day and age, everyone survives, almost equally well too. In this day and age, what matters more than position and relations to society, is the ability to care and co-exist with family. It seems you need wisdom and brain to understand this, and most go by their instincts, failing completely. Just a while back I watched another relationship fall down because the woman wasn't satisfied with the man (a succesful individual, but very kind and compromising). Undoubtedly another case where the power called her in, but his "not courageous" and "not macho" nature drove her off.

Once again, I wrote this in work, in a period of around 4 hours. So forgive me for the few thought mistakes.