Quote:
Originally Posted by !Yaminashi
I agree with you here, but I think there are ways for the OP to get his point across without having to steam from the ears.
He does have every right to be angry, but would approaching her when his rage meter is over 9000 benefit him at all? Probably not. Would it benefit him to be calm about it? Probably not again since it sounds like SHE somehow thinks there's absolutely nothing wrong with what she did.
I still stand by what I said earlier, this girl sounds like a waste of time.
|
Probably just as inbeneficial as having your gf grinding other guys IMO.
The problem with white knights is that some guys are so wrapped up with chivalry that they associate any negative reaction to women as condescencion; as if they're weaker and we must assert our dominance.
But what people can't dissacociate from that is that with anger, it's all just about, action = consequence. Not as a form of devaluing women to a lower stature of you because they're not. What they also don't get is the more we coddle women, the more we treat them as fragile, the more they're actually treating them as inequal to men. (are the women going to complain in this particular situation, heck no. It benefits them atm).
I mean, you'd get pissed off at your employee if he were to insubordinate. You'd be pissed off at your guy friend if he crossed a line with you (whatever that may be: theft, stealing your chick, making an inapporpriate remark about you mother). Why wouldn't you be allowed to be pissed off at a gf for certain actions?
esp. the action in question with respect to the OP.
Is it because she has a vagina? Is it because you're hitting that vagina and you might lose your pussy retainer? Am I a male chauvanist because I hold women to the same regard as men? Because I chose to have limitations with my chivalry?
Also,
Has anybody ever given thought that some women have figured out the benefits of passive boyfriends?
BTW Yaminashi, this post is not directed at you but just moreso to the discussion in general. I just quoted you because I'm continuing where the discussion last ended.