Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just imagine the very same woman with a sizable paycheck I found it out the bad way - the size of a paycheck doesn't matter, if a woman declares herself independent "upfront" as some sort of an identity claim, she's got more serious issues than income. If a low (no) income independent woman doesn't give rat's arse about the one who keep her warm and well fed in order to send some sort of an "ideological" message, there is no reason to believe that more thorough independence would make any positive (for males) impact.
Well now that you know this isn't your type it should be simple enough to avoid women that describe themselves as independent. It sounds like you had a broken picker with the first two, so hopefully you can take more time with the next relationship and get to know her better before she moves in.
What you've described here doesn't sound like "independence". Selfish, maybe, but not independence.
There's no reason that someone cannot be independent and maintain a successful relationship. To me, independence is when a person chooses a relationship because that's what they want, not because that's what they need financially, or to fill an emotional hole, or whatever. And, independent women are full well capable of compromise and respect. Doesn't sound like a whole lot of that going on in your relationships. Bitterness and resentment are a cancer that will squeeze the life out of any union until neither person wants to give an inch. And that's what I am getting from your post.
Did you just take their proclamations of independence at face-value, or was there something else that attracted you and possibly blinded you to the reality of what these women were (like maybe physical attractiveness, sex, etc.)? Because if you are picking the same women over and over, it may be time to look in the mirror.
Most of the dating euphemisms and catch phrases stand for less than appealing qualities, we all know that. At this point, "I'm a strong independent woman" is an immediate turn off. Just think about it. Any sort of meaningful relationship implies certain measure of dependence. If you are already independent why bother with relationship if your "independence" is so important to you? Stay independent, luckily even the dumbest, nastiest, ugliest and fattest women can always find a male sex partner in a blink of an eye. Why bother with a relationship and risk your precious independence?
Seriously, I'd rather be in the middle of a desert alone than next to the self-described "independent & strong willed woman". Nope, I'm not a total control guy expecting 3 meals per day and an ironed shirt with a smile every morning. I was just looking for a woman who gives a dime (you can tell if you see one), a woman I can rely on unconditionally, I was not looking for a business partner doing continuous cost-benefit analysis round the clock and all I was getting was another "independent woman". Independent of obligations, loyalty, concerns and common decency, I didn't meet financially independent ones who would refuse "a little" extra yet. I've married one who bailed out immediately with every penny she could grab after "extras" stopped coming in . Yup, she was and still is as independent as they come. Sometimes, women would get independent to the point of complete uselessness. Independence is nice and dandy, but if I'd rather deal with a for-profit-business than be on the mercy of your independence, what's the point? Cheap sex? That's what hooking up is for, if we to talk "business", prostitutes are cheaper than independent women (much cheaper) and they offer as much or more intellectual etc. stimulation (that's what I've heard ).
I don't think that women "needs" changed that much in the past millennium. I'm pretty sure that male "ideal" stays the same since the Stone Age, as in "Socially (and preferably biologically) dominant male aggressive go-getter towards "outside" world, nice and cuddly towards her precious, cuddly and controllable (very important). Since the time immemorial women honed the art of sublime male control. Yet, something changed since the "liberation". Nope, women don't mind controlling their males, it doesn't matter how independent they get. They want control, lots of it. What they no longer want - any obligations, exertion, and responsibility for their males. That's "demeaning" and economically unsound. We males are just disposables not partners for independent women. We are tolerated for as long as benefits overweigh their meagure costs. The sheer proximity to their woman highness is supposed to be our reward.
I had just enough with the last "independent" one, after I put in 18 hrs of work non-stop (no exaggeration, unfortunately) and I asked her for a glass of water. What did I hear in return, "You are a big boy, you can get it yourself". Keep in mind that this "independent" woman didn't work at the time and I paid all her bills. So passing a glass of water or gosh forbid cooking a dinner is "demeaning" for women but me wasting 100 hrs of my life to provide for her is not demeaning at all. I did my cost-benefit analysis and if there is nobody but independent women out there, I'd rather be alone, enough of abuse is enough, stupid no more.
Well, I'm glad you are not bitter with your relationship with an unemployed woman who will not get you a glass of water. I have to wonder who has classified this woman as "independent", because in my book that's not what you have described.
I consider myself an independent woman. I might even be a "strong" independent woman, but I'm not exactly sure what constitutes a "strong" women. After all, I like chick flicks, scented candles, and I file my nails rather than clip them. I think of myself as independent because I live alone, am gainfully employed, and pay my own bills. That sounds like an independent woman to me. I'm not a loner, just independent and self-sufficient, which I happen to see as attractive qualities.
If I were a loner I wouldn't care one way or the other about men. But I do and would enjoy a romantic relationship. So of course I would like the man in this relationship to care about me, want and enjoy my company. But it would also be nice if he could somehow survive happily without a woman cooking his dinners and washing his clothes. That would make him independent and self-sufficient, which as I said, I see as attractive qualities.
translation yes she is good looking but the reason somebody that good looking is standing here talking to u is bek somebody somewhere is tired of her , well u know.
At this point, "I'm a strong independent woman" is an immediate turn off. Just think about it. Any sort of meaningful relationship implies certain measure of dependence. If you are already independent why bother with relationship if your "independence" is so important to you?
Agreed. In fact, a woman being truly independent is INHERENTLY a turn-off. It literally means she doesn't need anyone (and kind of implies she doesn't WANT anyone either). Interdependence is the way to go. And for some reason, I find it annoying too when someone brags about being/doing something that should be a given. Why not brag about taking a bath at least once a week next? It's great that these women are strong and not depending on a man to get by. But it's a value better seen than heard. It's like saying you're cool. If you have to tell someone, it probably isn't true.
I also can't stand "I don't care what you think". It's usually uttered by the most insecure people, and they always seem to be selling themselves more than anyone else in the room.
Also, I figure the "independent woman" you described maybe called herself that when she meant to say she isn't subservient to men. Though the two tend to go together, they're not one in the same.
What you've described here doesn't sound like "independence". Selfish, maybe, but not independence.
There's no reason that someone cannot be independent and maintain a successful relationship. To me, independence is when a person chooses a relationship because that's what they want, not because that's what they need financially, or to fill an emotional hole, or whatever.
I think what I've described matches very well with your description. Yup, if an independent female (or male) chooses a relationship (or passing glass of water) because that's what they want, it must be very flattering for lowly me, but that's not a relationship. That's two independent agents do what they feel like it at the moment. Sure, acting out of "feeling like it" is superior to acting out of "financial need", but ultimately it doesn't matter. Today I want to choose a relationship, tomorrow I have different ideas, day after tomorrow my wants turned upside down again. At the end you are loyal only to your wants and whims, nothing and nobody else matters, that's a perfect definition of an independent woman. And that's a major problem with the modern relationships. Yes, it's very, very flattering to be picked as the one who fit your current wants, juice boxes on store shelves must feel the same, but ultimately that's not what most of males (or females) long for. Even proverbial Alpha males confident about their ability to fit your wants any time of any day, want somebody loyal on top of dozens of less than loyal ones .
Besides, there is no such a thing as "I want" just because. You want this or that because of something. If you want a relationship for no particular reason, I don't think that is possible.
Quote:
Did you just take their proclamations of independence at face-value, or was there something else that attracted you and possibly blinded you to the reality of what these women were (like maybe physical attractiveness, sex, etc.)? Because if you are picking the same women over and over, it may be time to look in the mirror.
Yes, I'm afraid I know that blinded me besides physical attractiveness, and it's not easy to type but, oh well, I felt sorry for the girls. Both were less than social and more than isolated with a baggage. I'm somewhat "alienated" (consciously) from the world myself, so I've thought what the hell, it doesn't fit my "convictions" if I'll keep on shopping around for a less baggaged person than myself. I know, I know, that's not the right thing to do, but I genuinely felt sorry for them. Somebody has to, but I've paid my dues to humanity, it's somebody's else turn . Both seems experienced less than normal childhood (so did I). First (the one I married) had multiple stepfathers and witnessed (probably experienced) her mother abusive husbands (women would tolerate a lot of abuse provided a dominant male does it). Her mother got converted to woman liberation cause (as soon as she got into high paying nursing) and now she's a savvy man's consumer who takes no crap and seek males to fit her unique needs. Second one was raised by super religious parents who seem pretty normal (now) but in the past religious fervor was much more intense.
What about women who have had to become 'independent' because of a bad choice in husbands? When you end up with a man who is clingy, needy, whiney and doesn't know Jack about home repairs, a girl needs to get independent pretty fast when there is an issue with electricity or the plumbing springs a leak. So where does a woman like that end up after she gives 'Hubby' the heave-ho? It's like you can't get little Miss Jeannie back into the bottle, isn't it? Every new potential friend that I meet invariably tells me that I am too independent for them. They think that I don't need anyone; that I have it all under control by myself. Huh???
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I found it out the bad way - the size of a paycheck doesn't matter, if a woman declares herself independent "upfront" as some sort of an identity claim, she's got more serious issues than income. If a low (no) income independent woman doesn't give rat's arse about the one who keep her warm and well fed in order to send some sort of an "ideological" message, there is no reason to believe that more thorough independence would make any positive (for males) impact.
