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.
There's a time for humility and vulnerability, and a time for confidence and assertiveness. These are not mutually-exclusive qualities. Wouldn't you want a gf of yours to have the confidence to do well in a job interview, and get a good job? Wouldn't you want her to be able to muster the assertiveness to fend off a scam artist? Or are you into helpless, victim-y women? You do want a functional adult, who isn't chronically getting herself taken advantage of, don't you?
I don't think OP meant that at all. Modesty and vulnerability is not weakness.
I don't think OP meant that at all. Modesty and vulnerability is not weakness.
I agree. They're great. But OTOH, he's putting down confidence and assertiveness, which are necessary survival tools in certain situations. To not have the wherewithal to muster those qualities when necessary, is to live with an element of risk, or lack of effectiveness in the world. Again, all these qualities are part of a well-rounded personality; they're not mutually exclusive. Having confidence in a job interview, or to protect oneself from victimization, does not preclude vulnerability in a relationship context.
I bet some of the women he's found to be sweet and vulnerable also have a quiet confidence. I don't think the OP has thought his ideas through. More clarification from him needed.
Humility and vulnerability aren't exclusively female qualities, either. Many men have those qualities at certain times, and women appreciate them. Nobody likes a guy who's constantly tooting his own horn, for example, and is a braggart or pompous. Vulnerability in a relationship context is an important element that facilitates bonding. A guy who's walled off from his own emotions, or who's always on the defensive, isn't going to have much relationship success. Both men and women need a balance of all the qualities the OP has put up for discussion.
Last edited by Ruth4Truth; 08-28-2017 at 12:26 PM..
I agree. They're great. But OTOH, he's putting down confidence and assertiveness, which are necessary survival tools in certain situations. To not have the wherewithal to muster those qualities when necessary, is to live with an element of risk, or lack of effectiveness in the world. Again, all these qualities are part of a well-rounded personality; they're not mutually exclusive. Having confidence in a job interview, or to protect oneself from victimization, does not preclude vulnerability in a relationship context.
I agree. They're great. But OTOH, he's putting down confidence and assertiveness, which are necessary survival tools in certain situations. To not have the wherewithal to muster those qualities when necessary, is to live with an element of risk, or lack of effectiveness in the world. Again, all these qualities are part of a well-rounded personality; they're not mutually exclusive. Having confidence in a job interview, or to protect oneself from victimization, does not preclude vulnerability in a relationship context.
If I were going to speculate a whole lot, my second guess would be that the OP would be fine with a well rounded woman who chose to defer to him on most important decisions, or did so for extended family and friend's consumption, anyway.
My first guess would be that the OP is feigning feeling stigmatized and wants make a point something like those who claim there's a war on Christmas. I don't believe any such war exists, although some people react like they've been shot if the hear "Oh come all ye faithful" at a public school concert or see a creche at the library. That may feed some people hungry for a little persecution. Likewise, choice feminism can be carried to illogical extremes, but some people react as if a few women submitting to their husbands will soon cost women the vote. I also don't fully understand those women's retro choices, but I don't see their choices as any kind of threat.
If I were going to speculate a whole lot, my second guess would be that the OP would be fine with a well rounded woman who chose to defer to him on most important decisions, or did so for extended family and friend's consumption, anyway.
My first guess would be that the OP is feigning feeling stigmatized and wants make a point something like those who claim there's a war on Christmas. I don't believe any such war exists, although some people react like they've been shot if the hear "Oh come all ye faithful" at a public school concert or see a creche at the library. That may feed some people hungry for a little persecution. Likewise, choice feminism can be carried to illogical extremes, but some people react as if a few women submitting to their husbands will soon cost women the vote. I also don't fully understand those women's retro choices, but I don't see their choices as any kind of threat.
Maybe you're right. That would explain his claims of a stigma relating to certain qualities in women. IMO the stigma would relate more to denying women the ability to be confident and assertive; hobbling them, basically, than it would to appreciating someone who's appropriately humble and vulnerable.
I don't think OP meant that at all. Modesty and vulnerability is not weakness.
No, but lacking confidence and assertiveness when dealing with people can make a person a target for people who want to control the relationship in not-so-nice ways. Sociopaths and narcissists love insecure people who knuckle under to keep the peace (and the relationship) rather than stand up for themselves.
I agree. They're great. But OTOH, he's putting down confidence and assertiveness, which are necessary survival tools in certain situations. To not have the wherewithal to muster those qualities when necessary, is to live with an element of risk, or lack of effectiveness in the world. Again, all these qualities are part of a well-rounded personality; they're not mutually exclusive. Having confidence in a job interview, or to protect oneself from victimization, does not preclude vulnerability in a relationship context.
I bet some of the women he's found to be sweet and vulnerable also have a quiet confidence. I don't think the OP has thought his ideas through. More clarification from him needed.
Humility and vulnerability aren't exclusively female qualities, either. Many men have those qualities at certain times, and women appreciate them. Nobody likes a guy who's constantly tooting his own horn, for example, and is a braggart or pompous. Vulnerability in a relationship context is an important element that facilitates bonding. A guy who's walled off from his own emotions, or who's always on the defensive, isn't going to have much relationship success. Both men and women need a balance of all the qualities the OP has put up for discussion.
Exactly. Wanting someone who is humble and can show vulnerability is completely different than wanting someone who lacks confidence and assertiveness.
Maybe OP is trying to sugarcoat what he is looking for by using the words humble, modest and vulnerable or maybe OP does want a humble and modest woman but some how has confused that with not being overly confident and assertive.
I think OP is unclear on the wording and description of what it is that he is looking for. When I see "Confidence and assertiveness is a turn off" I assume that person wants someone weak. Why would you want your partner to lack confidence? Assertiveness, I can understand.....maybe you may see that as abrasiveness, but not confidence(that surely can't be the right word you are looking for).
I think OP is unclear on the wording and description of what it is that he is looking for. When I see "Confidence and assertiveness is a turn off" I assume that person wants someone weak. Why would you want your partner to lack confidence? Assertiveness, I can understand.....maybe you may see that as abrasiveness, but not confidence(that surely can't be the right word you are looking for).
Exactly, because even a "traditional" woman should be confident about her abilities and role in the relationship, and can be assertive when it's called for. She may be modest, but that doesn't mean she's a doormat.
I think OP is unclear on the wording and description of what it is that he is looking for. When I see "Confidence and assertiveness is a turn off" I assume that person wants someone weak. Why would you want your partner to lack confidence? Assertiveness, I can understand.....maybe you may see that as abrasiveness, but not confidence(that surely can't be the right word you are looking for).
This. I'm thinking maybe the OP is reacting to some kind of extreme image or stereotype of loud, pushy "confident" women, or something. I wonder how old the OP is, and how deep his understanding of human nature is. Or maybe homina12 is right; maybe the topic was set up to be polemical.
We are all only guessing what he meant, and unless he comes back to clarify, we don't know.
Could be he has in his mind, some image of feminism making women into these bold, strutting, argumentative and aggressive people, and his idea of the sort of woman he wishes to love, is one who doesn't make him feel confronted, one who seems soft and makes him want to protect her. But he is holding some sort of real or imaginary argument with someone of the feminist persuasion who is putting him down for wanting nothing but a victim, doormat, or inferior.
Of course, that same feminist might get angry that some women want to be "slaves" or "submissives" or housewives, or anything. The more rational minds in and out of feminism would shrug and say that if that is also what SHE wants to do, then she isn't being victimized, some people are happy doing such things. Whatever it is you want to do in a relationship, there is probably somebody out there willing to do it with ya.
I'm only guessing on this because I've seen and known enough men who feel defensive about what they think or hear are the attitudes of feminism. Whether those images they hold are realistic or not, is a whole other conversation.
There are people of all persuasions who just want to look for sparks to the fuel of their outrage, over whatever particular positions they might hold...but those people are not MOST people.
OP, if you ever come back to clarify what you're talking about, I don't think we can do more than make blind guesses unless you tell us:
1. What do you mean in terms of humble/vulnerable, exactly?
2. Who is giving you a hard time for it?
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.
