Recently Commenter Buena Vista stated,
If a woman secures a man she considers ‘alpha’, implied is that she locked down a man out of her league. She’s just scored! in a game one might call relationship arbitrage.
One common response to her lingering disbelief and insecurity, then, is to immediately ring-fence the man. After all, she didn’t think she was going to get him, so she’s going to wonder how she’s going to keep him. It doesn’t occur to her that a man chose her as well, for reasons of his own, and that he’s capable of honoring his own decision and commitment.
(And there’s some massive projection operating here, because female hypergamy, she fails to realize, is not inherent to male mate selection. Just because she will trade up or out if bored, if she has the opportunity, doesn’t mean the man will. Obviously it’s just the opposite, with men.)
Women with a habit or legacy of relationship-wrecking, through promiscuity or simple emo-psychological pathologies, offer a more challenging form of mate-guarding. She’ll accuse the man of disloyalty, running around, will say “You don’t love me!”, will deliberately sabotage her own stated objective (monogamous intimacy).
In essence, she will be so unpleasant as to dare that man to jump her ring-fence. This is shit-testing raised to operatic levels. Quickly the man will be reduced to “Yes, dear”/”happy wife-happy life” mode if he a) doesn’t split; b) doesn’t know how to put her in her place; c) has children and assets to protect from her partner, the government; or d) blindly cares what the culture thinks of him, and that culture says that if he puts a ring on it, he’s consigned to a life of har-har self-deprecating misery in his man-cave, when he’s not pulling her wagon until he croaks.
The only women I’ve ever met who do not practice this form of relationship sabotage are those with admirable, strong fathers who sustain reasonably healthy relationships with their mothers. Since the dawn of feminism, obviously, the number of families with healthy parental dynamics, like that, are fewer and fewer. On the first date, the majority of women over 30, talk about the “abusive” or “dishonest” nature of their prior men and fathers. This signals that they are claiming the enhanced status of a lifelong victim, irrespective of how well their lives have gone, and that she views each man she meets as intrinsically unreliable and potentially predatory.
The self-sabotaging woman who does succeed in destroying her relationship or marriage with a man she considers an “alpha”, often will consider herself, then, an alpha widow. And she’ll go full Medusa in her efforts to destroy him, under the behavioral impulse that is “If I can’t have him, no other woman will either!” Cue the tearful claims to police/courts/employers/friends of abuse and deceit.
The above describes some path(s) to women’s self destruction. I am sure that readers can think of mare. But a larger question is: Why do women engage in behaviours that destroy their own relationships?
Let us consider some possibilities,
I. They just can’t see the fact that their behavior leads to failure
Ia. They are unfamiliar with behaviors that might lead to success
II. There are just too many pitfalls that people rather easily fall into
III. There are no longer any curbs on their behavior
IV. Emotions are now allowed to drive all
Let us consider these in detail
They just can’t see the fact that their behavior leads to failure. Let’s face it, women are not really encouraged to think rationally. So if one want to know what to do in general, and does not want to be bothered with careful consideration of the matter, what should they do? The answer is obvious: do what others are doing and do what is popular and fashionable. So women go careening down the tracks, heading for disaster. If only the tracks led to a place that wasn’t a disaster…
They are unfamiliar with behaviors that might lead to success. But of course. Following pop culture and the latest trends is time consuming. Thinking about what to do is hard. Still, one should not expect everybody to think deeply. Good answers should be provided. For men, that is a big reason for the existence of the manosphere. But where can women look?
There are just too many pitfalls that people rather easily fall into. This is always true. The bible states as such. It is the fallen nature of mankind. The nature that one is supposed to work against. And for whatever reason, women sure do seem to have lots of pitfalls. Perhaps this perception is due to the relative nature of the fact that men are not allowed to indulge in as many.
There are no longer any curbs on their behavior. We all know about this. The manosphere is rife with examples. Here is a sample: Hypergamic Combat. The list is long. Commenters can add to it.
Emotions are now allowed to drive all. “I emote, therefore I am.” Apparently a large segment of women are addicted to emotions and the drama that follows. If a reader disagrees with this, let me know. Oddly enough from a girl’s perspective, it doesn’t really seem to matter if it is positive or negative emotions experienced. Negative emotions seem to be easier to create on average, so that is where women go.
Are these self-sabotaging women a victim of themselves? Do they deserve sympathy? Should the Government set up a program to address these women? As always, what to do?
NAWALT applies of course.