1969. Anger and His Significance


At post 1968 Her Highness Cinnamon inquires if female anger undermines a man’s sense of significance. The natural principle first: Yes, if he has conquered her. No, if he has not.

Yes, because her anger challenges him. It puts them in instant competition. Men avoid competing with their woman and conquest confirms to the male nature that she is his. Conquest earns the natural male right to dominate, which means that expressions of anger at him—even though deserved—are inappropriate.

The male nature recognizes the superior competitive influence—“arguing power”—of females. It is worth the risk of losing arguments in order to conquer a woman, but after conquest it is not. So, competing with a conquered woman, the male nature tells men they will likely lose. That brings up their greatest fear, losing significance in their woman’s eyes, which means their ability is questionable for fulfilling manly missions of responsibility to her. Therefore, competing with their woman is too risky and should be at least avoided and preferably prevented.

The following bullets can be answered in the same way. Yes, if he has already conquered her. It opens the floodgate to competition and likelihood of reducing his sense of significance. No, if they have never had sex together. Competition protects her and he may lose sleep but not significance over a woman defending her ‘un-owned’ self.

  • Refusing sex?
  • Extreme silence, pulling away, refusing to communicate?
  • Continuing to argue after he declares a final decision?
  • Refusing to do as he says after he has demonstrated that he expects his dominant role to prevail?
  • Blaming him? However, add this caveat. If he senses he is wrong, he is still pressured by the male nature to defend himself and prove her wrong. In which case, she is the mother of fault-finding, he is the father of rationalized self-defense, and the competition continues. (For a man to admit wrongdoing to a conquered woman comes from lessons learned in life long after his birth.)

In short, whatever DIRECTLY challenges a husband’s authority and decision-making dominance tampers with his sense of significance. In his mind, he gave up his independence for the responsibility of ruling the relationship. Outside of marriage and without conquest, however, directness serves women better because men are amenable to letting women have their way.

Moreover, lessons learned living inside different cultural value systems make men more or less willing to compete with wives and conquered females, e.g., more within our Judeo-Christian value system and less within non-Western societies.

Women can learn to get more of what they want by trial and error. Before conquest, they compete diligently with men to prevent conquest except under female terms. After conquest, they compete drastically if necessary to preserve their dignity within female standards and expectations. After marriage they cooperate and avoid direct competition with their husband. Competition calls for directness. Cooperation calls for indirectness. Wise women know how to exploit the differences that arise in life.

 

9 Comments

Filed under Dear daughter

9 responses to “1969. Anger and His Significance

  1. surfercajun

    Thank you, Cinnamon I had wondered about some of this as well. Appreciate you, Guy!

  2. Wow! Excellent stuff! Never heard this before. Thank you, Sir Guy!

  3. Reblogged this on To our bodies turn we then.

    Your Highness Mrsktc,
    Welcome aboard. It’s a great day when another pretty woman joins us on this cruise to WhatWomenNeverHear.
    Guy

  4. My Husband's Wife

    Great post…again! I understand the compete before conquest and cooperate after marriage ideas, but what about that middle category…conquest, without marriage (living together)? How does this affect his significance with her anger and in general as he hasn’t given up his independence…yet and she hasn’t either.

    Your Highness My Husband’s Wife,
    It’s after conquest so, yes, his significance diminishes. However, he more easily can and usually does reclaim his independence, so no great risk existed before they moved in together.
    Guy

    • Keep in mind that men and women view living together very differently. Women consider it a sign of his commitment and (deep down) he doesn’t. The statistics on infidelity in such relationships is extremely high (according to the worthwhile book What a Difference a Ring Makes).

      • Cinnamon

        Excellent point Jill. Sir Guy draws the line at conquest, and I think this really explains a lot.

        Unfortunately, a lot of women are confused about commitment vs. devotion and when “conquest” actually occurs from the male point of view. (Sir Guy of course has all these answers in this blog).

  5. Cinnamon

    Thanks Sir Guy, from the comments it seems like there is a lot of interest in this topic. The specific examples about marriage are particularly helpful.

    Would you consider a separate post on the issue of anger during dating/courtship? Although I can see from your post it is perceived differently there than in marriage, I am not 100% clear whether it should still be used as a last resort during the dating/courtship stage.

    For example, as a long-time student of WWNH I endeavour to approach conflict issues indirectly with my Mr Goodenough even though we are not yet married. I have never really gotten angry with him. I do back off and do not respond with argumentation when we disagree and he reaches a decision (i.e. compromise) unless it is really an extremely important matter. This strategy seems to really help, particularly since during his marriage he was treated badly by a self-centered wife (including receiving a lot of constant verbal abuse and criticism from her) which wore him down. He is very easy-going and didn’t deserve this treatment from her.

    In sum, I am trying to behave more or less with the agreeableness I plan to display when we get married although obviously I realize that we aren’t. I am just wondering whether I am being too “soft” and should be more independent, or if anger should be used in dating only as a last resort (for matters of principle) and infrequently.

    Your Highness Cinnamon,

    Yes, anger is perceived differently but it’s use remains the same.

    Your last sentence is best applied both before and after marriage. A woman’s anger at her man is limited by his nature. He will only stand so much before he withdraws mentally or physically. OTOH, an offensive action used too often wears itself out. People no longer pay attention, but frustration causes the angered person to try harder. So, restraint, restraint, restraint followed by more restraint enables women to win wars rather than battles with extremely rare displays of anger.

    Guy

  6. Krysie869

    Hey Sir Guy!
    I love your blog as I am learning plenty!

    What does it mean if guys who have not yet conquered a woman (dating or not) seem argumentative and defensive over comments made? I have, on a few occasions, encountered guys who used sarcasm or seem annoyed by my behavior or words. What could explain this? My guess is that my personality clashes with theirs or that they may be insecure. I have a feeling that I should not even qualify them for Mr. Good Enough.

    Your Highness Krysie869,

    You’re right about personality clash, their insecurity, and not qualifying them as Mr. Good Enough. Other more likely possibilities are those that slow their steady march to getting you into bed, such as:

    • You don’t respond as they expect.
    • You catch them off guard and they recover with sarcasm etc.
    • Their thunderous roar of masculinity doesn’t impress you.
    • You outwit their cleverness.
    • You strike them as unconquerable.
    • They under estimate you.
    • You sock them in their self-confidence.
    • You exhibit a superiority of thought they can’t handle.
    • You rattle their cage of ego.
    • You are different inside than they expect from outside appearance.
    • Their first impression is the wrong one.
    • They have to question their judgment.

    They have to hide all their possible mistakes above by going on the attack with sarcasm, smart aleck remarks, etc.

    Need I go on? It’s all about competition and getting you into bed the first time. While that game is going on, it’s opportunity time for you. Compete even more assertively—but not discouragingly—to protect your sexual assets from their infringement. It forces them to research you for weakness during which time they encounter your attractive qualities that they hopefully admire. I say hopefully for you, because what they admire becomes virtue and men seek to marry a virtuous woman. Of course, in your dates and even into early courtship, such thoughts never cross the man’s mind, but they should forever be crossing yours.

    Guy

    • Krysie869

      NOTE: I RESPOND IN CAPS TO your questions in lower case WITH PARAGRAPHS BROKEN FOR EASE OF READING.
      GUY
      ——
      Hey Sir Guy,

      I bookmarked your response to my question and have looked over it numerous times.
      Thanks.

      I have a question or two though. Do you recommend me commenting back when guys that have not conquered me look at me funny or seem annoyed by my behavior (in both words or actions)? What do you suggest I say or do? SMILE BIG, BIGGER, AND BIGGEST. SAY NOTHING BUT THEN DISMISS THEM AS UNIMPORTANT TO YOU. WALK OR TURN AWAY. MAKE THEM CHASE YOU IF THEY ARE INTERESTED ENOUGH, HAVE COURAGE ENOUGH TO WITHSTAND REJECTION, AND HAVE SOME NEW WORDS THAT MIGHT ATTRACT YOUR ATTENTION LONG ENOUGH FOR YOU TO LISTEN TO THEM. IF THEY DON’T HAVE TO EARN YOUR ATTENTION, THEY WON’T WORK HARD TO EARN ANYTHING ELSE YOU MAY BE READY TO MAKE AVAILABLE, SUCH AS ACCEPTING A COFFEE DATE.

      Also, why do these same men seem so interested in me–I see them staring at me through my peripheral vision but otherwise ignore me or actually try to initiate conversation. READ TODAY’S ARTICLE 2001 AND TAKE IT TO HEART. THAT’S WHY THEY STARE. YOU’RE A CONQUER TARGET AND THEY’RE TRYING TO HOOK YOU BUT YOU WON’T GIVE THEM ANY BAIT TO CHEW ON. THAT’S GREAT FOR YOU BECAUSE THEY LEARN THAT YOU AREN’T EASY AND THEY HAVE TO DECIDE IF YOU’RE WORTH THE PRICE THEY WANT TO PAY. THAT IS, WILL YOU SELL OUT AT THEIR CHEAP PRICE OR HOLD OUT FOR YOUR OWN PRICE?

      Sometimes I hear them ask others about my behavior? THEY’RE COLLECTING INTEL ON YOU.

      Is it because I am different than most women? YES AND HOPEFULLY YOU WILL REMAIN SO. YOU’RE COMPETING AGAINST WOMEN FOR MEN AND NOT AGAINST MEN FOR A MAN.

      Or is it is because they lack respect for me? THEY RESPECT YOU MUCH MORE BECAUSE YOU ARE A BETTER COMPETITOR IN PROTECTING OF YOUR SEXUAL ASSETS. YOU CAN’T DO BETTER THAN KEEP THEM FOCUSED ON HOW TO REACH YOUR INTEREST AND CONVERT IT TO INTEREST IN THEM.

      Are men this interested in women that they see as sexually attractive but otherwise seem disturbed by? YES, AGAIN, SEE ARTICLE 2001.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s