SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

Your examples of double standards - where do you get these from? I praise every BS of all genders who choose themselves over an unremorseful wayward. If I divorced my cheater, I'd be paying HIM alimony and giving up half my lucrative pension - because his pension plan is his future inheritance - which I would have no claim on. Do I need to hand in my woman card? Does this make me a man now? As far as ego:

e·go

ˈēɡō/

noun

a person's sense of self-esteem or self-importance.

"a boost to my ego"

synonyms: self-esteem, self-importance, self-worth, self-respect, self-image, self-confidence

By definition, you think women don't have their ego trampled?

I agree with sister...this is your usual rant. I'm never sure what sets it off to get you in such a lather. And your complaints are so diverse and obscure, it's impossible to confirm or refute in a linear fashion. As soon as you start dropping this researcher and that researcher et al. - then I know it's never about understanding or enlightenment.

Since this is a rant - I'll just agree and say life's unfair and I hope it gets better for you soon.

Randy - her reasons (if true) are valid reasons to leave the marriage, or request counselling. But to cheat? No. She had options to find a moral remedy. Instead, she cheated? Why did she cheat? She was selfish - like all cheaters.

Yea, I know, that's all well and good, but besides shifting blame of a failed marriage or retaining some moral indignity, it really matters little at this point. I still have to deal with the fallout, which don't get me wrong, is peachy, compared to living with a serial cheater. The fallout being performance issues, committment issues, and how my daughter will adapt to all this (I'm especially worried over my XW finding another man eventually and this guy being trusted enough to be around my daughter).

Trying to read through this thread, and I don't know the personal histories as I have not been here long, but I am hurting so badly today......and I see that hurt in MrSpock. I am only 3 months out from Dday, but actually feel like I am getting worse. I don't know if it is the continued facts that finally come out or just because I want so desperately to believe that the man I married and have been with for 27 years is not in fact the monster I see today. I simply hurt. Everything hurts. My soul is crushed. I can see how that might make me bitter, hateful one day. Today I am just broken. A sad, sorry heap that wants to just cry all day.

(((Luciditylost)))

Hugs for Randy too (((it won't always suck this bad)))

[This message edited by sassylee at 4:10 PM, April 17th (Monday)]

I did point out where to find it and who the researchers are. I mentioned some of them by name. I also mentioned the sources. I can bring many more. I have hundreds if not thousands of them.

However, these responses show me that people are not into learning and understanding but only into shaming. And almost every single reply and response on this thresd proves that everything I wrote was true.

Lucidy, join the broken family of SI. You can come her any time you like but you can never leave.

Mr. Spock,

I rarely post on your posts and it's because I see the same thing Sister Milkshake does. Your posts strongly reek of a dislike for women and a dislike for yourself for reconciling with the specific woman who betrayed you. I just don't get the impression that you like yourself very much for reconciling but rather than look inward and exploring why you chose to reconcile when you so strongly seem to wish you hadn't, you instead seem to blame the whole gender and attempt to start us (men) against them (women) camps. I'll ask your forgiveness in advance if I have gotten the wrong impression but that is exactly the impression your posts give me whether you intend them to or not.

I am very sorry that your wife betrayed you as she did. I am also very sorry that you seem to have internalized it so strongly against yourself. My personal opinion about men and women is that we need to band together to treat each other better. It takes strong people to reconcile and it also takes strong people to divorce. It doesn't matter if you are male or female. You must do what feels right to you but, whatever choices you make, you must own them and live with them and help them to shape your future into what you hope for it to be. You chose to reconcile but you seem very, very bitter about it. In what way is reconciling helping you achieve your future goals and be the person you want to be?

I did not read any other posts. I do not know what anyone else said. I only know that your posts specifically seem to have this theme but I do not see what you describe on this board consistently in a large number of others, male or female. I see men and women giving advice from their perspectives. And, yes, I do believe that there are some women on this board who have the same low opinions of men that you seem to have of women. And I will say this: I am very sad for anyone who had such a terrible experience with his or her spouse that they have decided to paint an entire gender with a brush dipped in the bitterness he or she feels for the person who betrayed him or her. Because if that is what people are doing, they are missing out on some truly wonderful people of both genders.

As far as double standards go: yes, they exist in some people's minds and actions. But they only apply to you if you allow them to. In my life, I have been betrayed by a few women and a few men. My mother left me when I was a small child. My response was to try to be the best mother I could be to my own children and surround myself with women I felt shared my view of what motherhood should be and who had clear ideas of what constitutes abandonment. My grandfather molested me. My response was to teach my children that their bodies belong to them and surround myself with men who exemplified respect for humans and animals and would never betray the right of any creature, human or not, to be free from violation. My husband cheated on me. My response was to allow him to work through his behavior, examine it, and learn better boundaries and earn my trust. At no point did I assume that because my mother was a bad mother, all women were bad mothers. At no point did I assume that because my grandfather was a child molester, all men were child molesters. At no point did I assume that because my husband cheated, all men were cheaters. Despite being betrayed, I assume that each person I meet is an individual and I allow him or her to show me who he or she is with actions. A wise person takes each person as an individual and calls out the bad behavior of specific people for what it is.

Mr. Spock, put your paint brush away. Your brush is too broad and your strokes are too general. What you need is a detail brush. If you see someone specifically employing double-standards, that is the time to pull out your brush and paint away. In other words, if you see a thread with a generalizing poster, that is the time to call that poster out. General posts like this one only invite arguments. It doesn't fix specific behaviors because people who have a double-standard or gender biased mindset rarely recognize themselves. I believe you are a good example of this. Go back and read all of your posts and look at what they indicate as far as how you feel about women in general. I am not the only person to point out the impression you give.

I don't usually post on your posts, Mr. Spock, because your posts so far have given me the distinct impression that you won't like me right off the bat- just because my circle has a little cross at the bottom and not an arrow pointing up. But that's okay. I still hope things get better for you and you end up truly happy.

Rather than share my opinion,I'm just going to point blank ask you...Mr Spock...do you like women? Do you respect women?

Did you read the researches that European queens waged more wars than kings. Yet, they sent only men to the wars.

This was not because of a double standard, it was simply the smart thing to do (back then). When you are trying to rebuild your population after a war, you need more women than men. A woman can only get pregnant once every year or so. But one man can impregnate many women over the course of a year (and yes this would have required infidelity, but we are talking ancient times here when people didn't marry for love and it was acceptable for men to have mistresses).

So if you were to send your women to war and get a bunch of them killed off, it's going to take you a heck of a lot longer to rebuild your population than it would if you only sent men. Therefore, it's the smarter thing to do to send men.

[This message edited by LizM at 4:21 PM, April 17th (Monday)]

I am not going to defend myself from your ridiculous statements about me as I have nothing to defend. I stated what I feel. I do not need to defend what I feel.

Disregard what I have to say, your choice, of course. Since you almost always get so defensive about whatever I post, maybe, just maybe it would help you to do some introspection about whatever it is that I post that gets you so worked up. I usually avoid your threads because, for me, it is like I am hitting my head against a brick wall. Only hitting the wall is more enjoyable.

I sincerely wish you peace and serenity MrSpock.

[This message edited by SisterMilkshake at 4:33 PM, April 17th (Monday)]

LizM

Did you read the researches that European queens waged more wars than kings. Yet, they sent only men to the wars.

This was not because of a double standard, it was simply the smart thing to do (back then). When you are trying to rebuild your population after a war, you need more women than men. A woman can only get pregnant once every year or so. But one man can impregnate many women over the course of a year (and yes this would have required infidelity, but we are talking ancient times here when people didn't marry for love and it was acceptable for men to have mistresses

Correct. You are pointing to the very essence of what is called gynocentrism. Gynocentrism is a society that is focused on women (and men serving and putting them on a pedestal). It's origion is in the middle ages. And this phenomenon is the basis of what is called the disposability of men that are nothing more than an utility that is here to serve this gynocetric society and women. When the man did what he had to do he could be easily replaced by other men if he could no longer serve women and society. Men in this gynocentric society are nothing but a child producing machine, a birth machine, and and are required to serve as cannon fodder without asking any questions.

This is also why society values female life more than male life. We would always rescue first a woman but not a man and this is why still and always men will do the most dangerous works and will constitue also the most casualties there but lets bash all men as oppressive and abusing pigs.

The double standard is even not this fact in itself, the double standard is even not this biological gynocentrism but in the demonization of men and their portayal as nothing more than the epitome of evil on earth despite their sacrifice, not the nowhere existing privileges they had. Yet, it is o.k. to do so because men are disposable and it's their purpose in life. This is the double standard and it is the derivative of cultural (not biological) gynocentrism (that you described.

So, yeah, maybe if you have read my threads you also read about my military service. I know exactly by direct experience what it means to be disposable as man. I have lost enough friends on the battlefields. So maybe, just maybe, this treatment alongside with the affair is so difficult for me and not my male ego. I have lost friends and while they are burried their wives have new families (not infidelity and it is o.k.). That's gynocentrism too. Maybe, just maybe, it is not the ego but this vulnerability, the most primal fear, that is the problem. And this type of disrespect through the affair and the treatment that men get generally. You know why I haven't posted about it because as a man it is politically incorrect. Now, that it was not me I mention this.

However, if we return to older times, society has understood back than that men are disposable only at the personal level. Yet, collectively they were required, and honored. They were given a safety net, not privileges, so that women would not abondon them on a whim. Today this is not the case. Men are nothing. We live in the same gynocentric society that got out of control. And that's the problem for me too.

Today we have a cultural gynocentrism which diviated from the biological one which shames and bullies now men. They have taken every safety net and continue to do it even more while not giving men anything in return. Men not only continue to do the same things, not only required to give everything up but in fact they have to give now even more. With no honor, no respect, with getting nothing in return and are required to take this abuse without questions exactly as the were doing as cannon fodders.

[This message edited by MrSpock at 5:30 PM, April 17th (Monday)]

I don't get who is bashing all the men...

This is also why society values female life more than male life.

Gee, now you made me have to just say that is pure, unadulterated, grade A bullshit you are trying to sell there MrSpock.

I think I'll go visit my brick wall now.

eta: Just saw missing word

[This message edited by SisterMilkshake at 8:17 PM, April 18th (Tuesday)]

You can't even maintain a decent discussion without cursing. Yeah, but Redbaron is the problem. I bring arguments and explain them. I do not dismiss someting with a post of three or four sentences as bullshit. Which is a reflection of your deficiencies and inabilities not mines. It is your post thst is bullshit. Every post of you just proves my points. You have zero respect or even the ability to discuss someting.

[This message edited by MrSpock at 5:39 PM, April 17th (Monday)]

So, yeah, maybe if you have read my threads you also read about my military service. I know exactly by direct experience what it means to be disposable as man. I have lost enough friends on the battlefields. So maybe, just maybe, this treatment alongside with the affair is so difficult for me and not my male ego. I have lost friends and while they are burried their wives have new families (not infidelity and it is o.k.). That's gynocentrism too. Maybe, just maybe, it is not the ego but this vulnerability, the most primal fear, that is the problem. And this type of disrespect through the affair and the treatment that men get generally. You know why I haven't posted about it because as a man it is politically incorrect. Now, that it was not me I mention this.

My husband is retired military. I think he'd be more than amused by your post but he isn't here to read it. Why would he be amused? Because the very gynocentrism you are complaining about was set up by MEN. There are more men in congress, in senate, and in power making laws than women. There are more men on the supreme court enforcing laws than women. There are far more generals in the military setting policies than women. Your commander-in-chief has ALWAYS been a man. When women wanted to be involved and wanted to go to war, men fought against it. Mr. Spock, if you are angry with society as a whole because of the way it's set up, you might also start looking at your own gender because men fighting to keep women out of positions of power and influence throughout history is the source of your complaints. I'm sad for you. You don't feel betrayed by women. You feel betrayed by your own gender but you seem to want to hold women responsible for it. You're angry about the same things women all over the world are angry about and I don't think you even realize it.

[This message edited by Tearsoflove at 5:38 PM, April 17th (Monday)]

Mr Spock...I very nicely asked you a question. I didn't assume you feel this way,or that. I asked a direct question. Can you please respond honestly to it?

Thank you.

I love when a poster will spew facts as though it includes all the data anyone needs to understand the right side of any argument, though really they only do so to support their side of the argument. Numbers and data can be read a hundred different ways. Hell, I live for data but if I hand the same data to a member of my team from marketing, sales, IT, purchasing and business development, every last one of them is going to come away with a different interpretation for that data and everyone of them will be right - for their own purposes.

I see this as what you are doing here. Loved the "data" of the Queens being the vicious war-mongers to their male counterparts - which is almost impossible to quantify since they are all dead and not one researcher alive had all the information they needed to make 100% verifiable and quantifiable conclusions. What they did do was provide a good deal of latitude to the data and filled in blanks where they needed to (an educated guess.).

What you failed to mention, and would seem to be hugely important, that while perhaps, yes, one may find more instances of Queens going to war than Kings, you conveniently left out that SOLO (single) Queens were much more susceptible to attack simply because they were considered weaker and easier targets, easy pickings for marauding land grabbers. They almost were never the instigators but the intended targets and so did not actually wage the wars. However they did do what was required to protect themselves, their people and their land. Important info conveniently missing!

Married Queens often had their husbands as advisers who sat along side them and made decisions together. In this case, you can say that both men and women (kings/princes and queens) made decisions to wage war as a team. And yes, the Queen normally sent her husband in to to lead the battles while she stayed behind to oversee the rest of the matters and manage diplomacy at home. Important info conveniently missing!

Married Kings NEVER consulted with their wives on such matters. See the difference here?

So, by all means, provide as much supporting evidence as you can but never ever assume because you give data, its meaning is linear or one-dimensional. This is where you get into trouble with blanket statements.

IMO, and mind you, this is only my opinion, anyone who spouts facts and then uses it as a means to demean others ('I gave you facts but no one wants to be educated" or similar comment) is often times doing so to feel superior when to me, they come off as belligerently arrogant. In that case, my thoughts shut down and that source of information becomes meaningless.

Misogyny, and indeed prejudice of any kind, is a terrible, terrible thing.

I wonder where you put me in your race to classify betrayed women? The little woman who kicked her WH's ass to the curb without ever looking back, without ever even discussing it with WH, now XH? Hell, the way I see it, I am Redbaron's perfect....man!

[This message edited by TurnOtherCheek at 5:44 PM, April 17th (Monday)]

Read

1.Female Forms of Power and the Myth of Male Dominance - Carol Rogers

2. The myth of male male power - Warren Farrel

It explains exactly why this myth exists, why the formal power can't exist without the informal female power. Why this was set up.so men would do exactly what I have described. And why the formal power wasvthe result of gynocentrism not vice versa

No I was not betrayed by men but wonen and the above researches explain why and howm there are many more

[This message edited by MrSpock at 5:57 PM, April 17th (Monday)]

Confused

I haven't seen the question. I am looking for it.