Third or fourth person commentary is not going to work in understanding any serious thinker - whether it be Rand or Nietzsche or anyone else.
It's fairly common for people to compare Rand to Nietzsche, and yes, there are a few commonalities, and certainly she did admire some things about Nietzsche, but there are pretty massive philosophic differences between these two. Their commonality rests more on style, I think, than substance.
I tolerated the negative characterizations because I thought there was some justice to them, and because I'm someone who wants to take just criticism and use it to improve myself. I was rarely angered or offended by these remarks. More saddened to think this person thought of me in that way. Ultimately, though, your mate must hold a respectful and high opinion of you. If they make fair criticisms, and you fail to change his or her mind that you've improved in ways that those criticism are no longer so fair, then it's time to reconsider your relationship, I think.
I'd like to believe, Lang, that if I wrote a critical letter to you that my criticisms would be presently compassionately and fairly, and that they would be balanced by recognitions of both your good qualities and my not-so-great qualities as well. Balanced in that I would acknowledge my own negative contributions to our relationship.
Yeah, I think you have a point of not making too much of Red Flags - because it's likely we all have them in someone's perspective. Perhaps it's a matter of identifying our own red flags - the qualities that we know from experience and introspection aren't well-suited to us? And you're right - a lot of things can be negotiated.
In this context, I recall my dad always bad-mouthing his second wife. Even as a kid I thought that was wrong (though I thoroughly agreed with him!). You shouldn't be with someone you don't respect.
In retrospect, it seems amazing to me now that I stayed with someone for years who openly attacked my character - who even once said she "found it insulting" that I would compare myself with her!!?? I often asked: "Then why are you with me, if you think of me that way?" But the truly important question was: Why am I with her??
By the way, what could be a bigger red flag than someone insulting your ethical character? Maybe once as an exaggeration in a heated argument, but not as a constant litany.
Of course, I do indulge in a little "bad-mouthing" of them...well of my last one anyway...in my head. But even then I try to keep the swear words and dirty language to a minimum. And occasionally I let the other person in my head have her say.
I asked my ex about how important it was to her for someone to like her cats. She replied that she found that to be of moderate importance.
But how's this for a red flag: someone who doesn't like animals? (I'm thinking that wouldn't be a general red flag, but it would be for me...and I once was a "pet-disliker" myself!)
Exactly. You don't throw your partner under the bus, or permit anyone else to do that. Even now I won't accept anyone bad-mouthing my exes (eewww...I hate the word "exes").
Your question is a bit unclear. Are you asking whether friendship is the most important element in relationships, or if having friends is the most important kind of relationship?
Yes to the former, no to the latter. For me, my most important relationship is my romantic relationship (which must incorporate friendship).
Hmmmm...well that sounds more like another of men's "terrible traits" - that is, impatience. Or maybe "controlling(ness)"? Or maybe one could call it "over-decisiveness" or "premature decisiveness." God, so many times I'd be shopping with my wife and I'd say: "Can't you please just make a decision what to buy? Any decision?"
That was so not her decision to make, Jac. There were many complications involved in your decision that needed to be reckoned with, I reckon.
Well, I wouldn't be surprised if women were better "mind-readers," because they probably are concerned with an in tune with the emotions of their mates. And perhaps, projecting that concern/nature onto their mates, they expect them to be mind-readers as well?
Well-thought, I think, Jac. Some dudes definitely just want a simple resolution to a complex problem - particularly in relationships - in essence looking for a "faux" soution. That often happens, I suspect, because guys in general aren't comfortable discussing messy stuff like emotions/relationships. They'd be much more comfortable discussing a basic engineering problem like fixing a car engine or a stuck door, and would prefer such simple, nuts-and-bolts solutions to emotions and such.
(If you had a complaint list about men, surely the unwillingness to deal with emotional topics would be near the top!)
The part about ending discussion by proposing a solution (especially a simplistic one) is right-on when it comes to men and relationships. You make a complaint like "Well, you're not spending enough time with me!", and he responds: "Okay, why don't you watch a basketball game with me this Sunday?"
There you have a simple solution that doesn't address the issue and thus isn't truly a solution.
Not sure what you mean by "I find solutions offered half way through presenting the evidence ineffective, as they don't take into account the whole issue," though I found it rather provocative in its suggested meanings... Could you amplify?
You know, "Men are from Mars, Women from Venus" is one book I've never read, despite usually ingesting that kind of pop-psychology. Does it remark on this subject?
Part of the "solution-oriented" business might be that women find different things worthy of solutions, as well as having different techniques (along the lines you suggested; not sure if you're saying that's your individual style and not necessarily true of women in general?).
For example, I think women are more "solution-oriented" than men in general as regards relationships. They're usually the partner looking to solve issues, whereas the guys usually just grunt and turn up the volume of their sports show.
Your relationship can rest in peace, Nance, because you gave it your all. You left no stone unturned. If you can't make it work, then you no can, in my opinion.
I love how they so often (when writing to men) throw in something about being "God-fearing" so as to reassure us of their moral rectitude.
Since I upped my stated age, I've noticed that I'm getting far more of these kinds of emails. I assume they believe that older people are better marks due to desperation or perhaps senility?
In any case, these messages are damn annoying. I wish there was some way CS could automatically delete anyone who sends this garbage.
That's how I feel, too, H. It's the quiet moments that are the hardest - the knowing that what's happened is irreversible. I found a strange comfort in knowing, however, that there's nothing I can do to change things. They just are.
You make an excellent point about fearing to be controlled being equally as toxic as actually being controlling, Felixis. I kind of think of them as being opposite sides of the same self-esteem coin. If you're so terrified to being controlled/losing personal autonomy, then your self-esteem is surely lacking in some critical regard, just as if you feel the need to control your self-esteem is critically lacking.
I see so many people defiantly announcing "I will not be changed!" "Take me as I am, or else!" - and I regard that as symptomatic of the "control-phobia" you and I are discussing, F.
Someone with a strong sense of worth would neither think that nor feel any need to proclaim it, in my opinion.
RE: Red Flags
Third or fourth person commentary is not going to work in understanding any serious thinker - whether it be Rand or Nietzsche or anyone else.It's fairly common for people to compare Rand to Nietzsche, and yes, there are a few commonalities, and certainly she did admire some things about Nietzsche, but there are pretty massive philosophic differences between these two. Their commonality rests more on style, I think, than substance.