* If your ex was "damaged goods" from the beginning, and she never worked to heal and improve herself, then "damaged goods" she remained... apparently to this day (according to your posts).
* If she was a narcissist from the beginning, and you did not notice, nor held her accountable, then a narcissist she remained... to this day (according to your posts).
* If you allowed her to continue on in her ways, without needing to heal and improve herself, then you unfortunately enabled her.
* Marriage is a business arrangement for financial reasons, and raising children. Love and devotion are different matters. Although many try to overlap them. Maybe: they overlapped for you but not for her.
* Society has been led to believe that the Feminine is automatically loving and nurturing... No.
However, it is actually greatly driven by in-the-moment emotionality, hypergamy, and more so: competition with other Feminines for survival. When those are factored in, it makes way more sense how the Feminine can just drop a relationship of years or decades, as if with the snap of the fingers, when the living situation is no longer perceived as advantageous to survival, and/or accountability is suddenly being asked for.
All that mumbo jumbo aside... it's clear you are suffering greatly here in ways that I and many others can't imagine. The best seems to be for your feelings to get processed, the marital end to become easier and fade away, and the ability to have your kids back in your own life in healthy ways... all very quickly. Godspeed.
I don't disagree with your words. I do disclaim, however that she is classified as a Covert Narcissist. She may just be a Dismissive Avoidant, but either way, the gaslighting, deflection, flipping the script, angry outburst when I wouldn't go along with her plan or ideal, and discarding were all present.
All categories are just constructs. That being said, I don't care too much for the attachment theory compared to a simple "Narcissists & Empaths" split. Here's a category chart:
"Society has been led to believe that the Feminine is automatically loving and nurturing... No"
The modern construct has enabled women to evade all accountability. This has had a disastrous effect. Women are reactive, impulsive, emotional, and unaccountable at their best, and under the false pretense of 'equality' they have been allowed and encouraged to unleash their worst traits. I don't consider women voting as the worst thing to happen to the West (as some do), but it was never really a good idea, and most don't realize that there were many intelligent, educated, and well spoken women who opposed suffrage.
First, they were told (by the system) they need to leave the home and children to fight the system and be equals (and instantly double the taxpayer base). Now we're told they are equals, yet we are supposed to believe their accusations and flights of fancy without question or proof of any kind, and they're given complete preference in issues of divorce and custody.
Fortunately, many have realized they're just being used as pawns in someone else's agenda and are rejecting this role and rediscovering tradition.
Women are inherently narcissistic. Fighting this impulse is a matter of personal growth, and is something a husband would naturally help her to overcome by his wisdom and authority, yet it's encouraged at every step by the jailors who run this social engineering prison, by people who have a genetic hatred for humanity and wish to cause its destruction.
I agree with all you say, although... I don't like to say "women" when it's more accurate to say the "Feminine". Males and females each have a mix of Masculine & Feminine energies. GENERALLY, females have more Feminine.
I know it sounds "woke" and I don't mean it that way, BUT... if we define "woman" as "anyone (male or female) who is exhibiting Feminine traits" then it works well in universal discussion. Wokesters would like that, but most of society just have not, and will not.
Conversely, if we define "women" as "females" (biologic at least, not sure about trans... sigh) then that works for the conventional traditional way we've been using it for a very long time. But continues the confusion, because there are many females who are more Masculine, and males who are more Feminine. Especially in same-sex relationships.
Personally, I now try to just say "man/men" for situations regarding "mankind" as a whole (species I guess), and not use "woman/women" at all since it just makes for MORE semantic confusion until this woke mess is reversed/resolved. And for discussion like this, I more accurately say "the Feminine" or "the Masculine" for those trait descriptions.
Because without using the same definitions in the first place, nothing can really be resolved thereafter anyway.
Agreed for the most part, and there are a lot out there who are trying to frame all of our problems as the result of female voters almost exclusively, devoting themselves to degrading women and driving a wedge between the sexes. I don't count myself among them.
And I don't mean to absolve men either, because there are now a surplus of boys who spend their lives playing video games who cannot properly be called 'men.'
I disagree, you just did that "Women are reactive, impulsive, emotional, and unaccountable at their best, and under the false pretense of 'equality' they have been allowed and encouraged to unleash their worst traits"
And, if I'm not mistaken, women got out of the house and began working as a result of the war.
@Rose, I think you are seeing the discrepancy here in just the discussions about the topics, beyond those of the topics themselves.
@Gigolo Joe = I think you are missing my previous point, and demonstrating the sematic problem everywhere: lack of similar definitions such that people don't agree because they semantically cannot. Apples and oranges. Which then allows Rose to correct you down a path that shouldn't have been gone down.
You said: "...who cannot properly be called 'men.'"
But how are you defining "men"? As 1) "males", or 2) "masculine"?
Makes ALL the difference to a productive discussion towards resolution.
IMO your phrase is better phrased as:
"who haven't embodied being, or even learned how to be, 'masculine'...yet." Which society apparently "expects" of them, if they are to... what? Design, build, lead, defend, and other such "masculine" traits? Females can do those too, if "masculine" enough in their own maturity.
So, it might be more a discussion of MATURITY (advancement and command of skill level) of both types of energetic approaches: Masculine & Feminine.
And using those energetic approaches in the descriptions in the first place.
If any of this even makes sense. It's complicated.
Many are rightfully questioning it.
And some nefarious wokesters are using it on purpose to divide and conquer.
let's work together to agree and not allow them.
THEN there is the issue of FEMALES (are we agreeing what a "woman" is enough to interchangeably say "women"... not yet) being allowed to vote.
Well:
* there are many mature males and females who are excellent thoughtful, stoic, long-term strategists, looking for the best for the voting area as a whole. These are traditionally mature Masculine qualities.
* there are probably more immature males and females who are childlike thoughtless, overly-emotional, short-term reactors, looking for immediate selfish gratification and soothing for themselves and their own family only. These are more traditionally Feminine qualities.
The question is shall people be allowed to vote based on male/female gender, or maturity.
Or maybe the smartest people don't work towards, nor vote, nor give allegiance to corrupt global corporations posing as "governments" in the first place... different equally important conversation!
Jay, I'll really sorry for what you are going through, and also for the discussion here getting off into the weeds. The truth is that's it's all screwed up worse than ever before between the genders, energies, cultural norms, definitions, custodies, and anything resembling justice. Especially for males/masculinity. Stay strong, and there is hope that at least your children will come back to dad at some point, hopefully soon.
Meanwhile, Chris Rock told us some truth years ago about the challenge with "women" (the toxic version of the Feminine, looking for any excuse to destroy instead of support). This is sad and hilarious at the same time. So better to laugh at it right now bro: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIJavth0a9c
* If your ex was "damaged goods" from the beginning, and she never worked to heal and improve herself, then "damaged goods" she remained... apparently to this day (according to your posts).
* If she was a narcissist from the beginning, and you did not notice, nor held her accountable, then a narcissist she remained... to this day (according to your posts).
* If you allowed her to continue on in her ways, without needing to heal and improve herself, then you unfortunately enabled her.
* Marriage is a business arrangement for financial reasons, and raising children. Love and devotion are different matters. Although many try to overlap them. Maybe: they overlapped for you but not for her.
* Society has been led to believe that the Feminine is automatically loving and nurturing... No.
However, it is actually greatly driven by in-the-moment emotionality, hypergamy, and more so: competition with other Feminines for survival. When those are factored in, it makes way more sense how the Feminine can just drop a relationship of years or decades, as if with the snap of the fingers, when the living situation is no longer perceived as advantageous to survival, and/or accountability is suddenly being asked for.
All that mumbo jumbo aside... it's clear you are suffering greatly here in ways that I and many others can't imagine. The best seems to be for your feelings to get processed, the marital end to become easier and fade away, and the ability to have your kids back in your own life in healthy ways... all very quickly. Godspeed.
I don't disagree with your words. I do disclaim, however that she is classified as a Covert Narcissist. She may just be a Dismissive Avoidant, but either way, the gaslighting, deflection, flipping the script, angry outburst when I wouldn't go along with her plan or ideal, and discarding were all present.
All categories are just constructs. That being said, I don't care too much for the attachment theory compared to a simple "Narcissists & Empaths" split. Here's a category chart:
https://www.mindfreed.org/_files/ugd/89428f_0eb3c765c7f7494bbc8e03d09a624b4f.pdf
"Society has been led to believe that the Feminine is automatically loving and nurturing... No"
The modern construct has enabled women to evade all accountability. This has had a disastrous effect. Women are reactive, impulsive, emotional, and unaccountable at their best, and under the false pretense of 'equality' they have been allowed and encouraged to unleash their worst traits. I don't consider women voting as the worst thing to happen to the West (as some do), but it was never really a good idea, and most don't realize that there were many intelligent, educated, and well spoken women who opposed suffrage.
First, they were told (by the system) they need to leave the home and children to fight the system and be equals (and instantly double the taxpayer base). Now we're told they are equals, yet we are supposed to believe their accusations and flights of fancy without question or proof of any kind, and they're given complete preference in issues of divorce and custody.
Fortunately, many have realized they're just being used as pawns in someone else's agenda and are rejecting this role and rediscovering tradition.
Women are inherently narcissistic. Fighting this impulse is a matter of personal growth, and is something a husband would naturally help her to overcome by his wisdom and authority, yet it's encouraged at every step by the jailors who run this social engineering prison, by people who have a genetic hatred for humanity and wish to cause its destruction.
Dr. Andrew Kaufman is having a free 3-Part webinar soon about it all:
https://offerings.andrewkaufmanmd.com/true-masculinity-mini-series
I agree with all you say, although... I don't like to say "women" when it's more accurate to say the "Feminine". Males and females each have a mix of Masculine & Feminine energies. GENERALLY, females have more Feminine.
I know it sounds "woke" and I don't mean it that way, BUT... if we define "woman" as "anyone (male or female) who is exhibiting Feminine traits" then it works well in universal discussion. Wokesters would like that, but most of society just have not, and will not.
Conversely, if we define "women" as "females" (biologic at least, not sure about trans... sigh) then that works for the conventional traditional way we've been using it for a very long time. But continues the confusion, because there are many females who are more Masculine, and males who are more Feminine. Especially in same-sex relationships.
Personally, I now try to just say "man/men" for situations regarding "mankind" as a whole (species I guess), and not use "woman/women" at all since it just makes for MORE semantic confusion until this woke mess is reversed/resolved. And for discussion like this, I more accurately say "the Feminine" or "the Masculine" for those trait descriptions.
Because without using the same definitions in the first place, nothing can really be resolved thereafter anyway.
Agreed for the most part, and there are a lot out there who are trying to frame all of our problems as the result of female voters almost exclusively, devoting themselves to degrading women and driving a wedge between the sexes. I don't count myself among them.
And I don't mean to absolve men either, because there are now a surplus of boys who spend their lives playing video games who cannot properly be called 'men.'
I disagree, you just did that "Women are reactive, impulsive, emotional, and unaccountable at their best, and under the false pretense of 'equality' they have been allowed and encouraged to unleash their worst traits"
And, if I'm not mistaken, women got out of the house and began working as a result of the war.
@Rose, I think you are seeing the discrepancy here in just the discussions about the topics, beyond those of the topics themselves.
@Gigolo Joe = I think you are missing my previous point, and demonstrating the sematic problem everywhere: lack of similar definitions such that people don't agree because they semantically cannot. Apples and oranges. Which then allows Rose to correct you down a path that shouldn't have been gone down.
You said: "...who cannot properly be called 'men.'"
But how are you defining "men"? As 1) "males", or 2) "masculine"?
Makes ALL the difference to a productive discussion towards resolution.
IMO your phrase is better phrased as:
"who haven't embodied being, or even learned how to be, 'masculine'...yet." Which society apparently "expects" of them, if they are to... what? Design, build, lead, defend, and other such "masculine" traits? Females can do those too, if "masculine" enough in their own maturity.
So, it might be more a discussion of MATURITY (advancement and command of skill level) of both types of energetic approaches: Masculine & Feminine.
And using those energetic approaches in the descriptions in the first place.
If any of this even makes sense. It's complicated.
Many are rightfully questioning it.
And some nefarious wokesters are using it on purpose to divide and conquer.
let's work together to agree and not allow them.
THEN there is the issue of FEMALES (are we agreeing what a "woman" is enough to interchangeably say "women"... not yet) being allowed to vote.
Well:
* there are many mature males and females who are excellent thoughtful, stoic, long-term strategists, looking for the best for the voting area as a whole. These are traditionally mature Masculine qualities.
* there are probably more immature males and females who are childlike thoughtless, overly-emotional, short-term reactors, looking for immediate selfish gratification and soothing for themselves and their own family only. These are more traditionally Feminine qualities.
The question is shall people be allowed to vote based on male/female gender, or maturity.
Or maybe the smartest people don't work towards, nor vote, nor give allegiance to corrupt global corporations posing as "governments" in the first place... different equally important conversation!
"...who cannot properly be called 'men.'"
OR, better phrased as:
"who haven't embodied being, or even learned how to be, 'masculine'...yet."
Fresh video today by Lise Leblanc:
"10 Reasons You're Struggling to Get Over a Narcissist"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_2Bo7FLY4A
Jay, I'll really sorry for what you are going through, and also for the discussion here getting off into the weeds. The truth is that's it's all screwed up worse than ever before between the genders, energies, cultural norms, definitions, custodies, and anything resembling justice. Especially for males/masculinity. Stay strong, and there is hope that at least your children will come back to dad at some point, hopefully soon.
Meanwhile, Chris Rock told us some truth years ago about the challenge with "women" (the toxic version of the Feminine, looking for any excuse to destroy instead of support). This is sad and hilarious at the same time. So better to laugh at it right now bro: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIJavth0a9c