# Sh*t Tests and The Way of the Superior Man



## Drover (Jun 11, 2012)

I've been reading this book and it makes some interesting points. Its style is kind of new agey for me, but it takes a viewpoint on some things that's a bit different from NMMNG or MMSL and makes some sense.

With regard to sh*t tests it makes what I think is a good point. NMMNG and MMSL both take the approach that the MAP and Breaking Free stuff is about YOU, not about HER. But it also makes the tests about something to train her not to do as they're a nuisance.

WOTSM takes the approach that you WANT her to sh*t test you. First, if you truly want to improve yourself you want to be tested. It gives you opportunities to improve and to succeed. It's also about her showing love. If she didn't love you and care what kind of man you are, she wouldn't sh*t test.


----------



## AFEH (May 18, 2010)

I’ve never wanted anyone anywhere to sh*t test me and I never will. I don’t like it and for me it’s seriously dysfunctional behaviour. But it can be used to try and discover the truth of a situation when nothing else has worked. And in those circumstances its not a sh*t test but it is a fitness test.

Sh*t testing is indirect, passive, avoidant and aggressive behaviour. Surely that is what you are trying to leave behind you? Surely you are to become an assertive, non passive, non aggressive guy? You do that with boundaries, by asserting your boundaries. No way on earth do you want to accept and “play” with anyone’s sh*t tests.

You are talking about getting yourself even more deeply into dysfunctional mind games than the ones you are already playing.

I have been truly competent at testing myself every stage of my life with my goals and ambitions. I don’t need anyone else to test me.

The biggest way I test myself is to get outside my comfort zone. Nice Guys tend do everything they can to keep inside their comfort zone until it gets so uncomfortable that they have to take drastic action. They wont grow until they step outside of it!


----------



## lamaga (May 8, 2012)

"The Way of the Superior Man"?

Reading Nietzsche this summer, are we?


----------



## Sawney Beane (May 1, 2011)

Drover said:


> WOTSM takes the approach that you WANT her to sh*t test you. First, if you truly want to improve yourself you want to be tested. It gives you opportunities to improve and to succeed. It's also about her showing love. If she didn't love you and care what kind of man you are, she wouldn't sh*t test.


I see the logic - the idea that unless you are tested, you can't track your progress / see improvement / gauge where your efforts need to go.

However...



AFEH said:


> I’ve never wanted anyone anywhere to sh*t test me and I never will. I don’t like it and for me *it’s seriously dysfunctional behaviour*. But it can be used to try and discover the truth of a situation when nothing else has worked. And in those circumstances its not a sh*t test but it is a fitness test.
> 
> Sh*t testing is indirect, passive, avoidant and aggressive behaviour. Surely that is what you are trying to leave behind you? Surely you are to become an assertive, non passive, non aggressive guy? You do that with boundaries, by asserting your boundaries. No way on earth do you want to accept and “play” with anyone’s sh*t tests.
> 
> *You are talking about getting yourself even more deeply into dysfunctional mind games than the ones you are already playing.*


Emphasis mine. Read and consider this very carefully. Just because the concept of improving by being tested has _general_ value and validity, it does _*NOT*_ automatically follow it's a good thing to do in all circumstances.


----------



## AFEH (May 18, 2010)

Drover said:


> I've been reading this book and it makes some interesting points. Its style is kind of new agey for me, but it takes a viewpoint on some things that's a bit different from NMMNG or MMSL and makes some sense.
> 
> With regard to sh*t tests it makes what I think is a good point. NMMNG and MMSL both take the approach that the MAP and Breaking Free stuff is about YOU, not about HER. But it also makes the tests about something to train her not to do as they're a nuisance.
> 
> WOTSM takes the approach that you WANT her to sh*t test you. First, if you truly want to improve yourself you want to be tested. It gives you opportunities to improve and to succeed. It's also about her showing love. If she didn't love you and care what kind of man you are, she wouldn't sh*t test.


Your view above says to me that you will not only stay inside your comfort zone but you will also make the hole you are in while in it very much deeper!



And you really believe that someone needs to love you in order to shet test you? Sometimes the only reason they need is that you are there! In that its pathological and compulsive behaviour and nothing to do with you whatsoever.


----------



## alphaomega (Nov 7, 2010)

I disagree.

Since the shat test is embedded in the genetic code of every woman on the planet, why not just accept the fact that your going to get the TEST and be prepared.

Of course we don't want to be tested. But since it's unavoidable, prepare yourself and roll with the punches.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Drover (Jun 11, 2012)

AFEH said:


> Your view above says to me that you will not only stay inside your comfort zone but you will also make the hole you are in while in it very much deeper!
> 
> And you really believe that someone needs to love you in order to shet test you? Sometimes the only reason they need is that you are there! In that its pathological and compulsive behaviour and nothing to do with you whatsoever.


Yeah, you miss the point. I'm not saying just accept sh*t testing passively. I'm saying accept it as the test that it is and deal with it the right way as per NMMNG and MMSL. 

I do disagree on the dysfunctional part though. I think it's very natural and most women will do this if you let them or give them reason to. 

And if they don't care about you, it's not a sh*t test. It's just being a *****.


----------



## Drover (Jun 11, 2012)

alphaomega said:


> I disagree.
> 
> Since the shat test is embedded in the genetic code of every woman on the planet, why not just accept the fact that your going to get the TEST and be prepared.
> 
> ...


Right. It's kinda like PMS.


----------



## Drover (Jun 11, 2012)

lamaga said:


> "The Way of the Superior Man"?
> 
> Reading Nietzsche this summer, are we?


Not for years, lol. It's more like hippy dippy, new age NMMNG.


----------



## lamaga (May 8, 2012)

Yeah, just be wary. No one book has all the answers, and people who think that it does? Very scary.


----------



## AFEH (May 18, 2010)

alphaomega said:


> I disagree.
> 
> Since the shat test is embedded in the genetic code of every woman on the planet, why not just accept the fact that your going to get the TEST and be prepared.
> 
> ...


Of course you can be prepared. But for me at least not by playing games with them.

Shet tests are emotionally and psychologically unhealthy. They are aggressive acts designed to hurt, cause pain and wound. To say to play a game with an aggressive woman who is intent on hurting you is just entering her world and further eroding your boundaries.

It is exactly the same as saying “Play games with a physically aggressive and abusive husband”. We all know where that one ends!

If an H plays games with that type of behaviour with his wife he climbs (more like jumps) down and into her pit of aggression. Now they are both down in the same pit playing dysfunctional games with one another.


The H is far better to protect himself from his wife’s acts of aggression (shet tests) with healthy (not game playing) boundaries. Something like “I do not tolerate that behaviour” and he stands up on ground level until she decides to get out of her pit. At which time her can help her up and out.


----------



## SoWhat (Jan 7, 2012)

I think this is almost a meta-sh*t test. 

"I'll sh*t test you and you'll welcome it, if you're *really* willing to be a *real* man. I do it because I love you. Take it!" 

It's a sh*t test about sh*t-testing. 
I'm not willing to take that. If S-Testing behavior continues for an extended period of time, I'm out of the relationship. I think that's that most self-owning position you can take, actually.


----------



## YinPrincess (Jul 31, 2011)

lamaga said:


> "The Way of the Superior Man"?
> 
> Reading Nietzsche this summer, are we?


Hey I own this book! I think it is eloquently written for the most part. I love the way Deida approaches the topics! 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## AFEH (May 18, 2010)

Drover said:


> I've been reading this book and it makes some interesting points. Its style is kind of new agey for me, but it takes a viewpoint on some things that's a bit different from NMMNG or MMSL and makes some sense.
> 
> With regard to sh*t tests it makes what I think is a good point. NMMNG and MMSL both take the approach that the MAP and Breaking Free stuff is about YOU, not about HER. But it also makes the tests about something to train her not to do as they're a nuisance.
> 
> WOTSM takes the approach that you WANT her to sh*t test you. First, if you truly want to improve yourself you want to be tested. It gives you opportunities to improve and to succeed. It's also about her showing love. *If she didn't love you and care what kind of man you are, she wouldn't sh*t test.*


That’s a belief physically abused wives have. “He really hurt me when he broke my arm. He must really love me!”.

Sounds like some psychologically and emotionally abused husbands have the same belief. “Wow! That one was a lot of pain and she really hurt and wounded me. She must love me so very much and so very deeply!”.


----------



## alphaomega (Nov 7, 2010)

No. The entire point of the shat test is her subconsciously testing your boundaries. I think it's not even a conscious effort most times. It's just something that some women do.

Pass them. Enforce your boundaries. Mostly with humor. But sometimes with directness, when needed.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Drover (Jun 11, 2012)

alphaomega said:


> Pass them. Enforce your boundaries. Mostly with humor. But sometimes with directness, when needed._Posted via Mobile Device_


Everyone says humor is a good approach but I haven't found it to be. Maybe it's just my tone or maybe she has no sense of humor, but it just makes it worse. My current default is to quietly (with a smile) say, "Hush now."


----------



## AFEH (May 18, 2010)

Drover, you don’t like the boundaries and you don’t like putting your wife’s behaviour on her. You’ll continue to accept shet tests as a part of your life living with her. You are still creating yourself as a codependent. You are already in a codependent relationship and you are going deeper and further with it.

I can’t help you. So good luck and I really mean that.


----------



## YinPrincess (Jul 31, 2011)

Who here has actually read the book?

And... I thought sh!t tests are generally thought of as "intentional" acts to push boundaries by women? Correct me if I'm wrong here...

Drover, all of this is pretty much speculation, even the book. However, I've read it, and I know what the author is doing by "encouraging" the challenges for your own personal growth. He is not saying stay in a dysfunctional relationship AT ALL.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Drover (Jun 11, 2012)

AFEH said:


> Drover, you don’t like the boundaries and you don’t like putting your wife’s behaviour on her. You’ll continue to accept shet tests as a part of your life living with her. You are still creating yourself as a codependent. You are already in a codependent relationship and you are going deeper and further with it.
> 
> I can’t help you. So good luck and I really mean that.


You really have no idea what you're talking about. You seem to completely miss the point of nearly every post I make.


----------



## Drover (Jun 11, 2012)

YinPrincess said:


> Who here has actually read the book?
> 
> And... I thought sh!t tests are generally thought of as "intentional" acts to push boundaries by women? Correct me if I'm wrong here...
> 
> ...


No, they're not necessarily intentional. I'd guess they're not intentional or even consciously a test most of the time. 

I didn't say he was encouraging a dysfunctional relationship or to stay in one. Where are you getting this? I was commenting on something he pointed out that other authors didn't that /i thought was an interesting take on this phenomenon. I didn't even say I agreed with it. :scratchhead:


----------



## YinPrincess (Jul 31, 2011)

Drover I wasn't saying YOU are saying this, I was addressing some of the other posters... LoL Sorry if I wasn't clear about that. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## AFEH (May 18, 2010)

Drover said:


> You really have no idea what you're talking about. You seem to completely miss the point of nearly every post I make.


It’s because we are on massively different wavelengths, not like minded at all and as such incompatible. Good luck.


----------



## FormerNiceGuy (Feb 13, 2012)

Drover - I read the book and enjoyed it. It amazes me that people feel compelled to post on this thread even though they never even read the book.

I think Deida is very "new agey" but the book has some interesting points. I particularly like his point of view on purpose.

As for **** tests, I agree with AlphaOmega. It is in the female DNA. Handled effectively, **** tests get turned into sexual tension which works out better for everyone.


----------



## GhostRydr (Jun 2, 2012)

Theres books out there on how to be a better man by allowing oneself to be tested by a woman?

LOL.... Beta, Beta, Beta.....


----------



## YinPrincess (Jul 31, 2011)

No... You would actually need to read it to understand, I think. It's about utilizing the "feminine essence/nature" for your own growth and empowerment...
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## AFEH (May 18, 2010)

YinPrincess said:


> No... You would actually need to read it to understand, I think. It's about utilizing the "feminine essence/nature" for your own growth and empowerment...
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Well I said I wont post in this thread again. Sorry!

Personally I think that’s even worse! Some women would have a man be more feminine and hence they say things like _“It's about utilizing the "feminine essence/nature" for your own growth and empowerment”._ With Jung it’s the Anima, the inner feminine side of a man.

Interesting recommendation for a Nice Guy on the manning up, NMMNG journey trying to get back to his instinctual masculine traits.


----------



## YinPrincess (Jul 31, 2011)

Man cannot evolve on his own. Probably the best "frame of reference" is his spouse, his "mirror."

I, for one, do not want a feminine man. Have you read the book, AFEH?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## AFEH (May 18, 2010)

YinPrincess said:


> Man cannot evolve on his own. Probably the best "frame of reference" is his spouse, his "mirror."
> 
> I, for one, do not want a feminine man. Have you read the book, AFEH?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


That’s from your point of view as a woman. It is not from my point of view as a man.

A man’s point of reference as you call it, is other men. Not women. A man will grow as a man amongst men. He will not grow as a man amongst women.

No I haven’t read the book and to be frank the very title puts me off, Superior Man, sounds grandiose heading towards narcissistic, to me.

The Nice Guy has got somewhat out of touch with his deeply instinctual masculine side. His wife knows that as well. The last place he needs to look is towards the feminine, femininity for his manning up processes. For that, he needs to be amongst men.


----------



## anonymouskitty (Jun 5, 2012)

females simply cannot teach a man to be a man.


----------



## ItMatters (Jun 6, 2012)

I have told my dh time and again I want him to take on more leadership in the family, make more decisions, or heck, at least participate in the decision process. Instead it's my fault because I always get what I want, or I'm usually right, or I have better ideas or I steamroller over him.

So instead I get what I "want" and he complains or just lets life happen around him.

I've looked for his balls, they aren't in my purse. I think he hid them somewhere in my closet.


----------



## YinPrincess (Jul 31, 2011)

That's not what the book is about - if you read it you will understand.

When I said that a spouse is a mirror, I mean that you learn to grow and evolve together. Chances are, no one will ever know you like your spouse does. You celebrate your differences. I think with very few exceptions, a man generally becomes "feminized" due to a lack of a male role model in adolescence.

With chapter titles like, "Never Change Your Mind Just to Please A Woman", "Your Purpose Must Come Before Your Relationship" and "Stop Hoping For Your Woman to Get Easier", WOTSM is NOT about anything less than evolving as a MAN. Period. It's about understanding the differences. You embrace a woman's feminine qualities; you embrace your own masculine qualities and you learn to be who you are without losing yourself in your marriage.

I hardly think anyone who has not read the book can accurately critique the content based on others' opinions, including my own.

The particular chapter I think OP may have been referring to is, "She Needs Your Consciousness to Match Her Energy."

In it, Deida says, "The feminine destructress must be met by the masculine destroyer... Dark or light, a man can't be stuck in, or avoid, any areas of his masculine capacity or his woman will test him there."

Read it. You may be pleasantly surprised.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## YinPrincess (Jul 31, 2011)

ItMatters said:


> I have told my dh time and again I want him to take on more leadership in the family, make more decisions, or heck, at least participate in the decision process. Instead it's my fault because I always get what I want, or I'm usually right, or I have better ideas or I steamroller over him.
> 
> So instead I get what I "want" and he complains or just lets life happen around him.
> 
> I've looked for his balls, they aren't in my purse. I think he hid them somewhere in my closet.


:rofl:
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Sawney Beane (May 1, 2011)

ItMatters said:


> I have told my dh time and again I want him to take on more leadership in the family, make more decisions, or heck, at least participate in the decision process. Instead it's my fault because I always get what I want, or I'm usually right, or I have better ideas or I steamroller over him.
> 
> So instead I get what I "want" and he complains or just lets life happen around him.
> 
> I've looked for his balls, they aren't in my purse. I think he hid them somewhere in my closet.


Two things:

Lots of people, of both sexes, work out at an early age that with everything in life, it's a hell of a lot easier to complain than to act;

To some people, they don't _want _the power of leadership / decisionmaking / whatever, because with that comes the _responsibility_ when the decision goes south. And they sure as hell don't want *that*.


----------



## Sawney Beane (May 1, 2011)

YinPrincess said:


> That's not what the book is about - if you read it you will understand.
> 
> When I said that a spouse is a mirror, I mean that you learn to grow and evolve together. Chances are, no one will ever know you like your spouse does. You celebrate your differences. I think with very few exceptions, a man generally becomes "feminized" due to a lack of a male role model in adolescence.
> 
> ...


I read it. Most of the prose sounds like some cod-metaphysics cobbled together as part of the back story for a roleplaying game or the sleeve notes of a particularly bad power metal album. If you enjoy the "So it was written, in the days when the DARK was fearless..." sort of approach, it's worth it. If you like a more practical guide (or just less flowery prose), you'll struggle to get the benefits.


----------



## YinPrincess (Jul 31, 2011)

The "feminine" man may appreciate the flowery prose!! Haha!

All kidding aside, I CAN see how the content of this book will be lost on men simply because of the style that it is written. That much is true.

It gives much food for thought as you ponder your interpretations, and I think in a way this is beneficial - there's no "hand-holding" here - merely gentle guidance as you define things for yourself. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Sawney Beane (May 1, 2011)

YinPrincess said:


> The "feminine" man may appreciate the flowery prose!! Haha!


It isn't flowery, though - it's mangled, garbled cod-metaphysical. It sounds like something you'd hear a bad James Earl Jones soundalike saying at the start of a truly bad sword and sorcery flick.


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

Please educate me - what is a sh*t test? I only know it in the context of the PUA lingo - something negative a woman says while you're trying to pick her up.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Sawney Beane said:


> I read it. Most of the prose sounds like some cod-metaphysics cobbled together as part of the back story for a roleplaying game or the sleeve notes of a particularly bad power metal album. If you enjoy the "So it was written, in the days when the DARK was fearless..." sort of approach, it's worth it. If you like a more practical guide (or just less flowery prose), you'll struggle to get the benefits.


Cripes that's funny ...

I read two books that I thought were a little too high-falutin'

Way of the Superior Man and Fire in the Belly

Too cerebral. The ideas are nice ... it's actually _doing something_ that makes the difference.


----------



## AFEH (May 18, 2010)

YinPrincess, thank you for your patience. And tolerance. Hmmm and perseverance. Going by your post I was wrong. It does sound like it can be a very educational.

I have not changed my mind just to please you! And although she was only occasionally very hard work, that hard work did indeed get harder! My level of consciousness was way behind her level of energy in the first 30 years, stumbling around like the blind mule I was (totally focused on man things) and only caught up after we separated!


----------



## YinPrincess (Jul 31, 2011)

Sawney Beane said:


> It isn't flowery, though - it's mangled, garbled cod-metaphysical. It sounds like something you'd hear a bad James Earl Jones soundalike saying at the start of a truly bad sword and sorcery flick.


Well apparently it works. Mr. Deida is quite successful at selling his unique literary style, to men and women...
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## YinPrincess (Jul 31, 2011)

AFEH said:


> I have not changed my mind just to please you!


:rofl:

I would lose all respect for you if you did! :nono: 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## AFEH (May 18, 2010)

Sawney Beane said:


> I read it. Most of the prose sounds like some cod-metaphysics cobbled together as part of the back story for a roleplaying game or the sleeve notes of a particularly bad power metal album. If you enjoy the "So it was written, in the days when the DARK was fearless..." sort of approach, it's worth it. If you like a more practical guide (or just less flowery prose), you'll struggle to get the benefits.


There's some things that struck a cord in YPs post. "The feminine destructress must be met by the masculine destroyer ...". I like the "honesty" of that.

For a man that destructress is immensely testing, well mine certainly was. That sugar and spice can sure pack a punch and they don’t fight fair. They have no rules. And we can’t step over that line and punch back no matter how wounded we are. We have to abide by the rules of civilisation and the man we are or we are lost. Women don’t in these things. They don’t have to abide by the rules because their destructress is not only invisible, it’s deniable as well. They are never tried, never found guilty and punished. They get away with it. Until the man’s had enough.

While the wife can invoke her destructress, we cannot invoke or call on our masculine destroyer.


----------



## Drover (Jun 11, 2012)

Sawney Beane said:


> I read it. Most of the prose sounds like some cod-metaphysics cobbled together as part of the back story for a roleplaying game or the sleeve notes of a particularly bad power metal album. If you enjoy the "So it was written, in the days when the DARK was fearless..." sort of approach, it's worth it. If you like a more practical guide (or just less flowery prose), you'll struggle to get the benefits.


It reminded me of that SNL character Will Farrell does where he keeps talking about his lover...


----------



## SunnyT (Jun 22, 2011)

*While the wife can invoke her destructress, we cannot invoke or call on our masculine destroyer.*

Well, you could look at her from a distance and symbolically pinch her head between your thumb and finger, that should be somewhat satisfying for a little while anyway!


----------



## YinPrincess (Jul 31, 2011)

:rofl: !!!!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tacoma (May 1, 2011)

lamaga said:


> "The Way of the Superior Man"?
> 
> Reading Nietzsche this summer, are we?


Most definitely not.

Nietzsche had a point (Superman)

The book mentioned was..well I managed about 2 chapters before I deleted it.

I felt "inferior" having read that much of it.


----------



## tacoma (May 1, 2011)

YinPrincess said:


> No... You would actually need to read it to understand, I think. It's about utilizing the "feminine essence/nature" for your own growth and empowerment...
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Now do you see why I deleted it after two chapters?


----------



## tacoma (May 1, 2011)

anonymouskitty said:


> females simply cannot teach a man to be a man.


It`s my experience that females are better at teaching men how to be men.

Most men don`t have a clue and therefore cannot teach it where most women know and understand what they need a man to be and are able to teach this to their sons.

I`ve never dealt with any **** tests in any relationship because a woman taught me it wasn`t worth my time when I was but a child.

A man would have taught me how to deal with them.


----------



## YinPrincess (Jul 31, 2011)

In all fairness, Tacoma - it's not for everyone. 

I did really enjoy it, though. My husband did too... Although I don't think he absorbed much lol :rofl:
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## AFEH (May 18, 2010)

SunnyT said:


> *While the wife can invoke her destructress, we cannot invoke or call on our masculine destroyer.*
> 
> Well, you could look at her from a distance and symbolically pinch her head between your thumb and finger, that should be somewhat satisfying for a little while anyway!


For me, that's bloody horrible. But a good example of what goes through some people’s minds about their partners while still in a marriage. The Feminine Destructress.


----------



## AFEH (May 18, 2010)

tacoma said:


> It`s my experience that females are better at teaching men how to be men.
> 
> Most men don`t have a clue and therefore cannot teach it where most women know and understand what they need a man to be and are able to teach this to their sons.
> 
> ...


I don’t know about that. It’s rarely about “teaching” per se. Like a mother would “teach” a son how to be a man. To illustrate my point, to sit him down classroom style and teach him how to be a man. Sure she can have little chats as time goes by.

But that is not how children mostly learn. Children learn mostly through experience and those type of lessons go deep within the psyche, become traits and as such part of the very foundations of their character.

Children learn a bit parrot fashion. They observe what’s going on around them and “copy” that behaviour. For example if the boy has a drunken father, he too may grow into an alcoholic. If he has a violent, aggressive father, he may well grow into a violent and aggressive man. If the boy has a good man as a father, he too will grow into a good man. If he has a Nice Guy as a father, he too may well grow into a Nice Guy.

All this “learning” happens without the child thinking much about it at all. I am certain there are still good roll model fathers out there for both their sons and daughters. But in the UK at least there are over a million single parent (mother) families who have no effective roll model fathers at all. And so we have boys and girls growing up who don’t have a clue about what a good man actually is. Some of these kiddies in their teens are feral and are the cause of massive amounts of violent aggression within their communities. They’ve not had a man in their lives to civilise them.


----------



## Sawney Beane (May 1, 2011)

AFEH said:


> While the wife can invoke her destructress, we cannot invoke or call on our masculine destroyer.


The way is to learn the art of fighting without fighting (see Enter the Dragon...)


----------



## tacoma (May 1, 2011)

AFEH said:


> I don’t know about that. It’s rarely about “teaching” per se. Like a mother would “teach” a son how to be a man. To illustrate my point, to sit him down classroom style and teach him how to be a man. Sure she can have little chats as time goes by.


It was my experience that learning what a man should be from a woman was information I`d never gain from a man(father).
This forum itself is evidence that the vast majority of men "don` get it".



> But that is not how children mostly learn. Children learn mostly through experience and those type of lessons go deep within the psyche, become traits and as such part of the very foundations of their character.


Or exactly the opposite happens.



> Children learn a bit parrot fashion. They observe what’s going on around them and “copy” that behaviour. For example if the boy has a drunken father, he too may grow into an alcoholic. If he has a violent, aggressive father, he may well grow into a violent and aggressive man. If the boy has a good man as a father, he too will grow into a good man. If he has a Nice Guy as a father, he too may well grow into a Nice Guy.


The only male influence I had growing up was my drunken, alcoholic, abusive step-father.
I am none of those things BECAUSE I had a drunken, alcoholic, abusive step-father.



> All this “learning” happens without the child thinking much about it at all. I am certain there are still good roll model fathers out there for both their sons and daughters. But in the UK at least there are over a million single parent (mother) families who have no effective roll model fathers at all. And so we have boys and girls growing up who don’t have a clue about what a good man actually is. Some of these kiddies in their teens are feral and are the cause of massive amounts of violent aggression within their communities. They’ve not had a man in their lives to civilise them.


That`s my point and why we see this in different lights.
Maybe it`s the culture but truthfully I don`t see many men here in the southern USofA who are worthy role models for anything other than fart jokes.

Most men here haven`t a clue what being a "good man" is.
How are they supposed to impart that on their sons when they themselves are wrong?


----------



## AFEH (May 18, 2010)

tacoma said:


> It was my experience that learning what a man should be from a woman was information I`d never gain from a man(father).
> This forum itself is evidence that the vast majority of men "don` get it".
> 
> 
> ...


Yes as you say, sometimes young men will be the opposite of their father. My father was never a bad father in the scheme of things. But even then I moved thousands of miles away from him in part so I could grow well away from his influence. He never of course knew that part of me. As I say he wasn’t that bad a man and in that I’m blessed.

And yes, what chance do sons of feral fathers have? I live in Portugal were family values still hold. I’ve been amongst 60,000 Portuguese on a beach on a New Years Eve where I saw but a handful of police and no “security” people. In the 6 hours I was there I saw people drinking but I only saw one teenager the worse for drink and getting aggressive. His buddies closed around him, calmed him down and took him away.

The youths have a warm respect for the people around them here, even saying thank you when you kick their ball back to them when its your way. It is so very different here. It’s like old fashioned values all around me. Some countries like the UK have lost far more in some respects than they’ve ever gained.

And yes part of manning up is in part compensating for a dysfunctional childhood. A delight to see in England is well balanced men mentoring the young, feral tearaways.


----------



## Mime (Jun 20, 2012)

Drover said:


> WOTSM takes the approach that you WANT her to sh*t test you. First, if you truly want to improve yourself you want to be tested. It gives you opportunities to improve and to succeed. It's also about her showing love. If she didn't love you and care what kind of man you are, she wouldn't sh*t test.


Hmmmmm..... that sounds like wishful thinking, Drover. 

If a man knows himself, and knows his strengths and weaknesses, he doesn't need anybody to examine him or them. His strengths and weaknesses are nobody's business but his own, anyway. He acquired them, piece by piece, before he met her, just as she acquired hers before she met him.

A woman who sh!t tests a man is doing it out of love, alright - love of her own security and comfort! She's maybe begun to get a little nervous because she's noticed something in him that troubles her, something that doesn't fit *her* preconception of "Man", and she's worried that it might impact badly on her some time down the track! And she's only interested in making him "improve" and "succeed" as long as he improves in the direction of *her* personal standards. 

And female vanity plays a large part, too. She wants to reassure herself that the man she's _already chosen_ has qualities that will validate her own good opinion of herself. And it's nice for her to be able to tell all her friends about his qualities - it shows them that she's got good taste.....

Meanwhile, the man is going about his life, thinking he's still just a man with a wife/gf, not a crash-test dummy for an insecure driver. He's totally unaware that by starting this relationship with this woman, he has put himself on a fence post as a plinking target. When the first shots go past his head, he doesn't even know he's being fired on!

If he did, he'd fire back... with a bigger gun.

But he doesn't do that because her shots are aimed to *just* miss him. Not to draw blood, just to sting. It's the standard hit-and-run tactic of weak, ineffective people. 

All in all, sh!t tests are reprehensible and stupid behaviour. They don't inform the women who apply them, and they don't improve the men who are subjected to them. Only stupid women use them. Smart women don't need to.
.


----------



## Mime (Jun 20, 2012)

tacoma said:


> Most men don`t have a clue (how to be a man), and therefore cannot teach it where most women know and understand what they need a man to be and are able to teach this to their sons.


It's almost depressing that a young man can say a thing like that, Tacoma.

If you really believe that's true, it's more than depressing - it's tragic.


----------

