Why Men Love Bitches!! (Page 3)

"All relationship do end. Name a relationship that does. "Death comes to all men.""

Yes, to some degree death could be considered an end to a relationship. But, there are other possiblities... Spiritually, perhaps it is merely a postponement of the relationship. Emotionally, I do not believe it is not an end at all. For a relationship, the type of relationship your are referring to, stems from love and that love does not die with the person. The person may not still be present, but the love and, by extention, the relationship persists...

"The happiest relationships are ones where both people have happy, fufilling lives."

Oh, I do not disagree with that. Nor with this: "I believe there really should be three lives in a relationship. Your life. His life. And a life together." And many others, as well...

There have been many opinions you have stated that I have agreed with, even in this topic. Unfortunately, there are a number of contradictions to those that you have stated that I disagree with and that I do not believe that, one, you see as being contradictory and, two, you see might be the reasons you so easily support the "objective" standings you do. Your posts above regarding relationships have some objective, logical merit, but they are not undisputable. Perhaps as JR said:

"ahh, your commitment phobia is shinning through LS"

How can you have a happy fufilling life if you do not have your own life?

Sorry.

I misunderstood something you wrote.

* there are a number of contradictions to those that you have stated that I disagree with and that I do not believe that, one, you see as being contradictory and, two, you see might be the reasons you so easily support the "objective" standings you do.

well for me to address these contradictions, you would need to tell me what they are.

* "I believe there really should be three lives in a relationship. Your life. His life. And a life together."

If you agree with this statement, you agree with this book because this is pretty much the thesis. I actually think she says this in it somewhere but it has been YEARS since I read it.

I actually don't believe I am a comitaphobe. I am a realist and do understand what I can and cannot get from a relationship.

I actually think I am in better position than most to commit, to the right person, because I understand what it means. I understand that it might mean changing their diaper if they have a stroke, etc. I see commitment as taking a partner in life and becoming a team against the currents of life.

I also know that I have to be responsible for myself. There will be no saving of me by this person. I have to have something to offer and bring to the table. I expect the same.

I realize this is all very unromantic of me. Alas!

LS,

"how can you argue what it teaches, if you don't know what it teaches ... because YOU HAVEN'T READ THE BOOK"

If you had read my post:
"they have read the posts made by a few people who:
1) have read the book
2) are condoning the book
3) profess to leave / act by the philosophy therein"

I am not talking about what the book's intention was to teach, but what it actually did teach, what people learned from it...

"People who do not have compassion for the human condition are a pet peeve of mine."

I have a great deal of compassion for the human condition. I merely believe that people have a choice in their actions. They may not be the choices they would want, but they are choices, and to believe otherwise is giving up the only control we do have over our lives. One of those choices is how we choose to react (intrapersonally or interpersonally) and what we choose to learn from the things we have no control over. There are some people who would rather blame others for their faults and shortcomings, and there are others who accept responsibility for their actions, choices, and ways of being...

I have a great deal of compassion for the things that people are truly subjected to that they cannot control. And, I have objective understanding and compassion for the things they can control, but I have NO compassion for anyone who fails to take responsibility for their own choices and to blame them solely on something outside themselves.

"* You talk about self-empowerment and self-possession, and yet from the contexts of you posts you show that the value it has is because of what men do and don't want.

lofl! Are you for real? "

I am merely going by yours and others responses:
QS: "Do you like whiney overly dependant women? Do you like a woman who can't make decisions on what she perfers other than soley what you perfer? Do you like women who don't have a life of her own and she sits around and nags for your time?"
LS: "would you rather have a girl who clings to you all weepy and constantly needs to *tawk* about the relationship or would you rather have a fun girl who is happy?"
LS: "She just says men don't want to be nagged and they don't want big emotional talks, weep scenes, etc."

You can even take the title into consideration, "Why Men Love Bitches", again about what men want, or as you said what men don't want...

"* You are not good enough, so change your self so someone will love you. How the hell is THAT self-empowerment of the female gender?!?

That is NOT what it is teaching. But thank you for missing the point ... YET again!"

Again, I am referencing what is actually did teach, not what it intended to. But thank you for missing the point ... YET again! Feel free to see the section above for further explanation...

"It is teaching women that they are okay. It is okay not to drop your friends, interests, hobbies. It is okay to take responsibility for yourself. It is okay to stand up for yourself and your life.

which part of that you can argue with ... I don't know."

I am not arguing with that. As I stated in my post, I am arguing some of your opinions and assertations (that coincidentally were contradictory to that). I agreed with that early on and posted as much. But, the more you talk the further you seem to get from that premise into what I actually was discussing...

"Sorry.

I misunderstood something you wrote."

No prob.

"well for me to address these contradictions, you would need to tell me what they are."

Addressing / pointing out those contradictions was the point and substance of my original post and the subsequent (detailed) ones. Though, I do not mind providing a better, more detailed explanation of the basis for my assertations regarding your contradictions, but unforunately, I cannot do it right now (as I should probably actually get some work done while I am at work). I should be able to put it together later tonight, if you would like.

Good Lord.

Are you for real? I am serious.

You are taking things completely out of context and you know it. This is a relationship book but it is self-empowering. The whole thing is written in the context of it is okay if you have your own life, in fact, men like it. 😉 (the wink is for the sassy attitude it is written in because it is meant to be playful and fun.)

When anyone overgives, they get needy, insecure. What the author is saying is don't do that because it isn't attractive and won't make you happy. If you are happy, you will naturally attract others.

BUT, if you read the book, it talks about self-empowerment.

Sorry that we can't cover a two hundred page book in a couple of paragraphs.

why?

I really think you are missing the point.

* truly subjected to that they cannot control.

You cannot control your social conditioning.

And the reason it is focused on what men like, is because it is written for women who are desperate to be in a realtionship and desperate for a man's approval. Personally, I thought that would be obvious without going into it.

It basically gives them permission to have their own lives and states that men actually like women who have their own lives so don't be so quick to throw yours away. So don't worry so much about pleasing him. He'll be happy that you are happy.

I don't think you will find anything if anything about social conditioning, unconditional love, yadda, yadda.

Perhaps you don't need such advice but A LOT of women do.

* I am merely going by yours and others responses:
* QS: "Do you like whiney overly dependant women? Do you like a woman who can't make decisions on what she perfers other than soley what you perfer? Do you like women who don't have a life of her own and she sits around and nags for your time?"
* LS: "would you rather have a girl who clings to you all weepy and constantly needs to *tawk* about the relationship or would you rather have a fun girl who is happy?"
* LS: "She just says men don't want to be nagged and they don't want big emotional talks, weep scenes, etc."

BTW these are the consequence of not having your own life. You nag, whine, cry, have big emotional scenes because you believe your happiness is solely someone else's responsibility.

"You are taking things completely out of context and you know it."

How exactly is this out of context?
LS: "She just says men don't want to be nagged and they don't want big emotional talks, weep scenes, etc."
LS: "What the author is saying is don't do that because it isn't attractive and won't make you happy. If you are happy, you will naturally attract others."

Translation - Change yourself so you can get a man...

Please explain to me how I missed the context!?!

Your major fall back defense is that such-and-such hasn't read the book. No, I haven't read the book, but I have read your posts, and your posts (which detail what you supposedly learned from the book and would want others to learn from the book) are what I am discussing. How many times do I actually have to state that?


"* truly subjected to that they cannot control.

You cannot control your social conditioning."

No, you cannot control being raped. You cannot control being beaten. You cannot control having parents that were not good parents.

And, no, you cannot control someone trying to socially condition you. But, people have brains and can look around them and social conditioning in regards to gender roles (whether living ones or merely emotional ones) in this day and age does not truly exist. True social conditioning can only happen when a person does not realize they have other options. Society is no longer set up in such a way that a person cannot see that there are other ways, whether they choose to see them or not is their choice, not one that has been taken from them.

"And the reason it is focused on what men like, is because it is written for women who are desperate to be in a realtionship and desperate for a man's approval. Personally, I thought that would be obvious without going into it."

But, how is catering to that "dependant" mindset self-empowering? You just admitted it is telling these women to change themselves to get a man... Hello?

"Perhaps you don't need such advice but A LOT of women do."

Perhaps they do, but by truly correcting that mindset, not by taking advantage of it...

Anyhow, you have to be able to step out and see the bigger picture which you don't seem to be doing. I don't want to hand hold you through this. If you read through my posts again, you will see the current of what I have said is consistent.

Every now and then, you have to draw your own conclusions and fill in the blanks yourself.

If you don't want to read the book, don't read the book. I seriously don't care although I do think the overall message is very empowering and very encouraging to women.

But don't discourage others or worse yet, put down others, who have read the book, want to read the book, and have found it helped them.

That is really quite ... JR what is the word I am looking for? callous? invidious? or maybe just plain bitchy? (just kidding about the latter.)

* But, how is catering to that "dependant" mindset self-empowering? You just admitted it is telling these women to change themselves to get a man... Hello?

Think about this. How does it work? I would really like you to come up with your own independent thought on why it works. I am not going to give you all the answers. You are capable of thinking this through for yourself.

The midset gets corrected through the process of self-empowerment.

BUT I still want you to tell me why because I am not going to do all the thinking for you. I KNOW why. But I am really tired of thinking for you. You tell me why she would present this info the way she did.

* No, you cannot control being raped. You cannot control being beaten. You cannot control having parents that were not good parents.

Actually, you argueably have more control over these things than you do you social conditioning. But forget it. Sooooooo not worth it.

"Anyhow, you have to be able to step out and see the bigger picture which you don't seem to be doing."

Merely because I do not agree with your point does not mean I do not see the big picture. Unless you are under the assumption that you are infallible?!?

"If you don't want to read the book, don't read the book."

Should I actually quote my post above?!? Here, in case it helps:
"your posts (which detail what you supposedly learned from the book and would want others to learn from the book) are what I am discussing. How many times do I actually have to state that?"

"But don't discourage others or worse yet, put down others, who have read the book, want to read the book, and have found it helped them."

I am not insulting, discouraging, or anything of the kind. I am merely discussing your posts, opinions, and assertions.

I would applaud anyone who would go read the book for themselves and make their own opinion on any matter, including this one...

"That is really quite ... JR what is the word I am looking for? callous? invidious?"

It is neither... It is called a discussion, which people who supported the book opened. Or were only people that agreed with the book and supported your opinions supposed to post?

Please explain to me how I missed the context!?!

What ever happened to critical thinking? lol!

You missed the context because you are looking at the threads not the quit.

Message posted by: little_sparrow on 3/6/2007 9:05:32 AM

"Nic your post is right on but this time I'm going to be polite, change my argument and completely avoid any of the real social problems and focus on the superficial ones I can kind of understand but not really. "


Fixed for truth.

Look I'm not going to keep going back and forth on this because your started off on this kick on the oppression of women and have slowly and slyly changed your argument to "just being different".

Lemme get this right....different people are treated different? No shit? What exactly is your point because no one on this thread ever contested you on the point that self respect comes from within, and people choose to be either "submissive" and needy or self assured and independent. But that is the whole ****ing point LS, people choose it. You were talking about how women are owed something and men deserve to be punished at first....and I was arguing that attitude about changing the way you behave in a relationship with someone based on "centuries of oppression" which is ridiculous.


Treating both sexes completely the same is just as if not more damaging than them being treated different and the reason isn't to cryptic.....it's because were different and your arguing the concept of social conditioning like it isn't obvious. It is to most halfway intelligent people, thanks for dropping by to "break it down" for me, I really appreciate it.

"Alcheme

I'm just saying ... you two are getting a little worked up ... chill already, step back ... take a couple of deep breaths...."

Haha! Pfft... That's not worked up, sweetie. I already vented my bit earlier. Now, I am just responding.

Gotta go back to work now, though... 😢

* You were talking about how women are owed something and men deserve to be punished at first

WHAT? I have never, ever, ever, ever, ever thought that in my entire life, let alone said it. Go pull the quote because it is an obvious misstatement, miscommunication, or a type oh. I have NEVER, EVER, EVER said men are to be punished. I believe men are victims of their social conditioning JUST AS MUCH as women are. (I say it all the time and I live by it too.)

I have never, ever, ever said women were different because my general philosophy in life is that everyone is actually the same underneathe, with the same hopes, desires, fears, etc. (which is why I believe compassion for each other and helping each other is mandatory.) And you are welcome to argue that because it is my own personal belief. Not everyone agrees.

What I did say, which I am assuming I said here because I say it all the time, is that both men and women have the exact same needs but our social conditioning fails us and works against the happiness of both. Until women and men see each other as allies not competition a true meetings of mind and heart are difficult. Because women are taught their value comes from having a man (think fairy tales), they need to be resuced, they need to be goody-goody and men are taught to value freedom, unemotional, and to run from commitment. Hence one clings and one runs. I think it is SAD for BOTH because I believe men and women need each other. Is effort being made to change these undercurrents? Absolutely! But it is still underneath, deep inside us, in the undercurrent of our minds where our social values and conditions lie. These are deep unconscious drives that we have to work to overcome.

WHICH is why she wrote the book. To help women overcome some of these unconscious drives by putting their focus on their life and their happiness, giving responsibility back to the woman. She just didn't get into all the shit I have because it dives into social structures, genderization, philosophy, yadda, yadda.

"I also know that I have to be responsible for myself. There will be no saving of me by this person. I have to have something to offer and bring to the table. I expect the same."

LS.....your sensationally arguing this profound point that is obvious to most mature adults and stepping on a lot o toes along the way then wondering why people "just don't get it".

I get it, your the one focusing on semantics and preaching out against them, which is what people do when they see and are afraid of the big picture. Your preaching to us something might actually understand a little better than you.

"What ever happened to critical thinking? lol!"

HAHAHAHAHA you have to be kidding me....YOU actually said that? After all of this. Cute.

Ummm ... I am not arguing semantics. Semantics are being argued. The threads are being analyzed so I don't have any choice.

I am pretty sure I am the only one seeing the big picture of how, why, and where this fits into the whole of society. I am a critical thinker that is why I am able to do this where others are not.

* your sensationally arguing this profound point that is obvious to most mature adults and stepping on a lot o toes along the way then wondering why people "just don't get it".

I have used one sensational argument in this whole thread ... that every relationship ends at some point, which they do. Was it a low blow? Kind of but the truth is if you live your life for a relationship and not in a balanced way where you have your own life, when the relationship ends you are immobile because you have lost your whole identity.

This is part of the reason why it is important to keep your own life/identity.

"I am pretty sure I am the only one seeing the big picture of how, why, and where this fits into the whole of society. I am a critical thinker that is why I am able to do this where others are not."

Shit, I'll read the book if it is going to teach me arrogance like that...

"I am pretty sure I am the only one seeing the big picture of how, why, and where this fits into the whole of society. I am a critical thinker that is why I am able to do this where others are not."

No, your just beginning to see the big picture let alone have an understanding for it. Everything you are arguing is from the perspective of someone who is just beginning to understand the big picture, the universe and life. You think you get it? Then explain to me the social anomaly that happens when you treat both sexes the same even with the good intentions of making life "better"....go ahead.

You might be a "critical thinker" but that doesn't mean you have a clue, it means you are capable of having a clue. Get off your high horse.

* This sounds like something/someone you read and are regurgitating.

Who me? I read a lot and have drawn my conclusions from my researches not that I believe in individuality anyway. lol!

All ideas come from other people.

No one has ever had an unsung thought.

🙂

There is no original.

🙂

But we are headed back in the area of philosophy, which I personally love, but doesn't tingle anyone else's toes or advance the conversation to mutual understanding.

I can't take offence to thoughts that don't interest you.

If your argument is that my argument is pseudo-philosophical bullshit and you have nothing to contribute that is fine.

LOL @ nic

sorry I upset your gf and made her cry to you. how hilarious!

But have brave of you to recuse your damnsel. lol!

at the core of our being "we are all the same fucker!"

when you grasp the immensity of that, then we will talk because for now, you simply do not get it.

sorry for my meanness .... that was sensationalism at its best. still true. but the irony is blinding.

"sorry I upset your gf and made her cry to you. how hilarious!

But have brave of you to recuse your damnsel. lol!"

Ummm...WTF? One, Nic was arguing your points to him, and I was arguing your points to me... Two, venting a screwed up mindset and concept is far from making me cry. I am sorry to tell you, but I just don't care that much. LOL!

"lol @ alcheme"

🙂

"Someone needs a version for guys though ... then we could compare them side by side ... that could be funny"

Oh, I would definitely read that! What a trip... LOL!

Alcheme

If you didn't care, you would have left hours ago.

The thing is you actually agree with me. Not on every point but on the major point that I am making which are as follows:

Women need to be self-fufilled.
Women need to have their own lives.
Women shouldn't give up their own lives, friends, hobbies, interests, and scheduels.

We disagree that two half people make for a healthy relationship. I believe both people need to be whole and self-fufilled.

You are arguing something about reading the book isn't important but what the book teaches and seem to argue that every time I say something of value that that isn't what I took away from the book but what the author intended which doesn't make sense to me. I keep saying if you want to know for yourself, go to the source.

You are arguing that correcting the midset by selling the midset is wrong. I disagree with you because the marketing is actually quite clever. This is marketted to women who have boundary issues and desperately want a man for validation. What she has done, or the publisher, whoever, has said to get a man you must first have self. By the act of getting self, you are empowering the person, teaching them independence, and getting them to a point where they are content with their lives with or without a man. You don't have to agree with the method but I think it is very clever and really reaches women who need to hear the message because it sells them not only self-esteem but what they desire as well.

Actually, there are versions for men. They tend to be of the love 'em and leave 'em variety. From what I have seen, and mind you it was YEARS and YEARS ago that I researched this stuff, it tends to give men a very "there are no good women and all women are psychos" mentality.

BTW I do think this is a good book for every woman to read because I think many of us suffer from boundary issues, myself included. It serves as a reminder that it is okay for me to be powerful in myself and I have no shame in that.

As for my arrogence, yadda, yadda ... you may hold any opinion of me you wish. I believe I am quite humble, I am not perfect and freely admit it, and I am very honest. But choose to see me in whatever light you wish.

I will always stand up for women, just as I will stand up for men. I sincerely believe we are all in this life to help each other and try to live my life that way.

But allow me to share something with you. When your life crashes, you cannot be anything but humbled by the experience. For a long time, I mourned my loss of innocence. My best friend, who is several years older than me, kept saying wait you are about to get something better ... and she was right. You learn a very deep wisdom and compassion for all of life and all the people who live. When you begin to truly understand the human condition and have true compassion for it, it truly changes your life. When you see us all as suffering people and have compassion for it, you become an adult.

By the way, I respect you for questioning. One should always question everything. It is only when you question that you can find more questions and keep your mind alive.

I will never agree with you on all your points. You will never agree with me. And that is okay.

LS

Like with everyone else who's points were valid enough to threaten your security in yours, you reduced yourself to being condescending and insulting instead of standing by what you said with any conviction. I don't really need to say it but since your naivety and ignorance isn't pure, but self created and used for strategic deployment I will. alcheme is a big girl, nothing you said inspired me to puff up my chest on the internet and defend her. I was arguing you, not what you said to her. Any response I gave to you which correlated to anything you said to her was still a response to you, it would have been the same for anyone else you treated in that matter. My "heroism" is only as distinct as you make it.

I guess the problem is I care and have been waiting around in this thread for you to say something that is truly intelligent and thought out instead of pseudo-philosophical points that were clearly created to make you feel better about something. But clearly it was all in vain.

All I am going to say about your original point about self empowerment itself is not only valid but beautiful and pure, but it doesn't need to be twisted and pointed toward fighting some social anomaly for the sake of self validation. I love philosophy, but the problem with it sometimes is that not only can it be used to create a better understanding, it can be used as a defense mechanism to hide behind. Start with reality, and work from there.

It isn't enough to be a self proclaimed critical thinker, you need critical understanding too. I hope you find it some day.

I can vaguely tell that we have different first principles in regards to the topic we are debating, and other underlying topics that motivate us to become the people we want to be. Your no more "right" or "wrong" than I am as I think we are trying each trying to create a better understanding of the world we live in starting from different first principles. If I have to explain this to you any further than we are on completely different levels and it wouldn't do anyone any good.

"at the core of our being "we are all the same er!"

No shit? You at least understand this, now you have to to decide weather your going to continue just let this be ego food or actually try and understand the spiritual implications.

"when you grasp the immensity of that, then we will talk because for now, you simply do not get it."

Youv'e accomplished falling into the conditional behavior you despise so much. *p

Nic

* My "heroism" is only as distinct as you make it.

Thank you. What I wanted to illustrate was that your social condition to be a hero is the drive that made you act like a "hero". We are all victim to these drives. It was the same drive that made her turn to you to "vent".

As for your opinion of me, if you really got the we are all the same fucker concept ... you would know that I am you.

Reality only exists in perception. My reality and your reality never meet. So if you start from nothing, you have nothing.

Believe what you want.

"If you didn't care, you would have left hours ago."

Actually, I if you actually read my post, you would see I was stating that I didn't care enough to go crying to someone. I always enjoy a good intellectual discussion, or in this case, a discussion... Atleast it keeps me preoccupied...

"We disagree that two half people make for a healthy relationship. I believe both people need to be whole and self-fufilled."

That I never said. If you would quit jumping to conclusions, incorrect ones at that, before actually reading my posts, I wouldn't have had to reiterate myself several times on most of my points (by quoting myself, amusingly enough).

I agreed that there are three individual entities in a relationship. I was merely stating that no one is perfect, and by extension, no one can objectively be "whole" (perfect). The may be independent, self-sufficient, self-fulfilled, self-empowered, and self-possessed, but that does not mean that there are not people in the world that are more capable than them in certain areas. People ARE different, and that is not a bad thing. It is our differences and learning how to utilize them to help the "whole" (entity) that help us to achieve the greatest things (both on a global and a personal level). It is what ensures that everyone has a place and a purpose. It is our difference that ensure that everyone is equal and everyone is valuable. In that aspect, relations and life on a global level should be no different than relations and life on a personal one.

"You don't have to agree with the method but I think it is very clever and really reaches women who need to hear the message because it sells them not only self-esteem but what they desire as well."

So, by not fixing the "problem" but merely taking advantage of it, the problem still exists. They may be "independent", but they are only "independent" because that is what they think a man wants. That is not independence, but dependence (defining who you are based upon the opinions of others). It is no different than QS's situation where her Libra said he would call "later". The suggestion (not by you, I know) was made for her to not answer the phone when he calls, not because of her but because of him.

As I posted in that topic (in which I actually agreed with your suggestion):
"With your solution, by purposefully not answering the phone, she is in effect still allowing him to control her as much as if she did actually wait around for his call. Her actions, her life, are still revolving around him. Given that is what you are attempting to "fight" against, would that not be counter-productive?"

So, what happens to these women if men suddenly decide they don't want independent women anymore? Or one of them falls for a guy that prefers a "helpless, dependent damsel"? Are you so certain that they are going to continue being so "independent"? I would not necessarily be so fooled into thinking that "clever" marketing tactic has done anything more than circumvent the problem without correcting it. For so long as the problem exists these women have not truly gained independence and self-empowerment, but merely another form of what they had before, dependence.

BTW life has a way of humbling you. You should be careful who you condescend too. We can all learn from each other. To me that is the whole point of life. But when you condescend to someone, you miss their truth.

Am I perfect? No. Was I completely pissed off that I had to keep going over and over and over and over the same points, explaining in different words so that each person actually got what I was saying? Yes.

I firmly believe that Women need to have self-fufilling lives. They need their own friends, interests, hobbies. I have hyphosised why women have a harder time with this common sense. But the bottom truth has remained unmoved.

Person after person was threatened by the Women need to have self-fufilling lives concept. They disguised it in different ways, calling it game playing, calling it manipulative but it was there.

I find THAT fascinating.

But I am completely wrong about the undercurrent of our society despite this whole thread proving my point.

"As for my arrogence, yadda, yadda ... you may hold any opinion of me you wish. I believe I am quite humble, I am not perfect and freely admit it, and I am very honest. But choose to see me in whatever light you wish."

Hmmm... I wouldn't necessarily say that assuming that you have a higher / deeper level of wisdom than most other people is humble. Nor, assuming that your life experiences and what you learned from them are more profound than most other's. You know very little about me, my life experiences, or what I have learned from them, as well as anybody else's. Perhaps it would be far more humble to assume that they might actually be capable of having a clue (and far more "understanding and compassionate of the human condition" if you actually approached there points as possibly having validity, instead of not being worth your time to try to understand).

But, on another note, merely because your experiences have given you answers, does not necessarily mean that they are the correct ones or that they are correct for everyone.

"When you see us all as suffering people and have compassion for it, you become an adult."

I suppose that would mean I am an adult, too!! Weee! ** clap, clap, clap **

* They may be "independent", but they are only "independent" because that is what they think a man wants.

Are you familiar with the salvation army? Their philosophy is you cannot save the soul, when the body is starving. Feed the body and save the soul. It is very similar.

* So, what happens to these women if men suddenly decide they don't want independent women anymore?

Because they have worked on having their own lives. They have kept all their friends, their interests, their scheduels ... they will be fine and WAY, WAY better off than had they given these up and had nothing in their life, no support system, and no identity.

"Person after person was threatened by the Women need to have self-fufilling lives concept. They disguised it in different ways, calling it game playing, calling it manipulative but it was there."

See that is where you, not others, have completely missed the boat... You far too easily jump to onclusions, and far too easily jump to the incorrect ones. It's called a defense mechanism...