Why do they even say that? What is this, some kind of challenge to test your manhood, like when someone says, “I bet you can’t handle eating this whole bag of habanero peppers” or “I triple dog dare you to ride your skateboard down that banister”?
Okay, I get the concept of having to do something scary or unpleasant to prove you have some courage and fortitude. But normally, you only have to put up with the resulting pain for a short period. Your mouth might be on fire from those peppers for a half hour, or you might get bruised from falling off the banister, but that’s not a big deal in the scheme of things. In contrast, why would you want to commit your whole life, and your kids’ childhood, to dealing with some chick who is all caught up in her arrogance and selfishness, just so you can prove that you weren’t too chicken to try to handle dealing with that?
Typically, the only kind of girl who would ever become “strong” is an ugly girl, who didn’t have the same privileges as pretty girls. She probably was some kind of tomboy, because it’s only by doing manly stuff and enduring the hard knocks of a masculine life that one becomes strong. Problem is, if you’re dealing with a masculine chick, the only way you’re going to be able to get along with her is if you become effeminate, so that you can complement her masculinity.
(By “strong” I mean, able to truly fulfill a masculine role. I’m not talking about the ball-busting techniques that a lot of pretty girls deploy to test what a man is made of, so they can separate the strong men from the weak men. Beautiful girls are able to get away with acting like that because they have plenty of men to choose from, and lots of orbiters hanging around to protect them from any guy who gets pissed off at their provocative behavior.)
In men, being “strong and independent” is a virtue because it makes him someone his wife can lean on. It keeps him from being needy and clingy, which girls find repulsive. If the wife is strong and independent, though, then it means she has less need of a man who has those same qualities. If she doesn’t need him, then she’s likely to dump him, or cheat on him (which is similar to dumping him, since it puts the relationship at risk), at some point.
Love is about having mutual attraction and a lack of other options. An “independent woman” presumably has other options, because otherwise how would she be independent? It implies she hasn’t really pair-bonded with her hubby that much, which could very well be because she’s had sex with a lot of other guys and now has lost her ability to pair-bond. Maybe she also gets her emotional support needs met by a whole circle of orbiters, so that she’s independent from any particular given man. That means she’s not really giving herself totally to her husband; he’s having to share her with these other dudes, who serve not only as backups but as vultures, waiting for their opportunity to swoop in and even trying to create those opportunities when they can.
The default behavior of young foids is to fall in love with a man and devote herself to him, trying to please him so he’ll take care of her. When foids have had a series of failed relationships, and gotten old enough that they’re no longer as beautiful as they once were, then they don’t really have a choice but to become strong and independent. They have less to offer, so it’s harder for them to get a quality man. They can’t really emotionally commit to a relationship the way they once did; they’ve lost their ability to trust men, plus their standards of what they expect in a man have been elevated by being with all these Chads.
What does it even mean to “handle” a strong and independent woman? Be able to tolerate her? Be willing to subordinate oneself to serving in a supportive role to further her ambitions, rather than pursuing one’s own ambitions and expecting her to play a supporting role? I guess the two could theoretically focus on pursuing their own, separate ambitions, but that sounds like a pretty good recipe for drifting apart. Normally what brings a couple together is their shared responsibility of raising their kids; but who is going to be able to focus on that, if they’re both pursuing ambitions outside the home? (If the wife were letting the husband be the breadwinner, while she stayed home, then she wouldn’t be all that “independent,” at least not financially.)
I just don’t see the point of taking this particular dare. What’s in it for me, or any other man?
In times past, we never considered it to make us any less manly if we insisted on having a feminine, submissive wife. If your wife is devoted to you, and feels no desire to take on a masculine role by having a career and so on, then it could be that you’re so successful in fulfilling your role as a husband that she doesn’t have to try to compensate for your failures in those areas by doing those jobs herself. She can just concentrate on fulfilling her womanly roles.
If you say, “Nah, I don’t want a woman who’s strong and independent; I want a woman who depends on me for certain things, and on whom I can depend for other things” that could just mean that you believe in a division of labor between the sexes. There’s nothing wrong with that. Economists will tell you that specialization is efficient. We do what we do best and exchange for the rest.
Nor is there anything wrong with a woman being “weak”. Nature has made the female physically weak because she doesn’t need strength; strength is costly to develop and maintain (for example, men have to eat more food because muscles consume more calories), and therefore it’s more efficient to reserve that ability for the man, if he can adequately fulfill the role of providing for and protecting his family. Emotional strength is the same way; it’s costly to develop it, because it requires going through tough and challenging experiences which there’s really no need for a female to have to deal with. Women’s window of peak fertility occurs early in life (around ages 15-30), which is the period when men would normally be developing a lot of their strength of character. Women need to be having babies during that time rather than going out into the world and doing the kind of stuff that men do to become “strong and independent,” if we’re going to get the fertility rate above the replacement rate.
A wife’s being “strong and independent” are not really selling points, the way other characteristics, like “beautiful,” “loyal,” “faithful,” etc. might be. What is the benefit of proving one is able to handle a strong and independent wife? Is it that one so desperate (due to one’s own weaknesses as a man, or due to the dysfunctional relations between the sexes that exist in modern society) that one can’t get any other kind of woman, and therefore has to prove one’s ability to handle a woman like that, because such women are all that are available? Or is one going to get respect from one’s peers, for choosing a woman like that and being able to put up with her?
Men don’t normally get respect for having strong and independent wives; if anything, they get viewed as losers when they’re not able to have as impressive a career or whatnot, compared to her. Other men, especially if they’re more accomplished than her husband, start trying to have sex with her, because they think, “She doesn’t need this guy she’s with, since she’s strong and independent; therefore, I have an opportunity to get with her.”
Any man who thinks, “I can rely on her marital promise to only have sex with me, even though she could get away with it without suffering any consequences, since she’s strong and independent and I have no power over her” doesn’t know female nature too well. Male power, not female integrity, is what keeps female misbehavior in check. Women have the ability to rationalize doing whatever their feelings tell them they should do, regardless of what non-binding commitments they may have made to others. Their emotionality keeps them from being objective and seeing the situation from their husband’s perspective.
Even before women started calling themselves “strong and independent,” they still put men to certain tests, to see if they had any balls. So in that sense, men have always been faced with the challenge of whether they could “handle” a certain woman or pass her tests. But being “strong and independent” implies he won’t be able to pass those tests, because she’s already set her mind to not submitting, even to a high-value man. So he’s setting himself up for failure by committing to her.
For her to be strong and independent, she had to have invested in becoming that way. If she then decides to submit and be a stay-at-home mom, then she pretty much wasted her investment. What was that point of it; just so she could take over in case he failed as a man, or so that she could leave if he turned out to be abusive? If she’s ready to take over, though, and he knows this, then it’s quite possible he’s going to feel more comfortable relinquishing his manly responsibilities and falling back on her, and she will end up enabling his weakness, at the cost of her own happiness (although he’ll pay a price for that as well). Or, if there’s always the threat that she’s going to leave because she doesn’t need him, then there’s less reason for either of them to invest in the relationship the way they otherwise might have. The result is a higher likelihood that the marriage will break down.
A balance of power works in international relations, where the countries are separated by borders. It doesn’t work in a marriage, where the two spouses live in the same home and are intimate with each other and raise kids together. In that kind of situation, an imbalance of power produces greater stability.
Now, one might argue, “If the husband has all the power, then maybe he’s going to lord it over his wife.” This is true, but the alternative is that she’s going to be able to lord it over him, by holding the kids hostage through her ability to break up the family and deny him the opportunity to raise those kids together with her. If she’s in the position of power, she’ll have a greater tendency to abuse it than he would, because she’ll feel entitled to do so, since he’s not pulling his weight and taking charge in the way that she instinctively feels he should.
It’s in female nature to have an attitude of, “If men don’t control my bad behavior, then they deserve whatever I do to them.” There’s no getting away from the fact that women view submissive men as deserving of contempt and punishment. But of course, a submissive man is the only kind who can handle a “strong and independent woman,” because in a relationship, one party or the other has to submit, or else they’ll be in constant conflict.
A relationship where the woman takes on a masculine role is just not going to work too well, because the sexual polarity is based on the complementarity of the two, in which the man is dominant and the woman is submissive. This is the way that is most natural, comfortable, satisfying, etc. for the two sexes. I actually think, though, that it’s easier for men to take on an effeminate role than it is for women to take on a masculine role. It’s just easier in general to let oneself lapse into weakness, than to develop and exercise strength; and it’s easier to be a follower than a leader. Women who decide that they want to play the manly role in the family end up eventually just wanting to get some rest.
Men assume that because they can be flexible enough to tolerate being a stay-at-home dad, that women can tolerate a reversal of roles too, and be a breadwinner and head of household. It’s not true. It drives women a lot crazier than men when they’re called upon to do what doesn’t come naturally to them.