No Sweetie, He Doesn’t Like You Because You’re a Bitch

I’m starting to think maybe ‘minefield Fridays’ should be a regular feature around here. It’s good for traffic, anyway. And I am an evil capitalist, after all. (Oh look! Ads n’stuff over there to the right. That’s an Amazon affiliate link too.)

Captain Capitalism has a couple of posts up today that I would like to highlight. The first is the story of Quin Pu. A lovely young girl that acted out after her latest romantic interest dumped her after just two dates. The nerve! He’s obviously ignored all of her glorious qualities like writing a blog and having tow published books. He was clearly trying to ruin her 26th birthday and didn’t dump her because she was the kind of level-headed mature woman that would proceed to forward his sexts to his employer.

You know, because that’s the reasonable response.

Surely he didn’t dump her because she’s a narcissistic bitch that has written not one, but two self-published auto-biographies by the age of 25.(Hmm, who else do we know that wrote two auto-biographies before having anything in life worth writing about?) Couldn’t possibly be because he sensed the oncoming petty drama that is her life and wanted off that ride.

Nah! Obviously a chauvinist that needs to be taught a lesson.

Quin, sweetie, you are a self-centered princess. The sooner you figure out that you are not entitled to the attentions of men, the better. Set your mirror down for a minute. The world does not revolve around you.

Which brings us to a story that Dustbury pointed out a week ago. This one is the story of Kate Mulvey, who is apparently too cleaver to keep a man.

For me, this is stating the blindingly obvious. I’ve lost count of the times men have rejected or insulted me simply because I was brighter, wittier or cleverer than they are.

They have called me ‘intimidating’, ‘scary’, ‘difficult’ and ‘opinionated’. Translated, that means: ‘You are too clever and I don’t like it.’

Right. Because it’s got nothing to do with the fact that you’re a condescending bitch.  You know, if you were half as clever as you think you are, you’d realize that it’s just plain rude to flaunt your perceived superiority and belittle your date. They aren’t dumping you because of your mind, they are dumping you because of your caustic personality. I promise you, you are not smarter than every man out there. It’s just that those men are smart enough not to date a self-important, narcissistic bitch. You see, intelligent, confident women don’t need to wear their superiority like some kind of show-girl’s headdress. Nor do they need to tear people down to feel better about themselves.

Women like these are why some men are checking out of the game. (That’s the other Cappy Cap post.) Can you blame them, really?

Yes, there are chauvinistic boys out there pretending to be men. These boys deserve to be ignored and even ridiculed when necessary. But the fact that they exist is no excuse to be a self-centered bitch. Playing petty games just lowers you.

You want a high quality man? Be a high quality woman. The reverse also applies. No one is looking at your resume or your IQ score. This is talking about who you are. If you are super awesome, I’m going to make the assumption that anyone worth your time is super awesome as well and maybe once in a while you should notice that.

You know, I think my husband is great. And he married me, so he must think I’m pretty alright too.

Join me next Friday for another venture into the minefield! Maybe I’ll talk about body types/issues again.

18 thoughts on “No Sweetie, He Doesn’t Like You Because You’re a Bitch”

  1. BOOM! You hear that? It’s just Jen dropping life lessons like bombs again. Good one as always.

    I’ve always loved that statement that goes something along the lines of: be the kind of person that you’d like to marry. Too many people forget to check exactly what they themselves bring to the table.

  2. Left this comment over there, building on yours: “[B]oys play dress up and parade around as victims lashing out at any perceived slight. These boys only serve as ammunition in the feminist armory…. Feminists revel in it.”

    The feminists need attention to survive as feminists, but also need to shun all but the highest-quality mates to retain their “cred.” They need the “boys” – as many as can be found – to give them that attention. They feed on it. And the “boys” are happy to give it; they’ll fall over themselves in droves in attempts to prove themselves, but will never live up to the feminist’s standards. Thus, they get rejected, and that rejection feeds both the false-man’s misogyny and the feminist’s ego.

    The REAL man – rather than trying to prove himself equal to impossible standards and inevitably failing – knows to the core of his being his qualities and shortcomings, and is comfortable in them. He does not play the feminist game, nor waste his attention on it, and seeks to find a mate like himself -similarly disinclined to play the worthless games.

    Of course, this singular quality makes him an ideal mate for the feminist, but she has no power over him because he has no time or desire for her.

    As the computer JOSHUA said in the movie Wargames: “The only way to win is not to play.”

        1. Yes, but the way it’s used in A Certain Corner Of The Internet todays, it’s a real word for a made up thing. It simply means “Bitch won’t sleep with me ’cause she just likes that other guy who’s not good for her like I am.”

          Like “friendzone” it’s a word for something that is not actually a thing.

          1. Huh. You must frequent different corners than I, because I even googled that term and didn’t find anything.

          2. Uh… I think we are talking at cross-purposes, Tam, and it’s not my intention to have a fight with you.

            My comment of “You must frequent different corners than I” was in response to your “perils of qxoortupl!” phrase.

            To answer your question re: perils of hypergamy, I frequently encounter it on dating sites where a gal who isn’t all that (and let’s be honest — if she was all that, she wouldn’t need OKCupid or the like to get dates) decides that she will settle for nothing less than a 6’3 rockstar brain surgeon astronaut with six-pack abs, a full head of hair, and a 100k+ salary, who is all rugged and manly and nevertheless will be delighted to spend all day painting her nails and taking her shoe shopping.

            Yes, I’ve met people like this.

            It’s good to have goals and dreams, but some gals have standards which are so impossibly high that a supermodel couldn’t even fill them.

        2. So, kind of like the dumpy guy who won’t settle for anything less than an HB9? (Because, face it, ladies: evolution has programmed guys to like long blond hair, long legs, big boobs, and tight asses!)

          1. Yes, exactly. The only difference here is that dumpy guy is laughed at for being unreasonable, whereas hypergamous gal is lauded for “not settling for anything but the best.”

            It’s status-seeking via mate selection, and it drives me batcrap crazy.

            (Yes, bimbo trophy wives also drive me batcrap crazy.)

          2. The only difference here is that dumpy guy is laughed at for being unreasonable, whereas hypergamous gal is lauded for “not settling for anything but the best.”

            Wev.

            I will politely note that this is not a description of reality as I’ve experienced it and let it drop.

            Thank you! 🙂

          3. Huh. I had no idea hypergamy really was such a minefield. I don’t know that I am actually qualified to delve into that one. From one side, I see whiny boys complaining that girl X won’t date them because of her own case of hypergamy. (Symptoms include referring to women as gold-diggers and succubus) On the other, there are ladies that haven’t gotten over the idea of their knight in shining armor riding in on the snow white steed.
            There is a guy at work with quite the case of the hypergamy. Not to sound full of myself, but I’m the target of much of his attention along with another lady in my building. It doesn’t matter to him that I’m NOT AVAILABLE and I’m way too nice to tell him that not only are she and I way out of his league, but he’d be lucky to carry the towels. He’s got serious delusions of adequacy. Lest you think I’m just being mean, this is a guy that is easily 20 years my senior still working in a very menial entry level position. He explained to me how ‘dangerous’ it was for me to be walking alone into his building. I told him I was plenty dangerous myself. Thankfully, he saves the really inappropriate flirtation for the single girl. He actually told her that one day she’d be waking up in his bed. She’s a model in her off hours.
            I’m sure he believes himself to be a real catch and thinks we are missing whatever it is he has to offer. I’m sure he believes we are hypergamous gals. Gee, I’m just certain I should leave my fit, handsome, entrepreneurial husband for an old, over-weight guy in a job with no future. I’m such a bitch.

          4. Can I come live in your reality? It seems to make far more sense than mine. 🙂

            Thanks for the discussion.

  3. I remember a letter to Ann Landers some 30 years ago or more. A woman wrote that she never got to talk to her husband — he was an engineer and ever so smart, she couldn’t understand what he talked about.

    Ann replied that if he was that smart, he should be able to figure out how to communicate well with his wife.

    ” I’ve lost count of the times men have rejected or insulted me simply because I was brighter, wittier or cleverer than they are.”

    The part that I don’t see in her story, is whether her partners were ever pleased or happy that she was in their lives. We all get, I think, that she felt her presence was a blessing for each partner — but I don’t get the sense that she learned to know them well enough to know what they valued, what they needed in a relationship — and most importantly, I didn’t get that she was at all effective in observing and learning if she was meeting their needs.

    One (neanderthal) definition of relationships is that a relationship is 100% her responsibility, and completely on his terms. If he doesn’t find the relationship fun and secure, his responsibility is to leave, not impose on her longer. The flip side of this, is that the relationship must be satisfying for her, too, or she is also responsible for leaving, when her needs aren’t met. This is until other vows and responsibilities impose life-time bonds — like marriage, or children. So this sounds, at first, pretty one sided. At the end of the day, though, the point is that both folk get their needs met — or they ought to stop imposing on someone that might be a healthy person.

    Our bright heroine, here hasn’t learned her responsibilities, and doesn’t honor her partners for being responsible when they leave at an appropriate stage in the relationship, for honest and appropriate reasons..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CommentLuv badge