--
Over on the “A Strategy For Sages to Survive as Travelling Vagrants” I asked Shahrazad – a single woman - what changes would have to occur for her to let a man back into her life.
Shah replied:
Shah, like many confident mature women who have been unlucky in love, feels sceptical about what gains she’ll make by once again joining in the game. They love to love, but they can’t be bothered to put up with all the bullshit that goes with it. But most women admit that if they decided to trust love again, they would happily surrender themselves to the man of their dreams. And interesting enough, so did Shah:Give up a lot of my independence and peaceful existence, perhaps? And frankly, the costs always seem to far outweigh the benefits where romantic relationships are involved, especially for someone like me. I think it's because of how easy it is to get attached.
And listed those qualities as:I don't need a man in my life right now, but if I ever decided to let one in, it would be a man like Dan Rowden. He has the qualities I value.
Adding that her choice of Dan was:I assess his intelligence, sense of humor, self-esteem, confidence, manliness, values, compassion, just to name a few things.
But, of course, it is not a “rough” idea at all. Shah obviously thinks very highly of Dan. So highly, that she openly names him. So highly, that it may well be correct to say that she loves him.Just for you to get a rough idea
But I was interested to know how Shah could choose a man who held such a very different view of life than her own.
I asked if:
Shah replied:it was Dan that you chose – wouldn’t his philosophical view of life and women have to change completely before you’d accept him?
In answer, I know for a fact that most women, and men, find what Shah described as Dan’s “unflattering view of women”, completely intolerable. But it looks like Shah has found a way round this hurdle, for she writes that:I don't see why you would think that Dan's view of life would clash with mine. Because he's a philosopher and I'm not? You'd have to elaborate on why that is a problem. As far as his unflattering view of women, it's only a philosophical view, as you said. In practice, he doesn't dislike women or treat them as inferior beings. He understands women very well, which is very unusual for a male, and allows for great communication. You heard what Dan said to Mikiel about his moral judgments? It's true, and you should know this if you know Dan at all. His judgment of people, and of things, is much more practical than moral. There is no condescension there that I can perceive. Can you?
This sounds very much like she has concluded that Dan isn’t really serious about his philosophic view because he flatters her by not “disliking” her, and by not “treating her like an inferior being”. And as if that wasn’t enough, she delicately places the cherry on top by enthusiastically stating that he “understands women very well, which is very unusual for a male, and allows for great communication”.his unflattering view of women, it's only a philosophical view. In practice, he doesn't dislike women or treat them as inferior beings
Taking into account that Shah considers Dan’s philosophy on women a separate part of him, she must think that his “understanding” of women comes not from it, but from the same place his lack of “condescension” comes from.
This is all rather odd. Dan has never been shy about expressing his dedication to his philosophy – but to read Shah’s post, to her it is just a hobby of his, and that there is a real Dan – an ‘unphilosophical Dan’ - that she has grown to admirer.
My interest is, even if this is just a school-girl crush she has on him; it is still an attachment that does suggest Dan has provided the footholds for her to consider him as a figure worthy of her love and admiration.
What’s it all about, Alfie – I mean, Dan - how did you become husband material?