FOOTHOLDS

[sue hindmarsh]

For a woman to love a man, he must first provide the footholds for her to get close to him. An example of which I may well have found, but I’ll be interested to see what others make of it.
--
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:

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.

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:

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.

And listed those qualities as:

I assess his intelligence, sense of humor, self-esteem, confidence, manliness, values, compassion, just to name a few things.

Adding that her choice of Dan was:

Just for you to get a rough idea

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.

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:

it was Dan that you chose – wouldn’t his philosophical view of life and women have to change completely before you’d accept him?

Shah replied:

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?

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:

his unflattering view of women, it's only a philosophical view. In practice, he doesn't dislike women or treat them as inferior beings

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”.

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?

[Carl G]

It's all very simple, Sue, and no need for the long point-by-point analysis and the shouting headline "FOOTHOLDS" on the topic bar. Sher listed some qualities she values in a man, you can call them footholds if you like. She gave an example of a man we all know -- to some extent, anyway -- with those qualities: Dan. Your thread, apparently, is about her perceptions of his philosophical side.

For starters all relationships require compromise. Dan has his philosophy, while another bloke tinkers in the garage when he could be mowing the lawn. You asked Sher how she would get around that? I say get around what? The two are not getting together! They don't really know each other. Would Sher find a Mr Philosophy in Panama? Not likely.

Maybe, then, your points are generic: how does one reconcile the differences of another? This obviously varies from couple to couple. Can a Mr. Philosophy find a mate? QRS doesn't seem to think so, and this may be valid. Then why this thread? Oh, to hold Sher up as an example, for another discussion on unseeing woman.

[brokenhead]

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.

Maybe Shah realizes that Dan "gets it" even if you don't.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

How "feminine” of you, Sue, to entrap Sher like that by acting like you cared about her personal thoughts. You elicit material from her so you can turn around and gossip about Dan being husband material.

Your post is devoid of anything of philosophical import. It seems to be best characterized as baiting.

[Tomas]

dele

[Nick]

Then why this thread? Oh, to hold Sher up as an example, for another discussion on unseeing woman.

Actually it's hardly about Shah at all, it's almost entirely about Dan.

I agree that in order for a woman to consider a man a potential partner he needs to provide her with "footholds" as Sue called them. There is always the potential for a man to present footholds, be it inentional or not, but to the extent that the man and the woman are familiar with eachother is the extent to which a man can be held responsible for providing these footholds.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Sue,

What’s it all about, Alfie – I mean, Dan - how did you become husband material?

I suspect Shahrazad’s initial feelings towards Dan were the result of my previous post, as she grew quite intolerant of what I was saying, and I’ll admit my comments were quite harsh. Perhaps a tad too personally directed.

She involuntarily resorted to a reactionary defense because she was attacked quite intensely – she attempted to incite envy as punishment for being hurt. She was basically saying, “how dare you criticize me in such a harsh manner, you can’t do that, I’m going to get you back by making you envious of who I prefer the most, so let it be known, here are the qualities that I value, and that you lack, so there!” Shahrazad’s response is understandable, as it is inevitable that such a confession will be uttered by the depths of a woman’s mind if she is attacked with such intense scornful passion.

Probably if I was a little softer in my criticism, and a bit more universal in scope, her feelings towards Dan never would have been uttered in the first place.

I think the major difference between Dan and myself is Dan’s criticism’s of women are usually not directed as personally, whereas on occasion I have directed my criticisms at particular females for particular behaviors that I was displeased with at the time. My passion emerges on occasion, and the result is that Dan is probably seen as more of a 'nice guy' in the female’s eyes, whereas my character is probably interpreted as ‘that misogynist jerk who always pisses them off” Dan and I may have the exact same philosophy, but as long as he speaks universally, and not against particular females in a personal manner, then his popularity among the females is probably going to be higher.

[Carl G]

Then why this thread? Oh, to hold Sher up as an example, for another discussion on unseeing woman.

Actually it's hardly about Shah at all, it's almost entirely about Dan.

Actually it's hardly about Dan at all, as he is barely mentioned and Sher is almost the whole focus of Sue's post.

I agree that in order for a woman to consider a man a potential partner he needs to provide her with "footholds" as Sue called them.

And by providing her, do you mean like Dan has done by just being himself?

There is always the potential for a man to present footholds, be it inentional or not, but to the extent that the man and the woman are familiar with each other is the extent to which a man can be held responsible for providing these footholds.

No shit, Sherlock. They are otherwise known as emotional hooks, and both parties are responsible for giving and taking them.

[brokenhead]

No shit, Sherlock. They are otherwise known as emotional hooks, and both parties are responsible for giving and taking them.

One can see that Carl has been around the block a time or two, shall we say.

[Nick]

Actually it's hardly about Dan at all, as he is barely mentioned and Sher is almost the whole focus of Sue's post.

You need to learn how to read between the lines. It's all about Dan being asked to confront the footholds he has provided for Shah, which is made even more obvious by Sue's final question directly aimed at Dan: What’s it all about, Alfie – I mean, Dan - how did you become husband material?

And by providing her, do you mean like Dan has done by just being himself?

Dan has obviously provided her with these footholds in some form, I'll leave it at that.

There is always the potential for a man to present footholds, be it intentional or not, but to the extent that the man and the woman are familiar with each other is the extent to which a man can be held responsible for providing these footholds.

No shit, Sherlock. They are otherwise known as emotional hooks, and both parties are responsible for giving and taking them.

A woman does not need to provide footholds for men to consider her a lover, all she has to do is be a woman. Men on the other hand need to create footholds for women. Without them she can't see him, let alone consider him a potential lover.

[Carl G]

Actually it's hardly about Dan at all, as he is barely mentioned and Sher is almost the whole focus of Sue's post.

You need to learn how to read between the lines.

You need to learn to read the lines themselves. But enough of this banter, let's let Sue clarify.

There is always the potential for a man to present footholds, be it intentional or not, but to the extent that the man and the woman are familiar with each other is the extent to which a man can be held responsible for providing these footholds.

No shit, Sherlock. They are otherwise known as emotional hooks, and both parties are responsible for giving and taking them.

A woman does not need to provide footholds for men to consider her a lover, all she has to do is be a woman. Men on the other hand need to create footholds for women. Without them she can't see him, let alone consider him a potential lover.

You're just as big a generalizer as Cory and Ryan. I'll leave it at that.

[Shahrazad]

Carl,

My opinion, if you want to hear it, is that Elizabeth and Nick are right about Sue's motives to start this thread. Is it about me? No, not really. She is just using me to ask Dan a question in public that she could've very well asked in private, if curiosity was her only motivating force. I mean, think about it; does she even bring up a single point that I can respond to? Does she ask me any questions? No, she already got all the info from me she wanted. Now she wants to embarrass Dan in public. And my bet is that it takes a lot more than a thread like this to embarrass him. He has gotten out of far more embarrassing situations than this smelling like a rose: he is a master at it.


Nick,

A woman does not need to provide footholds for men to consider her a lover, all she has to do is be a woman. Men on the other hand need to create footholds for women. Without them she can't see him, let alone consider him a potential lover.

You are more perceptive than I thought.


I hardly ever use emoticons, but at this time, I'd like to insert a popcorn-eating emoticon here.


-

[Alex Jacob]

Here on GF I content myself with good news when it comes my way:

I am simply happy that Dan is not gay.

[Iolaus]

Well, I think it would be marvelous for both of them to get laid.

And, that "porno" photo of his body hair

What? Where?

He shares an apartment (flat) with a woman.

But they don't have sex. At least I think they don't...

Then, discovered that two of them (Kevin, Dan) wear hats!

They do that in Australia?

aka: your doings with Kevin?

Don't you mean David??? Or what have I missed out on?

I suspect Shahrazad’s initial feelings towards Dan were the result of my previous post, as she grew quite intolerant of what I was saying, and I’ll admit my comments were quite harsh. Perhaps a tad too personally directed.

She involuntarily resorted to a reactionary defense because she was attacked quite intensely – she attempted to incite envy as punishment for being hurt. She was basically saying, “how dare you criticize me in such a harsh manner, you can’t do that, I’m going to get you back by making you envious of who I prefer the most, so let it be known, here are the qualities that I value, and that you lack, so there!” Shahrazad’s response is understandable, as it is inevitable that such a confession will be uttered by the depths of a woman’s mind if she is attacked with such intense scornful passion.

Probably if I was a little softer in my criticism, and a bit more universal in scope, her feelings towards Dan never would have been uttered in the first place.

Ohhh!!! So that's it. It was actually all about Ryan.

[Iolaus]

Oh, and its just puritanical to blame Dan if some lassie happens to admire him. You have human intercourse, (heh, heh in the old fashioned meaning of the word of course) and from time to time you have admirers from afar.

Shah wants a serious man who won't cheat.

[Iolaus]

Of course, for an enlightened man who doesn't believe in attachments, expectations of others, or treating anyone with partiality, there's no reason he'd promise not to cheat. He wouldn't hold it as a value. But if you consider the rarity with which he finds female sexual company, I'd say he's a good bet.

[Shahrazad]

Bird,

Shah wants a serious man who won't cheat.

Latin American men are all cheaters, did you know that? Certainly I won't find a loyal man where I live.

[Dan Rowden]

What’s it all about, Alfie – I mean, Dan - how did you become husband material?

I'm a man. Isn't that enough of itself? Short of being a total thug or hermit, I wonder if it's actually avoidable. My unpreparedness to be that hermit no doubt leaves the footholds that you speak of. I don't think there's much for me to say to that other than declare the fact of it.

[Iolaus]

Sher,

Latin American men are all cheaters, did you know that? Certainly I won't find a loyal man where I live.

It's a good thing I never married Rafael! We were engaged in the 4th grade.

So how old are you and Dan?

[Shahrazad]

Ann,

That is an embarrassing question, but I might as well answer it. I am 47 and Dan is 46. I don't act my age though, or so I've been told.

[Alex Jacob]

Dan doesn't act his either, it's perfect!
_____________________________________________

Here's a vegetarian love poem to celebrate:

You may not carrot all for me,
like the way I care for you,
You may turnip your nose
when I plead with you,
to put down the fucking Weininger,
and get in the sack!
Yet, if your heart should beet with mine,
forever lettuce hope,
there's no reason in the world why we cantaloupe.

---from Collected Works of Alex Jacob

[Carl G]

To act one's age, how strange. Does each year of age have a standard? Who determines? Can one act's one's weight? One's hair color?

[Shahrazad]

Alex, please don't get carried away; Dan and I are just friends. I did not say I'm in love with Dan, Sue did. And I certainly have not proposed or anything like that.

[Dan Rowden]

Having read through the potpourris of replies, I'll offer a few observations:

Sue's post was indeed aimed primarily at me. Sue likes to think of herself as a philosophical Mother Superior, keeping the wayward boys in line. Or, at least, she likes to play the role. I can't seriously fault her for it, because it's a legitimate one and whilst she occasionally employs a form of female cunning that is a tad "iffy", I wouldn't discourage her from continuing.

Tomas,

That wasn't a picture of me, you goofball.

Carl,

And by providing her, do you mean like Dan has done by just being himself?

That's all I've ever been. Sue would argue that the effects of that mean there's problems with who I am. I'm frankly not sure I need to be told that. But I'm also not sure that I ought take responsibility for the minds of others.

General audience,

It's true that a man has to provide footholds to capture a woman's acceptance, admiration and so forth. This can either be a deliberate intention on his part or the consequence of his character juxtaposing itself with her criteria for such (and her emotional needs). In the latter case I'm not sure a man can avoid those consequences entirely. Shah greatly admires the Panamanian leader General Torrijos - does this mean he intended to solicit such admiration or does it mean it happened because of who he was and what Shah admires in a person?

Shah appears to appreciate certain of my character traits. Whilst in the end I don't care if she does or not, I also don't find it especially surprising. In her case the men around her are mostly of little to no character at all. I apparently have some. I find her ability to discriminate admirable. She expresses her respect, admiration or liking for the men she knows who do exhibit some character quite freely - be they online or off.

As for the stuff about my philosophy of women, it's interesting that Shah doesn't find cause in it to dislike me, or for that matter, David, but she does in Ryan. I think Ryan's summation of that - i.e. why he attracts derision and the contrast it creates - was pretty accurate. I'm impressed that he expressed awareness of it.

[David Quinn]

What about Shar's numerous statements that she has no real interest on philosophy, that she finds the ideal of Buddhahood boring, and that she hates ambitious men? By rights, she should be perceiving you as a boring, hateful slob!

-