Unsuitable Men 4: Confounding a Partner with a Child
In this variety of the bonding-disability, a macho confounds a partner with someone naturally inferior and in need to be improved like a child.
Often a child's immature perception of his social environment misleads him to the concept, that marriage is a deal between a superior powerful man and an inferior woman. As a consequence that child starts to believe in his wrong impression, that all women are innately inferior, even though they may not appear to be so.
The deal of his role models is simple, the husband gives money to the wife, and the wife in return works as a servant in the house, raises the kids and serves all his needs in obedience. Their mental and emotional worlds are separate and they may spend very little time together. Either they do not bond or they appear not to be bonded to the child.
In the case of the bonding-disability of such a child as an adult, he may well have the delusion, that all he is required to do is spend money on the woman, and if he spends enough, she should be happy and not expect anything else.
Even if the man were rich and the woman poor, it is more than doubtful, that an educated woman would be satisfied with a man offering her dinners at restaurants, dresses and household appliances and nothing of immaterial value. But it gets weird, when the bonding-disabled man wants to spend money on her, that is half hers, because they are sharing expenses.
Spending money on his partner or even just attempting to do so allows him to identify with his male role models including the justification to feel superior. While he superficially appears to spend the money on the woman, in reality he buys his reasons to feel superior.
As a consequence, he not only projects his own needs upon her, but he makes also the complementary mistake of believing, that she wants him to spend money on her. When she does not react as he expects according to his projection, then he believes, that something is wrong with her. If a woman does not appreciate his spending money and fulfill his needs in return as a duty, then he believes that she needs to be fixed. He feels entitled to force his will upon her to improve her, and has the delusion to do her a favor.
But it can even be worse than that. If he has observed his father as a role model treat his mother like a child, in a similar way as he was treated himself really being a child, then he can confound the two roles of child and wife. He can come to the wrong conclusion, that they way, how he experienced to be educated and improved as a child is the same way how a woman should be educated and improved. As an immature adult he imitates his father's behavior towards him in his way of treating a woman.
What for the woman is her simple right to be an equal partner, appears to him as a defect. He might not enjoy his power to hurt her, as in the other scenario, but he might feel, that by improving her, hurting her is unavoidable and therefore he is justified in doing it. He considers it his right, even his duty to fix her into accepting the role, that he has for her.
Again, if the woman resists too much to his attempts, when he does not get his needs met, he dumps her without a conscience. She failed in her function for him, and he perceives her as ungrateful for not letting him improve her.
In this variety of the bonding-disability, a macho confounds a partner with someone naturally inferior and in need to be improved like a child.
Often a child's immature perception of his social environment misleads him to the concept, that marriage is a deal between a superior powerful man and an inferior woman. As a consequence that child starts to believe in his wrong impression, that all women are innately inferior, even though they may not appear to be so.
The deal of his role models is simple, the husband gives money to the wife, and the wife in return works as a servant in the house, raises the kids and serves all his needs in obedience. Their mental and emotional worlds are separate and they may spend very little time together. Either they do not bond or they appear not to be bonded to the child.
In the case of the bonding-disability of such a child as an adult, he may well have the delusion, that all he is required to do is spend money on the woman, and if he spends enough, she should be happy and not expect anything else.
Even if the man were rich and the woman poor, it is more than doubtful, that an educated woman would be satisfied with a man offering her dinners at restaurants, dresses and household appliances and nothing of immaterial value. But it gets weird, when the bonding-disabled man wants to spend money on her, that is half hers, because they are sharing expenses.
Spending money on his partner or even just attempting to do so allows him to identify with his male role models including the justification to feel superior. While he superficially appears to spend the money on the woman, in reality he buys his reasons to feel superior.
As a consequence, he not only projects his own needs upon her, but he makes also the complementary mistake of believing, that she wants him to spend money on her. When she does not react as he expects according to his projection, then he believes, that something is wrong with her. If a woman does not appreciate his spending money and fulfill his needs in return as a duty, then he believes that she needs to be fixed. He feels entitled to force his will upon her to improve her, and has the delusion to do her a favor.
But it can even be worse than that. If he has observed his father as a role model treat his mother like a child, in a similar way as he was treated himself really being a child, then he can confound the two roles of child and wife. He can come to the wrong conclusion, that they way, how he experienced to be educated and improved as a child is the same way how a woman should be educated and improved. As an immature adult he imitates his father's behavior towards him in his way of treating a woman.
What for the woman is her simple right to be an equal partner, appears to him as a defect. He might not enjoy his power to hurt her, as in the other scenario, but he might feel, that by improving her, hurting her is unavoidable and therefore he is justified in doing it. He considers it his right, even his duty to fix her into accepting the role, that he has for her.
Again, if the woman resists too much to his attempts, when he does not get his needs met, he dumps her without a conscience. She failed in her function for him, and he perceives her as ungrateful for not letting him improve her.
