Steer clear of men whose ultimate confirmation of manhood it is to bring down striving women.
A lot of men who observe an independence, a free spirit and a self-sufficiency in certain women feel infuriated and attacked in their masculinity and self-worth, even though there is no contact or interaction. It is a conclusion reached in their train of thought. They scapegoat her for their own feelings of inadequacy and self-doubt. They think their power is endangered and that they need to take action because this woman is a threat to their existence, is dangerous, means trouble, unlike others.
To bring a woman like that down is a challenge, seems appealing to their ego should they succeed. What does it prove? Self-destruction? Self-loathing? Extreme insecurity? Of course, one should steer clear of men who want to bring women down in general. To take down a fully functional woman is a challenge, to take a fully dysfunctional woman down is cowardice. The first pattern asks for more determination, more investment, more projected hate. The second pattern feels like home, like comfort, like the natural state of things decaying.
There is an additional violence and urge for annihilation in the first predator. He sees what woman can do without him, that she can be joyous and fulfilled, that she is achieving her goals and celebrates her success thanks to herself. His image of womanhood is affronted, it displeases him, he begrudges this blatant contradiction of his value system to her. He feels like he needs to teach her a lesson. He feels personally attacked by her presence. He starts to feel worthless, childhood sensations claw their way back up. All of these things are mechanisms within himself and have truly nothing to do with this woman. What rises high, he must bring down. He can be very patient, play a good part until he reaches his goal. He aims high, because he thinks women are beneath him, that their place is below him, not up there. He’s going out of his way to bring her down.
The second predator is less ambitious, less confident, and terrorises and abuses women who are already struggling, suffering and in trouble. For him, that’s the natural state of things, that he could make things better for them, that he is in charge, that they are graspable for him, within reach and his logic, that they seem to depend on him and his mercy, that they are messes without him. He preys on what has been weakened. They confirm his worldview, his stereotypes of men and women. If she is weak that makes him the strong one. Her agony provides him with the opposite state. He sees them as two interactive counterpoles. Whilst she possesses all the bad qualities he gains all the positive ones. What she loses, he gains. Her misery uplifts him, he’s a coward and a vampire. The roles are out in the open, he doesn’t need to hide anything as both are lived out. That’s functional to him, as long as woman stays on the ground and as long as he has the upper hand in everything. That’s what he knows. It’s a vicious circle he grew up in.
Whilst the first predator reaches for the stars to bring back sheer darkness, the second one makes sure nothing elevates, nothing moves, everything stays. Whilst the situation with the second predator offers several exits, the first one feels like a fatal dead alley because he sneaks his way in when woman thinks she is at her strongest.
“Circe Invidiosa (Study)” by John William Waterhouse (1849-1917)