This is one of the most provocative and difficult chapters of my book to accept. But I am not afraid of accusations of chauvinism and misogyny, because I have long been known as such, I will risk encroaching on the myth of the “moral purity of women” and express my thought directly and unambiguously: “ morality, as a characteristic of a person, generally speaking, is not peculiar to a woman».
I am well aware that most women will be infuriated and hysterical by this chapter.
Here it is necessary to make a very important remark explaining the essence of my statement.
I do not believe that every woman is always immoral in her behavior, but I say that the very concept of morality is, most often, incomprehensible to her.
There are "moral" men, and there are immoral ones. And the woman DOES NOT understand the formulation of this problem. She is excluded from this plane, she is OUTSIDE. Well, like a cat.
There are no moral or immoral women. Women exist OUTSIDE of morality, they are not subject to it.
What is meant by the concept of morality in the first place? The presence of conscience, firm concepts of good and evil, an inner striving for truth and justice, concern for the public good - categories, the supervalue of which is unconditionally accepted by a moral person.
The formalization of these qualities at the level of social, interpersonal relationships and social attitudes we call morality.
Good and evil. These categories in a woman are flattened to personal acceptance or rejection. By goodness, she often means restraint, non-aggression, ostentatious disposition, smiling, helpfulness. In general, good is that which is pleasant and profitable. First of all, the woman herself. Good "just" for a woman does not exist.
Evil in her concept is the antipode of the above. So, a woman says: “You are evil” when you didn’t get what you wanted from a man; "I'm kind," she thinks, lisping with a cat.
As for good and evil in general, you are unlikely to meet a woman who seriously comprehends these categories abstractly from a specific situation.
Simply put, well, she will not puzzle over whether her act is moral or not. But here are the questions she will definitely ask herself:
- Is it beneficial for me?
- what will happen to me for this, will I not lose, will I not be punished?
- How will this affect other people's attitudes towards me, especially those on whom I depend or who I need?
The very system of coordinates "moral-immoral", lies OUTSIDE of the understanding and attitude of a woman, is perceived by a woman as something abstruse, artificial, superfluous.
But a woman knows how to DESIGN morality. Which, most often, she does, but only as long as it is beneficial for her. A woman is a chameleon, she skillfully mimics when she is interested in achieving a goal, when it is profitable.
What could be this benefit?
Attracting a potential man, formal compliance with his intuitively caught concept of what a woman should be;
- some social status, ostentatious decency, "decency";
- direct self-interest;
- the ability to manipulate using categories, deep meaning which the woman does not accept;
A woman KNOWS the formal rules of morality and ethics of relationships with people (they are usually voiced when a girl is raised by her parents, school, elders), but does not understand their meaning, essence and significance. Morality for a woman, it is necessary IN CERTAIN CASES to "color" the chameleon, a kind of formal ritual, the implementation of which she takes upon herself as necessary. But as soon as this attire ceases to be profitable, then the woman simply does what she needs.
Modern life, almost completely freed from pressure on a woman moral laws, confirms the COMPLETE ABSENCE in women of internal moral core as the structure underlying the personality. Speaking of this, I do not at all blame women for this, they are what they are. But men should always remember this feature of women.
I go even further: and I affirm that morality Hinders the main natural program of a woman, i.e., receiving and subordinating the resources of a man. It is precisely for this reason that it is not reliably instilled in her: no matter what educational measures are taken in a woman’s childhood, but if the game of morality is not beneficial for her, then the woman will not think about this topic. If there is no external moral influence of the level of society, family, laws, church, then we have a female who goes ahead to achieve her goals.
“Men invented morality and this… expediency—women would never have invented that,” she says loudly, knowing that I am in a hurry to follow her.
Zakhar Prilepin, "The shadow of a cloud on the other side"
Now it is often repeated that a woman is a social being, in fact, by this she means the sociability of women and the ability to establish and build relationships with people. But these relationships usually do not rise above the level of the mother, girlfriends, lover, husband, work colleagues, in other words, the "inner circle", people in the sphere of direct interest of a woman. Morality in the female sense, or rather its visual picture, outer side, and serves precisely these relationships.
Conversely, male morality arose at the dawn of history as a means of universal communication within and between communities, serving the needs of the emerging diversified social production. To put it simply, people needed universal non-material values and general norms, rules of conduct adopted by the majority of people to facilitate industrial and trade relations, laws to establish trust-based coordination of joint actions. To kill a tribesman for no reason is evil, to deceive a partner in a primitive business is evil, to take someone else's property or wife is evil. It was then that such concepts as reputation and business ethics were born.
It was then that religion was born as an institution for maintaining morality, while the formidable gods-super-hierarchs were accepted and revered as the main measure of people's actions, their correctness or incorrectness.
The Judeo-Christian civilization erected a pedestal for altruism and established service to the public interest as one of the highest virtues.
The progress of the human race was colossal: men who came out of the caves and received moral norms universal for all, were able to create a prototype of a separate (diversified) social production and trade, albeit still in the form of barter!
Such and such was engaged in the manufacture of arrowheads and exchanged them for bread baked by that one, one community or clan exchanged the fish they caught for skins mined by their neighbors. Honesty in such transactions and the cooperativeness of men in "slaughtering the mammoth" formed the basis of the emerging moral standards. A person realized the public (clan, tribal, community) interest and developed laws for its protection, which became beneficial for everyone to observe together.
Unnatural from the point of view of some modern psychologists male friendship has an ancient and solid foundation in the person of male cooperativeness and mutual assistance of hunters and warriors.
The first inter-clan and inter-communal military alliances appeared. Sociums were enlarged, accepting universal norms of behavior.
Of course, I am exaggerating for clarity, I am not a historian, I do not indicate exactly when, where and how this happened, it is important for me to convey the essence, the principle itself: the institution moral values was obliged to appear for the public good, peaceful coexistence, industrial progress and the protection of the family and private property.
Then people came out of the caves... but the women didn't come out of the caves. Their sphere of competence remained the house, the life of the family, the birth and upbringing of offspring.
Social communications? Husband, children, neighbors in "wigwams". The means of these communications is the ability to understand internal state other people, psychological adjustment, cunning, manipulation, intrigue.
Their main life task remained the search, attraction and attachment of a strong and prolific male, redistribution of resources within the family in favor of themselves and their offspring, exchanging "love" and care for the man's house for them. Men developed and complicated universal moral norms, being their creators, carriers and guardians, overthrowers, but for women, in fact, nothing has changed: the tasks are the same. Moreover, the morality implanted by men came into conflict with the main biological task of women.
If you look at the history of Mankind and woman from this angle, it becomes quite clear that the formation and strengthening of civilizations was accompanied by the obligatory suppression and curbing of pernicious and destructive female instincts. A woman, her very inner essence, contradicts the moral norms, in particular, of the Judeo-Christian Civilization. Our ancestors were well aware of this and did not allow women to serve in the priesthood and judicial functions. What a pity that this wisdom, developed and carried through the centuries and millennia of the History of Man, is so thoughtlessly trampled upon!
"How so?" - the reader will ask me, “After all, we have been taught to perceive a woman as a standard of moral purity.” This is one of the most dangerous myths that a young man faces in life.
Yes, a woman may well behave in accordance with moral principles, as well as a cat does not always steal sour cream. Especially when full.
Men themselves, alas, tend to invent some kind of “moral purity” of a woman. And this, among other things, lies our craving for harmony: we try to endow the being of an angelic appearance with those personality traits that, according to our inner conviction, should be inherent in it. We subconsciously strive for perfection and completeness and speculatively "finish" a woman. At the same time, the possibility of objective perception and analysis of the qualities of a woman is blocked by sensuality and romanticization.
Most often, painful, in our time almost inevitable, resolution of the conflict between reality and the fictional morality of a woman, leads a man into a state of shock.
King Shlomo (Solomon) wrote three thousand years ago: " I found one righteous man among a thousand, but among a thousand women I did not find a single one."
(Ecclesiastes 7:1-29)
One way or another, but smartest representatives modern times, they guessed about the oppressive animal essence of a woman, although they did not dare to announce their discovery loudly and decisively.
Andrei Prozorov, the hero of the play "Three Sisters" by Anton Pavlovich Chekhov, admits with anguish:
“A wife is a wife. She is honest, decent, well, kind, but for all that there is something in her that reduces her to a small, blind, sort of rough animal. Anyway, she's not human."
Anton Pavlovich himself, in one of his letters to his friend and publisher Alexei Suvorin, writes:
“Most of all, women are unsympathetic due to their injustice and the fact that justice, it seems, is not inherent in them organically. Mankind instinctively kept them away from social activities; it, God willing, will come to this with the mind. AT peasant family the peasant is smart, and prudent, and just, and God-fearing, and the woman—God forbid!”
Cesare Lombroso in his book Woman criminal and prostitute" to explain the immoral and criminal behavior women prefers to talk about "moral insanity" as a kind of personality defect, illness, thus asserting in it exceptions to the rule. Poor Mr. Lombroso! In his naivety of his still romantic age, he assumed the immorality of women as isolated deviations from the norm, he conducted an outstanding study of the varieties of such deviations for his time, but he did not have the courage to suggest the simple idea that morality as such is unusual for a woman.
As an excuse, Lombroso admits that he did not demand much from female morality, having defined the “normal female type”, based on two qualities: maternal feeling and modesty.
I certainly am not a model of morality, although I have aspirations for this. And I will say with all frankness that such concepts as "honesty", "passionarity", "altruism", "truth", "friendship", "mutual assistance", "decency" are not an empty phrase for me at all, but the subject of my thoughts and constant inner work. So for women, for their absolute majority, the very formulation of this task is absent - understand me correctly: this DOES NOT TAKE CARE of them and DOES NOT INTEREST.
The story of "I went on vacation" from the women's forum.
Came back from vacation three weeks ago. Were with a friend in Turkey in the city of Kemer. How many stories I heard about incendiary and hot nights in this beautiful country, but I went with full confidence that this would not affect me, since I am married. I was happy for my friend that she could come off here !! For two days we lay by the sea and on the third day we decided to go shopping in the city. And I met him there! Modest and very good speaking Russian. At first he gave his business card like come again, but we chatted and chatted and in the end he says give your phone to the disco in the evening.) and I gave it!! And in general it started!! Dates, night walks, night cafes with Turkish cuisine and lots of sex!!! Upon arrival home, we correspond every day, just SMS, then Facebook, we don’t see each other on Skype because of the time difference and it works until 24 hours. I myself came home, but my soul remained there!! I dream about Turkey almost every night! My husband knows almost everything, but his behavior just amazed me, he didn’t do anything, didn’t yell. said no and calmed down!! Indifference? And having arrived in my native Murmansk, I decided to leave to live in Turkey!! Well, I don’t want to live in Russia and freeze my ass! My Turkish boy does not know that I am going to move, he only knows that I will arrive in September for three weeks, and I am going to solve the issue of a residence permit, I want to open my own business there, Turkish is not a problem! Very scary!!! But life is one!! And no matter how the relationship with the Turkish guy develops, I want to go to Turkey!! Sea Sun!!!
I have read over 700 comments from women. What the ladies did not write: both ridicule, and wishes of happiness, calls to change their minds and reproaches for stupidity.
But I didn't find any, I emphasize: NO ONE
Leaving public questions, let's move on to existential questions. Dostoevsky considered Tatyana Larina to be the moral ideal of a Russian person (in the same sense, we can probably talk about Lisa Kalitina, Natasha Rostova, and if we turn to Soviet literature, then, for example, Polina Vikhrova from the “Russian Forest” by Leonid Leonov, about the heroes “ village prose" etc.). Are these thoughts relevant to us now? In whom today we find moral ideal of the Russian people, and is it even correct to talk about such a concept in our time?
Yana SAFRONOVA:
AT " Pushkin speech» F. M. Dostoevsky, two thoughts are quite obvious on which her rhetoric is built. The first is about Pushkin's all-embracing talent, which combines many national literatures and cultures, and the second one is about the moral ideal of the Russian person, Tatyana Larina. One of the questions proposed for discussion at the seminar of criticism of the Council of Young Writers and the Sota Club is as follows: “Dostoevsky considered Tatyana Larina to be the moral ideal of a Russian person (in the same sense, we can probably talk about Liza Kalitina, Natasha Rostova, and if we turn to Soviet literature, then, for example, Polina Vikhrova from the "Russian Forest" by Leonid Leonov, about the heroes of village prose, etc.). Are these thoughts relevant to us now? In whom today do we find the moral ideal of the Russian people, and is it even correct to talk about such a concept in our time? - on this topic I would like to speculate.
The question, formulated by the Council of Young Writers, lists the classic women's literary images, perceived by the reader over the centuries as morally whole, in a sense, perfect personalities. All the more paradoxically, the statements of former school comrades at our beloved literature lessons five years ago echo in my memory. Of the above heroines, modern schoolchildren have the opportunity to “get acquainted” with only two: Tatyana Larina and Natasha Rostova. Their opinions about both heroines are quite unambiguous, the interpretations correspond to the general cultural background - Tatyana Larina was seen by young people as an “amorphous” and “surrendered” young lady, Natasha Rostova as a “frivolous incubator”. And the designated topic becomes all the more relevant: it is appropriate and correct to talk about the moral ideal in any era, because even if the established norm is interpreted in this way, then the need to put the right emphasis is obvious.
It is rather difficult to reproach Tatyana Larina for passivity, because throughout the whole novel she shows incredible strength spirit. Dostoevsky says this about this overcoming of oneself: “A Russian woman will boldly follow what she believes in, and she has proved it. But she is "given to another and will be faithful to him for a century." To whom, what is true? What are these responsibilities? To this old general, whom she cannot love, because she loves Onegin, but whom she married only because her “mother prayed with tears of spells” and in her offended, wounded soul there was then only despair and no hope, no lumen? Yes, faithful to this general, her husband, honest man, her loving, respecting her and proud of her. Let her “begged her mother,” but she, and no one else, agreed, she, after all, she herself swore to him to be his honest wife. Let her marry him out of desperation, but now he is her husband, and her betrayal will cover him with shame, shame and kill him. And how can a person base his happiness on the misfortune of another? Tatyana Larina accepted the most terrible fight and emerged from it as an absolute winner - that is why Dostoevsky assigns her the highest place on the pedestal: Tatyana defeated her feelings, she, relying on morality, "broke herself."
But two centuries have passed. And as if the need to overcome passions for the sake of duty and honor had lost its relevance, the stage of modernity in all its feminist beauty came strong women with the problems arising from this power. The change of vector could not but be reflected in the literature. Increasingly, on the pages you can meet women struggling (sometimes with windmills), outwardly indifferent, seemingly reinforced concrete. They, unlike Tatyana Larina, are often selfish and see only a source in love, and the power of their nature is determined not by a moral category, but by the ability to make strong-willed decisions in everyday matters.
You can be especially surprised to get to know them on the pages of works written in last years and dedicated to times Soviet Union. Two bestsellers, The Abode by Zakhar Prilepin and Zuleikha Opens Her Eyes by Guzeli Yakhina, which will be discussed below, belong to the category of premium prose, at one time they occupied the highest places in sales ratings. These two novels are often compared on thematic grounds, but I find it particularly amusing that there is a widespread opinion that the main success of both works is the correct distribution of gender roles in them. Indeed, this aspect is important, through it we can trace the emerging trend of dominance of the female image in all respects. It is worth noting that this trend does not exhaust all modern Russian literature, but it is perceptible in prose that is heavy in circulation (and therefore readable).
Notable, for example, is the image of Galina Kucherenko in Zakhar Prilepin's novel The Abode. Galina Kucherenko is a warden in the Solovetsky camps, concurrently - at the beginning of the novel, the mistress of the commandant Fyodor Eichmanis, then - the beloved of the protagonist Artyom Goryainov. And if Dostoevsky wrote about Tatyana: “Maybe Pushkin would have done even better if he had called his poem after Tatyana, and not Onegin, for it is undeniably main character poem,” then in the case of Galina, we can talk about moving the emotional stress of the text, because she dominates the space of the novel, suppressing Artyom with her energy. Galina's tragedy can be compared with Tatyana's situation: Galina loves Eichmanis wholeheartedly, but he is moderately indifferent to her. And then Galina decides to take a risky step, but she does not do it out of good intentions, the relationship with Artyom for her is just revenge on another man: “Yes, I take revenge. I wanted to take revenge - and not with a Chekist, not with an escort, but with this one. Which is all the more spinning before his eyes. Galina, unlike Tatyana, obeys her sensual impulses and does not think about Eichmanis or Artyom.
We can observe similar behavior in the novel “Zuleikha opens her eyes” by Guzeli Yakhina. Zuleikha lives in a village that is dark in all respects with her cruel husband Murtaza. A cruel patriarchy reigns in her family. The terrible time of dispossession comes, which also concerns the Zuleikha family. For disobedience to orders, an employee of the GPU and the future escort of the dispossessed kulaks, Ignatov, kills Murtaza in front of his wife. After a certain number of years of exile, having gone through fire and water with her husband's killer, Zuleikha finds her feminine happiness in him. Submissive at the beginning of the novel, she will even become the head of an artel of hunters, although this kind of activity is completely out of her character. Throughout the text, Zuleikha submits to circumstances and shows herself as a soft and critical situations useless.
The woman here is characterized external manifestations which, by the way, are not motivated by anything. Zuleikha does not say to the murderer of her husband, Ignatov: “But I am given to another; I will be faithful to him for a century, ”she makes a choice directly opposite to Tatiana’s choice. Literally: betrays the memory of his breadwinner, legal husband, builds relationships not with anyone, but with his killer. Don't know if it's made for artistic wit and brightness, but the moral ideal turns into an anti-ideal, moral choice is clearly wrong, victory over oneself is a loss to oneself, and the author's conclusion should be ambiguous, but no, this is a happy reunion: “They and Ignatov will see each other and stop<…>and she will feel that the pain that filled the world has not gone away, but has let her exhale. Bright positive color.
Perhaps, it is in relation to Tatyana and Zuleikha that talking about the pettiness of the decision is appropriate. Women are aware main value in life they honor the satisfaction of their desire, no matter what kind: revenge in the first case or sexual desire in the second. The moral integrity of the individual fades into the background, in contrast to Tatyana, the main thing for these women is the situation itself, and not its consequences. Minute results. Galina and Zuleikha are a variant of Tatiana, who chose Onegin at the end of the novel. “No, there are deep and firm souls who cannot consciously give up their shrine to shame, even if only out of infinite compassion. No, Tatyana could not follow Onegin ”- Tatyana could not, but for the given type of modern literary heroine this is the only way out, for her strength is to follow Onegin no matter what, literally, no matter what.
So to the question, in whom do we find the ideal of the Russian people now, I will answer - all in the same Tatyana Larina, Lisa Kalitina, Natasha Rostova, Polina Vikhrova, girls of this type, such a degree of perfection - the concept of morality has not been lost over the centuries, not changed, this category is non-variable. It’s just that today’s “fashionable” heroines, strong in relation to the impotence of the century, shine brighter, they are more convenient for writers, it is easier to convey them - they are not as subtle as Tatyana. “But the manner of looking down made it so that Onegin did not even recognize Tatiana at all when he met her for the first time, in the wilderness, in the modest image of a pure, innocent girl, who was so shy before him from the first time. He was unable to distinguish completeness and perfection in the poor girl, and indeed, perhaps, he took her for a "moral embryo." This is she, an embryo, this is after her letter to Onegin! If there is anyone who is a moral embryo in the poem, it is, of course, he himself, Onegin, and this is indisputable "- and so modern reader(and the writer) I see as such Onegin: when new Tatiana appears to him in literature, he may simply not see it. The task of criticism at this stage is to correctly place the accents, not to pass off anti-heroines as strong Russian women, to be able to convey that strength is in morality, and not in overcoming it.
Andrew GALAMAGA:
A RUSSIAN NOVEL FROM "EVGENIY ONEGIN" TO "DOCTOR ZHIVAGO" IN THE LIGHT OF DOSTOYEVSKY'S SPEECH OF PUSHKIN
In the beginning, we give a few well-known, but necessary for further understanding, quotes.
First, let's turn to V.G. Belinsky.
In the ninth article of the work “The Works of Alexander Pushkin”, the critic notes: “Pushkin’s feat is great, that he was the first in his novel to poetically reproduce Russian society of that time, and in the person of Onegin and Lensky, he showed his main, that is, the male side; but the feat of our poet is almost higher in that he was the first to poetically reproduce, in the person of Tatyana, a Russian woman.
Emphasis has already been placed here. Onegin and Lensky are masculine, and therefore the main side of society. Tatyana is assigned a deliberately secondary, service role; its purpose is to shade the images of the main characters in the novel.
Even more clearly, Belinsky builds a gender hierarchy dear to his heart in an article for the Petersburg Collection Published by N. Nekrasov: “One might notice, and not without reason, that Varenka’s face<Доброселовой>somehow not quite definite and finished; but, apparently, such is the fate of Russian women, that Russian poetry does not get along with them, and nothing more! We do not know who is to blame here, whether Russian women or Russian poetry; but we know that only Pushkin managed, in the person of Tatyana, to capture a few features of a Russian woman, and even then (emphasis added by me. - A.G.) he needed to make her a secular lady in order to impart certainty and originality to her character.
This reservation - "and even then" - involuntarily brings to mind the brilliant maxim of Gogol's character: "All are Christ-sellers. There is only one decent person there: the prosecutor; and even that one, to tell the truth, is a pig.”
The apotheosis of the pejorative attitude towards the female image, undoubtedly, can serve as a verdict passed by a frantic critic on the unlucky Eugene: “Yes, this criminal offense- do not value the love of a moral embryo! .. "
And only in “A Look at Russian Literature of 1847” Belinsky suddenly softens his discriminatory views: “The women of Mr. Goncharov are living creatures, true to reality. This is news in our literature.”
Really? Is that really news?
Now is the time to turn to the “Pushkin speech” by F.M. Dostoevsky, in which the writer managed, in our opinion, to comprehend the gender issue in Russian literature much more impartially.
First, let us recall what characteristics Dostoevsky distributes Pushkin's heroes"male sex".
“In Aleko, Pushkin has already found and ingeniously noted that unfortunate wanderer in native land, that historical Russian sufferer ... "Here it is, a phenomenon in our literature" proud man", who won the hearts of young ladies and literary critics: “All this, of course, is fantastic, but the“ proud man ”is real and aptly captured. For the first time he was captured by Pushkin.
However, the romantic, in its own way even grotesque Aleko is just a prototype of a genuine, realistic hero: “This is even more clearly expressed in Eugene Onegin, a poem no longer fantastic, but tangibly real.”
It turns out that the realistic hero experiences exactly the same problems as his romantic predecessor: “In the wilderness, in the heart of his homeland,<Онегин>Of course not at home, he is not at home. He does not know what to do here, and feels as if he were visiting himself.
Who is opposed to this universal despondency? But who: “Tatyana is not like that: this is a solid type, standing firmly on its own soil. She is deeper than Onegin and, of course, smarter than him. She already with her noble instinct foresees where and in what the truth is, which was expressed in the finale of the poem. Perhaps Pushkin would have done even better if he had named his poem after Tatyana and not Onegin, for she is undoubtedly the main character of the poem.
After reading the novel, it is easy to note that Tatyana's female pride is a hundred times stronger than Onegin's male pride, who, not by chance, received a ruthless characterization from our heroine: "Isn't he a parody?"
But let's go further. Appeal to the most iconic, key works Russian literature forces us to draw a paradoxical conclusion. The main characteristic property of the Russian novel is that a woman always stands in the center. And the woman is the main character. Whether Russian writers are more condescending to a woman, more merciful and tender. Whether male curiosity is affecting, since the vast majority of Russian novelists belong to the stronger sex. Revealing the character, creating the image of a woman is much more interesting than once again writing out the same eternal moral wanderer.
So, without going into unnecessary details, let's try to list, undoubtedly, the most outstanding examples of the Russian novel, in order to make sure that our thesis is not groundless.
Let's talk right away. N.V. Gogol in his great dead souls ah" there is not a single "positive" female image, and this is a fact. But Gogol's work, as you know, is not a novel, but a poem; and therefore does not belong to the subject of our consideration.
But here we are opening the "Hero of Our Time" M.Yu. Lermontov. Grigory Alexandrovich Pechorin is a typical " extra person"(according to the apt word of Turgenev). Even at the events in which he takes a lively part, he looks as if from the sidelines. And what, this character is boring? Still not boring. Extremely boring. (Sorry for the hidden quote from Venedikt Erofeev). Whether it's Bela's business, Princess Mary. Their images are written brightly, convexly. Why, even Vera is more interesting than Pechorin.
Let us return, following Belinsky, to F.M. Dostoevsky. Who main character? Is it really Makar Devushkin, this sluggish, weak-willed type? Of course not. The true hero of the novel is, of course, Varenka Dobroselova. You will envy her patience with which she gives Makar Devushkin a chance to take matters into his own hands. But at the decisive moment, it is she who takes upon herself the burden of making a decision, leaving our poor sufferer with nothing.
And here is I.S. Turgenev. "Fathers and Sons". Evgeny Vasilyevich Bazarov is a pitiful poseur, and in this he is ridiculous. It seems to me that the next episode should serve as the key moment of the novel, revealing the true essence of Bazarov.
“Sometimes Bazarov went to the village and, bantering as usual, entered into a conversation with some peasant ...
- What were you talking about? another middle-aged man asked him and sullen look, from afar, from the threshold of his hut, who was present during his conversation with Bazarov. - About the arrears - what?
- What about the arrears, my brother! answered the first peasant, and in his voice there was no longer a trace of patriarchal melodiousness, but, on the contrary, some kind of careless severity was heard, - so, he chatted something; I wanted to scratch my tongue. It is known, master; does he understand?
- Where to understand! answered the other peasant, and, shaking their hats and pulling down their sashes, they both began to talk about their affairs and needs. Alas! contemptuously shrugging his shoulder, able to talk to peasants Bazarov (as he boasted in an argument with Pavel Petrovich), this self-confident Bazarov did not even suspect that in their eyes he was still something like a pea jester ... "
Your will, but in this way, the author cannot characterize the hero, whom he considers the main one. Not far from him and all the Kirsanovs - Nikolai Petrovich, Pavel Petrovich, Arkady Nikolaevich. Against their background, Anna Sergeevna Odintsova is a brilliant image, revealed in fullness; with all the contradictions that only further emphasize the depth of the image created by the writer.
L.N. Tolstoy. Anna Karenina is a rare case of an adequate title for a novel. Everything is clear enough here. Alexei Kirillovich Vronsky, judging strictly, is a complete insignificance in comparison with Anna.
But even "Resurrection", although the novel is far-fetched and sketchy, arranges the characters in order. Dmitri Ivanovich Nekhlyudov, a prisoner of conscience, inwardly squealing with happiness, finding freedom from his stupid, self-imposed obligations. But Katyusha Maslova, with all the caricature of the image, does things; which, unlike the male character, reveals a personality in her.
One more caveat. "War and Peace" is an epic novel, that is, in essence a poem, and, therefore, is also beyond the scope of our consideration.
Let's turn to I.A. Goncharov. "Oblomov". Ilya Ilyich Oblomov and Andrey Ivanovich Stolz. Both characters are straight, like axes in a flat coordinate system. On this battlefield, Olga Sergeevna Ilyinskaya is incomparably more textured and multifaceted.
And here is N.S. Leskov. "Nowhere." Reading and getting confused male characters. And soon after reading and completely forget. But Lisa and Jenny are remembered forever. The same is true in the novel "On Knives". Of all the heroes, only Larisa and Glafira remain with the reader.
Separately, it is worth noting. A.N. Ostrovsky created a gallery of characters of a Russian woman, about which volumes have been written. And despite the fact that Ostrovsky is not a prose writer, but a playwright, his attitude to female images can serve, although indirectly, but the clearest confirmation of the tradition on which all the most outstanding works of Russian classics are based.
Could be an exception to the rule "The Life of Arseniev" by I.A. Bunin. Here there is a clear attempt to reverse the trend. But with regret, or without it at all, it must be admitted that the attempt to bring Aleksey Alexandrovich Arsenyev as the true protagonist, and push Lika Obolenskaya into the background, ended in complete failure ...
Claim number three. Sholokhov. " Quiet Don". Again, an epic novel, which we omit from our analysis.
No matter how you feel about the novel by V.V. Nabokov's "Lolita", but here too female character, which is reflected in the title, is central. Humbert Humbert is just another sufferer, albeit with a Freudian twist.
M.A. Bulgakov. "The Master and Margarita". With all the absurdities of the novel, it also fits perfectly into our concept. Both the Master and Ivan Ponyrev the Homeless are completely primitive in comparison with Margarita Nikolaevna.
Finally, B.L. Parsnip. "Doctor Zhivago". Yuri Andreevich Zhivago. This restless, always looking for and always finding nothing character has always annoyed me. I even had to say that the poems attached to the novel could not have been written by Yuri Zhivago. With the exception of perhaps the most popular, pop and parody “A candle was burning on the table ...” Not far from Yuri, Pasha (Pavel Pavlovich) Antipov also left. And again, once again we find that female images– Tonya Gromeko and Lara Guichard are like shining stars against the backdrop of lifeless planets.
I would like to take this opportunity to express one more consideration about Doctor Zhivago. In this novel, Pasternak acted as a kind of anti-Gogol.
Let us recall the very beginning of "Dead Souls": "Entry<Чичикова>made absolutely no noise in the city and was not accompanied by anything special; only two Russian peasants, standing at the door of the tavern opposite the hotel, made some remarks, which, however, referred more to the carriage than to the person sitting in it. “You see,” one said to the other, “what a wheel! what do you think, will that wheel, if it happens, reach Moscow or not?” "He'll get there," replied the other. “But I don’t think he will reach Kazan?” “He won’t get to Kazan,” answered another. This conversation ended. Moreover, when the britzka drove up to the hotel, a young man met in white kanifas trousers, very narrow and short, in a tailcoat with attempts on fashion, from under which was visible a shirt-front, fastened with a Tula pin with a bronze pistol. The young man turned back, looked at the carriage, held his cap, which was almost blown off by the wind, and went on his way.
And after such a super-detailed description, both the peasants and the young man will disappear, never to appear again on the pages of the poem.
Pasternak is exactly the opposite. The most small detail will certainly play a role in the future. Perhaps this introduces artificiality into the novel. But at the same time originality and, I would say, even uniqueness.
Finally advice young talents who decided to write a work that could someday claim the title of a great Russian novel. From the first lines, designate the main character - a man in an eternal and, as it turns out later, fruitless search for the meaning of being. Then gradually introduce the heroine, against the background of which the hero will fade away step by step until it fades completely and becomes completely “superfluous”. So, according to Turgenev.
This is one of the most provocative and difficult to accept chapters in my book. But I am not afraid of accusations of chauvinism and misogyny, because I have long been known as such, I will risk infringing on the myth of “the moral purity of women” and express my thought directly and unambiguously: “morality, as a characteristic of personality, is, generally speaking, not characteristic of a woman.” I am well aware that most women will be infuriated and hysterical by this chapter.
I do not claim that every woman is immoral in her behavior, but I say that the very concept of morality is, most often, incomprehensible to her.
There are "moral" men, and there are immoral ones. And the woman DOES NOT understand the formulation of this problem. She is excluded from this plane, she is OUTSIDE. Well, like a cat.
There are no moral or immoral women. Women exist OUTSIDE of morality, they are not subject to it.
What is meant by the concept of morality in the first place? The presence of conscience, firm concepts of good and evil, an inner striving for truth and justice, concern for the public good - categories, the supervalue of which is unconditionally accepted by a moral person.
The formalization of these qualities at the level of social, interpersonal relationships and social attitudes we call morality.
Good and evil. These categories in a woman are flattened to personal acceptance or rejection. By goodness, she often means restraint, non-aggression, ostentatious disposition, smiling, helpfulness. In general, good is that which is pleasant and profitable. First of all, the woman herself. Good "just" for a woman does not exist.
Evil in her concept is the antipode of the above. So, a woman says: “You are evil” when you didn’t get what you wanted from a man; "I'm kind," she thinks, lisping with a cat.
As for good and evil in general, you are unlikely to meet a woman who seriously comprehends these categories abstractly from a specific situation.
Simply put, well, she will not puzzle over whether her act is moral or not. But here are the questions she will definitely ask herself:
- Is it beneficial for me?
- what will happen to me for this, will I not lose, will I not be punished?
- How will this affect other people's attitudes towards me, especially those on whom I depend or who I need?
The very system of coordinates "moral-immoral", lies OUTSIDE of the understanding and attitude of a woman, is perceived by a woman as something abstruse, artificial, superfluous.
But a woman knows how to DESIGN morality. Which, most often, she does, but only as long as it is beneficial for her. A woman is a chameleon, she mimics masterfully when she is interested in it.
What could be this benefit?
Attracting a potential man, formal compliance with his intuitively caught concept of what a woman should be
- a certain social status, ostentatious decency, "decency"
- direct profit
- the possibility of manipulation with the help of categories, the meaning of which the woman does not accept
A woman KNOWS the rules of morality and ethics of relationships with people (they are voiced when raising a girl), but does not understand their meaning, essence and significance. Morality for a woman, it is necessary IN CERTAIN CASES to "color" the chameleon, a kind of formal ritual, the implementation of which she takes upon herself as necessary. But as soon as this attire ceases to be profitable, then the woman simply does what she needs.
Modern life, almost completely freed from the pressure on a woman of moral laws, confirms the COMPLETE ABSENCE of an internal moral core in women, as a structure that underlies the personality. Speaking of this, I do not at all blame women for this, they are what they are. But men should always remember this feature of women.
I go even further: and I affirm that morality Hinders the main natural program of a woman, i.e., receiving and subordinating the resources of a man. It is precisely for this reason that it is not reliably instilled in her: no matter what educational measures are taken in a woman’s childhood, but if the game of morality is not beneficial for her, then the woman will not think about this topic. If there is no external moral influence of the level of society, family, laws, church, then we have a female who goes ahead to achieve her goals.
“Men invented morality and this… expediency—women would never have invented that,” she says loudly, knowing that I am in a hurry to follow her.
Zakhar Prilepin "The shadow of a cloud on the other side"
It was men who cultivated the institution of the moral laws of society. Of course, this does not mean that all men are highly moral. But most often they take these laws for consideration, some moral choice is made - between "right" and "wrong". Women don't ask these questions at all.
An exaggerated example to reinforce: almost all men know what an honest word is, and most of them keep it or try to do it. They know the price given word and feel remorse and shame when they fail to keep a promise. For women, the vast majority of them, a promise means absolutely NOTHING. These are just words that were "thrown in" when it was needed, and forgotten when it was not. Note that we are not talking about the suppression of conscience! Just honesty and keeping one's own parole They really don't mean anything to women. These are ephemeral, abstract concepts.
Now it is often repeated that a woman is a social being, in fact, by this she means the sociability of women and the ability to establish and build relationships with people. But these relationships usually do not rise above the level of the mother, girlfriends, lover, husband, work colleagues, in other words, the "inner circle", people in the sphere of direct interest of a woman. Morality in the female sense, or rather its visual picture, the external side, serves precisely these relationships.
Conversely, male morality arose at the dawn of history as a means of universal communication within and between communities, serving the needs of the emerging diversified social production. To put it simply, people needed universal non-material values and general norms, rules of conduct adopted by the majority of people to facilitate industrial and trade relations, laws to establish trust-based coordination of joint actions. To kill a tribesman for no reason is evil, to deceive a partner in a primitive business is evil, to take someone else's property or wife is evil. It was then that such concepts as reputation and business ethics were born.
It was then that religion was born as an institution for maintaining morality, while the formidable gods-super-hierarchs were accepted and revered as the main measure of people's actions, their correctness or incorrectness.
The Judeo-Christian civilization erected a pedestal to altruism and affirmed service to the public interest as one of the highest virtues.
The progress of the human race was colossal: men who came out of the caves and received moral norms universal for all, were able to create a prototype of a separate (diversified) social production and trade, albeit still in the form of barter!
Such and such was engaged in the manufacture of arrowheads and exchanged them for bread baked by that one, one community or clan exchanged the fish they caught for skins mined by their neighbors. Honesty in such transactions and the cooperativeness of men in "slaughtering the mammoth" formed the basis of the emerging moral standards. A person realized the public (clan, tribal, community) interest and developed laws for its protection, which became beneficial for everyone to observe together.
The first inter-clan and inter-communal military alliances appeared. Sociums were enlarged, accepting universal norms of behavior.
Of course, I am exaggerating for clarity, I am not a historian, I do not indicate exactly when, where and how this happened, it is important for me to convey the essence, the principle itself: the institution of moral values should have appeared for the public good, peaceful coexistence, industrial progress and protection of the family and private property.
Then the people came out of the caves... but the women did NOT come out of the caves. Their sphere of competence remained the house, the life of the family, the birth and upbringing of offspring.
Social communications? Husband, children, neighbors in "wigwams". The means of these communications are the ability to understand the internal state of other people, psychological adjustment, cunning, manipulation, intrigue.
Their main life task remained the search, attraction and attachment of a strong and prolific male, redistribution of resources within the family in favor of themselves and their offspring, exchanging "love" and care for the man's house for them. Men developed and complicated universal moral norms, being their creators, carriers and guardians, overthrowers, but for women, in fact, nothing has changed: the tasks are the same. Moreover, the morality implanted by men came into conflict with the main biological task of women.
If you look at the history of Mankind and woman from this angle, it becomes quite clear that the formation and strengthening of civilizations was accompanied by the obligatory suppression and curbing of pernicious and destructive female instincts. A woman, her very inner essence, contradicts the moral norms, in particular, of the Judeo-Christian Civilization. Our ancestors were well aware of this and did not allow women to serve in the priesthood and judicial functions. What a pity that this wisdom, developed and carried through the centuries and millennia of the History of Man, is so thoughtlessly trampled upon!
"How so?" - the reader will ask me, "After all, we have been taught to perceive a woman as a standard of moral purity."
Yes, a woman may well behave in accordance with moral principles, just as a cat does not always steal sour cream. Especially when full.
Men themselves, alas, tend to invent some kind of “moral purity” of a woman. And this, among other things, lies our craving for harmony: we try to endow the being of an angelic appearance with those personality traits that, according to our inner conviction, should be inherent in it. We subconsciously strive for perfection and completeness and speculatively "finish" a woman. At the same time, the possibility of objective perception and analysis of the qualities of a woman is blocked by sensuality and romanticization.
Most often, painful, in our time almost inevitable, resolution of the conflict between reality and the fictional morality of a woman, leads a man into a state of shock.
King Shlomo (Solomon) wrote:
" I found one righteous man among a thousand, but among a thousand women I did not find a single one."
(Ecclesiastes 7:1-29)
One way or another, but even the smartest representatives of the new time guessed about the oppressive animal essence of a woman, although they did not dare to announce their discovery loudly and decisively.
Andrei Prozorov, the hero of the play "Three Sisters" by Anton Pavlovich Chekhov, admits with anguish:
“A wife is a wife. She is honest, decent, well, kind, but for all that there is something in her that reduces her to a small, blind, sort of rough animal. Anyway, she's not human."
Anton Pavlovich himself, in one of his letters to his friend and publisher Alexei Suvorin, writes:
“Most of all, women are unsympathetic due to their injustice and the fact that justice, it seems, is not inherent in them organically. Mankind instinctively kept them out of social activities; it, God willing, will come to this with the mind. In a peasant family, a peasant is smart, and reasonable, and just, and God-fearing, and a woman - God forbid!
Cesare Lombroso in his book Woman criminal and prostitute" to explain the immoral and criminal behavior of women prefers to talk about "moral insanity" as a kind of personality defect, illness, thus asserting in it exceptions to the rule. Poor Mr. Lombroso! In his naivety of his still romantic age, he assumed the immorality of women as isolated deviations from the norm, he conducted an outstanding study of the varieties of such deviations for his time, but he did not have the courage to suggest the simple idea that morality as such is unusual for a woman.
As an excuse, Lombroso admits that he did not demand much from female morality, having defined the “normal female type”, based on two qualities: maternal feeling and modesty.
It is precisely in the absence of an internal moral core and a clear one in women that the key to those numerous cases of shock of men lies.
I certainly am not a model of morality, although I have aspirations for this. And I will say with all frankness that such concepts as "honesty", "passionarity", "altruism", "truth", "friendship", "mutual assistance", "decency" are not an empty phrase for me at all, but the subject of my thoughts and constant inner work. So for women, for their absolute majority, the very formulation of this task is absent - understand me correctly: this DOES NOT TAKE CARE of them and DOES NOT INTEREST.
The story of "I went on vacation" from the women's forum.
Came back from vacation three weeks ago. Were with a friend in Turkey in the city of Kemer. How many stories I heard about incendiary and hot nights in this beautiful country, but I went with full confidence that this would not affect me, since I am married. I was happy for my friend that she could come off here !! For two days we lay by the sea and on the third day we decided to go shopping in the city. And I met him there! Modest and very good speaking Russian. At first he gave his business card like come again, but we chatted and chatted and in the end he says give your phone to the disco in the evening.) and I gave it!! And in general it started!! Dates, night walks, night cafes with Turkish cuisine and lots of sex!!! Upon arrival home, we correspond every day, just SMS, then Facebook, we don’t see each other on Skype because of the time difference and it works until 24 hours. I myself came home, but my soul remained there!! I dream about Turkey almost every night! My husband knows almost everything, but his behavior just amazed me, he didn’t do anything, didn’t yell. said no and calmed down!! Indifference? And having arrived in my native Murmansk, I decided to leave to live in Turkey!! Well, I don’t want to live in Russia and freeze my ass! My Turkish boy does not know that I am going to move, he only knows that I will come in September for three weeks, and I am going to solve the issue with a residence permit, I want to open my own business there, Turkish is not a problem! Very scary!!! But life is one!! And no matter how the relationship with the Turkish guy develops, I want to go to Turkey!! Sea Sun!!!
I have read over 700 comments from women. What the ladies did not write: both ridicule, and wishes of happiness, calls to change their minds and reproaches for stupidity.
But I did not find a single one, I emphasize: NOT A SINGLE comment with an assessment of her act in the context of morality and decency.
NOT A SINGLE comment condemning meanness in relation to her husband, and, possibly, to children.
And NOT ONE woman condemned a whore and called an abomination an abomination.
Why was morality erroneously attributed to women? If you answer in one word - yes, they guarded them more strictly. From childhood, a woman was simply set a rather rigid framework for behavior approved by her parents, society, and her husband.
Strict parental upbringing, subsequent marriage with clearly defined responsibilities, the concept of which was instilled in childhood and supported by society and the church, strictly regulated the life of a woman. And society severely punished deviationists, just remember Anna Karenina.
A hundred years ago, a woman who entered into an inadmissible premarital relationship that became the property of society, with a high probability, simply lost her chances for a decent marriage.
Adultery was condemned and punished very significantly even a hundred years ago. I'm not talking about antiquity, when traitors were simply thrown off a cliff onto stones.
One way or another, but the patriarchal civilization had no illusions about the woman's own inner virtue and relied on strict guidelines and regulation of her behavior.
In our time, most of the deterrents have collapsed and we have what we have.
Most women voluntarily or involuntarily try to replace the true moral principles and impose their own space of understanding good and bad on a man. Some of these typically female dogmas are already firmly ingrained in the social fabric of consciousness. This womanish pseudo-morality, an exaggerated set of dogmas beneficial to women, has been hammered into men since childhood. And this happens most often due to either the complete absence of paternal education, or its weakness, the total feminization of educational practices. As a result, a man grows up, deprived of independence of moral thinking and understanding of true moral values, male destiny and goals, capable of operating only in a limited space of tendentious women's imperatives. Such a man is a ready object for manipulation and female domination. At the ABF, this type of men was called "Alen".
Feminists are very fond of calling the past centuries "female slavery," but just look at the women of our time to understand: but our ancestors were absolutely right when they applied strict rules of female behavior.
How many of you, reader, do you personally know women who would be tormented by remorse? Not by their ostentatious declaration, not by regret for the loss of a man, not by annoyance for the lost material wealth and damaged reputation, but by conscience.
Please note that the degradation of moral concepts and institutions of society is closely correlated with the process of matriarchal decomposition. A decent, normal person is now considered not at all the owner of strong moral principles, a developed mind, an honest, fair, sincere, seeking, kind person, but the owner of a thick money, a consumer person, one whose motivations are based on the desire to acquire and spend as much as possible . It was these features that began to dominate in determining the status of a person in society and his position in the "table of ranks". It is based on a women's worldview, pseudo-morality, which consists in the motto "to take as much as possible and give nothing in return." Matriarchal degradation is not only widespread babobism, but also an extremely dangerous loss moral guidelines society.
What conclusion I want to offer men:never be deceived by the mystical decency of a woman, do not rely on her morality in exactly the same way as you do not rely on the decency of a neighbor's cat or a monkey in a zoo. Know how to separate the window dressing of the "demo mode" from the true motives of a woman. Think with your TOP head and judge ONLY by your actions. Do not invent yourself a fairy tale about the "decency of a woman" - it never was and is not.
D. Seleznev, 2012
Is the fidelity and moral purity of a Russian woman just a myth?
You know, I wouldn't blame either perestroika or the revolution... Here, in my opinion, the situation is closer to The Tale of the Fisherman and the Fish. That is, the problem of permanent choice, constant “comfortable insufficiency. Let's calmly reason, taking, on the basis of the example of the most "classical" Russian heroines, our symbols, so to speak.
The mentioned Anna Karenina had both social status, and a husband, and a family. And she, like an old woman from a fairy tale, wanted more. That is, leaving the titmouse, she rushed after the coveted crane - Vronsky. But, this "computer disease" struck her: having received Vronsky in her hands, she continued the game, deciding to turn from a pillar noblewoman into a mistress of the sea. The end is known.
Now - Katerina from "Thunderstorm" ... What did this pious girl lack, asking - why is she not a bird?
Let's talk sensibly: she had a husband, a free content (on the neck of the worker Kabanikh hated by Belinsky). The husband (Tikhon) may not be the best, but others do not have such a thing. Roughly speaking, she, this “ray of light”, was simply furious with fat, and herself, as a wife, was far from the best quality. On the very first night, I ran away to Boris on a date ... Here's a bird for you, here's candles with angels for you.
Men, answer honestly: would you like such a wife? So that she sits on your mother’s neck and pours mud on her?
Girls, would you like your beloved brother to have such a wife? So that he would bring her into the house, and then the whole village would point a finger at you. That is - you would become guilty without guilt - like the official Karandyshev, who honestly wanted to marry another "classic" heroine - the dowry Ogudalova - and only for this he was made a mockery, especially in the paraphrase film "Cruel Romance".
Indeed, honestly, the shipowner Paratov was not going to marry her at all! He just made her and her fiancé look like fools. There are no words, a prominent macho, but things must be called by their proper names. The real, albeit discreet, groom - it was Karandyshev. And it was he who wanted to take her down the aisle (honestly, as it should be) to take her away.
And the last. contemporary examples similar moral shifters - morality in favor of sympathy - you can bring a lot. But I'll stop at one. Tell me honestly - what is wrong with Hippolyte in "The Irony of Fate"? Decently dressed, earns, has a car, gives gifts, thoroughly cares. Bride on New Year didn’t quit, didn’t get into bed with someone else’s woman ...
They write about such women in marriage announcements: “I am looking for a thorough, reliable, faithful ...” So much for you - thorough, reliable, faithful ... Simply, by the will of the filmmakers, they made him a fool, but, frankly, he did not betray anyone ... Some consider him jealous ... Well, firstly, he is not so jealous, and secondly, as the plot of the film shows, he had reasons for jealousy, and, finally, if you (Man) or your brother (if you are a woman) - will find a drunken man in shorts near his passion - you will not be jealous? Will you start giggling? Well, I envy you...
It turns out that we ourselves distort the fundamental morality, including loyalty - none of the heroines even come close to this category, reliability, adherence to generally accepted moral standards.
And then we are surprised: “Ah, the revolution has destroyed the institution of the family!”, “Ah, perestroika is to blame!”.
Maybe it’s more correct to put it in a more rude, but pragmatic phrase: “For what they fought for, they ran into that.” The old woman from The Tale of the Golden Fish will confirm this for you.
And last question: who are you following with admiration now - Jane Eyre or the adventures of the Beautiful Nanny?
There is chastity in them, they themselves speak of the presence of decency, etc., but only these limits are too low. Why? And why is it so easy to “chat” with a calm conversation. Maybe they missed a normal conversation when they are listened to and promised respect? Well, damn it, it's not just about the money!Well, of course, now chastity has limits? :)
Either chastity is there or it isn't. Can't be driven this concept no matter what the boundaries, if a girl does not sleep with everyone in a row, does not seek material gain in a relationship, but acts according to principles, frameworks and norms - she is chaste if we see the opposite (and in the example given in the post, we are like since we see this), then there is no chastity. For example, when I sell my property, I praise it and behave with the buyer with extreme restraint and respect so that the buyer understands, “This guy can be trusted” “This guy good man”, in this example, we see the same bargaining, stuffing the price, only the subject of bargaining is not property, but the vagina, this selfish type of behavior has been studied for a very long time, since the appearance of prostitutes, for one but ... prostitutes are more honest, they just want dough, and they talk about it directly, citizens are simply hypocritical, talking about principles and morality, they really want the same thing. And I do not see here the desire for debauchery, there is a desire for enrichment.
But back to that,
Maybe they missed a normal conversation when they are listened to and promised respect? Well, damn it, it's not just about the money!Normal conversation? Hell, most women don't want a normal conversation, and they don't want to be listened to or respected, most of women and those mentioned above want not to be listened to, but only listened to, a conversation is a conversation between two or more people (in this case two), but how can there be a conversation if a woman wants to talk and wants only her to be heard. Women do not want respect, women (again, I repeat, Not all) want worship. And what about a man in such a situation, when someone wants unreasonably much, it is natural to spit on such desires, and do exactly as much as it should, hence these howls female half, “missed the conversation” “we want respect” “We want to be listened to” all this must not only be earned, but also understand what you really want. By the way, I will mention the recent post of comrade Lusfigo, in essence he is right that society is built on orgasmocentric principles, the desires of a woman for some reason have become more important than the desires of a man. And this, in turn, creates misunderstanding between the sexes. And in conclusion, as I said above, the behavior of the ladies mentioned at the very beginning is motivated by selfish goals, as well as their poor upbringing.
And men promote it in the first place, by the way.
Not a fact, the most lustful creatures on earth are just women, not men.
