🐈

Thus in a world view of "All relationships are doomed to end in pain just like how my parents divorced." the crusade is "No one should be allowed to have any loving relationships at all because love doesn't exist."

Zooming back a bit you can sense that the fear of dependency is first created when someone fails you. E.g. a father or priest failing to explain the problem of evil thus shattering your heart's idea of "God".https://twitter.com/a_yawning_cat/status/1352542138723049476 …

Co-dependency on the other hand involves a sense of being needed and needing the other. The feeling is of being trapped and constantly having to spend massive amounts of energy making sacrifices to be a Good Person.

See this clip where the dog's overprotection leads to aggression. When Cesar recommends the owner discourage the dog from the protective stance see how the owner doesn't want to actually do it? https://youtu.be/x-vAYBxiLXg?t=197 …

She wants the "Aww he's protecting me." feeling and thus relinquishes her role as leader. She is actually encouraging the behavior that leads to the aggression while simultaneously complaining about the aggression.

Because fundamentally leadership is about this: Decision Making Rights on When to Use Aggression/Violence. Or simplified: Being the One Who Pulls the Trigger. Or Ned Stark's: "The one who passes the sentence should swing the sword."

This aggression/violence doesn't necessarily have to be physical. Psychically it's the SAME thing as going TSSSSS to a dog or any other kind of reprimand. Notice how those who dislike violence often also dislike giving criticism? that's b/c mentally they are the SAME act.

aggression/violence isn't just about wars or fighting. it's the same boundary setting necessary for haggling, business deals, and dog training.

yes there's less physical strength required but still, men tend to handle the psychic burdens of this more easily b/c men don't care as much about being disliked/hated/sent death threats/etc...

the dog does not actually WANT to be leader because being leader means "When the shit hits the fan I will be hated." (FYI if you're demonizing trump supporters and don't want to anymore, use this as a springboard for empathy, Trump is a "good" leader in this regard)

To put this another way. The masculine is valued for its thick skin. The feminine is valued for its soft skin. You can't be both! Whatever the couple pairing both roles are needed.

this is where traditional values can get overly rigid because thick-skin/soft-skin is relative to the task. e.g. you can be thick-skin in one domain but soft-skin in another. it's not strictly necessary for one person to be thick-skin at EVERYTHING.

Thick-skin demarcates the border and soft-skin makes the interior beautiful and worth living for. Thick-skin faces the burden of life, being worn down by wind and rain and having it be worth it b/c of a home to return to.

A "Perfect Couple" is perfectly balanced yin/yang wise for every Life Task thrown at them. Every challenge can be risen to and overcome while having FUN. Without balance, over time the challenges fray at the bond and eventually the couple splits.

Such couples often spend their whole time together trying to figure out ways to AVOID challenges and thus end up increasingly resenting each other. Since the whole point of life you could say is to face challenges and have fun doing it.