Wednesday, August 27, 2014

Film Review: Swiss Family Robinson

Hey-ho, I KNEW you could see this coming!

I promised Glissando a review of a film which I imagine is as idyllic as his life on a beach down under.
And, being a Swiss resident, it was only a matter of time before I turned my attention to this film...


But, you ask...since when was 'Robinson' a Swiss name?


And you would be right - it's not.


I read the book when I was a child, long before my links with Switzerland.
I always thought it was a factual story.


But now I learn I was wrong all those years ago.


This book was indeed written by a Swiss man, Johann David Wyss. A Swiss pastor, no less.
But it was by no means autobiographical.
The 'Robinson' is a tribute to the adventures of Robinson Crusoe.


Pastor Wyss wrote the book to teach his four sons about what it means to be a man.


Yes, this book was meant to be a blueprint for the journey from boy to man.
In other words, a precursor to The Manosphere :-)






These days, I see 'SMP' in everything.


But this book, really is SMP. It is definitely not my imagination!




The book has spawned a myriad of films, TV-series and spin-offs. The one I am familiar with, (and the version I review) is the 1960 film starring John Mills and Dorothy McGuire.


I cannot find a complete version of this film on Youtube, but Disney have it free here.


In this version of the book, there are only three sons.


The film begins with a shipwreck. The family are on their way to New Guinea when a storm hits. They survive the storm only to find that they have been abandoned by the captain and the crew. They are on their own at sea.


Luckily for them though, they are not too far from land. They make it to dry land, and little by little, they manage to salvage what they can from the ship, making quite a nice life for themselves on the island.


The first striking SMP lesson for me is...this:


Whilst Father and the two eldest sons Fritz and Ernst are doing their best to protect themselves and Francis (the youngest boy) and Mother, these latter two are insistent that the dogs on board be rescued as well, even though to admit the dogs on board would mean endangering the lives of everyone else on board.


:-)


Yes, women and children can get in the way. I get that.


In this particular case, the dogs saved themselves anyway, and swam to safety, so they passed the survival test anyway. Good on them.


But the tendency of the (sometimes) unwarranted caring that women insist on displaying even though should their actions cause a threat to their own safety, it would be men who would be called upon to come to their aid (the same man who opposed said unwarranted 'caring' in the first place! does not go unnoticed.


Yes, it can be annoying. And it gets in the way of men whose natural instinct is to protect women and children.




The Robinsons do a fine job of creating a paradise for themselves on the island. They build a tree-house with all the mod cons (with items salvaged from the ship) that would be the envy of many a housewife in Bern :-)


But Mother was at first unimpressed, when the building work was still in progress. But she was more than satisfied with the end-result, to the delight of her boys, Father included :-)






If you are starting to get the impression that Mother was a fastidious person, then mea culpa, I have given you the wrong impression.
Mother was actually a very good woman. She is 'fastidious' when it comes to the needs of her precious boys. This is, I suppose, just her natural 'mother's instinct' kicking in, but she is also a very good wife. An exemplary one. She looks after her boys very well, and they look after her.


Everyone is happy.


Except...


Whilst Father is waxing lyrical about how island life is the ideal life, and 'how life was intended to be lived', Mother keeps reminding him that something's missing.


It was alright for him (Father) and her: they had already lived their life. But what about their sons? How tragic that they might live their whole life without experiencing love with a woman, or having a family, or having a social life outside of the family!
To their knowledge to date, they were the only inhabitants of the island.


Now, the MGTOWs would say Amen! to that of course.
:-)
But remember, I don't think teenage boys who had yet to experience the company of girls would be too hot on this idea :-) Just a guess :-)


Father agreed that yes, it would be nice if they could find girls for their boys :-)
He sort of agreed to this idea rather grudgingly, I felt :-)


What is it with older men that they forget how nice the flush of romantic love can be once they have been married for decades?
Women never forget :-)


This scene reminds me of the scene in 'Guess who is coming to dinner?' where the mother of John is desperately trying to remind her husband and the father of Joanna that their time might be past, but the two young lovebirds deserved a chance at building their own life together. She finishes by asking them, 'don't you remember what it was like at their age?' Neither man had an answer for her...






To increase their chances of finding girls, the parents finally allow Fritz and Ernst to sail around the island and take their chances with Nature...and pirates. Mother is scared stiff to let her precious boys go, and yet she is the one who wants them romantically sorted :-)
Ah, the cognitive dissonance of womanhood :-)




At this point in the film one gets the impression that it is indeed time to let Fritz and Ernst go on this trip. It turns out to be some sort of funny 'initiation' for them.
'Initiation' is a term that I gather is a bit of a 'red rag to a bull'. At least this is what I learned that in the MGTOW thread.
This is why I use inverted commas.


But indeed I am guessing that this is the whole point of the book, and therefore of the film. David Wyss really wants his audience (young boys) to get this message: to survive with your bare hands and intellect in Savage Nature. To learn to be a man under the most uncivilised circmstances...


Sure, this skill is largely lost, except in some families where the father has kept the tradition going, and despite 'civilisation', makes sure all the sons know how to hunt, fish, etc. But it is difficult if you live in a big city and you are not that wild about Nature.
In which case, it is much, much easier to raise girls than boys, as you just need the interior of a home to teach a girl to be a useful wife and mother in the way olden day girls were.


On this trip, it is clear that both Fritz and Ernst are well beyond puberty. According to Wikipedia, Fritz is about fifteen, and therefore Ernst must be a year or two younger by inference.


They reminisce about life in Bern before the big trip. Fritz talks about his memories of 'girl-watching' on a street in Bern. They wonder if they will find girls their age when they sail around the island. Fritz jokes that by the time they get to their destination, they would be so (insert your own crude word here), that they wouldn't care what age the girls were.


Poor boys.




Fritz is muscular and brawny. He is also very ambitious. He wants to be his own boss someday soon. For the moment though, he is happy to be in the shadow of Father, but not for much longer.


Ernst, by contrast is an intellectual. He plans to go to University. He plans to conquer the island not by his pysical might, but with his brains. His mother encourages him to 'use his head' because she recognises that this is his strong point, his Uniqe Selling Point.
Father has already come to rely quite heavily on his bright ideas.


And it looks like Francis, the youngest boy is going the way of Ernst. He has wild, but interesting ideas. Bless him, he is about nine or ten, but he certainly knows how to hold his own. But he gets to stay at home with Mother and Father whilst Fritz and Ernst get to experience the big, wide world.
Not fair :P




A funny thing happens to Fritz and Ernst on their travels. They happen upon a British man who has been captured by the dreaded pirates, along with his 14 year old grandson.


They try to save both captives, but unfortunately only have time to free the boy before the pirates come back.
It's a dash for the exit with 'Bertie' in tow as the angry pirates come after them...


Finally having shaken off the pirates, Fritz and Ernst soon realise that all is not well with 'Bertie'. They start to question his masculinity.
This boy cannot run fast, he acts all sissyish, and is just not what a boy ought to be.
In other words...
Gay.


:-)


Ernst wonders the untinkable: were we like this before we toughened up a bit on this island? Fritz reassures him that they were never quite as bad as this Bertie...


This speculation about Bertie's masculnity comes to an abrupt end as Fritz accidentally discovers that 'Bertie' is actually a girl.


Fritz and Ernst, meet Roberta.


And from that moment on, the war between the brothers begin. This turns out to be a game-changing moment :-)


Women, eh. Nothing but trouble :-)




Now here begin the most important SMP lessons.


Fritz, who is more 'alpha' than Ernst, by virtue of his older age, more masculine appearance and slightly aloof personality around Roberta (at least as compared to Ernst's approach to her) really displays how it should be done.


Whilst Ernst is busy doing his best to impress Roberta in the way that clueless young men sometimes go about these things (for example, falling for the bait when she lets drop that she misses the debutante dances in London with the men in the tall hats - and he proceeds to make himself a tall hat out of straw to impress her - no! no! no! Ernst!), Fritz acts all unimpressed when she tells him that her grandfather would offer him a job in his company (what, me, work for another man? No thanks!) and when she invites him to come see her in London once their stint on the island was finished, he politely declined, stating that he wanted to go on to new Guniea and build a life for himself.


All that Ernst was doing was leading to the 'friend zone'. Roberta seemed to like his intellectualism at the beginning, but the alpha boy attracted her more, in the end. Soon, she was finding ever more inventive ways to get closer to Fritz (could you teach me to shoot a gun, Fritz? Pretty please? - flutter of eyelashes, lol). When Ernst offers to teach her to shoot, she is actually repulsed by his offer. She proceeds to shoot an object a million miles away, demonstrating how she actually needed shooting lessons like a fish needs a bicycle :-)


The important difference between these two boys is that one was following his own path in life, and a woman was allowed to enter said path if she wished, and with his consent, of course. The other was ready to abandon his path and follow the woman.


No woman wants to be 'the leader'. No matter how much she protests to the contrary.
Ernst did not know this.
This proved to be the fatal flaw in his quest for Roberta.


In the end, he had to admit defeat. It was clear that Fritz was Roberta's choice.


Mother was delighted to have a 'daughter' at last.
Someone she could discuss 'girl stuff' with :-)
Someone she could dress up in her old dresses :-)
Someone who would (darn it!) marry her son :-)


Satisfied, Mother?


Um, no.
Not yet.
She had three sons, remember? As she reminded Father :-)


Nope, not completely happy until 2 more girls came their way :-)
Fritz was now sorted.
Ernst next, and then Francis...


The film finishes with Ernst going off to Civilisation with Roberta's Grandfather, whilst Mother and Father, and Fritz and Roberta decide to stay and build a new life on their island.


The film is indeed worth watching.
If for nothing, for the idyllic scenery it offers.


But the SMP lessons are also worth the effort, I would say.
Well worth the effort.




Enjoy...









































Monday, August 11, 2014

A tale of two Ms

Or three, or four, or five...


This post will be very long.
And verbose.
And full of flowery feminine language.


That's because I am talking to a fellow woman here.


You gentlemen, take a hike for a few hours :-)
(In the nicest possible way).


Oh how I miss Danny with his 'ITLR' posts! We ladies don't really have a 'locker room' as such. We talk anywhere, anytime, whenever the need arises.
Indeed a need has just arisen.
This post is nothing other than an emergency open letter to Glissando's M.




I had promised Glissando a post about a film which mirrors his own idyllic world on an island.
I was working on that.


After a few unavoidable days of 'no internet access', I plugged in to The Sanctuary to find this comment by Metak to Glissando:


"Meh, don't worry about "The Sanctuary"... it was built by an ancient super-dupper-secret order of initiated Hamsters... this 'sisterhood of hamsters' operates in highest secrecy and has managed to infiltrate highest ranks of governments round the world... to this very day, the order is bound by one goal and one goal only! To protect "The Sanctuary" and their queen "Spacetraveller"..."

Lovely Sanctuarites, don't listen to The Metak! There is no secret society! No infiltration! No protection money!


:-)


No, the above is not what's got my hamsters in unadulterated and unified uproar.
No, no.




It was this comment by Glissando to Metak (bold emphasis mine):

"At the time you posted (July 31, 2014 at 7:23 PM) she was telling me FWB is definitely available, as long as I understand, she wants to have my children. Contraception would be entirely over to me. She said she will spend the rest of her life trying to prove I can trust her word, but hopes I will come to trust her before she's too old (she's in her early 20's at this time). Also, if I want to emigrate to any country that remains uninfected with the feminism virus, she would love to come with me as the happiest woman in the world."


The following video reflects my immediate thought:






My two existing hamsters had to be sedated because their reactions would have been akin to a nuclear reactor, well, reacting.


And lo and behold, a third hamster popped up in my being, just for you. M :-)
Thank you kindly, M. As if I didn't have enough hamsters on board :-)


This one is Indian, to boot. She is middle-aged, has no scruples or decorum, and is a thousand times worse than Dalrock's Yiayia.


As I write, this hamster is in a state of catatonia following the shock of seeing Glissando's comment.


Forget sedation, this hamster will have to be sectioned and put under general anaesthetic for its own safety as soon as we can get it to the nearest secure unit.


After the 'are you joking me?' followed by the famous Indian head shake (you know the one I mean, M! see video below), this hamster was ready to take you apart.





But...I shan't let it. This dirty job is one I have to do myself.
:-)

All hamsters silenced, M, let me calmly explain to you what all the fuss is about.


Get Glissando out. Fix him a beer or something, and let him get out of your hair for a bit.
Pull up a chair. Sit by me.


We need to talk.



Glissando was waxing lyrical about you a few posts back. I was led to believe he had found a gem amongst women.


Beautiful (check).
Young - at least younger than him (check).
Renounces feminism (double check).
Seems to be into him (check).


I was thinking, well, what is wrong with this man? Why won't he lock down this exceptional woman?? Why does he 'remain MGHOW' when he has a woman at hand who would be the envy of men everywhere?


And then he hit me with the above comment.
And then I realised, M, you are not being exceptional, Pet.
I say this with all the love for you that someone who doesn't actually know you can muster.


By the way, if Glissando was joking, or downright lying when he said to me that you offered him sex and babies, despite his (blatantly) telling you that he won't offer you his commitment, then you should give him a friendly slap (in a non-dangerous part of his body, i.e. not his head or erm, the other place, lol), saying these words, 'you big old lying beast' with a half-smile.
The ferocity with which you deliver this bit of mock-violence may be directly proportional to your level of mock 'anger' at him. I just hope for Glissando's sake that you are not wearing a 'red dress' today, if you catch my drift.
:-)


If Glissando was telling me the truth (and the rest of this post is based on this assumption), then....
a few words for you...




1) You are very much into feminism. More than you realise. You are 'talking the talk' of 'renouncing feminism', but in reality, you are not really 'walking the walk'.
Pre-feminism, no woman offered a man (unmarried) sex because the implication of this would be that she was putting herself and her unborn child at risk. Without the commitment of a man in both a husbandly and fatherly role, woman and child are at the mercy of others - her own parents (but why should they continue to be responsible for you long after they have done their duty raising you and your siblings?), friends (why should they be burdened with you when they have their own lives to lead?, strangers (need I even go there?)


Feminism offers the 'empowered woman' an alternative to the dedicated role a man takes on when he marries a woman, by offering lesser alternatives.


Your career is no longer an additional source of income should you need it if your husband is incapacitated in some way, but a 'I kill my own snakes' lifeline for you and your fatherless child.

The state will give you money in the form of 'social securty', therefore reducing the amount it could give to people who really need it because they have come up against a temporary financial crisis and need a hand for a while until they can get back on their feet.


These lesser alternatives, whilst being less desirable for you personally, are also robbing others of their due. Feminism is training you to be a thief.


Question for you: do you want to be a thief?






2) You are being gravely dishonest. This kind of dishonesty will make you merciless one day. This is the reason I called you Glissando's 'belle dame sans merci'. It is habitual dishonesty like this that leads to pain for men.
Why?


You know you don't want to just offer the 'free gift' of yourself to someone who won't stay with you forever. He has already told you he is MGHOW. That means he doesn't feel the need to make you his Queen. This is painful, of course, my dear. He is rejecting you. I get it.


But what should be the correct response from you in the face of such utter rejection from Glissando?


I can tell you what it should NOT be, M.


It should NOT be: "You don't want to commit to me? Alright, then, no problem, I shall give you free, unlimited sex! I shall have your babies!"


No! No! No!


Any woman can offer a man this.


This ain't special.
This won't make a man feel 'cherished'.
It's as common as muck, this. Especially nowadays. Ten a penny. Literally.




And moreover, you will hate yourself for this one day. Supposing under the circumstances of such a bad start, you two do end up together...


One day, you will look at this man and say to yourself: I gave him so much of myself just to earn his commitment. How could I have cheapened myself so much? You will (unfairly) transfer your self-hate to him. You will do this automatically. You will not realise you are doing it. You will show genuine surprise if someone points this out to you.


The next words you will say to Glissando will be 'it's not you, it's me...' or 'I love you but I am not in love with you..'
Or if you are married, it will be 'I want a divorce...'


And boy, will you punish him for the 'hurt' he caused you that he didn't know he had (inadvertently) done all those years ago when you offered him sex on a platter and he thought he had won the jackpot...


M, men don't see this coming because they are not really trained to. But you and I know how your little charade will end, don't we? We are women. This is our area of expertise. We understand each other. We speak the same language. We know what's going on in each other's heads.


Don't use this wicked manipulative manouevre to 'hook' a man. It's not a nice thing to do.
It is exactly what a feminist would do!


You don't fool me. And stop lying to yourself and Glissando.
I am actually quite proud of Glissando, because, by the looks of things, he ain't fooled either. Which is why he 'remains MGHOW' despite your 'generous' offer.
You failed his fitness test (as I shall explain below) but he passed yours.


M, listen to me.
As an unmarried woman, sex is not even yours to offer.
Did you know this absolute truth?


For those of us brought up under feminism, this is a truism that was either never passed on to us, or if it was, we forgot it in our attempt to 'empower' ourselves. In effect, you would have to be twice your age, at least, to have grown up with this notion or principle as 'standard'.


But it doesn't have to be this way.


As a beautiful, single woman, YOU hold the key to society. Did you never figure this out?
Why not?
What's gone wrong?


Your sexuality, as a single, unattached woman, belongs to God/Allah/Yahweh/insert Deity of your choice.


When you and a man worthy of you, pledge to come together as a unit before man and said Deity, your gift of self in its wholeness becomes unlocked, and you are free to offer that man (and him only!) everything you have, including your sexuality. Until then, you must guard it as if your life literally depends on it. Because it does.


Glissando doesn't trust you - yet. And I think he is right not to.
Because you are not being an effective gatekeeper.
Where is your b*tch shield, sister? This is what it was designed for!
Why is your weaponry deserting you at a time you need it the most?


In Glissando's decision-making as to whether he takes you on as 'Partner for Life', he should never be put into a situation where he begins to question your suitability as a wife. No!


He should know that you are a worthy woman right off the bat. That puts you into the starter position. Without this, you are not even in the running, my dear.


And even so, there will be 'resistance' to marriage. Outside The Sanctuary, it is called 'commitment phobia'. You know how I feel about this falsehood if you have read some of what I write here. :-)




But his 'resistance' should only be about exorcising his own demons from his own soul, i.e. it should be about making himself worthy of you. This is a process which he won't of course confide to you, but it is a process that will happen internally within him nonetheless.


But you are making it easy for him to simply walk away and never look back!


Here I am telling these guys who come to The Sanctuary that there are good women everywhere, and here you are trying your hardest to prove me wrong.
Stop stealing my thunder, M!


Game is all well and good. I fully endorse it, yes, as you would have read several times on this blog. Without it, many men would be 'dead in the water' when it comes to love/romance.


But you as a woman have to 'win' against Game to be worthy. As much as we 'fitness test' men all the time, I have news for you - men too have their own 'fitness tests' for us women. And it can be brutal. As it should be.


Can you see how you have badly failed Glissando's 'fitness test'?
He runs a little 'Dread Game' on you and you are ready to offer him all that you have?
Does this mean that any other man with as much Game as him can take you away from him at the drop of a hat in the future?


Can you really not see that by failing his little fitness test, the bad side effect of it is that he now sees you as a bad bet for wifehood?


Are you seeing what I am seeing now?


Can you now see that Glissando is being a better gatekeeper of his commitment than you are of sex?


He knows that to pick the wrong partner could literally end his life.


I say it again if you are feeling slow today: His life depends on it.
Why, you ask...


Psk, you know why.
He has two dead friends...remember?
So he takes this sort of thing very seriously.
You should too.


And his hamster will help him in this vetting process. You don't think men have hamsters too? They sure do. And it is more logical and clinical than yours or mine. When Glissando is ready to dump you right after he has found a more worthy woman than you are being right now, this is what Glissando Junior will say to Glissando Senior:


"Dude, time to split. This chick was good while it lasted. Time for greener pastures. Remember she was never going to be 'The One' anyway, right? No tears. No lost sleep. Just give her 'the speech' pronto.
There was always something 'missing' with her.
Don't lose sleep over this one. See what the next one has to offer..."




Not nice, is it?
Your decision-making now, in your early twenties must be pristine, clear-headed, solid. Because this determines the direction of the rest of your life.


All those women in their late 30s, early 40s asking 'where are all the good men?' - do you honestly not know how they got to where they are?
I tell you.


They made horrible decisions just like you are making right now, back when they were supposedly at their most powerful, which is what you are now.


Don't mess it up.


Don't go soft in the head, at a time when you should be at your toughest.
Glissando won't die if you don't offer him sex.
He'll take it if it's on offer, sure!
:-)


But sadly, that doesn't mean he will like you any better, or love you for it.


Have you seen the film 'Friends with benefits?' It stars Mila Kunis, I think.
I don't usually recommend Hollywood films, but this one has a specific message for you, M.
In this film, a woman does exactly what you are doing now. She offers 'no strings' sex to a man when deep down she hopes for far more from him.
When her (inevitable, if you ask me!) meltdown occurs years down the road where she accuses him of just 'using her for sex', she looks surprised when he points out (logically) that she offered, and he took her up on her offer, thank you Ma'am.
This woman was being deceitful, and she knew it. But she thought she could wangle her way out of her own mess. In the end she found she couldn't.
I hope you can see now that neither can you, if you persist in your currently flawed thinking process.


Glissando certainly doesn't need babies with a woman he is not fully committed to.


Have you seen the film 'Friends with kids?'
Again, another Hollywood film packed full of lessons for you.
In this one, a woman wants a baby, but alas, with no husband, what is she to do?
Why not just have one with a platonic friend? What could possibly go wrong?
Do you see where I am heading with this?


Dishonesty to oneself leads to personal pain.
Bad enough.


Where that pain involves the next generation, you are doubly responsible.
Children need much more than just a mother.
This 'single by choice' movement that is sweeping the world - it is killing children in more ways than we thought possible.
I have a friend who is a child psychiatrist - I definitely know what I am talking about here!




When I talked about 'what is a woman for', the four Fs were features a woman brings to a committed table. I would have hoped that this was understood without me spelling it out.


OK, food might be an exception. You can cook for anyone. I think it is a good thing, because you get to practise, and your value as a cook doesn't go down the more you cook.
Faithfulness is also something you can 'practise' even when you are single, because you can stay faithful to God whilst you prepare to be faithful to an earthly man.


Family (meaning children) and definitely the fourth 'F' are strictly for marriage! I never endorsed otherwise.
And for sure, feminism is not one of the F's. LOL.


When I talk about 'walking the walk', I mean living, breathing, eating, drinking what you believe in. No half measures.


This was brought home to me in a big way last week when I met an extraordinary family. I learned so much from them. I would like to share this with you to show you what I mean by really 'walking the walk'.


This Spanish family were on holiday in England. Father, mother, son (?early thirties) and his girlfriend, and also daughter (late twenties but so severely disabled (due to a very rare congenital abnormality) that she looked like a five year old).


Daughter got sick, so they brought her to hospital.
Only son spoke English, so he was the only one we could communicate with.


The dedication which this man showed his little sister was unbelievable and great to behold. He would carry her in his arms when she needed moving. Mum and Dad were obviously devoted to her too.


This family were really 'walking the walk'. Before having this disabled child, I am sure the parents' wedding vows included the words 'we will accept without reservation whatever children God gives us'.
And they did. Almost thirty years later, here they are caring for the beautiful girl God gave them.
Even being in hospital, whenever the nurses offered to clean her or do some other task relating to her care, the family would politely decline, and to my amusement, would give the nurses a look that said, 'why would we let someone else care for our family member? You don't see that we have two hands each? What did God give us these for?
(OK, OK, I admit, these are words I imagine they must be saying to themselves, not words they actually verbalised, LOL).
This is what I mean by 'walking the walk'.


There is another aspect to this story that I want to draw your attention to, M.


The girlfriend was identifiable as such by her (almost imperceptible) distance from the rest of the family, and that neither she nor son were wearing wedding rings.


She wasn't jumping in there and taking over the care of disabled girl.
Why am I applauding this woman, M?


She was 'taking her time'. She wasn't married to son, yet. She was free to walk from this undoubtedly potentially difficult situation at any time. Afterall, once married, the care of disabled daughter might fall to her as the 'helper' of son.
And, let's not forget, afterall, if this illlness were genetic (which I believe it is, having researched it), there was every chance that son was a potential carrier (it wasn't an X-linked' disease, which usually gurarantees that only women are carriers and sons are the affected) and therefore her potential children with son could also be affected...


She was clearly spending time (as she should) with this family, to see whether they were a 'fit' for her, as much as I am sure she was also being vetted by 'son' as a potential 'fit' for him.


But she wasn't overdoing the 'caring girlfriend' thing.
She wasn't 'trying too hard'.
She wasn't influencing his decision about her by latching onto his disabled sister as a 'crutch' to display to anyone watching what a great carer she would be. Believe me, many women would have done this.
Not her.
Classy woman.
She was there with them. That's enough.
At the right time, I have every faith that she will 'escalate' her duties accordingly, and stick with them.


This Spanish woman is doing things right.
She is nice, but not too nice, which should make a discerning man suspicious.


You see M?


Don't go overboard with 'proving your love' to Glissando.


In a sense, you are being like those so-called 'nice guys' who get nowhere with classy women because these women know that these guys are not really 'nice'. They are not genuine.
And then the false 'truism' that 'niceness' is bad, or 'nice guys finish last' happens.
 It is not really about the 'niceness'. It is what is underneath the veneer of 'nice' that discerning women pick up.
Likewise, men know when a woman is being genuinely nice or not.
Glissando rumbled you.
You need to start being genuine, M.


You should be at an age now where you can see into the future. At least your future.
'Future time orientation' is a very important skill of womanhood, love.
You should be picturing at regular intervals what your future looks like, from now, if not already in your late teens.


What does it look like, your future?
And are you slowly but surely working towards it?
Or are you just 'leaving it to chance' like all the other silly girls?


There are things you have control over. Take control!
Make good, sound, choices. Not desperate 'Trojan horse' type choices that you think men don't see for what they are.
You now know that Glissando for one won't fall for it. You have been warned.


The thing about good, sound choices is that they become part of who you are. You will routinely make good choices if you start now.


And then there are things you have no control over. Leave them to Deity. He will look after you.
If you do what is right, He will help you when things get tough.
He is beta like that :-)






Here are a few scenarios of the future.
Be sure to tell me which one(s) best fit in with your own plans for your future.
Which one(s) are undesirable?
Which one(s) are more likely to happen to you, and why?


These are all questions which are designed to make you think harder about your own life. I hope they are not too harsh.
But then again, better harsh questions now than harsher questions you will ask yourself if you deviate from the straight and narrow path now.
I hope you agree with me on this point.
But still, I really really hope you won't see these as too harsh. Most women will balk at something they deem too harsh. I don't want that to happen here. These are important questions for you to ponder.
So just do it.


You don't need to answer them here. But be sure to have answers for them in your head. In your own time.


OK?
Easy does it...




Scenario 1:


This is an email I get from Glissando in seven years' time.
Read it carefully.




Hi Spacetraveller, how are ya?
Hope life finds you well.
I am still celebrating after the All Blacks won the Seven Nations. My son Reuben* is still doing the 'Haka'. Bless him, he is only three, but heck, I can see he will one day be a true kiwi warrior, hehe. Takes after his Dad, of course, LOL.
Just wanted to see how you were. Sorry our boys thrashed England. Can't say I am shedding tears, but just to let you know I feel a little bad for you 'cos I know you are a Brit.

Anyhow, must go now. M needs a lift to the hospital. Time for the six month scan. It's a girl this time! Reuben is looking forward to being a big brother. He is already wanting to call her 'princess'.
Damn, I have to start teaching him Game, hehe.
Catch up later,

Glissando.






Scenario 2:


I get this postcard from Latvia in three years' time.
I am thinking, 'who do I know in Latvia?' as I read:


Hi ST,

How ya doing?
I know you won't like this, but what the heck, I'll tell ya.
Still MGHOW, but I have decided to take a 'sabbatical' from my beautiful island and do a 'Roosh' from time to time, haha.
So now I am in Latvia.
It's G'day from Latvia, LOL.
Currently seeing this blonde. 'Seeing' if you catch my drift.
It's great. She's nice, but nothing longterm, I'm afraid.
Oh well, enjoying the decline, as they say.

I heard from M last week. Did I tell you? Right after I dumped her, she married some bloke from Christchurch pretty sharpish. Even I was taken by surprise.
Anyway, she had a kid like within six months, I swear.
Anyhow, she texted me to say she is divorcing the poor bloke.
She wants to 'meet up for drinks'.
Brrr, not sure I like this...
Anyway, back to my blonde now. She just made a cake. Can't keep the nice lady waiting, hehe.
See ya!




Of course, M, I realise that life is not black and white.
This is a third scenario which no woman wants.
But...
Every woman must face this possiblity head on, as opposed to jumping into bad decisions precisely because we don't want to face this harsh reality.
There is one (ex-)woman commenter on this blog who faced this reality head on, and I know she meant it when she said she was prepared to be alone for the rest of her life doing what God demands of her, even if it meant she was 'unattractive' to most men.


I know that this woman will become a marvellous wife one day.


She showed (and continues to show) great commitment to God.
God is kind. He won't let her down. He will honour her innermost desire one day, at a time of His choosing. This Wise woman is waiting for that time.


Can you do that?




Scenario 3 is an excerpt from an obituary, 80 ish years from now.
Don't let it depress you. Take the positives from it and work with it.


The family ________________ regret to announce the death of their beloved sister, cousin, aunt and great aunt M. She was a truly blessed human being, and her loss leaves a big hole in our lives. M leaves behind many friends, young and old, a treasured family and many acquaintances who will deeply miss her. Joyous and gracious wherever she meant, M was a ray of sunshine to all she met. Never having married nor had children of her own, M had a smile on her face every day of her long and happy life. This lady was 'Mother' to everyone in her little community on North Island. It was an honour to be related to such a beautiful human being who made all  our lives a little sweeter for having known her.
 Rest in peace, Aunty M. Memories of your legendary chicken pie will keep us going for a while yet!
Your loving great-nephew, Matt.




Of course there are other scenarios yet. I am not done with you, M!


This one, Scenario 4, is a letter from a man you don't know yet. He writes to his mum on Mother's Day. He sounds British and quite posh by the sounds of it :-):




Hello Mother,

Happy Mother's Day!

I am so sorry I cannot be with you on this special day. Hope Tom and Luke are good enough consolation prizes. Don't worry, everyone knows that *I* am your favourite son. No secret there, LOL.
Anyway, how's life, Mother?
How is Father enjoying his retirement so far? Is he itching to get back to work yet?
Gosh, has it really been a year since I last saw you guys?
Must fix that, promise!

I have some news for you.

Remember that kiwi girl I went to that concert with in London back in 2016? The pretty girl who thought 'Cockfosters' was a beer, rather than a tube station?

Anyway, I am back in New Zealand with her and her family now.
She is really sweet. I knew I was in love with her even when she was in London, but anyway...
She seemed so sad then, do you remember?
I pressed her on why she had those sad eyes, and she told me she had just broken up with some chap called Glissando back in NZ. Must be some Italian gigolo, if you ask me.

Apparently he broke her heart. But she got over it pretty quickly. It was such a pleasure to see her come back to life as it were. It took me a long time to realise how much she meant to me. That fool Glissando will never know what he missed out on. This girl is one in a million! I would never have gotten to know her had she not dropped her phone on the table in that coffee shop in Highgate when I first met her and I ended up practising my pick-up lines on her (smile).
To cut a long story short, I finally asked her to marry me and she said 'yes'!

So yes, Mother, you can go buy a hat now, LOL.

Will discuss the wedding details when I get back to London.
For now, though, M is going to show me round the island. Looking forward to THAT!

Cheerio, and enjoy Mother's Day!

Your best son,
Mark




Yet again, *sigh* is another scenario you might not like...


Scenario 5:


This is from your own blog in 2019...


February 13th...


Another year, another Valentine's Day fast approaching with no date in sight.
I don't know what's wrong with men these days.
Just because I have a child...
Some guy on Date a Single Mom.com emailed me to say he would have gone for me, but for my daughter. Can you believe that? How horrible are these people? Why can't they see my daughter for the blessing that she is?


Come to think of it, why won't Glissando take my calls these days? It's not like he has a girlfriend or anything. He is still living on his island, all alone, like me.
But he won't bother with me or Lisa*.
It's really painful nowadays to look at her. She has his face, dammit.
I wish we could have stuck together. You know, for Lisa's sake.
She has been asking me lately why she doesn't have a Daddy like all the other kids at school. Breaks my heart.
She seemed really happy for a while while I was dating Bob. She seemed to get on well with him. When he left she was devastated. I thought things would get back to normal for her when Joe arrived on the scene, but he moved on even quicker than Bob.
What is it with these men? Why won't they commit?
Where are all the good men?






M, you and I understand each other because we speak the same language. I can look into your soul as much as you could look into mine.
From my soul to yours, I implore you to Wise up and Wake up.


Feminism has many (ugly) faces. It is good that you renounce it.
But don't do it by words alone.
Do it.
Really do it.


Do the right thing, even if it seems hard.
Don't offer things you don't really deep down want to give away.
Not only will you respect yourself more, but the whole world would too.
Starting with....Glissando.

You should aim for higher things, M, and higher things will come to you.
Offering cheap thrills (which is what you are doing here, sorry to say) is not the right way to brighten your life.

You have so much more in you than you display to Glissando here.
Bring out the best M, and you will be much, much happier in life.

Peace, Young Lady.



















*Names have been changed to protect the innocent unborn :-)










































































Wednesday, July 30, 2014

Out, out, out!

They say one should clean out the hard disk of one's computer every now and again to get the best of out it.

You know...all those viruses, worms, trojans, boogeys, what have you, they take their toll on your computer, don't they?

But then I took it one step further :-)

I thought to clear out junk from the computer in my head.

Might be a pointless exercise though - I may successfully get rid of viruses, bacteria, indeed all forms of fauna one can find in the zoology disctionary.

But alas, my hamsters remain :-)

Anyhow, the following words and phrases should not be part of my vocabulary from henceforth.
These words are too closely alligned with feminism. It's a case of 'too close for comfort'.

But even more annoying is that they are concocted words, meaning, they were words with good meaning before they were hijacked and repackaged into the 'loaded guns' they are today.

Do you have words like this you want to purge from your life?

Feel free to add to this list!


1. Empowerment

*Sigh*.

If I hear this word one more time....!

I think I have alluded to the effect this word has on me, before.

It is the singular most destructive word to escape from Planet Feminism, and I think it is poisoning so many young lives.

To 'empower' someone is to 'invest with power', or to 'enable' or to 'endow with ability'.
I get that.

I think it's a great thing to do for someone who would otherwise be taken advantage of, or crumbled by someone who doesn't understand the meaning of 'magnanimous'. (Again, we touched on this in an earlier post where we discussed the difference between 'mercy' and 'pity').

But why has this word been hijacked for an ignoble cause?

Any Tonia, Delia or Harriet is 'empowered' when she does something wrong and unsavoury.
This is the wrong use of such a noble word.

And for this reason, the word has to go.

Delete...


2. AMALT/AWALT


I don't like this one either.

Having never believed AMALT, I am not inclined to think AWALT either.

What's more, I see this as  the perfect endgame to feminism.

Here is the internal dialogue:

"We are women who have failed in our womanhood, our feminity. We have failed miserably against men. Only a few of us are still what we should be. Why not muddy the waters for everyone, men in particular? Why don't we present all womanhood as tainted, so that it would be hard for these men to distinguish between us?"

These same women, somewhere along the way, bought into the 'all men are pigs' lullaby. Now they want the AWALT tune to be played on every jukebox in the world.

This scenario was brought home to me in a stark way when last weekend I was 'waitressing' for a group of women who were meeting up for an official 'women's group' meeting. Totally accidental that I ended up serving up refreshments (long story), but I became a silent observer in what turned out to be a slow decline into a whinging session about men.

It turned out most of those women were divorced. I knew some of them. Some of them had had serious transgression against them by their ex-husbands. Some of the others were the transgressors themselves in their dealings with their ex-husbands.
Like I say, I knew some of them.
What was interesting is that both groups homogenised so effortlessly that it was hard to see who was the 'good guy' and who was the 'bad guy', so to speak.
It was absolutely stupefying to watch the 'bad guys' play the victim so shamelessly, and the 'good guys' were none the wiser - or perhaps they were aware of what was happening but were powerless to challenge it.

It certainly suited the 'bad guys' to shield themselves under the halo of the 'good guys'.
And yet, *I* knew there was a world of difference between these groups.

I am sure the same can be said for different varieties of men too.

So AMALT/AWALT - deleted.



3. I am worth it/ I deserve...

Like 'empowerment', this phrase is not at all helpful.
Whilst in theory, everyone deserves X or Y, in reality, no-one deserves X or Y.
X or Y is best earned.

It is a disservice to persistently give a child (male or female) the impression that they deserve something.

It leads to shooting sprees.
It leads to a painful life.
It leads to misery which sadly, turns out to be self-induced.

If a good reason cannot be given for why X or Y is deserved, then it is not deserved.


Delete...


4. I am concerned/I am uncomfortable...


I have learned to run - very fast - whenever I hear these words. It usually implies that something very bad is about to happen.

I can't fully explain this one, except to say it is a loaded gun that is often used to instantly silence one.
It comes from the 'politically correct' brigade, and with the law behind it, can be used against anyone at anytime. I have seen it in action (from afar, mind) and it is not too pretty to watch.

You guys ( and some ladies) know what I am talking about.
I feel your pain.

Delete...



5. My feeling is...

This one is the cousin of 'I am concerned...'

I am ambivalent about this because this one is just a precursor to 'I am concerned...'

I am not sure if it should be deleted.
Feelings are great - I swim in them.

But they should never be a substitute for reality.
The problem is, some of us (aherm!) rely too heavily on this.

Maybe this one should go in the 'draft' folder, for further analysis :-)




6. Creepy/pervy


As I said to Metak in the last post, this is just a 'below the belt' insult directed at undesirable men. It has no real meaning, other than 'whatever you want it to mean'.

For this reason, it too goes into the 'delete' box.



7. Embrace...

Funny how before 1997, this word only meant 'to hug' to me :-)

Now we have to 'embrace our fears', 'embrace our sexuality', 'embrace our failings'...

What is it really a code word for?
What do these words mean?
Why are they in use?
Who is 'releasing' them one at a time?
Why are we accepting them?


Delete...


Any grievences against words that should not be in common usgae in the public domain?

Let's bring 'em out and crush 'em in the village square!





Um, does that sound a bit too militant?
Disempower me...

:-)

Saturday, July 19, 2014

A woman's word

I think this post should have a different  title. But I am clinging to this one for dear life because I really want to highlight a particular thought. It is a specific concept that I don't want to lose sight of. Knowing myself, I am wont to go off on a tangent, but I musn't let myself do this in this post.


:-)


La Spacetraveller was just sitting here minding her own business when a commenter posted something which made her jump, metaphorically speaking...


Are there any German- or Italian-speaking people here at The Sanctuary?
I love the use of the definite article in both these languages.


It's never just 'Rainer'. It is der Rainer.
It's never just 'Little Giovanna'. It is La Giovannina.


LOL.


Anonymous said to me in this post:


"All I have is a "Woman's word." That's not good enough for me.  ..."


                              *



And then I immediately discovered that I had two hamsters rather than the usual furry lone ranger :-)

One of them is the one I was born with, and is distinctly female.
The other one I am not sure where it came from, but its gender is indeterminate, or perhaps more relevant to this post, may be a hybrid and can switch from male to female on a whim. It is perhaps a 'higher order' hamster or something, but I think I trust it more than my original hamster. Well, I don't know.
Judge for yourself, for I was able to record a conversation between these two hamsters once. No video, just audio :-)


Just so you know, the female hamster (which I shall call 'Hamster 1') has a french accent. The 'indeterminate sex' hamster ('Hamster 2') for some reason has a Cockney British accent and is distinctly a Londoner. It likes to play 'devil's advocate' and has definitely got trousers on today, so it is male today. It however has a definite feminine side on other occasions depending on what Hamster 1 says.
Hamster 2 never starts conversations. It leaves that to Hamster 1 :-)



Hamster 1: Mais, c'est pas vrai! Mais non, vat is ze veld coming to? C'est pas possible! (sigh). Quoi faire...Mon Dieu, c'est franchement une catastrophe!

Hamster 2: Oi, cupcake, keep yer hair on. What's happened that's getting yer knickers in a twist, love?

Hamster 1: Mais, mon ami, haven't you heard? Zese men are now vanting les femmes to give zem zeir verd, like zese vimen, zey are men! Mais, c'est quoi ça, ce truc! C'est vraiment incroyable!

Hamster 2: Eh? What? Yer having a strop because some bloke wants wimmin to be held to their word, just like blokes? Cor blimey! What are ya like? If you ask me, it's about time an' all!

Hamster 1: But zat is not ze point! It is not about making les femmes more accountable, it is more about making les femmes into les hommes! It is not naturel! C'est dingue! Eet ees crazy! Quite wrong!

Hamster 2: Calm down dear! Not the end of the world...

Hamster 1: Mais it is, mon ami! Vee take away the nature of les hommes et les femmes, and it vill be ze end of ze world! I don't vant to be forced to be giving people 'gentleman's agreement'. Je suis une femme! Je suis une femme! JE SUIS UNE FEMME!!!!!

Hamster 2: Jeez, get a grip, Darlin'! It ain't that bad! I bloody knew I shouldn' a' got out of bed this morning...I knew my day weren't gonna go like I dreamed, like. First ya get some hysterical bird getting up yer grill, then before ya know it, it's all gone dan sath from here. It's all gone Pete Tong on ya. Bang out of order, if yer ask me!








See what you started, Anonymous?


Bad enough for one hamster to spin out of control. Now you've gone and upset both of me hamsters and now we've got World War 3 in me hamster wheel.
Spare a thought for me :-)




Do you see Hamster 1's point of view, by the way?


I fully realise that you and I are actually on the same side of the table here, and this is quite confusing for me. (I feel I shouldn't be on the same side as you on this particular issue). You have spun me into a state of cognitive dissonance, and I am not sure how to get myself out of this rabbit-hole.
Make sense?
It doesn't make sense to me either, but I shall try to explain myself better below...

About 2 or 3 years ago, I remember walking down to the city centre of my city on a Saturday afternoon. It was crowded as I headed for the shops. I was walking behind two young men. They were probably in their late teens. One was animatedly showing a photo on his i-phone to the other. I was so close behind them that I could see the photo.


The one who was being shown the photo said, " That is so gay". I craned my neck to see what was so 'gay'. The photo on the i-phone was of a woman wearing a dress. That's it.


I was intrigued by the episode, and got curious about it, but there was no way I could make any sense of it until I understood the SMP better a year or two after that episode.


I have heard more than one person declare that the result of the shenanigans of the SMP/feminism/modernism, whatever we want to call it, is that in response to the masculinisation of women (cause or effect of thesexual revolution?), men have become more masculinised, not feminised.


Yes.


In response to feminism and masculine women, men have become hypermasculinised.


But, you say: women everywhere are declaring that they can't find masculine men anymore. Men remain 'little boys' well into their thirties now. They are all 'mama's boys' living in Mama's basement playing computer games, with no masculine skills, hence 'women need men like fish need bicycles', etc...


Cause or effect?


A well-known Manosphere blog (I shall leave it to you to guess which one :-) published a post a few months ago about the state of men and women today. The blogger correctly pointed out that women have taken on masculine values - for better or worse. I guess he meant it in the wider sense than just physical (i.e. in the realm of workforce, relationship roles, etc.) but the picture he posted to depict this picture was of a young physically fit woman with a 'six pack' abdomen.


This blogger was quite pleased with this development within the SMP. He noted that fifty years ago, it wasn't usual to find such toned, fine specimens of women. That men were happy with women as they were in the 50's sans 'six pack' was conveniently brushed aside :-)


But that's not the point I want to draw your attenttion to.


In describing 'modern man', this blogger posted a picture of a man suffering from a disease known as 'Klinefelter syndrome'.


For those who need a visual, this is what a Klinefelter patient looks like:




He is a man with an extra complement of female chromosome X. He looks like a woman (wide hips, breast tissue, female type body distribution of fat). He is learning disabled and is usually infertile.


Quite rightly, this blogger was challenged on his perception of his fellow men by his, well, fellow men.


I see everyday that the blogger is incorrect in his assertion that modern men are feminised. At least I sincerely believe that feminised men are a minority in the general male population.


Those that are indeed feminised in their physical appearance or their thinking, are quickly eliminated from the gene pool, sometimes in the most swift and brutal way possible, sometimes at their own hand.


I don't have to look too far or too far back to provide an example of this swift elimination. A young man who believed himself to be a victim of women's rejection of him despite his fabulousness (he used this very feminine word a lot in his manifesto) despite never approaching women like men usually have to do, and who gives the impression of being entitled to something he need not earn, recently brutally and tragically ended his own and others' lives.

Yes, he had serious problems stemming from a long way back in his life. But the result was an extremely feminised way of thinking which, as a woman he would have got away with, but as a man, it killed him. Literally.


I mention no names because I would not like to focus not on the man himself, but his story, which is relevant to what I am trying desperately to tease out of my confused brain.


It is confusing.


Many would say that this guy was acting like a man. Brutal murder and suicide? That's traditionally associated with (abnormal, of course) masculinity.
True.
But this chap got to where he got to by way of highly feminised thinking. Not necessarily feminine, but feminised, for sure.


But he is in the minority.


Most men, as an adaptation to the modern world, I think, have become more masculine in their dealings with women, not less.
I have no issue with this, because I can see that this is a logical approach, something that men are wired to do.
I merely make the observation.

Is this something akin to the internal monologue?? (Correct me if I am way off base, gentlemen!)

They want equality in the workplace?
Then they must work as hard and ss long as us to get equal pay to us.

They want sexual freedom?
Then they must be made to face the sexual realities of men, including rejection.

They want to kill their own snakes?
Why, let them!


And so on.


And now I get closer to my 'crux of the matter'.


They want men to be held accountable for everything?
Then they too should be held to their 'word'.


A gentleman's word is his bond. This is a well-established social convention, no?


A woman used to have her own (feminine) way of arriving at her 'destination' of honour and accountability. And men allowed that 'wriggle room' because women used to honour this flexibility accorded them by men. Like chivlary, it is a concept of men honouring (good) women because they know that said women will not kick them where it hurts.


Now that it is clear that women have waged a war on men where no man was actually prepared for such a  war, the sleeping giant has woken up and is now upset that Gulliver pinched his little finger.
:-)


'Anonymous' is such a giant.


Now he wants a woman's word to count like a man's does.


He wants a woman to be a man, and yet remain a woman.


Bellita once said that when women were real women, they did a good job of it. Now that women have exposed themselves not to be trustworthy, the ask of them has only grown.
Now you have to be both a woman in every sense, and a man to de deserving of a man's respect.


We spoke once of the 'masculine woman'.


I found a perfect visual of this concept...




I know this woman is a comedienne...
I know she is parodying women...and perhaps men too. (Is she Hamster 2-like? :-)
I know this is some kind of joke...
And I actually like this kind of woman (but does this say something about my own - perhaps flawed - brand of femininity, I wonder? :-)

And yet...
I keep thinking something's wrong when I look at this woman :-)

Anyone care to explain to me why I might be feeling this way? Why do I feel something akin to Catholic guilt if I admit I like her, as though I am colluding with some sort of gender enemy, betraying my oath to the gender police to uphold traditional gender roles? Why am I so bothered with this? As Hamster 2 would say, why am I getting my knickers in a twist about something that really might not be so important in the grand scheme of things?


More importantly, how do you (if you are a man) react to this all-feminine but also weirdly masculine woman? Perfect balance of the masculnie and feminine, or a gender experiment gone wrong?


Please share! I am genuinely intrigued by this.


I have two conflicting views on the hypermasculinisation of society.

On the one hand, I am pleased that guys like Anonymous expect more of women. I think it's great that for the first time in history, women as a group are called to 'show their mettle' in this way. I see this as an opportunity rather than a failing.
This is largely because I have never seen women as lacking 'moral' or any other kind of agency. It did surprise me somewhat to see that so many men in the Manosphere have this view. My humble opinion is that while men may (in general) have more capacity for moral aptitude than women (except sexual, perhaps, in the younger years where women are intrinsically biologically wired to have more capability in this regard) this does in no way indicate that women are not endowed with this capacity intrinsically.
That many women have demonstrated a rather alarming departure from expectation does not equate to a biological ineptitude. It has to be a social programming issue.

So I think women should be just as accountable as men. I am not one to shirk away from the accountability issue.

So I am cool with Anonymous' way of thinking.

But here's the problem...

Other than for Nadia G, and a few other women like her, forcing women into 'a man's world' could be painful for both men and women.

The rise in masculine-style 'dating' may have been started by women, yes. The 'let's hang out' lifestyle is never ideal for women, whether we know it or not. If men continue to perpetuate it, and punish femininity with insults like 'gay', a whole lot of otherwise feminine-inclined women will end up as confused as I am :-)


My issue with the unintended consequences of hypermasculinity is that the meandering, indirect, 'scenic route' that femininity has always entailed will be dealt one last fatal blow.

And then what?

Femininity has taken many near-fatal blows in the last few decades.
Anonymous' words are the equivalent of a chilling 'do not resuscitate' order to an already flagging casualty.
This is what made me jump.

It is what it is. A runaway train. We all helplessly watch it leave the railtracks.
It would be interesting to see where it ends up.
Nowhere good, I suspect.

But I wonder if we women can turn this around?

Will this convo be the internal talk of many a woman in the future?

They want us to shake their hands and give them our word?
No problem! A lady's word is her bonde!
And it is sacred.
We will wear our dresses and do what is correctly asked of us, with no fuss.
We are not gay! We are women!

Yo.

I look forward to the day when this thinking is commonplace.
Not least because I shall have to pick Anonymous' jaw off the floor :-)



I know this post is long enough already :-) but I am curious about something else!

Anonymous, who are these women who are promising you stuff?

Is this the new way in the SMP? I never heard of any woman giving their 'word' on their future behaviour within a relationship. Have I missed a trend?

I have always believed that you men are visual, not just with your attraction cues when 'assessing' a woman, but also when you 'judge' her as wife or girlfriend potential or not, as the case may be.

It is women who 'listen' out for promises. We are auditory!

You men just watch for clues, don't you? So why does a woman's word matter to you?

Do I need re-educating on this?
Perhaps I do!

Maybe you could help me with this...

In the film 'Out of Africa', Denis and Karen are having an argument.

Curiously he says to her mid-argument: "You have no idea of the effect language has on me..."

This around the 8.10 mark in this video:


I have never understood this... What does he mean?

Are you and Denis a different breed of man? Are you 'new age men' or is this a regular thing with men in general? In which case, why am I soo misinformed?
Why do words have such a powerful effect on you? Or are you very much in the middle of the Gaussian distribution on this, and poor old Spacetraveller just needs to go back to school on the subject of men...?
:-)

I am afraid my confusion reigns supreme. Perhaps I could use this post to clear the muddy waters...






















































































Saturday, June 28, 2014

The SMP Classical repertoire

 
Take your seats, Ladies and Gentlemen!


(Or if you prefer 'the gods', secure your standing spot!)


For you are about to be treated to a classical concert here at The Sanctuary :-)
Welcome to the SMP Classics :-)


Down Under recently reminded me just how much I love classical music. And The SMP being the main topic of this blog, why not combine classical music with my favourite all-time topic?
:-)


Without any further ado, let the show begin!


I bring you...The Top Twenty SMP classics...

Note: In this concert, it really is the music that counts, NOT the musicians or the video images...remember this is an auditory exercise, not visual. Work with me here, gentlemen. The ladies already get me :-)


Bearing in mind my name, there could only be one introduction to tonight's concert...


Welcome to Planet SMP :-)
At least that's what Zarathustra says :-)

Take it away, Richard Strauss!




Men are from Mars...





Women are from Venus...



Representing the alpha male types...
Whoa, can you feel the awesome power?





And the sweet, feminine gals...
How lovely!  How charming! How utterly feminine!




Mr. Cool is in town. He doesn't understand why he can't move for girls throwing themselves at him...
Confidence, perhaps? Oh, I don't know...! Why does this piece remind me of The King of Siam?



This lady scores highly (on both counts) on the hot-crazy scale. She should be avoided, but there's no stopping her admirers...of which there are legion :-)
They just can't help themselves :-)





This man is off  'on the town' with his wingman...aw, love the bromance!
Hm...pearl fishing...
Is this a new PUA term??
:-)


 
 
 
 
The good girls are praying for husbands...
 
 

 
 
The bad girls are smoking dope in the nearest bar...



The PUAs are getting busy...

 
 

A little something nocturnal for our party boys and girls? Keep it klein clean, Herr Mozart, this is a family show blog! :-)

 


Show me your dance moves ! (male edition)



Work it, girl! :-)
Can you too picture the Turkish belly dancer?






It's a date!
But...'first date' nerves rule :-(
Oooooh, the nail-biting is almost palpable here (shudder)...


 


How romantic!




She said yes!!!




But this is how he really feels about marriage :-)




She is already planning the big day...



And somewhere in a far away Celestial Galaxy, St. Jerome is shaking his head...
It's a tragedy! Another young man falls to his death! Get the funeral cortege ready!





Hahahahahahahahahahaha!

Thanks for the inspiration, Down Under.
I really enjoyed compiling this :-)




Any suggestions to add to this list, folks? If it's classical, it's in :-)
All entries will be enthusiastically considered :-)





Addendum:

As to the future of the SMP, I would be failing if I didn't end on a positive note.
I shall let Karl Jenkins have the last word.
Indeed, he is right: When it comes to the war of the sexes, better is peace than always war.

Ring out the old, bring in the new!

Take it away, Karl...
 










Tuesday, June 3, 2014

The hunt for the patron saint of MGTOW is over: Meet St. Jerome!

Apparently, there is no limit to the depths of insanity to which I will sink :-)

Mea culpas aside, I must however keep to the 'feminine imperative' narrative and blame a man :-)

*Someone put me up to this. He set me a task I had never sought to undertake before, but which I relish because it is precisely the sort of daytime reverie I like to indulge in in my own personal time and space.

So, ahoy, descent into utter Madness we go (with a capital M)!



But first, a confession of sorts...

At Mass on 'Christi Himmelfahrt' or 'Auffahrt' as 'Ascension' is now known to me, the priest asked what I took at first to be a rhetorical question: 'Which period in The Church's calendar is the holiest of all?'
I smugly sat there thinking, 'but of course, 'Easter', when else?'

Turns out I was wrong. Apparently, the correct answer is....the ten days between Ascension and Pentecost!
Who'dda thunk? The holiest period in the Christian 'timetable' is now...
And here I am, a Christian woman, about to take a saint, a Doctor of the Church no less(!) to task about what he wrote 1700 years ago which offends my feminine sensibilities. :P

I feel a 'forgive me Father for I have sinned' coming on shortly...



With respect to the task at hand, I had been racking my brains for a few weeks now as to how to tackle my 'mission impossible'.
My brief was simply... a conversation with St. Jerome on his views on MGTOW.

Yes, St. Jerome, a saint of The Church thought 1700 years ago that men should not marry. That women were nothing but trouble.

And here I was thinking this was a modern problem :-)

I didn't get anywhere with this project until a plaque (of a poem by Christophe Plantin) hanging above my old piano startled me a few weeks ago. I have had this plaque ever since an old french-speaking relative of mine gave it to me around 15 years ago. Years of piano practice, and I never even so much as glanced at it. Now that I no longer live in my childhood home, I saw it as though for the first time, with fresh eyes, so to speak.


I provide the french version, because I think it is beautiful: I highlight the part which gripped me the most:

 Le bonheur de ce monde
 
Avoir une maison commode, propre et belle,
Un jardin tapissé d'espaliers odorans,
Des fruits, d'excellent vin, peu de train, peu d'enfans,
Posseder seul sans bruit une femme fidèle,

N'avoir dettes, amour, ni procès, ni querelle,
Ni de partage à faire avecque ses parens,
Se contenter de peu, n'espérer rien des Grands,
Régler tous ses desseins sur un juste modèle,

Vivre avecque franchise et sans ambition,
S'adonner sans scrupule à la dévotion,
Dompter ses passions, les rendre obéissantes,

Conserver l'esprit libre, et le jugement fort,
Dire son chapelet en cultivant ses entes,
C'est attendre chez soi bien doucement la mort.




And in English:

The happiness of this world

To have a comfortable house, clean and fair;
A walled garden lined with fragrant trees;
Fruit and fine wine, few servants and few children;
The only lover of a faithful wife;

No debts, no love-affairs, lawsuits nor feuds,
No wills to haggle out with relatives,
Simply content, dependent on no magnate,
And by a righteous rule to rule one's life;

To live in frankness, from ambition far;
With conscience clear devoted to devotion,
To tame one's passions until they obey,

To keep the spirit free and judgement strong,
Saying one's prayers while looking to one's pear-trees:
A kindly way at home to wait for Death.



I keep finding 'rules for a happy man to live by' everywhere I look these days...I even found one in Beethoven's music a while back, but this one seems to be the best blueprint of all.
So who was this Christophe Plantin?

According to Wikipedia, he was a french printer, a Catholic with humanistic tendencies (go figure). Significantly, he was intrumental in printing a lot of The Church's works, notably, those of St. Jerome.

I started to get excited when I noticed this.

After having read St. Jerome's 'Anti-Marriage rant' known as Adversus Jovinianus, Chapter 48, I suddenly got a sense of déjà vu on seeing Christophe Plantin's  words again after so many years.

And I think the reason the words in bold struck me so much was the very real sense that they seemed 'out of place' in a 'Manosphere' anthem such as this seemed to be. It seemed to me that Christophe Plantin (born in 1520), had taken these words out of the mouth of St. Jerome, but had added his own little twist. Afterall, Plantin was a married man with six kids!



So what could I possibly say to The Venerable St. Jerome?

Here is a transcript of our conversation, which admitttedly took place only in my head.



ST: St. Jerome, I come before you with a sincere request.

SJ: (Polishes halo, strokes beard, squints at me).

ST: I would like to understand your work 'Against Jovinianus', especially Chapter 48. There is plenty in there that I do not understand. I wish to understand more.

SJ: (Picks up feather pen, adjusts robe): What I wrote in 'Against Jovinianus' is not meant to be understood by mere mortals of the female kind. It is what it is.

ST: (Retains composure, frantically fishing for an alternaive approach): It is by listening to what the elders of The Church teach that the rest of God's flock may be saved. I have no-one to turn to but you on this specialist matter. No other saint, it seems to me, understands this particular issue more than you. Hear me! Engage with me!

SJ: (Picks nose and flicks residue in direction of a dove, who dodges): I am hearing you. Speak, my child.

ST: I thank you, Your Holiness.

SJ: Call me Jerome. Or Jerry.

ST: (smiles). Jerome. Nice to meet you. (Shakes hand. Surprisingly warm hands for someone who has been dead a few hundred years).

SJ: Speak!

ST: Why do you wish to deprive your fellow man of a companion 'in this vale of tears' in the manner in which God ordained? Why do you only see women as evil, unclean, unworthy?

SJ: (Irritated): I do not!

ST: This is what you say, Jerome. Right here - 'We read of a certain Roman noble who, when his friends found fault with him for having divorced a wife, beautiful, chaste, and rich, put out his foot and said to them, "And the shoe before you looks new and elegant, yet no one but myself knows where it pinches." '

Another example: 'Whole tragedies of Euripides are censures on women. Hence Hermione says, "The counsels of evil women have beguiled me." '

Yet another: 'In all the bombast of tragedy and the overthrow of houses, cities, and kingdoms, it is the wives and concubines who stir up strife. Parents take up arms against their children; unspeakable banquets are served; and on account of the rape of one wretched woman Europe and Asia are involved in a ten years' war.'

Why do you only see the bad in women?


SJ: I only report what I see, ST.

ST: Yes, fair is thine word. But were there no better examples than the ones you chronicle in this book of yours? Were there no good women around you?

SJ: (Shakes head, sighs): You miss the point of my book!

ST: (Incredulous): But how? I quote back to you what you yourself say!

SJ: Yes, and what you quote back to me is taken out of context!

ST: (Inhales): So, explain me...this is precisely why I come to you.

SJ: There is a reason I wrote this book for men. A man would have understood what I wrote. Chapter 48 is merely a prelude to Chapter 49, in which I outline the rules for both men and women, in which can be found marital happiness if indeed a man must marry. In the instruction of a man, he must understand the risks of this undertaking that marriage is. The language I use is severe, yes. But it is the language that a man understands. For it is he who takes on the burden of a wife and family. I soften not my words for him, for in so doing, I fail him. I tell him what he needs to know. If after everything he hears from me he chooses to marry, be it on his head the consequences of his actions. A man must be responsible for the decisions of his own self and his household. This is  not something I expect a woman however intelligent to understand.

ST: Forgive me, Jerome. I do not intend to belittle your advice to men. If it is not contrary to your principles, I still seek to understand. Is it bad for me to try to understand you?

SJ: Not at all. But you tread on dangerous ground. This path is not flowery. It is not pretty. It may not be safe for a woman. Do you wish to proceed nonetheless?

ST: By all means if it is not sinful so to do!

SJ: (Laughs): No, not sinful, no. Foolhardy, yes.

ST: Then so be it. I shall be a fool in the quest for knowledge!

SJ: So be it, then. Your wish is my command.

ST: Thank you. May we shake hands on that again?

SJ: (Waves a way my hand): No more handskaes. Once was enough.

ST: (Sharp intake of breath, mournful look): OK. I get it. This won't be pretty.

SJ: Exactly. Let's keep to the script. A man must get over his petty joys and pleasures and see the world as it is, before he takes on the responsibility of wife and child(ren). It is the essence of masculinity. Even with faith, this is a pre-requisite, for to do otherwise is a recipe for failure. From whence I get my various examples outlined in Chapter 48. Capisci?

ST: You are Italian-speaking, St. Jerome!

SJ: (Shakes head): Did you not know I lived in Rome, ST?

ST: (Smiles, then lightbulb moment): Ah! I see! So you are giving examples of where men can go wrong!

SJ: Exactly! See? You can be intelligent when you want to be.

ST: I see your line of thinking now. But I have to admit, it wasn't so clear reading Chapter 48.

SJ: You were never meant to read Chapter 48 in isolation.

ST: True.

SJ: In Chapter 49, I give advice to young women to be chaste. This is the best way to persuade men to marry them. Do you know what chastity in a young woman leads to for a man who marries, ST?

ST: (Pause, pause, pause, another lightbulb moment): Une femme fidèle!

SJ: (Mock bow): Exactement! Well done, ST. This is the point your married friend Christophe Plantin was making when he lists the characteristics of a happy life for a man. Christophe found a femme fidèle. If he hadn't, he would have written his own 'Against Jovinianus'.

ST: (Mock surprise): How did you know about Plantin?

SJ: Come on now...I am a saint. I am immortal. Honestly, you mortals!

ST: (Laughs).

SJ: I am not against marriage, ST. I am very much for holy marriages. It is precisely because I see that many men are not yet ready for marriage, and indeed many women are chronically unsuitable for marriage that I give the next best advice: do not marry: seek an alternative path to salvation. The next generation is dependent on the sanctity of marriage. Done wrong, an unholy marriage is a breeding ground for devil's troops. I say it clearly in the first paragraph of Chapter 48: 'And shall he desire children and delight himself in a long line of descendants, who will perhaps fall into the clutches of Antichrist, when we read that Moses and Samuel preferred other men to their own sons, and did not count as their children those whom they saw to be displeasing to God?'
A good marriage produces 'soldiers for christ'.

ST: (Nodding): Because a holy marriage is a sacrament. An unholy marriage is just another path to hell...

SJ: Well, put that way, it seems harsh, but yes. You are beginning to get the hang of this.

ST: You are a good teacher.

SJ: They didn't elect me 'Doctor of The Church' for nothing, you know!

ST: True dat!

SJ: So, now do you understand? I teach what is right, for men. You women can also learn something from me. The details you can learn from the virtuous women of The Church. Of which there are many.

ST: Yes, like Our Lady.

SJ: Well, she is the best. But there are others. Saintly women dead or alive are everywhere.

ST: I know...

SJ: Good. Follow them. Listen to them. Watch what they do. You can't go wrong by doing that.

ST: Thank you Jerome.

SJ: (Yawns): Anytime. Now I must get some shut-eye. Not a bed of roses being a saint you know. Everyday, I get some mortal upstart calling me up to interrogate me about one of my books...

ST: (Downcast): But I already apologised....I didn't mean to...!

SJ: Relax, ST. Just teasing. You need to toughen up. (Winks).

ST: (Smiles, puts hands up in air): Ok, Ok, I get it.

SJ: Over and out, ST. Go in peace. Have faith.

ST: Thank you, Jerome. Greetings to your fellow saints.

SJ: Thumbs up.


End of conversation.



So there we have it. My conversation with the patron saint of MGTOW.

Turns out he may not be as misogynistic as I first thought. He is an alright dude, really. Maybe he could have made a great husband for some chick back in 370 AD?

Who knows?










*Someone may or may not choose to identify himself in the comments.