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.


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.


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.
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!


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, 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!


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 :-)


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.

Saturday, April 26, 2014

Shall we dance? Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera!

In other words, Film Review: The King and I.

I never really warmed to this film growing up, at least not like how I did to The Sound of Music.

I don't understand why this is, although I will hazard a guess later on in this post.

For sure, it's a great film, and I think there are lots of lovely lessons buried within it for both men and women.

What's not to like?
There is great scenery!
There is the 'aw factor' in abundance (the king's children)!
There is feminine allure (Anna and the royal wives)!
There is eye candy and a testosterone factory all in one (Yul Brynner)!


 Speaking of Yul Brynner, I never knew until today that he was actually a Swiss citizen (although born in Russia). I found a compatriot!

The first comment to make about Yul Brynner is that he is the embodiment of why 'Game' works. He is the sort of man who I imagine would have been passed over by many women were it not for his arresting sense of self  and the abundance of confidence which screams 'I am a man'.

This sort of thing is sensed by women in a very visceral way. Add his masculine voice to the mix and to an auditory woman, you have a dangerous situation on your hands :-)

The interaction between the king and Anna is one that is actually fairly unusual among Hollywood type films. It is clearly a dance between the masculine and the feminine, but there is a slight twist to this dance. I shall explain later.

When British teacher Anna Leonowens is asked to come teach the children of the King of Siam english, she accepts, on condition that he keeps his promise to house her and her son Louie in a house of their own, as opposed to his palace, because she does not want to be part of his (already considerable!) harem.

It takes her a long time to get the king to keep his promise. In fact, to get him to keep his promise, she has to keep a promise of her own.

Anna is a tough, no-nonsense widow who is a little bit too 'hard to handle' for the king's liking. I suppose, compared to the docile and sweet wives he already has, Anna is a typical Western harridan of today (but with 19th. century standards, lol).

She is hardly what you would call submissive, but she learns along the way how to be respectful to him. She is also a little too entitled, and goes so far as to demand an audience with the king when the prime minister warns her that the king is in 'bad spirit', i.e. not in a good mood.

But despite Anna's obvious faults, the king likes her. I don't think it is in a conventional romantic way - Anna is far too 'independent' for his liking - but more, in admiration of her education, and perhaps for her 'lively spirit', to put it in the most polite way I can find. :-)

Anna proves useful to the king in many ways other than to teach his children and wives.

He uses her british connections to sweeten up the colonial masters who were getting ideas that he was a 'barbarian', by taking her up on her idea to host a lavish banquet for them.
It was a resounding success, not withstanding a touch of jealousy displayed by the king when he suddenly realises he has competition for Anna's affections from her long-time friend, Edward.

The king's catchphrase of 'et cetera, et cetera, et cetera' is a hilarious reminder of how a man, enamoured of a woman he finds curious will 'parrot' her in much the same way a child might. I think Anna recognised this when towards the end of the film she lets slip to Louie that she thought the king sometimes acted the same age as him! (She meant 'emotional age' in this sense, of course).

The king was supremely masculine, in an almost 'caveman' sense (and yet he was also bizarrely very refined, and certainly hyper-advanced in his thinking: he was a self-taught scholar, a monk no less, despite having many wives and children - and having your wives and children educated to the level he was demanding of Anna was certainly not a common thing in Siam in his époque)...

The king makes some notable quotes in this film. Some of them are hilarious, others are simply eternal truths.
Like this one:

"A woman was made to please man.
A woman is blossom.
A man is like the honey bee, to fly from blossom to blossom. 
A honey bee must be free, but blossom must not ever fly from bee, to bee, to bee."

When Anna insists that Western men are monogamous, the king dismisses this concept as 'not normal'.


Is the King of Siam a Red Pill King???


Nothing says 'alpha' like him in this scene where he is introducing his children to Anna. Note how his 'mini-me' the crown prince has assimilated his way of walking. The apple did not fall far from the tree in this case, did it? :-)
And how sweet that his daughter presents Anna with a flower...

In fact, this whole scene reminds me of another alpha male presenting his many children to an unattached female, with the same panache and poise of the proud father who is master over his children...
Remember Captain Von Trapp and Maria? The same 'military' operation to get the children presented, the pomp and circumstance, the showmanship...
These two guys could be brothers. In fact, the two women could be sisters too, both being 'hard work' for the men when they first encounter them.

I really like these scenes with the children, by the way. I think in a home where the children are taught how to show reverence to the father in this way, there is order and harmony. And actually, love too. This is fatherly love at its best, I think!

Believe it or not, this started out as a geography lesson :-)

Despite my going on and on about Anna, I actually do not find her the absolute 'star of the show'.


I think that honour goes to the king's chief wife, Lady Thiang.

I think she represents the absolute peak of ladylike dignity and poise. This woman should have been threatened by Anna's presence. But she wasn't.
She simply wasn't.

The king was at liberty to take on more wives. Which he did on a regular basis, I am sure :-)
In fact, he had just acquired a 'gift' in the form of a young girl (who was miserable in the harem because she had her heart on someone else...).
But had the king fancied Anna in the romantic sense, Lady Thiang's position as 'chief wife' could well have been in danger, purely because of Anna's position and status. So Lady Thiang had plenty to fear. But this classy lady had no fear. She just had warmth and plenty of grace.

She slowly taught Anna how to be the ultimate wife without Anna herself realising this.

Lady Thiang knew she could not influence her husband the way Anna could. So she used Anna to do her dirty work for her, with the aim of helping her husband.

But she taught Anna how to do this dirty work in the most gracious way possible, having had years of experience of how her husband ticks.

'Don't give him advice', she warned. 'Just give him suggestions'.

Anna does this, to great success. The scene where she achieves her goal of steering him to do what he needs to do but without making it look like she is advising him is a classic. Funny but delightfully touching. Helen Andelin would have been proud :-)
In the interim, Anna also learns to acquiesce to his demands to never have her head above his - difficult ask, as he usually insisted on sitting or lying down most of the time when he was in her company.
When she submits to him in this way, he gives her what she wants, her own house.

Is there a lesson in there somewhere?

Anna must have found him difficult.
He certainly did her!
His 'you are a very difficult woman!' rebuke at her made me laugh out loud, especially the way he said it with his index finger pointing exasperatedly at her.

Reminds me of another Westerner being rebuked in a similar manner by an Oriental character:
Sgt. Nagata (points to Jim): Boy, difficult boy!

Anna and the king have a certain je ne sais quoi thing going on, but we never get to witness it in its fullness. So this film is strictly speaking not a 'romantic' film as such. The closest we get to romance is this scene.

It is more of a face-off between a man and a woman in a way that is a struggle for respect from both sides, rather than a quest for romantic love.
My theory is that this is what prevented me from warming to this film when I was younger.
My younger female self rejected this film because 'where is the romance!' lol.

But now I see the value of a film like this. Full of lessons, teachings about life, and not to talk of  a-laugh-a-minute.
I wouldn't hesitate to nominate the film as one of the best...ever made.

Monday, April 21, 2014

All about George

Erm, would it be controversial if I said the following...

I LOVE Prince George!

There, said it :-)

Well, he is not the only one, but that's another story.

I think it is fair to say that I adore little boys. They are a special group that I find fascinating. Perhaps it has come across in numerous posts I have written.
I also like little girls, of course, but I feel I know little girls more, having been one myself.

My utter fascination with little boys continues unabated.
I deny having Daddy or Mummy issues, but I may have 'little boy issues' :-)
Hm, is this some sort of reverse 'Oedipus complex' thing going on here?
Any psychiatrists out there? Your professional help is urgently needed over at The Sanctuary :-)

If I should go on to self-diagnose, or at least self-analyse, I would say that one of the traits of little boys that never fail to mesmerise me, is their amusing display of burgeoning masculinity that they either get amazingly right, or appallingly wrong, both scenarios being highly amusing in a sweet sort of way :-)
Equally amusing to watch a little girl twist Daddy round her little finger while you realise that 'this one's a pro'.

Utterly riveting to watch these little ones so frankly play out Nature's little games, and watch them become the adults they will one day be, right before our very eyes.

My history with this phenomenon goes way back.

From the toddler son of a friend who would stand (hands in pocket) looking up at the crucifix after Mass, surrounded by people begging God for favours, crawling about on their knees asking forgiveness, flagellating themselves in repentance (OK, OK, I exaggerate here!) this kid would give God 'the nod', you know, Joey style (as in 'Friends'):

So, Jesus, how are you doing today?

Priceless :-)

To this same kid when I used to babysit him telling me how we were going to spend our time together. (No, Auntie Spacetraveller, we are not sitting at home watching TV, we are going to the park and I am going at the swings, and you ain't yet seen the mother of all tantrums that I can pull off if you don't capitulate...)

Not so priceless ;-)

To two little brothers (sons of friends) insisting on showing Auntie Spacetraveller their little 'friends' when she was invited to dinner at their home one evening.
Yes, Auntie Spacetraveller has seen it all. And she wants her innocence back :-)

There is a spectrum of course. It's not all hilarious masculinity with little boys. There is also a vulnerability which is so touching, and which immediately detonates the 'aw' factor.
Who could resist Mark Lester's almost feminine baby face in 'Oliver', particularly this scene where he is singing 'Where is love' and you know he is torn between two impossibly unsavoury worlds - the Workhouse or the world of pickpockets, both of which would sooner chew him up and spit him out than show him love?
A veritable tear-jerker...


Back to Prince George ... being the introvert I am, I do not normally extol the virtues of extroverts. Um, except... free pass if you are a bonny little chappie, a prince to boot :-)

This kid can certainly pull off funny faces - I see a future in stand-up comedy as an aside to kinghood.
Now, quite unfairly, the British press already had a nickname for Bonny Prince George three weeks into his life.
A harsh one at that :-(

They called him 'HRH Grumpy' :-(
Apparently because he doesn't smile too much.
Not fair.

So he has an expressive face. Don't we want our future king to have an expressive face? Must we all be smiley all the time? Is that the new order of the day?

What's so grumpy about this face anyway? Why is it not pensive?

I mean, who put this ageing Spanish chick in charge of me? Whose idea was this? When I become king the first thing I will do is go to war with her country. Where are the hot Swedish au pairs? Why do kids of lesser status than My Royal Highness get better nannies than me? What's with that? Don't even get me started on the au pair thing. I ain't got none of that to even look at! And at my age, that 'pair' is actually vital to my survival, so don't judge me.

And they better not even be thinking about having me circumcised. Or I shall decree a circumcision of my own for whoever suggests it to my parents. It would be 'off with his head' quicker than you could say 'George Cambridge'.

Uncle Harry says 'aloof game' works every time. I think he's right. This New Zealand chick in front of me digs me. She might not be the only one. The one behind me has the hots for me too. Oooh I say, fetching headband, lady! Man, I own.

Yeah, I know he's 6 ft 4, but I am sure I could 'ave him!

That toy has my name written all over it. It's's mine...IT'S MINE! Get out the way, headband girl!

Who you looking at?

I think Prince George will be quite a character. His personality certainly seems to be a forceful one. Not a shy wallflower, this one :-)

I also think this:

The choice of nanny for him is a major turning point in British history. His nanny almost became a Catholic nun.
Nannies have a powerful role in the lives of their charges.
Prince George could become the first Catholic British King since Henry VIII's time.

You heard it here first!

And there could be all kinds of constitutional mayhem should he choose to become a Catholic priest.

Oh dear, my imagination is certainly running away with this one.

Time to stop :-)

What do you think of our future British king?
And what tributes for his great grandma whose 88th birthday it is today?

I'll start:

Happy Birthday Ma'am.
Thank you for your lifelong service to Britain and The Commonwealth and your dedication to both God, country and family.
Your long reign is already a record in our hearts and minds - to this end you don't really need to beat Queen Victoria's record of 63 years to be a winner for us.
You already are.

That your commitment to serving your country, devotion to your husband and steadfast faith in hard times and good will serve as a reminder to us all that there are goals to achieve - much bigger than our puny selves.

Happy birthday!

Um, if you are dishing out any extra honours on your Birthday Honours List, I just thought 'Lady Spacetraveller' might have a nice ring to it.

Just a thought :-)

Addendum 23/4/2014:

On this day, the feast day of St. George, patron saint of England, we toast all of you with the name George, Georgina, Georgia, Georg, Jorge, Giorgio and Giorgos :-)

Happy feast day!

Thursday, April 17, 2014

He went his own way

I promised John Lord B3 a post...

And I realise now that it coincides beautifully with another thought that has been on my mind a lot recently.

True confession: this Lent has been a poor one for me. I just couldn't 'settle' into the spirit of Lent as I usually do.
But it seems I peaked sharply in the last week or so.

Better late than never :-)

Tonight, the 'night of impending death' as I like to call it, otherwise known as 'Maundy' or 'Holy' Thursday, my thoughts turn to ... death.

Many years ago, on this night, Our Lord was pacing up and down the Garden of Olives, otherwise known as the Garden of Gethsemane, thinking about his impending death. He had just had a meal, washed the feet of a few of his closest friends...knowing one of them was going to condemn him to death, death by a kiss, the kiss of betrayal. He was imploring his friends to stay with him, watch with him, pray with him.
They were falling asleep, human as they were :-)


Some of my most introspective moments came at moments where I witnessed impending death. I have witnessed a few.

A number of them stick in my mind like a sore thumb.

It strikes me that the reason I have such vivid memories of these impending death situations is that they are moments of great honesty.
It all hangs out.
No holding back.

It is both beautiful and ugly.
It is both fascinating and frightening.
It is both strong and vulnerable.

A few months ago, I was chatting to an 89 year old man. I won't go into details, but he was near death. He knew it. I knew it.
With this particular man, the hilarious thing about his feelings about his illness/impending death was that it would interfere with his routine. It bothered him that the set-up he had carefully laid out all his life was about to be disrupted - not so much death itself but the bothersome illness and the 'caring' that would be foisted upon him against his will. It is not an exaggeration to state that he was more than a little peeved by it all. His attitude was only hilarious because it appeared that others cared more for his life than he did.

But I know different. At least now I do.
Thanks to my understanding of the MGTOW movement and its nuances, I am more open-minded than ever on the variations of life.

This man was a never-married man. He had a few siblings but his favourite of all was his 85 year old little sister who had several children and grandchildren. One of these grandchildren was a young man in his 20s with whom he was particularly close. This young man was his. He was his lad.
Of all his relatives, this was the one he felt the closest to. As he told me about this young guy, his eyes lit up and he was as animated as you could ever see an 89 year old be.

I remember distinctly the moment he told me he was a single man. He expected me to somehow show surprise that he had never married. I know this because he told me so.
It seems he had had a certain response (especially from women) all his life. He was used to it. He expected it so much that when I didn't react in this way, he felt the need to tell me.

He, of course was not to know that I had, um, had a 'special' education in this subject over the last few years, by way of strangers on the internet, lol.

He almost became apologetic. "I love my own company too much", he said to me by way of explanation. An explanation I really didn't need, but he wasn't to know this.
"I never felt close to any woman throughout my life. I was happy without one all these years. I had my garden, I like to read, potter about, you know..."
I knew.

"But there was always this pressure to find a wife and settle down."


"I was happy on my own, this is what no-one understands. I could have made some woman miserable."
Um, well, who knows...

"I have never felt lonely. I have loved my life. Now I am ill, they will force someone on me to 'care' for me. That is my worst nightmare."

I really understand this sentiment. This really is the introvert's worst nightmare.

"I have my lad. He comes round to see me. He is like a son to me. He is enough".

Good lad.

It is inexplicably important to me that I did not 'judge' this man in his last days...

So, John Lord B3, whilst I would not choose this man's lifetime solitude, I get why he chose his. And I bet he loved every minute of it.

There are people who do not choose a life of solitude - it is foisted upon them against their will, but they adapt to it.
Others have their own reasons for choosing what they choose.

I have thought and thought about the MGTOW movement since the moment I first heard of it. It has fascinated me and I have indulged my unquenchable curiosity ad nauseum.

But it takes someone's moment of impending death for me to see the humanity involved. So when you ask if I have a personal view of MGTOW, this is it.
A dying man's honest description of how he lived it.

I am not sure it can get any personal than that.

I have similar stories of two women who also lived the GTOW life until death. The nuances of their stories differ slightly, but there we are.

In the end, life will be lived. With or without our consent the moment we are born kicking and screaming into an unforgiving world.

The details of said life?
The devil is in the detail, as they say.

And with that, I bid everyone the holiest and happiest Easter ever.

The ultimate MGHOW?

Addendum 19/04/2014:

Saturday, April 5, 2014

Spacetraveller's law


The above is by no means akin to Newton's laws of motion or anything :-)

Just an observation that I have never seen broken, yet, although I expect there are exceptions that prove the rule...

About rules/laws/mandates, I find I quite like them. They are general 'guidelines' by which, when lived out, simplify life, rather than complicate it, which is what we do best as human beings. But I accept that there are limitations beyond which even the most useful rule does not help. Such is life.

I go off at a tangent again, but I think it is a good time to remind myself that sometimes, what we don't know, we mustn't fret about... because God knows. And somehow, He imparts the necessary detail to us should he choose to, and at the right time when we are most likely to be receptive to it.

This is my 'lesson of the day', LOL.

I just got back home from a walk. I came across a park which is also a cemetery for lost soldiers from the Second World War.

All the soldiers buried here are 'unknown'.
But what a great way this is expressed:

'Known to God'.

I was blown over by that description. On every single gravestone, there is a distinct absence of a name, rank, birthdate and deathdate. But all of these men (I presume they were men but of course it is just possible a few may have been women?) are 'known to God'.

'Unknown' to us, 'known to God'.
How lovely...

I somehow got the message that although it would have been lovely for us (and especially their grieving families and friends) to know who exactly these men were, somehow it is not crucial anymore - God knows their identities. That's enough. Case closed.

I have been back and forth to the UK in the last few months. I did promise John Lord B3 a post about a personal encounter regarding MGTOW, but as usual, my thoughts were derailed by something else I would like to share, and possibly discuss ad nauseum :-)

A new dating show in the UK, by the title 'Take me out' has been a source of great insights into todays' SMP for me. In many ways, it directly replicates a longstanding older one known as 'Blind date' presented by a lovely elderly lady known as Cilla Black.

I think the spirit of 'Take me out' is very different from 'Blind date' however, just by removing the element of 'parental presence' in the form of a woman who could jolly well be your mother :-). The presenter of 'Take me out' is a young man. Different and interesting vibe, but interesting all the same.

Yesterday, the 'old school' were temporarily back in town. A young Scottish man came on 'Take me out' not just with his Mum, but his ex-nursery school teacher (Mrs. H)! Why, you may ask...

His Mum thought his ex-nursery school teacher had the wisest opinion on girls, so each time it was time to 'vet' a girlfriend, he not only brought her to his Mum, he also took her to meet Mrs. H.

I think it's sweet, but I get why some may be annoyed that not just one woman but two women are meddling in this young man's business.
It should be mentioned that this man was complicit in Mum and Mrs. H's meddling though, just so you are aware :-).

Early on in the show, Mrs. H was asked which of the 30 girls she thought would be good for the young man. She picked a girl. He ended up picking that girl. And she made herself available to be picked by him.

I immediately got why Mrs. H picked the girl. She is the kind of girl that is perfect. Beautiful, little make-up (not 'glaring' like some of the other girls), nicely dressed, and very nice in personality. She was very likeable, and I hope she and the guy hit it off.

The whole episode reminded me of a saying I have mentioned here before.
Mrs. H may or may not be right about this girl. I really hope she is right, of course.

But choosing a wife is very much a man's business. And usually requires a male opinion, preferably an older male's, but also a contemporary, or even a younger man's would do. But of course, I now know that many men do not seek advice from anyone at all in matters that are private. I get that. I think women are much more 'help-seeking' than men in this regard. Fair enough - we are different creatures afterall...

But...if an opinion is welcome from a woman...
I have seen how a woman that the man trusts and respects can help a lot in this process. A mother, sister, aunt, grandmother, even a female friend.

This is what I am about to hijack as 'Spacetraveller's law': (um, excuse my delusions of grandeur...what I meant to write was 'an observation ST seems to make over and over again :-)

Where a trusted female who has a man's best interest at heart repeatedly declares that a woman he is romantically interested in is bad for him, she is almost always right.'

The collorary is, that where she says a woman is good for him, there is a 50/50 chance of her being right.

The importance of my observation is where she says she is bad for him.

Women seem to be really good at smelling out bad women where their sons/brothers/friends are concerned.
But perhaps not as accurate when deciding about a good woman.

In statistical terms, I think this is best expressed as 'negative predictive value'.

Has anyone come across instances where a mother says to her son: this woman is bad for you, son!' and she turns out to be the opposite?

(Note: I am not talking about a nasty mother - I mean a mother who really does love her son and wants the best for him - of which there are many more than not...).

As an aside, here is a little gem from a film: I am keeping up with a previous assignment of watching as many of the old films as I can get my hands on, and I enjoyed this one very much:

Here is an MGTOW from 1951's thoughts on marriage:

Marriage is slavery for the woman and prison for the man.


Where have I heard this before, especially the second part?

Interestingly, in this film, it was the father of the girl deciding that the man she was interested in was bad for her.
Girls should of course always listen to Daddy...
He is always right - about everything! That's ST's second law...