I do not consider myself experienced enough in life to give anyone advice. It would result in a hilarious case of the blind leading the blind.
So I won't.
But Morgan Freeman will.
Whilst being interviewed by Piers Morgan on CNN recently, Morgan Freeman was asked in jest what the secret to his success with women was. He almost did not answer this question, preferring to tell Piers Morgan the answer after the show.
But I am glad he eventually answered the question on air.
He said, and I somewhat paraphrase:
"Don't chase women, let them chase you".
Now, I have heard this before. In several guises.
If I must box it up and label it, I would call it 'Game'.
Women have their feminine charm, men have 'Game'.
A man without Game is like the proverbial fat girl at your former school.
Thankfully both afflictions are reversible.
In all seriousness, even though the intricasies of Game are hard to swallow (so to speak) for a woman, where it is used with decorum, I do believe it is necessary for a man.
Not just 'nice to have'.
Necessary.
Grandma (not specifically mine, but you get the idea) says fondly of Grandpa:
"He chased me until I caught him".
Everyone laughs when she says this, even for the millionth time at yet another Christmas dinner.
And then years later, someone asks out of the blue, 'what did she mean, exactly?'
To illustrate what Gradma meant, let me opine that women who divorce their husbands don't say what Grandma said. At least not with fondness. Ever.
Here's why.
Back to Grandma's young days, and good old Grandpa, hormones raging, spots a girl (who eventually became Grandma) that he liked. He went after her like his life depended on it.
Everything was great. He and Grandma were like, floating on clouds and everything. But Grandma, being a 'good girl' was notably more reserved than Grandpa.
Then he did that really annoying thing that almost all men do. He withdrew a little.
Grandma was devastated. She began to show more affection to Grandpa in the hope of winning him back.
She showed she was vulnerable too, much the same as he had right at the beginning of their relationship when he was infatuated.
It takes a while, but Grandpa decides this is the girl for him afterall. He may have chased other girls in the meantime, but in the end, he chooses Grandma.
Grandpa may be a natural 'alpha'. He may be a 'beta'. No one really knows. But it doesn't matter. Because in his pursuit of Grandma he is in turn alpha (when he first encounters Grandma) then beta (when he falls hopelessly in love with her), then alpha again (when he disappears for a few weeks/months/years), and so on. In the era of Grandpa that second alpha stage nicely coincides with the war.
In scenario two, imagine that when Grandpa withdrew, Grandma showed no particular signs of distress. She couldn't be bothered if he was alive or dead.
Note: what I am describing here is to be distinguished from self-preservation/hurt/anger/self-respect on Grandma's part.
I am specifically talking here about a complete lack of interest in the whereabouts of Grandpa during the time he is AWOL.
We would hope that Grandpa would see the light and walk away for good.
Some men don't.
They pursue a reluctant woman and she becomes a reluctant bride.
This is the woman who seven years down the line will declare she is 'not happy'.
Some men in the manosphere know this phrase very well.
This phrase precedes real pain. The destruction of a family. Loss of financial control. Pain. More pain. Yet more pain.
It is not her fault.
A woman should feel unequivocally excited about marrying a man. If not, her disdain for him will come back and haunt him.
This disdain stems from another example of cognitive dissonance. I gave one example in a previous post here.
A woman does not do well with cognitive dissonance. It tears her apart. First. Then everyone else around her.
Women are more complicated than men. We have to be. We have a lot more to lose if we are easy to read.
The nature of womanhood (being receptive in nature) is such that it is in our best interests to be selective. That's a good thing in my humble opinion.
I firmly believe that biology does dictate that in the end, it is the woman who chooses.
I believe there is a good bio-social reason for this.
Women are the 'relationship experts' as one wise old man I know puts it.
A man is preoccupied with his work all his life. That is the source of his self-significance.
A woman will take some time out to obsess about her relationships, and I don't just mean the romantic ones. Women are 'connectors' and 'communicators' by nature. That is the true source of our self-significance.
In terms of relationships, a woman's vested interest is to keep a man she has already attracted. It is important she chooses right, because she has to care enough to work harder on the relationship than he would. Because in fact he won't. It is not his natural domain.
This is why a relationship is never really over until the woman decides it is over.
The female-driven sky high modern day divorce rate proves this point.
Grandpa thought he chose Grandma, but Grandma in fact chose him by physically atracting him. Grandpa didn't know what hit him. Years later, his level of insight into the whole episode would remain, 'well, there was something about that girl.'
A woman will have many men after her during the course of her reproductive life. She will be truly attracted to only a few.
A man will be after many women in his lifetime. The smart man will settle down with the one who, on a primordial level, demonstrates to him enough indicators of interest, like displays of loyalty, and a certain deference which he will interpret as 'respect'.
So if a man's withdrawal leaves a woman breathing a sigh of relief as opposed to crying into her cornflakes, she is in fact fulfilling an important and natural function: eliminating him from her 'list of interest'. A woman spends most of her life performing this function. It is a necessary part of womanhood, though it needn't be executed in a harsh manner. Much like hypergamy and emotionality, it's female nature.
And no, she won't change her mind.
Unless she has a secret agenda compelling her to overrule her ambivalence towards him and grit her teeth on the long walk to the altar.
Like her fertility is waning and she desperately wants a child, but not the man.
Like during his absence she got pregnant by the man she really wanted but who rejected her.
Like she got tired of being the only single one at her married friends' parties.
Like he is rich and famous and she is thinking, well this can't hurt. (Monaco anyone?)
At some point, despite her complicated nature, even the hardest woman to read becomes like an open book. To the man she truly loves.
She will do a little chasing. OK, a lot of chasing.
I really have to point out here that I am not referring to sexual chasing. That's masculine, actually. The chasing I am referring to may include sexual chasing of course, but it is a lot more than that.
Game allows this 'female chasing' to happen. A man needs it to distinguish which woman to rule in, or out, as the case may be.
A man's worst mistake in life is to marry a reluctant bride.
Don't be that guy.
The smart woman will only do this chasing, though, if she has absolutely no doubt in her mind that the man concerned has feelings for her beyond the physical.
Men are simple in comparison to women. In addition, women are naturally blessed with 'female intuition'. So a woman's success in figuring this out in her man is easier than the other way round.
Male nature being what it is, every man, on some level is a reluctant groom. But his reluctance does not bear nearly as much significance on the longterm success of the relationship as bridal reluctance does. Not even close.
I make the point again: relationships are a woman's domain. She initiates it and she can terminate it if she so desires. But it is in her best interests not to.
So, to conclude, Morgan Freeman is right. To be successful with a woman longterm, gentlemen, and by that I mean if you want a woman who will love you till your dying day, let her chase you a bit. It is good for you, and her.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Friday, December 30, 2011
The curious case of the much older multiply-divorced man and the younger woman
Kelsey Grammer. Donald Trump. Boris Becker. My boss. An older man you know.
Women marry up. With regard to age, height and in all likelihood social status. I know this.You know this.
But I did not know what it was called until quite recently.
Hypergamy.
Sounds like a disease.
Sometimes it is.
There are several facets to hypergamy. In its simplest form it denotes a woman simply wanting what Nature prescribes. A man capable of physically and economically protecting her. And her children.
And she in turn stays with him and adds colour to his 'black and white' world.
When it works well, it is beautiful.
When it doesn't, we get all kinds of permutations.
There is a coupling I have never been able to 'get'. This is the older man who has had a string of failed marriages/relationships and usually many children behind him, who pairs up with a younger often childless woman in her thirties.
In all the above cases, the man is usually rich and powerful (an alpha). He is known to have had liaisons with many women, all usually increasingly younger versions of the last one.
I am not referring to the average man who is once or twice divorced and simply marries a third woman. I really mean multiply-divorced men or those known to have had multiple relationships.
What is notable about these men is the desire to keep on having children with the new woman. And despite often expensive, bitter divorces behind them, these men are very much open to yet another marriage.
The women they marry also have traits in common.
She is usually not very young. Just young enough to be still fertile. More often than not, she is not sexually-naïve. She is no Maria von Trapp. But importantly, she is definitely not a promiscuous woman either. She has enough life experiences that she is never immature.
She is usually very atrractive and feminine. And usually also accomplished in her chosen field but is never what you might refer to as a 'career queen'.
She may have had quite a few previous relationships of her own, but she has never previously married and is usually childless.
She does want children. And the man knows this. And usually, he does not object. In fact, he welcomes this feature in her.
Sometimes, she will only entertain his interest in her on condition that parenthood is on the cards. He acquiesces without a fuss.
This coupling fascinates me. I honestly do not know why. Any comments and thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
Women marry up. With regard to age, height and in all likelihood social status. I know this.You know this.
But I did not know what it was called until quite recently.
Hypergamy.
Sounds like a disease.
Sometimes it is.
There are several facets to hypergamy. In its simplest form it denotes a woman simply wanting what Nature prescribes. A man capable of physically and economically protecting her. And her children.
And she in turn stays with him and adds colour to his 'black and white' world.
When it works well, it is beautiful.
When it doesn't, we get all kinds of permutations.
There is a coupling I have never been able to 'get'. This is the older man who has had a string of failed marriages/relationships and usually many children behind him, who pairs up with a younger often childless woman in her thirties.
In all the above cases, the man is usually rich and powerful (an alpha). He is known to have had liaisons with many women, all usually increasingly younger versions of the last one.
I am not referring to the average man who is once or twice divorced and simply marries a third woman. I really mean multiply-divorced men or those known to have had multiple relationships.
What is notable about these men is the desire to keep on having children with the new woman. And despite often expensive, bitter divorces behind them, these men are very much open to yet another marriage.
The women they marry also have traits in common.
She is usually not very young. Just young enough to be still fertile. More often than not, she is not sexually-naïve. She is no Maria von Trapp. But importantly, she is definitely not a promiscuous woman either. She has enough life experiences that she is never immature.
She is usually very atrractive and feminine. And usually also accomplished in her chosen field but is never what you might refer to as a 'career queen'.
She may have had quite a few previous relationships of her own, but she has never previously married and is usually childless.
She does want children. And the man knows this. And usually, he does not object. In fact, he welcomes this feature in her.
Sometimes, she will only entertain his interest in her on condition that parenthood is on the cards. He acquiesces without a fuss.
This coupling fascinates me. I honestly do not know why. Any comments and thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
Film Review: Empire of the sun
The film 'Empire of the sun' is one of my favourite films ever. Over the years I have watched it over and over again.
However, I watched it again recently, and suddenly, I saw it differently. I saw the same old film but with new eyes.
It is the autobiographical story of British writer JG Ballad which recounts his experiences as a young British choirboy caught up in World War II in the Far East. Jamie Graham, the young boy, born and bred in China lives a life of privilege typical of westerners abroad, of that era. Following the Pearl Habour attack, the Japanese invade China. Jamie's world is turned upside down, and in the ensuing chaos somehow gets separated from his parents and has to fend for himself until he is reunited with them at the end of the war.
The film chronicles his adventures along the way and his rite of passage into manhood.
From spoiled dentally-indulged warplane-mad choirboy (Jamie's rendition of the Welsh lullaby 'Suo Gan' is a running musical theme throughout the film) to a toughened-up traumatised survivor, Jamie 'sees it all' during the hardships of war.
He runs into two Americans named Frank and Baisie who take him under their wing and shape his journey into manhood. Baisie (an alpha if ever there was one!) especially, teaches Jamie (who he renames 'Jim') what it is to be a man.
Whilst I love the process of the initiation of Jim into manhood, I could not help but notice little gems of male-female interaction which have helped shape my understanding of the different but complimentary traits which men and women possess and which should be celebrated.
It is of note that the film is set in a time-period where men were still 'men' and women were still 'women'.
I wonder how differently things could have turned out if this film had been set in today's world?
Example 1: Women beautify, men provide
From 04:15, we see Jamie's mother playing the piano while Jamie is outside talking to his father about the war, and luck.
At 05:23 his father replies, in response to Jamie's comment, 'We are awfully lucky, aren't we, living here and having everything' with "The funny thing is, the harder I work, the luckier we get."
I somehow got the impression that Jamie's father did not really intend that comment as a reproach to Jamie at all. It is a wistful remark at no-one in particular.
He had done his job well. He was providing abundantly for his piano-playing wife and his son. The more he worked, the more they got. End of story. No fuss.
This family was so well-off that one could almost say that aside from giving birth to Jamie, Jamie's mother was no longer particularly useful. (OK, I am being absurdly obtuse here purely for effect). There were servants to perform every task, afterall.
But no. She was the one creating beautiful piano music in the background. Her domain may be grand beacuse of her husband's hard work, but it is also made beautiful by her.
Essential, if Jamie's father was to continue to work harder without a fuss.
Example 2: Women are emotional, men are rational
From 03:40 onwards, one can see Jamie's mother is clearly getting flustered by the commotion going on around her. She loses her temper when Jamie wouldn't sit still, because he is adding to her agitation. Jamie's father is in full protection mode here. See how he calms her down without a word.
There are few benefits of feminism, to both men and women. However, many women have achieved a state of reduced display of excessive emotionality purely because it is not well tolerated in certain environments, such as at work. It is arguably a good thing.
It is however a distinct feature of the female nature to act the way Jamie's mother does in this clip.
In this particular example, it does not serve a useful purpose, but there are times when it does.
Example 3: Women sometimes need protection from themselves
That same rationality which allows Jamie's father to protect his family in a dangerous period of their lives can also literally save their lives.
In this clip (08:37), a different woman implores her husband to tell the Japanese soldiers 'who we are' in the vain hope that somehow, these guys, who in all likelihood did not even speak english would somehow exempt this couple from whatever horror they were about to unleash on them and everybody else.
The man rightly 'got it' that so much as speaking up could get him and his wife killed in an instant.
Female intuition is a great gift. I don't always possess it, but when I have it, it works wonders for me.
But in certain cases, a woman's intuition can be superseded by a man's common sense.
Example 4: Just how important is 'respect' to a man?
Jamie is certainly taken through his paces en route to becoming a man.
At one point it becomes clear that he is now too old to stay with the Victors. He is now in puberty and is beginning to spy on the couple at night.
But will he simply get a transfer to the American mens' dorm? Oh no, not so simple.
First he has to prove that he is 'worthy'. In a cruel suicide mission hashed out by Baisie and co, Jamie is tasked with setting up pheasant traps at the edge of the camp in order for Jamie to earn a place with the other men. With a mighty stroke of good fortune, Jamie passes this test in flying colours.
He mistakenly believes that in so doing, he has also earned the right to be included in Baisie's eventual escape plan.
Baisie does escape. But without keeping his promise to Jamie to keep him in the loop.
After the war, Baisie comes back for Jamie. But by this time, Jamie has become a man without Baisie there holding his hand. When Baisie attempts to sugarcoat his way back into his good books, just look at how Jamie reacts.
That look at 03:37 says: 'Get your hands off me. I am a man now, not a boy anymore. As a boy, I worshipped the ground you walked on. Now, you are just another guy. I will treat you as such'.
Some might say that Jamie's reaction is more to do with the fact that Baisie just killed his Japanese boyhood friend, a friend who had previously saved his life.
I am not so sure. I really do believe his reaction is simply to do with his perception of a lack of respect by Baisie.
We women have our own version of this. It is never quite like this though.
Just different.
Example 5: Women are nurturers, men are onlookers
In the final scene, Jamie is finally reunited with his parents. He has been through hunger, murder, misery, mental instability, disease and pain.
He does not even look like the same Jamie we see at the beginning of the film.
His mother spots him.
Jamie really needs the feminine in his life right now. He has spent some rough months with men. He himself is now a man.
When he finally re-encounters his parents he does not even see his father.
I think this is one thing a woman simply cannot lose. It is the last bastion of femininity. Not even 40+ years of feminism has been able to wrench this away from women.
Sometimes it can be very well concealed. But when the occasion calls for it, I don't know many women who would be unable to do this.
(From 08:05 in the last clip)
Long live the differences between men and women.
However, I watched it again recently, and suddenly, I saw it differently. I saw the same old film but with new eyes.
It is the autobiographical story of British writer JG Ballad which recounts his experiences as a young British choirboy caught up in World War II in the Far East. Jamie Graham, the young boy, born and bred in China lives a life of privilege typical of westerners abroad, of that era. Following the Pearl Habour attack, the Japanese invade China. Jamie's world is turned upside down, and in the ensuing chaos somehow gets separated from his parents and has to fend for himself until he is reunited with them at the end of the war.
The film chronicles his adventures along the way and his rite of passage into manhood.
From spoiled dentally-indulged warplane-mad choirboy (Jamie's rendition of the Welsh lullaby 'Suo Gan' is a running musical theme throughout the film) to a toughened-up traumatised survivor, Jamie 'sees it all' during the hardships of war.
He runs into two Americans named Frank and Baisie who take him under their wing and shape his journey into manhood. Baisie (an alpha if ever there was one!) especially, teaches Jamie (who he renames 'Jim') what it is to be a man.
Whilst I love the process of the initiation of Jim into manhood, I could not help but notice little gems of male-female interaction which have helped shape my understanding of the different but complimentary traits which men and women possess and which should be celebrated.
It is of note that the film is set in a time-period where men were still 'men' and women were still 'women'.
I wonder how differently things could have turned out if this film had been set in today's world?
Example 1: Women beautify, men provide
From 04:15, we see Jamie's mother playing the piano while Jamie is outside talking to his father about the war, and luck.
At 05:23 his father replies, in response to Jamie's comment, 'We are awfully lucky, aren't we, living here and having everything' with "The funny thing is, the harder I work, the luckier we get."
I somehow got the impression that Jamie's father did not really intend that comment as a reproach to Jamie at all. It is a wistful remark at no-one in particular.
He had done his job well. He was providing abundantly for his piano-playing wife and his son. The more he worked, the more they got. End of story. No fuss.
This family was so well-off that one could almost say that aside from giving birth to Jamie, Jamie's mother was no longer particularly useful. (OK, I am being absurdly obtuse here purely for effect). There were servants to perform every task, afterall.
But no. She was the one creating beautiful piano music in the background. Her domain may be grand beacuse of her husband's hard work, but it is also made beautiful by her.
Essential, if Jamie's father was to continue to work harder without a fuss.
Example 2: Women are emotional, men are rational
From 03:40 onwards, one can see Jamie's mother is clearly getting flustered by the commotion going on around her. She loses her temper when Jamie wouldn't sit still, because he is adding to her agitation. Jamie's father is in full protection mode here. See how he calms her down without a word.
There are few benefits of feminism, to both men and women. However, many women have achieved a state of reduced display of excessive emotionality purely because it is not well tolerated in certain environments, such as at work. It is arguably a good thing.
It is however a distinct feature of the female nature to act the way Jamie's mother does in this clip.
In this particular example, it does not serve a useful purpose, but there are times when it does.
Example 3: Women sometimes need protection from themselves
That same rationality which allows Jamie's father to protect his family in a dangerous period of their lives can also literally save their lives.
In this clip (08:37), a different woman implores her husband to tell the Japanese soldiers 'who we are' in the vain hope that somehow, these guys, who in all likelihood did not even speak english would somehow exempt this couple from whatever horror they were about to unleash on them and everybody else.
The man rightly 'got it' that so much as speaking up could get him and his wife killed in an instant.
Female intuition is a great gift. I don't always possess it, but when I have it, it works wonders for me.
But in certain cases, a woman's intuition can be superseded by a man's common sense.
Example 4: Just how important is 'respect' to a man?
Jamie is certainly taken through his paces en route to becoming a man.
At one point it becomes clear that he is now too old to stay with the Victors. He is now in puberty and is beginning to spy on the couple at night.
But will he simply get a transfer to the American mens' dorm? Oh no, not so simple.
First he has to prove that he is 'worthy'. In a cruel suicide mission hashed out by Baisie and co, Jamie is tasked with setting up pheasant traps at the edge of the camp in order for Jamie to earn a place with the other men. With a mighty stroke of good fortune, Jamie passes this test in flying colours.
He mistakenly believes that in so doing, he has also earned the right to be included in Baisie's eventual escape plan.
Baisie does escape. But without keeping his promise to Jamie to keep him in the loop.
After the war, Baisie comes back for Jamie. But by this time, Jamie has become a man without Baisie there holding his hand. When Baisie attempts to sugarcoat his way back into his good books, just look at how Jamie reacts.
That look at 03:37 says: 'Get your hands off me. I am a man now, not a boy anymore. As a boy, I worshipped the ground you walked on. Now, you are just another guy. I will treat you as such'.
Some might say that Jamie's reaction is more to do with the fact that Baisie just killed his Japanese boyhood friend, a friend who had previously saved his life.
I am not so sure. I really do believe his reaction is simply to do with his perception of a lack of respect by Baisie.
We women have our own version of this. It is never quite like this though.
Just different.
Example 5: Women are nurturers, men are onlookers
In the final scene, Jamie is finally reunited with his parents. He has been through hunger, murder, misery, mental instability, disease and pain.
He does not even look like the same Jamie we see at the beginning of the film.
His mother spots him.
Jamie really needs the feminine in his life right now. He has spent some rough months with men. He himself is now a man.
When he finally re-encounters his parents he does not even see his father.
I think this is one thing a woman simply cannot lose. It is the last bastion of femininity. Not even 40+ years of feminism has been able to wrench this away from women.
Sometimes it can be very well concealed. But when the occasion calls for it, I don't know many women who would be unable to do this.
(From 08:05 in the last clip)
Long live the differences between men and women.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
In defence of Catholic nuns
Disclaimer: I am catholic. I like nuns. My views on this post are therefore heavily biased in their favour.
I would go out on a limb and declare that at some point in the life of many catholic women, the thought of becoming a nun crosses their mind. I might even go further and say most.
I would know. I would be one of the most.
Risk factors of the above affliction include:
1. Being raised catholic (obviously).
2. Going to catholic school, especially convent school.
3. Being traditionally-minded.
The first two are obvious. The third might surprise some people.
For afterall, to be traditionally-minded is to aim for husband and family, not the nunnery, surely!
It has to be said: those who know, know that being a nun is remarkably similar to being a wife and mother. The two paths are in fact on the same trajectory, the only differences being in the practical details.
Come again?
Let me explain.
My former headmistress from my old convent school died this month. I remember her fondly. She was a tall and stout woman. She must have already been well into her fifties when she was headmistress at my school. She almost appeared masculine in her appearance, as I recall. She was of an order which was not required to wear a veil or habit, so her visible short, greying hair added to her androgenous appearance. She even had one of those masculine first names, like Sr Ambrose (not her real name).
However, she was surprisingly soft-spoken for such an imposing figure.
But when she barked at you, you knew it. It was not a pretty sight to behold. Thankfully, her barks were rare.
She could also be one of the gentlest people I have ever known. She knew just what to say to you if you had a problem. She knew exactly how to get a girl to maximise her talents whatever those talents were. Some of the best mantras and phrases of motivation I have hung onto in life came from her. She was deeply spiritual and you could feel her desire to bring out the very best out of every girl that passed through her school. It went beyond a teaching vocation. I felt 'mothered' by her and all the other nuns at my school. I always wondered how women who had never been physical mothers could excel at 'mothering' so well.
They say the one who has to learn a trick is the one who beats the 'natural'. No-one 'trains' to become a wife, at least not in the modern era. Finishing schools, home economics classes, relationship courses and good mothers/grandmothers/aunts/sisters set women well onto a nice path to success in the marriage jungle, but it is not a strict entry criterion.
A lawyer friend of mine went deeper into religious life than I ever dared. Law school is a breeze compared to 'nun school', I hear.
But then again, to become a bride of Christ should entail being taken to task. It is, afterall, not an easy life.
People who mock nuns have either had a personal bad experience with a particular nun or group of nuns (I agree there are bad nuns just as much as there are bad people everywhere) or have a gripe against the catholic church in general, of which nuns are a ubiquitous and visible reminder.
Most people (women in particular) who have been taught by nuns would agree that it was a positive experience for them overall. Even if individual bad experiences can be recalled.
A friend of mine whose kindergarten teacher was a nun has been unable to sever the bond over forty years later, and seemingly can never venture too far from the old lady who remains the only contender for the title 'mother-substitute'.
An old man I know who was not even catholic, being fully aware of the reputation of nuns for being overly strict and possibly even slightly sadistic insisted on all his daughters being sent to catholic schools, just so they could be raised by nuns.
For there is no better teacher for a girl on how to be a good wife and mother, than a nun, this man had told himself. He was no fool.
Mother Teresa was known to many simply as 'mother'.
A traditionally-minded catholic girl who wants to be a wife and mother and who has been in contact with nuns will know that, amongst others, nuns are a wonderful role-model for the task ahead.
Who better to emulate than a bride of Christ, afterall.
I would go out on a limb and declare that at some point in the life of many catholic women, the thought of becoming a nun crosses their mind. I might even go further and say most.
I would know. I would be one of the most.
Risk factors of the above affliction include:
1. Being raised catholic (obviously).
2. Going to catholic school, especially convent school.
3. Being traditionally-minded.
The first two are obvious. The third might surprise some people.
For afterall, to be traditionally-minded is to aim for husband and family, not the nunnery, surely!
It has to be said: those who know, know that being a nun is remarkably similar to being a wife and mother. The two paths are in fact on the same trajectory, the only differences being in the practical details.
Come again?
Let me explain.
My former headmistress from my old convent school died this month. I remember her fondly. She was a tall and stout woman. She must have already been well into her fifties when she was headmistress at my school. She almost appeared masculine in her appearance, as I recall. She was of an order which was not required to wear a veil or habit, so her visible short, greying hair added to her androgenous appearance. She even had one of those masculine first names, like Sr Ambrose (not her real name).
However, she was surprisingly soft-spoken for such an imposing figure.
But when she barked at you, you knew it. It was not a pretty sight to behold. Thankfully, her barks were rare.
She could also be one of the gentlest people I have ever known. She knew just what to say to you if you had a problem. She knew exactly how to get a girl to maximise her talents whatever those talents were. Some of the best mantras and phrases of motivation I have hung onto in life came from her. She was deeply spiritual and you could feel her desire to bring out the very best out of every girl that passed through her school. It went beyond a teaching vocation. I felt 'mothered' by her and all the other nuns at my school. I always wondered how women who had never been physical mothers could excel at 'mothering' so well.
They say the one who has to learn a trick is the one who beats the 'natural'. No-one 'trains' to become a wife, at least not in the modern era. Finishing schools, home economics classes, relationship courses and good mothers/grandmothers/aunts/sisters set women well onto a nice path to success in the marriage jungle, but it is not a strict entry criterion.
A lawyer friend of mine went deeper into religious life than I ever dared. Law school is a breeze compared to 'nun school', I hear.
But then again, to become a bride of Christ should entail being taken to task. It is, afterall, not an easy life.
People who mock nuns have either had a personal bad experience with a particular nun or group of nuns (I agree there are bad nuns just as much as there are bad people everywhere) or have a gripe against the catholic church in general, of which nuns are a ubiquitous and visible reminder.
Most people (women in particular) who have been taught by nuns would agree that it was a positive experience for them overall. Even if individual bad experiences can be recalled.
A friend of mine whose kindergarten teacher was a nun has been unable to sever the bond over forty years later, and seemingly can never venture too far from the old lady who remains the only contender for the title 'mother-substitute'.
An old man I know who was not even catholic, being fully aware of the reputation of nuns for being overly strict and possibly even slightly sadistic insisted on all his daughters being sent to catholic schools, just so they could be raised by nuns.
For there is no better teacher for a girl on how to be a good wife and mother, than a nun, this man had told himself. He was no fool.
Mother Teresa was known to many simply as 'mother'.
A traditionally-minded catholic girl who wants to be a wife and mother and who has been in contact with nuns will know that, amongst others, nuns are a wonderful role-model for the task ahead.
Who better to emulate than a bride of Christ, afterall.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Stay at home mothering is the way forward
All said and done, the best thing a human being can have is to be brought up in a home with a father who provides and protects and a mother who beautifies and nurtures.
This, amongst other needs such as a spiritual belief system and the perception of validation by the people around him or her is an important ingredient for a fulfilled and happy life.
However, as we all know, it is not that simple. Life can get very complicated especially where it ought to be simple.
Most men provide in some form or another. If they are not providing for a family of their own (and I include here adopted children, not just biological), they are providing for someone else's in the context of cuckoldry, weird cultural traditions and taxation.
It is becoming more and more common nowadays however to come across men who simply refuse to work, or if they do, simply refuse to share their resources with anyone else. The causes of this is multifactorial: painful divorce battles siring deep resentment, lifelong bachelorhood, immaturity of mind, to name but a few.
The purpose of this post is not to point fingers, but to elucidate where a solution might be found.
Continuing on the theme of 'the teacher appears when the student is ready', another surprising (to me) trend of recent years is the number of young women (mostly newly married with babies/young children, but increasingly also single with or without children) who are leaving the workforce in droves in pursuit of a better quality of life for themselves and their children, or in the case of those not yet (or ever to be) parents, for themselves.
Why surprising? Well, around 40 years ago, women were told they could 'have it all'. They swallowed the dogma, and have been trying to prove it ever since. What started out as an attempt (hmm, was it ever as innocent as all that?) to better the lives of 'downtrodden' women ended up as a cynically contrived effort to take Mother out of the home thereby destroying the Family, which happens to be the bedrock of society.
It is pleasantly surprising (to me) that many women of today, who instead of finding an improvement of their mothers' lives over their grandmothers', saw a decline and took note. And acted on their God-given intuition which told them that they had been sold a turkey and it wasn't Christmas.
I have had a successful career for many years. It has brought me many rewards, including one of the needs mentioned above: a spiritual awareness. I often wondered if, when the time was right, I could make the transition to become the kind of wife and mother I would need to be, to give my future children the best thing as I see it, as defined above?
Or would I cling to the (self-directed) rewards of my career and in so doing destroy my God-appointed destiny to live life as a woman with all that this entails? And run the risk of becoming another 'man-substitute' who will work till she drops, and in some form or another pay for other people's children?
Apparently, I was not the only one thinking such thoughts. The happiest women I know are the ones who 'threw in the towel' as far as careers were concerned, in favour of pursuits more 'natural' to their being. The timing of this 'detour' does not seem to be the deciding factor on where one ends up on the 'happiness spectrum', but my guess would be that if it happened at a time before a woman's fertility window had closed, and therefore gave her the chance of achieving all that is attainable in the realm of womanhood, the chances of and the degree of satisfaction would be maximised. Just a guess.
I recently decided to look up a friend I had not seen for over a decade. When I knew her, she was aiming high in a high-flying career. She had recently gotten married. Twelve years later and several children later, she is a Stay At Home Mother (SAHM) and very happy, albeit no doubt stressed. Note I did not say she was now no longer (gainfully) employed. She is in fact working harder than when I knew her over ten years ago. Not only do her children and husband take up much of her time, she is also in a profession which is perfectly in sync with her child-oriented responsibilities.
I have no doubt that she went through the cognitive dissonance stage where the inner conflict (career vs family) was killing her very soul. Unlike so many women, she (eventually) yielded to the greater good and gave up the personal/financial/psychological/social/mental rewards her work brought her in favour of what would be best for her family and herself as a unit. Personally, I am meeting women like this almost everyday of my life nowadays.
When the student is ready...
In contrast, the 'what not to do' models are omnipresent in my field of vision too. The seriously messed up and selfishly stubborn women (and interestingly, these are the very ones who could afford to do the right thing by their husbands and children, because they are not hard-up single mothers with no choice in the matter) who doggedly carry on working in insane conditions even when it is beyond clear to everyone concerned that this situation is not working for, well...everyone concerned. Why? Because they need to feel that they are contributing something to the world other than the ability to push out babies.
Yes. Need. We didn't just swallow the hype, we actually believed it.
What a shame.
How tragic for our society that young women do not know that their greatest work is that in the home. I include myself in this category bar the last few months.
If there is one thing I have learned in the last few months, it is this: Men are simple, and reactionary.
If most women would stay at home to care for their husbands and children, most men would go out and work. Because that is how Nature designed things.
Of course, to avoid disappointment and a failed relationship, most women who would want to stay at home to care for potential husbands and potential children would select a man who already knows how to and does go out and work.
And then most children would get the 'best thing in life' as I described it above.
Which really is a need.
If it were not a need, we would not be seeing the rise in feral kids quite to the same degree as we do.
It really could be that simple.
This, amongst other needs such as a spiritual belief system and the perception of validation by the people around him or her is an important ingredient for a fulfilled and happy life.
However, as we all know, it is not that simple. Life can get very complicated especially where it ought to be simple.
Most men provide in some form or another. If they are not providing for a family of their own (and I include here adopted children, not just biological), they are providing for someone else's in the context of cuckoldry, weird cultural traditions and taxation.
It is becoming more and more common nowadays however to come across men who simply refuse to work, or if they do, simply refuse to share their resources with anyone else. The causes of this is multifactorial: painful divorce battles siring deep resentment, lifelong bachelorhood, immaturity of mind, to name but a few.
The purpose of this post is not to point fingers, but to elucidate where a solution might be found.
Continuing on the theme of 'the teacher appears when the student is ready', another surprising (to me) trend of recent years is the number of young women (mostly newly married with babies/young children, but increasingly also single with or without children) who are leaving the workforce in droves in pursuit of a better quality of life for themselves and their children, or in the case of those not yet (or ever to be) parents, for themselves.
Why surprising? Well, around 40 years ago, women were told they could 'have it all'. They swallowed the dogma, and have been trying to prove it ever since. What started out as an attempt (hmm, was it ever as innocent as all that?) to better the lives of 'downtrodden' women ended up as a cynically contrived effort to take Mother out of the home thereby destroying the Family, which happens to be the bedrock of society.
It is pleasantly surprising (to me) that many women of today, who instead of finding an improvement of their mothers' lives over their grandmothers', saw a decline and took note. And acted on their God-given intuition which told them that they had been sold a turkey and it wasn't Christmas.
I have had a successful career for many years. It has brought me many rewards, including one of the needs mentioned above: a spiritual awareness. I often wondered if, when the time was right, I could make the transition to become the kind of wife and mother I would need to be, to give my future children the best thing as I see it, as defined above?
Or would I cling to the (self-directed) rewards of my career and in so doing destroy my God-appointed destiny to live life as a woman with all that this entails? And run the risk of becoming another 'man-substitute' who will work till she drops, and in some form or another pay for other people's children?
Apparently, I was not the only one thinking such thoughts. The happiest women I know are the ones who 'threw in the towel' as far as careers were concerned, in favour of pursuits more 'natural' to their being. The timing of this 'detour' does not seem to be the deciding factor on where one ends up on the 'happiness spectrum', but my guess would be that if it happened at a time before a woman's fertility window had closed, and therefore gave her the chance of achieving all that is attainable in the realm of womanhood, the chances of and the degree of satisfaction would be maximised. Just a guess.
I recently decided to look up a friend I had not seen for over a decade. When I knew her, she was aiming high in a high-flying career. She had recently gotten married. Twelve years later and several children later, she is a Stay At Home Mother (SAHM) and very happy, albeit no doubt stressed. Note I did not say she was now no longer (gainfully) employed. She is in fact working harder than when I knew her over ten years ago. Not only do her children and husband take up much of her time, she is also in a profession which is perfectly in sync with her child-oriented responsibilities.
I have no doubt that she went through the cognitive dissonance stage where the inner conflict (career vs family) was killing her very soul. Unlike so many women, she (eventually) yielded to the greater good and gave up the personal/financial/psychological/social/mental rewards her work brought her in favour of what would be best for her family and herself as a unit. Personally, I am meeting women like this almost everyday of my life nowadays.
When the student is ready...
In contrast, the 'what not to do' models are omnipresent in my field of vision too. The seriously messed up and selfishly stubborn women (and interestingly, these are the very ones who could afford to do the right thing by their husbands and children, because they are not hard-up single mothers with no choice in the matter) who doggedly carry on working in insane conditions even when it is beyond clear to everyone concerned that this situation is not working for, well...everyone concerned. Why? Because they need to feel that they are contributing something to the world other than the ability to push out babies.
Yes. Need. We didn't just swallow the hype, we actually believed it.
What a shame.
How tragic for our society that young women do not know that their greatest work is that in the home. I include myself in this category bar the last few months.
If there is one thing I have learned in the last few months, it is this: Men are simple, and reactionary.
If most women would stay at home to care for their husbands and children, most men would go out and work. Because that is how Nature designed things.
Of course, to avoid disappointment and a failed relationship, most women who would want to stay at home to care for potential husbands and potential children would select a man who already knows how to and does go out and work.
And then most children would get the 'best thing in life' as I described it above.
Which really is a need.
If it were not a need, we would not be seeing the rise in feral kids quite to the same degree as we do.
It really could be that simple.
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Male and female He created them
Children. To observe them is to observe Nature at its best. There is no better substitute.
When you are ready to learn something the teacher suddenly appears, they say.
As a woman in her thirties, and who wants children, I notice children more and more. I study them intensely. Sometimes without realising I am doing it. Then I wake up at midnight with a jolt and say almost out loud: 'So that's what he was trying to communicate when he cried and hugged the cat' referring to little Johnny's seemingly inexplicable behaviour last Sunday afternoon at the park.
A good friend has one son and two daughters ranging from ages 3 to 7.
I spent a whole day with the family recently. It was a real eye opener.
I learned that men really are simple. And women are diverse and adaptable.
Or rather, I already knew the above. I simply had it confirmed in a no-nonsense kind of way.
It was like I had been in a long nap and just woke up.
The youngest daughter is an independent child. At 3, she rules the family. Even 6 foot Dad is afraid of her. She tells big brother and big sister what to do. And they defer to her.
The only one she has not yet managed to wrap around her little finger is Mum. Because she is just like Mum. Her word is law. If you cross her, you are in big trouble, no matter who you are.
The middle child is a truly feminine 'girly' type. She is the quiet one. The nurturing one. The one who will instinctively bring you a a glass of water if she detects your lips are dry. She is the one playing with the doll, affectionately cuddling it and caring for it. She is the one who will wear the pink T-shirt with the word 'princess' on it. She is also the one you know will feel the most pain if her family were to fall apart (God forbid). And yet, you also know she will be the one to try her best to put the pieces together again.
The boy who is also the eldest is just like Dad. He is simple. Feed him, clothe him, praise his efforts and he will like you. Disrespect him and he will ignore you.
At 7, he knows he is male. His mother and sisters are different from him. He already identifies with Dad. Mum will tell you he started this process well before his 7 years.
I always thought children were children until they were adults. Sure, it is clear that boys are boys and girls are girls. We have all heard the term 'boys will be boys' for example. But just how deeply ingrained our gender impacts on our personality was lost on me until I watched these three children I have known for over a year, for a few hours.
I used to worry that the youngest child would turn out to be a 'strong independent' kind of 'feminista' woman. Until I realised I was wrong. She was just as 'feminine' as her sister. Both girls represented all that is worthy of praise in being a woman. They represent different spectra of the same scale. Whilst one is overtly feminine with all the softness, vulnerability and giving on display, the other exhibits the firmness, toughness and strength of mind that is equally necessary in the arsenal of any young woman, not just the modern woman, for that matter. These qualities existed in our grandmothers too. Just as much as the other more 'overtly feminine' qualities.
Every woman swings between the two shades of femininity. How far swung to each extreme depends on the woman.
Men on the other hand are solidly stable. No swings to the right or left of any scale. He is what he is. Masculine. That's it.
This is why 40+ years of feminism has only succeeded in making women unhappy. The swings to the extremes of the scale have been exaggerated to compensate for the unexpected changes in the Sexual Market Place (SMP).
Men on the other hand have simply remained the same. Because it is in their nature to remain constant. Unchangeable. Simple.
To understand your (natural) self, just watch a child of the same gender for a while. To understand the interplay between the sexes watch how children of both genders interact with one another and with adults.
Childhood is indeed Nature's playground.
When you are ready to learn something the teacher suddenly appears, they say.
As a woman in her thirties, and who wants children, I notice children more and more. I study them intensely. Sometimes without realising I am doing it. Then I wake up at midnight with a jolt and say almost out loud: 'So that's what he was trying to communicate when he cried and hugged the cat' referring to little Johnny's seemingly inexplicable behaviour last Sunday afternoon at the park.
A good friend has one son and two daughters ranging from ages 3 to 7.
I spent a whole day with the family recently. It was a real eye opener.
I learned that men really are simple. And women are diverse and adaptable.
Or rather, I already knew the above. I simply had it confirmed in a no-nonsense kind of way.
It was like I had been in a long nap and just woke up.
The youngest daughter is an independent child. At 3, she rules the family. Even 6 foot Dad is afraid of her. She tells big brother and big sister what to do. And they defer to her.
The only one she has not yet managed to wrap around her little finger is Mum. Because she is just like Mum. Her word is law. If you cross her, you are in big trouble, no matter who you are.
The middle child is a truly feminine 'girly' type. She is the quiet one. The nurturing one. The one who will instinctively bring you a a glass of water if she detects your lips are dry. She is the one playing with the doll, affectionately cuddling it and caring for it. She is the one who will wear the pink T-shirt with the word 'princess' on it. She is also the one you know will feel the most pain if her family were to fall apart (God forbid). And yet, you also know she will be the one to try her best to put the pieces together again.
The boy who is also the eldest is just like Dad. He is simple. Feed him, clothe him, praise his efforts and he will like you. Disrespect him and he will ignore you.
At 7, he knows he is male. His mother and sisters are different from him. He already identifies with Dad. Mum will tell you he started this process well before his 7 years.
I always thought children were children until they were adults. Sure, it is clear that boys are boys and girls are girls. We have all heard the term 'boys will be boys' for example. But just how deeply ingrained our gender impacts on our personality was lost on me until I watched these three children I have known for over a year, for a few hours.
I used to worry that the youngest child would turn out to be a 'strong independent' kind of 'feminista' woman. Until I realised I was wrong. She was just as 'feminine' as her sister. Both girls represented all that is worthy of praise in being a woman. They represent different spectra of the same scale. Whilst one is overtly feminine with all the softness, vulnerability and giving on display, the other exhibits the firmness, toughness and strength of mind that is equally necessary in the arsenal of any young woman, not just the modern woman, for that matter. These qualities existed in our grandmothers too. Just as much as the other more 'overtly feminine' qualities.
Every woman swings between the two shades of femininity. How far swung to each extreme depends on the woman.
Men on the other hand are solidly stable. No swings to the right or left of any scale. He is what he is. Masculine. That's it.
This is why 40+ years of feminism has only succeeded in making women unhappy. The swings to the extremes of the scale have been exaggerated to compensate for the unexpected changes in the Sexual Market Place (SMP).
Men on the other hand have simply remained the same. Because it is in their nature to remain constant. Unchangeable. Simple.
To understand your (natural) self, just watch a child of the same gender for a while. To understand the interplay between the sexes watch how children of both genders interact with one another and with adults.
Childhood is indeed Nature's playground.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)