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.
5 comments:
This is SO awesome! I love those kids; they all have their strength (though I hope big Dad does put his foot down to little Chieftaness; otherwise she'll be a nightmare in a few years). But, I disagree that men are simple; maybe they're not like us, not like a vertigo-inducing labyrinth, but they're brilliant, and deep human beings.
Jennifer,
Welcome.
Yes, the little tyrantess is (thankfully) not completely out of control. But her strong personality is unmistakeable.
I meant simple in the sense of uncomplicated. Straightforward.
I totally cosign that they indeed are brilliant and deep human beings. That's why we love 'em so much :-)
Excellent blog. I like your concise descriptions of femininity and masculinity.
'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.'
Do you mean by nature?
I assume you are aware of this when you speak of the necessity of 'game' in another post, but a lot of males today are socially conditioned (nurtured) to be more feminine by the education system , media and parents (who are themselves affected by the former two. )
Some men grow up with conflicted guilt for their masculine instincts . Masculinity, or being simple , is discouraged and in some cases condemned.This is where 'game' and 'red pill' blogs come into the picture. They are, indeed, reactionary. Interestingly their complexity reflects the subject they study : women.
There are anti-game people who argue that game yields to the complex female frame and is therefore supplicatory . Unmanly . On the other hand, with a lot of practice and deprogramming it can ,according to reports, become natural(simple) and in tune with innate masculinity. Over-analysis(complexity) is a common problem for those who discover this information.
Just a few thoughts .
Thank you, Handlingtheredpill!
Yes, I do mean by nature.
This is the premise (learned from a wise old man) that helped shape my thoughts on this matter:
'Men will do whatever it takes for frequent and convenient access to sex'.
Whether that means an ltr or frequent ons with different women - depends on his choice.
There is method to the madness. Because men are logical.
When access to women required marriage, men married. Being 'nice' was an asset in the good old days. PUA was a peripheral phenomenon.
Then feminism flipped the script and changed women (who gladly changed their nature/behaviour with no clear benefit to themselves!) and suddenly for men, the 'Be nice, be yourself' advice was no longer working. Now PUA is mainstream.
I don't think men have changed in their nature at all, on the whole. They have simply adapted their behaviour to suit their needs (and this is something women can learn from men). So I agree they are reactionary, but this is due to their sense of logic/common sense.
Incidentally, I also don't believe that men care too much how they get to the goal. The important thing is to get there. So if Game is supplicating to some degree, who cares. It gets them the girl at the end of the day. (I heard somewhere that men are more focussed on the destination, women more on the journey. This may be a gross generalisation...)
But I guess all humans have a tendency to get curious about why things work and why they don't at some point...
Men need to simply be men, good and tough, like they were for centuries. That's what attracts.
Post a Comment