Bravery by any other name...

Sometimes we get lessons free on a plate.
Even when we least expect it.
And sometimes that lesson comes from a very sad place indeed.

The Sandy Hook massacre really touched the rest of the world. It doesn't matter who you are, where you are, what you are, when you hear a story like this one, you can't help but feel something.

Especially at a time like this.

Losing a child has been described as the worst thing that can happen to a human being.

One doesn't need to be a parent to 'get' this.

It was never going to be 'routine' to have to bury your own child.




The lesson I learned from this tragic event in our recent history is surprisingly nothing to do with the gun debate. As a Brit, I come from a country that is not as 'gun friendly' as America.
But I actually now live in a country with the same gun laws as America. Except there is nowhere near the litany of tragedies that America has, over in Switzerland. It may not be the about the guns per se...

No, the lesson I learned is that there are many more good people around than we think.

I am therefore really proud that I never forget the (minority) of good women still around, despite my dismay with the greater majority who are not up to scratch (which includes myself, of course).

When there are stories about brave men who protect women to the extent that they sometimes lose their lives in the process, we are awed and respectful of these men.
Stories circulate on Manosphere blogs about how courageous they are.
I agree wholeheartedly. These men show us all their glory and honour, even in death.


But one thing puzzles me with these stories.

Not by any means a universal phenomenon, but I notice some men use these stories as a way to chastise women in a sweeeping manner.

"See? We men protect you lasses. You are not worth protecting anymore. In any case, you wouldn't protect me in a similar situation..."

A woman was never meant to protect a man in a physical sense. There are many other ways a woman can be of use to a man. Yes, women are not being what they should be to men these days. I know that. But the accusation that women would not seek to protect a man in a physically dangerous situation is tantamount to a woman berating a man for not wanting to give birth.
It does not make sense.


The Sandy Hook teachers demonstrated to me the natural order of things.

Men protect women.
Women protect children.

Not to say that there are no exceptions to this rule. Occasionally, one hears of a woman saving a man's life, or a 5 year old boy saving his diabetic mother's life by calling an ambulance when she slips into a coma...

I am pretty sure that not all of those six brave teachers who died last week were mothers.
But they still did the maternal thing.

Those of them who were mothers did not stop to think about their own children, but those children who were under their care in the here and now. Those kids became their kids in that fateful moment of danger.
At least two of these teachers were found with their bodies shielding at least one child from the rain of bullets that hailed around them.

Those women were just as brave as the men who risk their lives for others in high profile as well as low profile cases.

In all humility, these people, irrespective of gender who perform these heroic acts deserve our utmost respect. Whether it is because they are 'doing their job' or just volunteering their services when it is called for without thinking twice, it is still bravery.



I would just hope that I would do the same if called upon to do so.
But of course, I will never know until I am in that situation...


There is no argument that men are the physical 'pillars of strength' that protect all of society. This is one good reason every man deserves respect. Just for being a man. (I mean this).

But let us not forget the women who are just as courageous and will not shirk from protecting those more vulnerable/weaker than them.

And let us not forget the good women who continue to inspire men to be men, without demanding anything or defining their masculinity for them. But simply by virtue of retaining their femininity.

The long hard climb out of the cesspit will not be possible without these women.

Gangnam Style and a Manosphere wet dream

Gangnam Style...
It has plenty to answer for :-)

I just caught onto this phenomenon!
Told you I was slow...

Perhaps if I had heard about this sooner, I would have included it in my 'Humour' post.
It afterall epitomises the 'goofiness' that I find so endearing in men.

Gangnam Style on its own is funny enough:

 

 

 

 

But as one would expect, there are also some very good parodies out there...

I present to you a very British one :-)

 

 

 

Hahahahahahahahaha!

 

These ladies sure know how to have a laugh. And... they make this video for a good cause - to raise money for charity.

 

Would any man here turn up his nose at any one of these lovely women?

 

Isn't this the ultimate man's dream?

A beautiful woman who is also feminine, not too fat, enjoys her work (both in and out of the home) and has a sense of humour to boot?

 

Sure, it may just be a comedy sketch, but of course there are many women like this out there...

Ah, these ones are obviously taken :-)

But nevermind, there are some who are not yet taken who aspire to this *wink, wink*.

 

 

 

More on the theme of humour, there is another Youtube sensation that has recently caught my attention. And again, it's British, hehe.

 

This man is of Pakistani origin, I believe. The story goes that he came to Britain to learn how to run a business.

He started selling fish in a market in East London, and (clever man!) knowing that over 90% of his customers would be women, he started singing to them to charm them into buying his fish:

 

 

 

His antics were filmed by one of his customers who uploaded it onto Youtube, and now, this song is heading for number one in the British charts!

 

 

 

(I like how the female dancers have fish-scale-like attire - very apt).

 

 

If I still lived in London, I would buy this man's fish for £5 :-)

Just for making me laugh. Seriously.

 

We ladies lap up this sort of thing. We just can't help ourselves.

One woman was so impressed with this man that she set the ball rolling propelling him into stardom.

Here he is on the British version of 'The X Factor' (from around 2:40).

 

 

 

Good on him. I hope his business and his career as a singer really take off.

 

 

 

 

Anyone else know of any inspirational and heartwarming stories such as these?

If you can somehow weave into them the man-woman interaction theme, even better!

 

It would be way too cheesy to say 'Have a Gangnam style Christmas', so I won't say it.

 

;-)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Briffault's Law: A law on a fault of womanhood?

Someone* asked me to share my thoughts on the above law.

It is exactly the kind of topic Sensible Me would have steered clear of :-)
But Someone wanted to start this discussion going.

So in this season of goodwill, I thought I would oblige, leaving my sensible self somewhere far away from here :-)

It may not be quite the right time of year to discuss this issue.
 But when is it ever right to tackle such a contentious topic?

Robert Briffault (1876-1948) was a (French? - under speculation if he was actually French or British) surgeon who became more known for his anthropological observations than his career as a doctor.

His most famous observation from his literary work 'The Mothers' which became his eponymous law was this:


"The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place."


This quote of Briffault is highly familiar, in the sense that it highlights a 'fault' of womanhood that men don't like and is often discussed by Manosphere bloggers :-)

Now, bearing in mind that I am female (and therefore perhaps automatically excluded from rational or unbiased analysis of Briffault's Law), I offer my thoughts.

(NB: I have never read 'The Mothers', nor any others of Briffault's works. I do think it may have been useful to have read his works to get a 'feel' for his line of thinking and his worldview. But alas, I lack the time and the inclination. Apologies for that).


I think Briffault is both right and wrong with his law.

Why is he right?

Yes, it was always Nature's brutally unfair intent that a woman associate herself with a man who would be of most help to her in the business of offspring-raising.
That, in my opinion is what Briffault's Law is for.

So this law, in of itself is not wrong.
Au contraire, it is a useful law. For society in general, not just women.

If more women rejected men who were clearly and unequivocally unsuited to the role they were designed for, perhaps we would not be in the mess we are in today.

There would certainly be fewer feral childern about.
Because Father would be in the home, along with Mother.

A wise person I know has this rule:

'As women go, so goes society'.

I have quoted this saying ad nauseum on this blog. Whichever way I look at it, it seems to make sense to me.

Briffault's law implies both a right and a responsibility of women.
Every good father tells his daughter: Pick a responsible man to associate with. Vet his character, his values, make sure they are compatible with what you want. If not, reject him.

Briffault's law.


Every good mother tells her daughter: Keep your wits about you when meeting and dating men. Keep your ears and eyes open, but your legs crossed. If he is not to your taste, do not invest yourself in him.

Briffault's law.


A woman may not get a 'finished product' of a man, especially when he and she are young. But she needs to see some 'potential' in terms of how he sees life, his character and his values. For some women (especially those who wish to have children), earning power of a man is also very important. I make no judgment on that, except to say that as a woman, I understand this very well. Child raising is not cheap.
But alas, money is not everything. There are some women who will gladly marry the poorest man around, but whose character is golden. A character they would wish to pass on to their children.
This is still Briffault's law at play. The woman is still seeking something.

The woman who enters into an association with a man with zero expectations of something back from him is not a wise woman, especially if she wants a family. I am sure everyone would agree with this. Low expectations is reasonable in this context :-). Zero expectations is not.

Therefore, I think Briffault's law is an accurate observation and perhaps a good assessment of how a woman should be. It fits very nicely in fact with my own views on hypergamy.


But enough of the 'rights'. Note that it is also the responsibility of a woman to find a man with the best fit to what she believes is the ideal man for her.

Therefore, in the best interpretation of the perfect 'subtitle' to Briffault's law, a woman is not allowed to marry or otherwise enter into a committed relationship with a man and then rescind her initial 'promise'.
This is where things get messy.

Briffault's law contains the following 'subtexts':


1. Past benefit provided by the male does not provide for continued or future association.


2. Any agreement where the male provides a current benefit in return for a promise of future association is null and void as soon as the male has provided the benefit (see corollary 1).


3. A promise of future benefit has limited influence on current/future association, with the influence inversely proportionate to the length of time until the benefit will be given and directly proportionate to the degree to which the female trusts the male.


Certainly, in today's feminist-boosted, legally-encouraged, spiritually-bereft culture, the above scenarios are very, very common.
This is hypergamy according to Manosphere Law!
And I would agree that this is crass womanhood.
How Briffault worked this one out in 1960 I'll never know, but he seems to have had the same foreseer's glasses as George Orwell (1984) and Aldous Huxley (Brave New World).
He was absolutely right about his predictions (actuality?).


But Briffault was also wrong.

For one, wanting something in return is a human issue.
We were all born selfish.

The person who is the eternal doormat has something wrong with him or her. It is not normal.

So, a woman may wish for a provider  type. This is wired into her DNA.
A man may wish for a beautiful and young woman. This is also wired into his DNA.
:-)

Men and women want different things from each other. But each has his/her needs/wants. Therefore one might also interpret the second line of Briffault's law as applying to both men and women.

For two, it is not always true that women control everything. Clever men know how to 'lead' women, even in the domestic realm. But I won't be drawn into another long discussion about 'alpha' and 'beta' :-) It's Christmas!




Briffault's law has always existed. Kudos to Briffault for actually verbalising it for the rest of us.
In the Patriarchal society we had pre-feminism, this was 'controlled' and did not allow women to get all 'feral' with their desires.
It also incidentally enabled women to have a wider choice of 'suitable men'.

We are back to 'as women go...'.
For as women on the one hand went 'over the top' with Briffault's law, and killed the goose that was laying the golden eggs (awful pun, sorry) by being too critical of men, and then on the other hand dropping Briffault's law entirely by not vetting men they rewarded with... um... 'favours', the possibility to exercise Briffault's law at all disappeared. Almost overnight.

Women do and should control the animal family. It is the way it has always been, and was designed to be. The only difference between before and now is that, now, it is done at the expense of men rather than for the good of society as a whole.

With this important role comes some very serious responsibilties.
Ignore the responsibilities at our peril.

Umm, too late... already there....





Merry Christmas everyone!






 *Thank you, Someone.

Laughter the best medicine

Humour.

Or yuma, as my french colleagues would say :-)

Don't you just love it :-)
It is what keeps us all sane.

Here is my little ode to humour, the saviour of mankind.

I take this opportunity also to apologise for depressing everyone with my run of misery-inducing posts lately. Separation and divorce are not the easiest topics to deal with at the best of times, and certainly not in the run up to Christmas.

I hope this present post lightens up the atmosphere a bit round here, in this supposedly joyful Advent-tide.

Without further ado, let's have a laugh....British style!

Yes, the Brits are well-known for their sense of humour :-)
This is what I love most about being British.
We are known to laugh, even in the face of adversity. Sometimes, our humour is unacceptably irreverent. But it is usually innocent fun.

Speaking of innocent fun, I think we have all learned this week that sometimes even 'innocent' fun can be very unfunny.
When it is done at the expense of others.
In the case I refer to, the intended target turned out  not to be the eventual victim.
Funny is only truly funny if no-one gets hurt.


When I was very young (under ten), I used to read Readers Digest a lot. Both my parents were avid fans, and I kind of inherited this 'fandom'. There was a section, 'Laughter the best medicine', which I thoroughly enjoyed reading, and it rapidly became the only section I would read :-)


Not to get all scientific on you, but laughter is indeed a booster of health and well-being, due to its ability to induce the release of various hormones and neurotransmitters, which contribute to general health, much like exercise produces endorphine (pain-relieving and general 'feel-good') substances.

I believe that a permanent loss of humour is a dangerous thing. It could be a one-way ticket to the abyss.



Here are a few things that make me laugh.
What are yours?
Let's share! And have a jolly good laugh in the process :-)



1. Anyone with a french accent

This has to be my number one, given where I live!
Now, some say I have developed a french accent too, but since I don't perceive it myself, it doesn't count :-)
There are many different accents in Switzerland, since it is a multi-lingual country.
But none makes me laugh more than the french one.

Know what I mean? That heavy, difficult to understand french accent that Agatha Christie's Poirot (Belgian) is known for and which is parodied in the popular British comedy 'Allo allo'. Where you wish they would speak French rather than English because you know you will understand them better :-)

Sometimes it could be described as 'sexy' depending on who is speaking (cough Thierry Henry, cough!) but it is still funny.

It is not just the accent either. Sometines it is just the idioms involved.
One of my bosses has a heavy french accent.
And for some reason he refuses to use the word 'very' when he speaks English. So when I am being chastised (erm, which is often, lol), I often hear 'bad bad bad' rather than 'very bad'.
Strangely enough, when I am being chastised in french, he uses the word très. I don't get it.


2. Offended cats
Now, let's be clear. To you Manosphere chaps, let it be known that I don't own a cat :-)
At least not yet :-)

How did this come to happen anyway, that a woman with multiple cats in old age became such a symbol of derision in The Manosphere?
May I digress for a minute here?
Thanks!

I was reading with great interest the life story of Patrick Moore who died recently at age 89. As an astronomer, he was my childhood hero (my handle is 'Spacetraveller' for a reason!).
I was surprised and saddened by the reason for his lifelong bacherlorhood. His one and only love was brutally taken away from him during the war.
And (unusually for a man, I think), he had cats...I always associate men with dogs for some reason...


Anyhow, has anyone come across a cat who is offended?
I have offended more than one cat in my lifetime, it seems. Friends' and relatives' cats.
Let me tell you that a cat who is offended by something you have done can be very...belligerent.
They give you a look which is almost like this. but not quite:

And then you get the head flick. And the turning away and walking off from you, sulking.
It's absolutely hilarious!
And cats can hold a grudge for days.
It's like they have PMT or something :-)
I can relate, lol.


3. Men!
Hahahahahha!
Men do make me laugh. In a good way.
There is a reason I adore our resident funnyman, Metak.
And I think it is the same reason Danny our Maestro Game coach is such a success when it comes to the ladeeez.
It boils down to their humour.

I think it is fair to say that women like to laugh. Hence many women state that they like a man who can make them laugh.
Of course men like to laugh too. But I think they like it better if they provide a laugh. Gentlemen, am I right here, or off the mark?

To this end, I think, in general, men make better comedians than women. (Wait, do I only think this because I am a woman?)
However, there are many exceptions to this rule. Some very funny comedians are women, of course. I think Dawn French, Joanna Lumley and Jo Brand are three good (British) examples. I am sure others could name a few more. I find Joan Rivers quite funny myself. Anyone agree?

On Stingray' blog somewhere I once replied to a Bulgarian woman who stated that she found the young PUAs in her town highly amusing. I indicated to her that I found all (or at least most) men to be amusing.
A man replied to me that he found women amusing too!
I thought that was so nice to hear :-)

Is this a general sentiment among men?
Now, perhaps to a lot of Manosphere men, this may be far from the truth in our current clime. But what about the other (shall we say....um...'Manosphere-neutral') men here?
Do women make you laugh? In a good way or not?


4. Very old ladies
This is a peculiar one for me, and I am not sure how to explain it.

Wizened old ladies really amuse me. Again in a good way. I am not sure if it is the way they seem to dismiss or ignore social norms and etiquette, or if it is the fact that they look almost like 'little girls' again because they are reduced in size in their old age...I really don't know. I only report their effect on me.

I once popped into a church for Mass in a town I happened to be passing through and in which I knew no-one.
The church was by no means full.
And yet, an old lady (she was at least 80) came and sat so close to me that had she sat any closer, it would have been illegal. There was plenty of space on the pew! Any other person would have given me my due of at least 10 cm of 'space'. Not this lady.
The whole episode cracked me up, and I couldn't concentrate on the Mass.
Furthermore, everyone around us noticed this breech of personal space too, and I could hear the ensuing sniggers.

Why oh why do I always attract such people at Mass?


5. Little boys

The film 'Jerry Maguire' was a 'chick magnet'. Yes, true.
But don't you ever believe it was because of Tom Cruise or his 'You complete me' line.
No!

This is the reason women all over the world were falling over themselves to get to a cinema:

 

 

:-)

Is it the relatively large head or the spiky hair?
Dunno.




 And this is him today by the way :-)

I find little boys very entertaining indeed.
All children I know, or even don't know, irrespective of gender, somehow seem to Game me, which is a slight source of worry for me, because I feel I may not succeed in establishing the right kind of authority as a parent one day. But some people on that thread reassured me that I have nothing to worry about - thank you for that assurance! :-)

For now though, I am mercilessly gamed by little boys in this age-group. But they also make me laugh with their antics.
Whether it is showing me their, um 'friends' as these two brothers did, or teaching me how to work an i-phone, these little chaps are certainly a law unto themselves, aren't they?
JV, I am sure you may have one or two stories to share on this front!

The son of a friend of mine, when he was around 3 or 4, suddenly grasped the concept of money and 'value', and promptly exerted his new-found knowledge on Auntie Spacetraveller in a way only little boys can.
Out of the blue one day, as I leaned in for my customary peck on the cheek, I was denied access.

Yes.
Little rascal had worked out that it could get quite lucrative offering kisses to his Mum's female friends :-)
So now, Auntie Spacetraveller had to cough up some dough before she could get a kiss...

Well I never.
2 years ago, I was changing his nappy (diaper).
And now I had to pay up to pucker up :)
Can you believe this?! Or in Cockney rhyme, can you Adam and Eve this?!
Blimey! It's bad enough with the whole MGTOW thing. Now, it's LBGTOW too!
:-)
Well now he is almost a teenager. And dear old Auntie Spacetraveller will never again get a kiss out of him.
Even if she offers to pay :-)



What makes you laugh?
Tell us your amusing story!

Shut Up and Cry me a River!

I have been chastised :-(

In a good way!

I agree with the chastisement, which boils down to: 'don't look at the negative aspect of life - for it may come back and bite you in the _________'.

But I have a slightly morbid fascination with separations once again.
Only this time, I hope to be more lighthearted about it.

Let's just say, this post is designed as a 'coolly detached' look at breakups.
Let's just say it is purely for the purposes of 'intellectual curiosity'.

And to this end, I apologise in advance to anyone who is currently going through a breakup, or is hurled back into the unpleasant memory of a breakup.



I think most adults have been through at least one breakup.

Some might even consider it a badge of honour of sorts, in the same way little boys consider a scar or a bruise as a sign that they are now MEN :-)

A priest I know of won't marry a couple unless they have broken up at least once.
This directly led a couple I know straight into hot water.

They had never broken up before their engagement. So to comply with the priest's known stance on this (and because they really really wanted to get married in this particular parish), they decided to fake a breakup (silly, I know! Hey, I thought it was funny too at the time - turns out I was just as immature as them, lol).

They told everyone they had broken up, including me (who happened to be in on the secret). Unfortunately, an old flame of the groom-to-be (who of course wasn't in the loop) thought the path was now clear for her to rekindle things with him...
The long and the short was that it turned out to be very embarrassing for all concerned, and the couple actually did break up for real, as a result of a series of unfortunate events.

Thankfully, things righted themselves, and they are now a very happy couple many years after their eventual marriage.

But I am sure their (bizarre) breakup helped in some way...


Breakups are of course mostly painful.
This is why I shall never understand the (mostly North American! - I never heard of this happening in Europe) trend of having a 'divorce party'.

Interestingly,
1. I have only seen this on TV. I never heard of anyone doing this in real life. (Does this actually happen in real life?)

2. It seems to be a uniquely female thing. I never heard of a man having a 'divorce party'. I think I get why.

3. It seems to be a modern trend. Which makes me suspect it is yet another feminist denial phenomenon like the 'I am so happy to be single' bandwagon.

4. It seems so inappropriate. Especially where there are children involved who are clearly distressed about the disintegration of their family, and are suffering as a result, eg. as evidenced by school fighting, poor grades, attempted suicide. So it seems so unbelievably cruel for someone to be 'celebrating' the divorce.

5. Even if the divorce seems 'liberating' as in the case of physical abuse, it still seems a bit sad to be celebrating said divorce.
It is like any death: even if the dead person is Hitler, it is still a death. Dancing on anyone's grave is still somehow bad. Better not to go to the funeral at all.
Is this a fair point?
Or are there instances where a party should be held when someone dies?
Consider this: Saddam Hussein's/Colonel Ghaddafi's deaths were not exactly a tragedy for many in their respective countries.
And yet, the scenes of glee after these men died seemed somehow equivalent to the same scenes of glee in some Arabic countries when 9/11 took place.
Is this a fair comparison?
Or is my assertion that a death is still a death, no matter whose, a travesty which will take me on a  road to hell, which is, you know, paved with good intentions and all...

Dis-moi.
Tell me what you think. Hugely off-topic, but I am suddenly interested in this.



Anyhow, moving on, I credit commenter Bill for the inspiration for this post.
This is a hat trick from Bill, who also inspired the posts The Madonna-Whore-conundrum  and The gourmet meal...of red pills!!!.
Thank you Bill :-)


A hat tip to Bill for this gem from Julie London:

'Cry me a river' from the 1956 film 'The girl can't help it'.

The film plot does not interest me so much as the song itself.
If ever there was a breakup song, this is it :-)

But what is interesting about this song is what some would call 'projection', the ultimate 'cardinal sin' of a woman.
Julie London claims to have 'cried a river' for Tom Ewell's character, and so she demands the same from him.
She wants a man to cry a river for her?
We all know that would never happen, don't we? :-)


Which reminds me of another breakup song with the same name.

Justin Timberlake's 'Cry me a river' was at the same time vicious and compelling because of its brutal honesty in revealing for all to see, how a man views a woman he believes has been unfaithful to him.
Scary viewing indeed. A window into a man's soul at the darkest moment of his life.

It is my genuine belief that most men do not like to see a woman cry.
They will tease her, mock her, even upset her, but the objective is not to make her cry.
Correct me gentlemen, if I have got this wrong!


But in this video, Justin makes it crystal clear that all gloves are off. He really wants to see this woman cry.
The problem is, unlike in Julie London's case, this woman will cry. Because he will ensure that she does. This is what makes this video truly dark.
And yet, one feels for him, and not the girl who hurt him.

I am not sure if my reaction to this video is normal or not. (Um, feel free to analyse this - I won't object!)
The video is at least ten years old. But it remins my reference point for 'feeeling' male pain when it comes to a painful breakup.



A less 'dark' picture of a breakup is presented by my old favourites, the Black eyed peas.
This is more of an 'anatomy of a deteriorating relationship' more than a 'breakup', but it illustrates quite poignantly the ways in which men and women react to a failing relationship.
I find it fascinating.


The only thing the man seems to be saying to the woman is...'shut up! Stop the talking, baby, or I start walking, baby!'
Hmmm. Where have I heard this before?
Men really are allergic to women's constant nuttering. Alles klar!
:-)

And the woman signs off her lament with 'is that all there is?'
But I can't help but feel for her when she exclaims 'I just want to be your lady!'
Awwwww.
This is sad. She admits to going almost insane because of this man.
But...she still wants to be his lady.
Gentlemen, you have no idea how some women feel about you :-)

I think the Black eyed peas are very good observers of human interaction.
This is why I find this video absolutely insightful.
And of course, the odd mix of 'faux classical' with 'urban-style' music is a source of interest all on its own for me anyway.




What does everyone think?
Are they right in their portrayal of man-woman interaction?

What esle is interesting about how men and women react to romantic separation?
Without making it too sombre, are there lessons to be learned from breakups?












PS: I have had to reintroduce the captcha due to excess spam. Hope this does not cause problems. If so, just let me know and I shall try to fix it.

Grounds for divorce?

My focus changed.
All of a sudden :-)
With good reason too.


This was to be the second part of a look at M3's post from JV's point of view...
But I think I have found something else to discuss.
At least, I found another angle from which to approach this topic.

To this end, I shall divorce (heh!) both M3 and JV from this post.

But the origin of this post did come from JV's second parallel to look at how a woman might get to the depths of despair that M3 describes.

Once again, just to re-iterate the point that JV was not saying that this was exactly comparable to M3's story. I hope we have firmly established that by now.

As it turns out, the story itself (that JV describes) is not required here, in this post. Just a small part of it.


Just a quick 'declaration' of sorts before I continue.

I am still as divorce-phobic as ever, no matter how much it might seem that I am now an apologetic for divorce, in this post.

But, in a flurry of maturity that I have never experienced before, I am willing to take a quick look at a deeply pertinent subject before I have to deal with it head on.

I am in some sort of race against time to clear my head of all falsehoods, inaccuracies, 'pretty lies', ugly lies, partial truths and downright porkies.

So my usual plea of 'explain it like I am a 6 year old' applies here, ever more than before :-)




In short, JV describes a woman in a marriage where the other party is addicted to pills. This renders him unable to function in all ways including, um...an important marital way.

Well, the word 'addiction' always makes me want to flee. It's one of my 'fight or flight' words.

I occasionally have the 'pleasure' of encountering people with serious addictions, for example during the course of my work, (but not exclusively).
Believe me when I say that 'pleasure' is a measured word here.

Let's just say that from what I have noticed, these people have checked out of their own lives (leaving their friends and family to pick up the pieces) but because they haven't exactly 'left the building', people see the lights on and assume there is someone home.
No, there is no-one home.

Someone married to a person in this category is effectively single.


And so I ask myself, on what grounds is divorce justifiable?

Serious question.

For me, the reference point for a question like this would be The Church. I bet their answer (if I knew it) would be better than a secular answer.

On searching a few sites (and I cannot be sure of their authenticity), I find that The Church believes divorce to be wrong, on principle, but 'civil' divorce is acceptable under the following circumstances (with the caveat that re-marriage is still not 'allowed' because despite a 'civil' divorce, one is still spiritually married to the original spouse, and so remarriage constitutes adultery:


"The Church teaches that the separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases. The Catechism states: “If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.”


I don't really understand this. Anyone care to explain it in simple terms citing examples?

Perhaps looking for 'grounds for annulment' might help? Afterall, many people see annulment as the equivalent of divorce for Catholics. Not true, but there we are...


"The Catholic Church can, however, annul a marriage if there is sufficient proof that the marriage was invalid to begin with. Grounds for annulment include being forced to marry someone, not having enough information about that individual – as an example – if the party was an abuser, a convicted rapist and if the individual lied (about wanting children as one example). A marriage can also be annuled by the Catholic Church if the sexual act was not consummated."


Hm, I think I have an answer to a question I didn't really ask, but wanted to, with regard to the above scenario.


In terms of 'legal rights' and annulment, what about a crime committed during the marriage, after vows have already been taken? Can one spouse claim, 'but I didn't know he was going to turn out to be a murderer?' and win a divorce/annulment case?

I mean, of course, if one spouse killed the other, then the marriage is technically over (!)...but what if one spouse killed a third party closely related to both parties, eg. one of the kids, or the mother-in-law? Is the Church going to push for saving such a marriage??

Serious question, believe it or not.
(If you don't believe me, know that at least three of the seven sacraments are granted one by the Church after one passes a 'test' of some sort (um, with the exception of Baptism and 'Last Rites'.

I may have to prove that I know the answers to some of the above answers, otherwise, I may not be granted a certain sacrament I seek.
And I ain't talking 'Holy Orders' :-)

Extreme examples only bring out the complexities of a situation. That's the extent of their usefulness.

Here is another.

This woman speaks of a phenomenon that TPM brought to our attention.
I was stunned to realise that this woman divorced her husband because (after having been 'alpha' once), he turned into a 'lapdog'.

Not wishing to sound insensitive, I don't wish to dissect this too much...

But...

I must say, it's a scary thought that this can happen.

As a woman myself, I know what extreme and permanent 'betatude' can do to a woman. I often describe this feeling as 'getting hives', but I can well imagine that it is even worse for other women, and I have heard of this phenomenon inducing an extreme kind of 'nausea' in a woman, followed by a revulsion which engulfs her until she is rid of the source of this 'maladie'.

This must be a painful experience for all concerned.
Especially if one is married to said source of maladie.
Evidently.
So much so, that a man might find himself 'friendzoned' after he has said 'I do'.

I honestly feel that no matter how much a man may become a 'lapdog', he should not be divorced for this.

There HAS to be a solution to this problem.
Anyone know?

'Inside' (as I call her) could not suggest any to me, on TPM's blog when I asked her.
But I am sure there must be something that can be done.

Surely if a man has been 'alpha' enough to attract a woman to the point of marriage, he can't be hopeless.
He can return to his alpha self from time to time, surely!

What can a woman do to help this process along, if like Inside's husband, he just won't do it by himself?
How to prevent her seeking the contact details of a lawyer?

If divorce is out of the question (eg. viewed as some sort of 'sin'), what can a woman do to ensure she is never going down that path?

Here's a challenge:

Let's say you know a young woman. She is as divorce-phobic as I am.
She is at a church.
The church is full.
The bells are ringing.
Groom's at the altar, wondering what her dress is going to be like.
She is at the front door of the church, on her father's arm.
Priest is approaching her, about to make the sign of the cross.

You have eaxctly two minutes to divorce-proof this imminent marriage, before it even starts.

What do you say to the blushing bride?
So that she will remember you and your words on her 30th wedding anniversary :-)

(Please don't say to her: 'don't do it', lol.
NB: You could have had a chance speaking to the groom, but he is now at the altar already, having cleared his head of the hangover from last night following his stag-do, and is hellbent on marrying this woman :-).
How can you help him avoid deep regrets twenty years down the line?
By speaking to the woman...



Is it all down to luck, or are there ways to efficiently prevent divorce?
I am prone to believe the latter... but I don't know why.

Prove me right :-)
Educate me.


And you don't have to be married to participate in this conversation.
All ideas welcome and appreciated.

 

 

 

How does one avoid ever seeing this piece of paper?

 

 

The big brother of PVC

I need help...

No, no! Before you start sending me the phone number of your therapist, I don't mean that kind of help :-)

It is more a literary kind of help.
I am searching for a word.

And so far, my cerebral 'Google' says, 'No results found'.

So I seek your help.


I have recently taken a step or two back from this blog.
Whilst I could use laziness/'busy, busy busy' as my excuse, this would not be the whole truth.

I have been doing what Danny asked me to do almost a year ago.
Which is to spend less time blogging and more time perusing other people's blogs.

This
1. Gives my blogging cortex a rest.
2. Gives me material to blog about.
3. Helps me establish that I am part of a blogging community and not an island.

Ahem!
That's the last time I listen to a man...

Just kidding, Maestro :-)

Me getting into a bit of trouble was not your fault :-) But thanks for saying that if you coulda, you woulda sat me down and given me some advice as to how to proceed...i.e. with caution, lol.

And your blogpost earlier today reminds me of an encounter with my big brother when I was about 5.

I got erm...beaten up by a boy of about 6 (yup, little ST got beat). I had no fighting skills, and even though I was bigger than him, the boy beat me up good.
I went crying to my big brother later.

Sympathy? Are you joking me?
This was my big brother's response:

"You allowed yourself to get beaten by a boy smaller than you? For sure, you deserved to get beat!"

My brother was treating me as though I were a boy. Always has, always will.
At least now I can have a sense of humour about it.

And after dusting myself from the latest clash with the Titans, in which my hamster got shot at point blank range, said hamster is now fully resuscitated and is ready to do business again, and I am back with you with a smile :-)

And to those men who are opponents of The Manosphere who would no doubt say the same thing my brother said and start off by saying, "What did we tell you about playing with those boys...?"
:-)
I know, I know, I got no right to come crying to you...



Joking aside, I want to do 2 things with this post:

1. Outline certain lessons I learned from my interaction with people on that post at TPM's.

(And I promise, no more rants from me. I got their message and I am cool with everybody involved. Honest. If you detect a rant, tell me and I shall give my hamster a slap).

2. And this will spill into the next post on this blog, where I shed some light on why I think JV's contribution to that post is important, even if not to the men on that post.

(Now, whilst it is no secret that I rather like JV (no homo), this is not the reason I supported one or two of her comments on that post about M3. I shall do my best to explain it as clearly as possible...).


Well, I told you I was slow...
The thought to bring the topics of interest (to me) that occurred to me when I read M3's post should have passed through my mind much earlier than it did.
In many ways I forgot I have a blog! I was so used to being a 'commenter' lately :-)

I like to make parallels between male and female 'ways'. I have previously done this with the hamster and 'frame' using the 'brother-sister' analogy.
I am about to do it again.


One of the lessons I learned on my recent brush with the Manosphere law is that sometimes, even good intentions from a woman can be viewed as BAD BAD BAD by a man. This can be so frustrating for a woman. But in the same way as women cannot expect men to act like a woman, I guess I can only expect a man to act like a man.

I, like most women will soak up empathy whenever and wherever I can get it :-)
This is closely linked, I think, to (in a nice way) our tendency towards what I call 'Perpetual Victim Complex' (PVC). Not all women have this problem, but I think the majority do. Now, what one does with this complex is up to the individual woman. I know some women, for instance, who only use their PVC not for themselves, but for others :-)

But some men (and definitely not all) prefer to stew in their own pain and exclude everyone from it. I guess this is part of the 'Quiet Man' phenomenon, although I must say, I have never encountered a man in real life, 'Quiet Man' or not, who didn't make it known that he appreciated genuine empathy when it was offered.

So this episode on TPM was 'virgin territory' for me.

The man is so deeply buried in his problems that he refuses any displays of affection. Even from a woman who is standing well outside of his 'cave' (like miles away) and waving a white flag and not offering anything remotely resembling 'help'.

To the man, all of that is 'noise'....? (Yes, someone used that word).
Anyone know how to better define this phenomenon in one or two words?
I was thinking...maybe 'leave-me-alone!' complex' or even 'stay away from me!' phenomenon, but that's more than two words...


Well, it helps to know. Lesson learned.
If the point of this blog is to understand a bit better about men, then here is a lesson from the College of Manhood. (Oh, I was so tempted to say 'University of Man', but they are no longer with us...).

And...very importantly, I think it is wise to know a particular man's tendencies when it comes to this.
As I found out, the men at TPM were polarised on this 'empathy' issue, some refusing it (which is fine) and some welcoming it (which is fine). But the problem was, I was not to know who wanted what, so I was like a reed in the wind...
Luckily, M3 himself was a 'yes please, I'll take it' kind of man in this respect.
Phew!

I think it would be a shame for a woman to provide it when it is not wanted, and to not have it handy when it is needed.


Anyhow, now I move onto JV.

But before I do, a quick word about 'solipsism'.

As with 'hypergamy' and 'preselection', I have my own take on this.

The Manosphere view this as a predominantly female disease. I don't.
It cannot be.
Whenever we encounter a situation, we judge it by making it 'about us'.
Case in point:  many men responded to M3's post by starting off saying something like.
'Man, this is so what I went through...'
'God, this is so familiar...'

The only reason they are not judged for their reaction is that their reaction is identical to M3's (or similar enough) and therefore deemed acceptable, on a forum that deals with men's issues. Which is fair enough. I get that.

M3 gave a wonderful analogy to explain why he thought (as JV and I did) that it is indeed possible to empathise with someone even if you don't have an identical experience as them.

"Very few people on this planet had someone they’re related to die on 9-11. But for a day, the whole world stopped. Empathy brought the planet to a halt."

As someone who was neither anywhere New York nor knew someone who was, how can I 'make this about me'?
Easy. Find something similar that I can relate to.

IRA bombings in London, for example...

I HAVE to first make it about me, in my head, before I can relate.
If I can't, I'm done. It won't be possible to relate. If I tried to, it would come across as fake. Which would be clear for all to see.

JV and I tried to do that. Solipsism, yes. But necessary solipsism in this case.

I provided an example of a good woman who couldn't get a commitment from a man she loved.
PVW, you are right, I didn't make this analogy tight enough, and the picture you provide on Danny's blog is exactly what I would have said, if I had had a chance to.
But as you can see, it would have been the wrong time and place :-)

JV gave two examples, bless her :-)

The first one really ruffled feathers.
It was the example of a bad woman who was suffering the consequences from one too many 'pump and dumps'.
The unfortunate thing about this was that many commenters made the assumption that JV was equating M3's situation with this female situation.
I know she wasn't - like me before her on that post, she was simply saying that the way these women feel is similar to how M3 felt, and not that the path that took those women to where they were presently is similar to how M3 got to where he was - but it is a hard case to argue, especially when the issue of 'choice' came up.
So in fact I saw a reason to abandon this analogy.

The second analogy is much more apt.
For two reasons:

Because it is more an appropriate analogy for JV to have used, because it was her experience. Which means it is the best analogy she could use to help her see M3 as 'fellow sufferer'.

I shall go more into that analogy in Part 2. Because I think there are other aspects to it that deserve to go under the microscope.

With this solipsism in mind, I can now say that this suggestion by someone, cannot work, for the target audience intended:


A woman who wants to understand it better can imagine how she’d feel like if
* Men stopped paying attention to her
*To get any sex, she has to ask 100 men before one says yes, and a lot of rejections are brutal. Some express disgust.
*Guys she likes fuck anyone but her
*She is constantly horny like during ovulation, just constantly.

This would not work because women simply do not live this experience. If to understand M3, a woman used this strategy, it would be no more than an intellectual exercise. It would NOT take her to the place of pain that she needs to go to (that is still nowhere near M3's place of pain, granted - but is better than nothing).

I agree better with that same commenter's statement (elsewhere):

"Using parallells to understand how someone might feel is the only way we can understand anything. Were they asking you to imagine a color you’ve never seen before? Of course you can only imagine something with things you already know about/experienced."

Solipsism. We need it. All of us. And it ain't a bad thing if used correctly.


The third and final lesson is....
As ever....

Vive la différence!

La mia santa Mamma!

I had meant to write about something else this week.
But a number of recurring themes kept distracting me.

And I realise now that the one thing in common with all these themes is...motherhood.
This post should really be called 'Motherhood: the good, the bad and the ugly'.

Or rather, 'Motherhood:the beautiful, the sad, and the downright confusing'.


No-one is surprised to hear that a major part of femininity is being a wife and mother. If women are honest, this is what they seek, even without the social pressures.
It is an innate thing, and is stronger than the need (of men) to become a husband and father, evidently :-)

And this is why it is so frustrating for me to hear women who have jumped eagerly on the feminist bandwagon proclaiming that they are so jolly happy being single and childless when the reverse is true. It is deeply upsetting for me to witness people trying very hard to lie to themselves. It should be OK to wish for something. No-one should be brainwashed into believing what they should or should not want.

Because I know that those who actually are happy to be single and childless, are not trying to convince anyone that they are. They simply go about their lives in a quiet manner, and only defend their stance when challenged.

But I mustn't get distracted.


I addressed motherhood before, where I painted a pretty bleak picture of obviously bad, sad and complex motherhood, with the caveat of course, that we all know pretty well what bad fatherhood looks like, because we are fed this image in a never-ending campaign against fatherhood - for who's benefit, I am not entirely sure.

But anyway, must not get distracted again.


In two directly opposing 'verdicts' of the children, I present to you, the saint and the (d)evil.


First the saint:

This woman refers to her mother as My saint Mamma :-)
(Which I guess could also be translated as 'my holy Mamma', but I do believe she intends the first meaning).

But then again, not many of us have mothers who have actually been canonised as saints by the Catholic Church (even if we feel they deserve that accolade anyway :-). So she is in a unique position, and her amusing and endearing way of talking about her mother is perfectly justified.

Dr. Gianna Emanuella Molla would not be alive at all if her mother Saint (also Dr.) Gianna Beretta Molla hadn't opted to exchange her life for hers. It was a simple choice in that sense. Despite her doctor colleagues' advice, she went ahead with her high risk pregnancy and lost her life as a result.

Her (youngest) daughter, who never knew her, as she died soon after her birth in 1962, is her biggest fan. As are her other children who of course lost their mother as young children.

She has an unusually high-pitched voice for a 50 year old :-)
(I am not sure there are videos of her speaking english, although I am pretty sure she does speak english).

It is obvious that The Church agrees with her that her mother is a saint.
But I am slightly uneasy about this one, and have been for a long time: The elevation of one child (albeit unborn) over all the other children and spouse (not to talk of self, which happens to be responsible for all the already born children) seems a bit...not correct, no?
But I can see why St. Gianna Molla is a saint nonetheless.
As is this Australian woman:

However I feel about the dilemma St. Gianna Molla undoubtedly faced with bravery, it has to be said that at least she is a thousand times better than this woman, whose own 10 year old child refers to her as 'evil'.

 This should never be a word that a child uses to describe his mother.

And yet, and in increasing numbers, I am coming across many comments by Manosphere denizens (and they are not the only ones!) who have nothing but disdain for their mothers.
And it is the same disdain that dissatisfied men have for women in general. One would presume that their own mothers would be 'immune', right?

Apparently not so fast.

I choose not to post the comments here, because they really are filled with 'choice' words that make one uneasy when it is known that someone's mother is the subject thereof.

Other than the more usual complaint that their mothers 'divorce-raped' their (beta) (sorry Bob!) fathers, these men also have a new complaint that I am only now beginning to get wind of:

One man's complaint could be summarised thus:

'My (expletive) mother wanted me to 'man up and marry a single mother'.

Now, this complaint is different from the usual 'man up' one. Because at least that is an (albeit thinly veiled) attempt by mothers to get their sons to produce grandchildren for them. I understand this completely, although I also of course 'get' the frustration that this elicits in the young person.
If it is any consolation, we women have to face this on a daily basis too :-)

But what I don't understand (and clearly neither does the man who makes this bitter complaint against his Mum) is how a mother would not only be happy with seeing her son commit to a woman who already has a child or children by another man (and it certainly is not rare, this phenomenon - just ask Queen Sonia of Norway), but is actively pushing her (unwilling) son into such a situation.

It really does not make sense to me.

And I can see why the son feels his mother does not have his best interests at heart. If the woman who should love you the most does not have your back, you are truly doomed.

Interestingly enough, I don't think I would necessarily feel the same way if my father wanted me to marry a man with children.
Sure, that wouldn't be my first choice of marriage partner, but I imagine there's a real difference in judging this sort of situation by the different genders.

I would however feel as this man did, if my father encouraged a PUA to 'pump and dump' me.
So perhaps this is the kind of equivalent level of betrayal, that this man feels from his mother.
Seen from this angle, I can very much feel his pain.




It is deeply worrying to me that the reputation of motherhood has sunk this low. It used to be that motherhood was sacred.
Now I am not so sure it has the same 'sparkle' it used to.
Respect seems to have flown out the window quite a bit. Thrown out, seemingly by mothers themselves.

Is this a new phenomenon?
Am I imagining this?
I sure hope so...
But something tells me I am not.

It is bad enough that women are getting such bad press in the SMP from men.
It is infinitely worse that these same men are not impressed with their mothers.

In ten years' time, that ten year old who described his mother as 'evil' will be encountering women as romantic partners. How tragic that his experience so far with women has been less than sterling.

And sadly, the growing army of single mothers who are giving themselves medals for being 'brave' will be forced to look at themselves hard in the mirror when their children who would undoubtedly have harder lives than would have been the case fail to be impressed at their 'bravery' and question their choices instead.

Elevating child over spouse/'partner' is not the way (unless of course you are St. Gianna Molla).
After this 'rule number one', with respect to said child, having their best interest at heart always, should be 'rule number two'.

Everything else is just icing on the cake.



Is this a good way to go about things?
Or is this the rambling of a deluded soul who doesn't understand motherhood? :-)

Don't be kind on this post.
Educate me.
Especially if you are a mother, but not exclusively.

Loose terminology: a question of semantics? Or a concerted effort?

My first instinct was to give this post the title 'the loose terminology is killing us!'

Then I calmed down.
:-)

Then I picked what I believe is a better title, because it addresses wider issues.

I love to dissect 'language'. As is probably evident from my posts.
I spend hours looking for word associations and seeking the emotion underlying words.

I am not unique. I know that words mean a lot to women. We are indeed 'word-sensitive' creatures.
There is a  reason that many women are 'auditory'.
There is a reason that 'sweet nothings' work.
:-)

But the following is anything but 'sweet nothings'.

Because it is not 'sweet'.
And it is certainly not 'nothing'.

It is so much of a 'something', it is killing us.



Metak pre-empted me a little when he made this comment in a recent post:

From what I can see around me, most of those men enjoy sex and casual relationship while women believe it's a "relationship".

Even worse, there is a category on Facebook called 'it's complicated'.

The men who comment here might well say this is just hamster-spinning by women.
This may or may not be true.
But if this is true, then these hamsters are getting an awful lot of help.

This 'loose terminology' is institutionalised.

A change of definition is all it takes to allow a woman to destroy herself.

In the style of Metak when he is in advice-giving mode, here is an all too common dialogue:



The powers-that-be: Woman, press here on this button that says 'touch me and your head will explode in 50 seconds'.
Woman: Of course, not! I am not in favour of suicide.
The powers-that-be: Oh alright, why don't we call it 'touch me and see what happens'?
Woman: Oooooh, I am not sure...
The powers-that-be: Hey! It's a button that says 'touch me - complications might ensue...'
Woman: Complications?
The powers-that-be: 'Touch me and there will be fireworks...'
Woman: OK.
The powers-that-be: '...of the unpleasant kind...
Oops, too late.


Is this a conspiracy of some kind?

Fudge the edges so that the hidden dangers are smoked out of view for millions of unsuspecting people, especially women?

Is this something of our own creation or was this the legacy we inherited with feminism, I wonder?



In the UK, it is almost a crime to mention the word 'husband' or 'wife' anymore. Everyone is a 'partner'.
In the french-speaking world, everyone is a 'compagnon'.

Is this political correctness on speed?


Slowly but surely, the definitions of everything is loosened around the edges to give things of lesser value a status equal to the gold standard.
Which lets in practices that were deemed unacceptable a half-century ago into the mainstream via the back door when no-one was looking.

With the result that everyone gets confused, especially children.
And soon, the confusion is forgotten and the new status quo is accepted and assimilated.
And soon no-one feels the need to question the smokey atmosphere...



Are we being 'gaslighted' into accepting fuzzy definitions?

There is nowhere worse than in the SMP to do this.

There used to be clear distinctions of marital status. One was either single, married, divorced or widowed.

Some accepted 'courting' or 'engaged' as acceptable additional categories.

But now, the choices are endless.
But also more vague.

No-one has a standard definition of the term 'hooking up'.
I used to wonder why.

Then it became clear to me that there is an incentive to keep this expression deliberately vague.

But who does this benefit?
In the longterm, certainly not the women who get caught up in it.


So why is this happening?
In a feminism-ised state, why are there counterproductive strategies seemingly designed to harm the very women that feminism apparently wants to protect?

Who is saying, 'keep the language vague and the definitions broad'?

Anyone have a clever answer to explain this beguiling smokescreen puzzle?

Does this go beyond 'inclusivism'? Are we legislating well-defined terms out of existence on purpose?

If so, why?
I really don't understand this phenomenon.

It would be cool to get to the bottom of this...

Hitting the wall

Honestly, until I hit The Manosphere (heh) this expression, to me, meant 'running out of energy' during an endurance race.

But as I have learned along the way here, nothing uttered in The Manosphere is quite what one is used to :-)

But that's OK. It's nice to acquire new vocabulary :-)

I am, as it happens familiar with 'hitting the wall'. No, not that one, the sports-related one!
Mind you, with regard to 'the other one', my cruel male relatives swing between 'you got there years ago' to 'maybe one or two more years to go' depending on how long it's been since I cooked dinner :-)

And my lovely female friends say I have at least another ten years minimum irrespective of my views on who is more attractive - Jen or Angelina.

See? Sometimes, we women can be truly loyal to one another. Unconditionally. Especially when our collective hamsters get together.
In return, I give all my female friends fifteen years minimum. I am generous like that :-)


I am particularly interested in 'The Wall' not because I am at or close to it, but because, let's face it, every woman will get there, some quicker than others. And, as they say, offence is the best form of defence. Or was it the other way round?

Anyhow, the big question today is, how best to tackle the approach of The Great Wall?


I would like as many people's advice on this as possible. Old and young, male and female, prince or pauper...

But...whilst I know that men have their own wall, I am (as is often the case on this blog) at least for now, only interested in the female wall. However, if anyone feels inclined to discuss the male wall, of course feel free!


I came to a stark realisation recently, which I will share, to gain some insight into my own psyche.

I recently hit the wall in an endurance sport. Unusually for me, I actually trained adequately for this one, rather than launch into it and 'hope for the best'.

And yet, I still hit the wall, big time, which was psychologically crushing...but there we are.


But, what was more intiguing to me, was that in my bid to keep myself going, this was the song I had in my mind, to 'psych' myself up.

Now, I have always been a fan of this group, but I can't believe that this song, of all their songs, was the one I was thinking of, to haul myself out of my 'hitting the wall' moment:

Hahahahahahahahahaha!

There is nothing even remotely feminine about this song. Although I must say, the one female character represented in it  is probably as feminine as an 'urban chick' can get. And she is hilariously 'over the top'. As are her male counterparts.
In short, the implied gratuitous violence in this video is so over-exaggerated that it is funny.



Now, don't get me wrong.
Prior to 'Pump it!' I did try this:

But it didn't work for me :-(
I needed a different frame of mind than Julie Andrews could offer me...




And herein lies the connecting link between the two types of 'hitting the wall'.

In the sports version, it is almost as if I was only ever going to respond to something more 'masculine' in order to get through.

The lyrics of 'Pump it!' are, to me, undeniably masculine.
But they worked for me :-)
'Girls in white dresses with blue satin sashes' wouldn't cut it when I was grappling for something to hang onto to prevent imminent descent into the abyss of sporting failure...



Something most women fear is the masculinisation of their bodies when they get to a certain age.
I remember it was quite the fashion in the 90s for Brit comedies like 'Birds of a feather' to openly poke fun at older Greek ladies with beards for example...

But this is not a phenomenon limited to Greek octogenarians. I am sure this happens to all racial groups, but of course some are hairier than others...

So a woman become less feminine and more masculine as she 'hits the wall'.
That's biology.
And she loses her once pristine looks.
That's cruelty :-)

I know some incredibly feminine women in their 80s and beyond. And no facial hair in sight :-)
What's different about these women?



Are there any tips for women approaching or at 'The Wall'?

Please be kind, gentlemen :-)

Shall we categorise these into 3 groups?

a. Physical

b. Social (and could include tips on how to dress, behave, etc)

c. Inner self (which I think could be most important).


I think 'hitting the wall' is a very important time in a woman's life. Her inner self could be the deciding factor as to whether or not she has been a 'success' or a 'failure', whatever her definitions of these might be.
What should a woman's inner mental state be like, at the time of wall-hitting?

I don't think one need be a woman in the process of hitting the wall, to answer this question.
It is one of those issues that need to be considered well before one arrives there.
One need not be a woman at all, I would add.
Certain things are universal. This might be one of them.

Not to be morbid, but it's like talking about ...death.

I am not sure why I am thinking death...but perhaps this is the right season...All Saints and All Souls are right round the corner.

Or Hallowe'en to the Americans among us :-)

Whilst I don't equate 'hitting the wall' with physical death, I am sure to the woman who experiences it, it is some sort of petite mort or 'little death' as the French would say.

It is a metaphorical exit from the SMP for some (not all) women because men are visual. For a woman who does not wish to exit the SMP, it must be painful.




And there are women who do not seem to realise that they hit the wall sometime back.
It is even more painful to witness this.
I am becoming more and more aware that the term 'age gracefully' died when feminism was born.
Nothing demonstrates this more than recent photos of some ageing female Hollywood stars.


This is why I beseech thee to be kind. Treat this as you would treat the topic of death...
With reverence.
Please...



But...inasmuch as I really don't want to show some of the worst photos of this 'hitting the wall fast and hard' phenomenon (it really is that painful to see), I think I know one lady who is really a lady. She is one of several ladies who I think deserve a dignified chapeau (hat tip).

I have always liked her. She always commands respect. If I look like her at her age, I would be happy:

Dame Judi Dench, with Daniel Craig at the recent 'Skyfall' première in London

Another one is this woman:

Dame Helen Mirren

 

They have this in common: They are both post-wall women, but their clear dignity makes one forget that more readily...

 

 

Any tips for the rest of us to make us more like these two?

Other than 'get knighted by the Queen'?

 

:-)

 

 

 



Film Review: Guess who's coming to dinner?

I recently made a commitment to myself.
Aherm...I don't mean I married myself in this manner :-)

Everyone who says TV is a waste of time is right.
In an increasingly TV-free state, I have time for other things.

And what's more, I can plan better what to do, and when.
And unlike watching TV, which dictates what programmes you watch (if one allows this), you can pick a movie once in a while and watch it online.

I had heard about the film 'Guess who's coming to dinner' a long time ago.
But strangely enough, I had never watched it.

I put that right, finally.

And to my surprise, this film is pure Manosphere Gold!
Honestly, it has so many lessons, I decided to dissect it with a Manosphere scalpel to see what I could find.



Well, to be completely honest, I watched this film already knowing the plot.

Black man meets white girl and wants to marry her in a short space of time.
Hilarity (um, being ironic) ensues at girl's home .
And (importantly for a woman, like me), love conquers all.

In other words, what you fellas would call 'emotional porn'.
Which is 'chick crack' to me :-)


But no!
Au contraire, this film is so much more than that!
At least my hamster says so :-)


The biggest take-away I got from this film was... how so differently men and women view the world.

And for me, the second biggest take-away is...how to be a good wife.
Which is relevant to me, and women my age.

There are two GREAT examples of wifehood in this film.
The two mothers here are exemplary in the way they deal with their husbands in this stressful period.
In this way, this film is somewhat of  a 'wife manual' even though it is not intended to be.
But then again, the film was shot in 1967.
Good wives were ten a penny, I think.

Another reason to boycott modern TV and films. The correct 'guides' for us ladies of today are just plain missing in the modern works of Hollywood.
With very few exceptions, a modern day lass who wants to have anything resembling a fulfilling life as a wife would do well to stay away from planet Hollywood and all its produce...


Anyhow, without further ado, for those who have never seen this film, here is a brief summary (with a little detour into politics):

In this film review, I am not so much interested in the racial aspect, although I accept that it is impossible to ignore this component as it is indeed the whole point of the film!

But my perspective is thus:

A white man, albeit 'liberal' is struggling to come to terms with his daughter (23 years old, and in this case she might as well be 15 - this girl is so naïve even I am worried for her :-) meeting and wanting to marry a man she hardly knows. She met him 10 days ago. And she has decided she wants to marry him come what may.

The fact that he is a kind, mature, top doctor who is handsome and quietly confident to boot is one mitigating factor, but the elephant in the room is glaringly obvious - he is black. And in 1967, it wasn't a 'smart' move for a woman in Joanna Drayton's position (i.e. white) to be in.

So Dad is concerned. And especially so as he is being forced to take a decision in a hurry. First it was 24 hours' notice, then this gets whittled down to 4 hours.

He's thinking: "This is not fair and somebody's got to pay for this!"

As his good friend Monsignor Ryan points out to him, he is being made to face his true self. He is well-known as a liberal pro-civil rights kind of guy, and who (as his wife Christina also reminds him) has raised his daughter to see all people as equal, something she literally does when she brings home a black man :-)


The father of Dr. Prentice is equally concerned and ticked off! Here he is, a black man suffering in  the era of apartheid, who produces a son who gets to be a doctor at the World Health Organisation headquarters in Geneva.

The last thing he wants to see is his son slapping him in the face figuratively speaking, by marrying a white woman. "How dare he do this to me?", he is thinking.
"I made sacrifices for him, and so did his mother (she refused to buy herself a new coat and would rather wear a worn tattered coat) just so that he could get an education.
And how does he repay us?
He gets with a white girl..."


The mothers have a totally different take on this situation as one would expect.
After the initial shock (in the video above one can see Mrs. Drayton's - interesting trivia that Christina and Joanna Drayton are played by real-life aunt and niece Katharine Hepburn and Katharine Houghton), they are quick to get behind their respective children, as I would expect.

But...apart from one act of defiance by Mrs. Drayton, both mothers take a very dignified path to 'converting' their husbands to the enlightened path of 'lurrrve'.

In this regard, I think...Mrs. Prentice for the win. She gets round Mr. Drayton in an unbelievably (if not a bit 'manipulative') way. Insinuating that Mr. Drayton couldn't remember his own distant past days of youthful passion was perhaps a bit below the belt, so to speak, but it was the comment that he took the most offence at, and which pushed him to make that fine speech he did at the end of the film :-)

"I may not be a young stud anymore. But don't ever tell me I can't remember what it was like..."

I paraphrase here, but I am guessing this is what is going through his mind...

His wife Christina, meanwhile, took the path of least resistance. She just got the old priest (watered down with suitable amounts of whisky no less) to do her dirty work for her.

Classic :-)



Other than the display of clever wifely intervention, I was impressed by what I see as evidence that Manosphere mentality is unbelievably accurate, in this film.



1. When Dr. Prentice calls his father to tell him about the fabulous new girl he met, his father only wants to know...
1. her age, and is suitably impressed with his son that she is 23 (he is 37) - I have isses with this age gap, but then again, I would...I am a little over the age of 23 (aherm!) and ...

2. Is she hot? (Um, I mean...is she pretty?)

John Prentice's father is an upstanding citizen who is at least 60 years old. And all he wants to know about his future daughter-in-law (in the interests of his son's happiness) is ...is she young and pretty.

That should tell me something.
And it did.
Lesson learned.

In many ways, this little point reminds me of a scene in Eddie Murphy's 'Coming to America', another film noted for its hilarity if not for its false premises about the world we live in:-)

Moving on...


I was generally fascinated (but not surprised) by Tilly the black housekeeper's reaction to John.
Now, as background, it is noteworthy to point out that she joined the Drayton household the year before Joanna was born. This means, she would have had a huge part to play in Joanna's upbringing. Joanna would be like a daughter to her.
So any man would be 'the enemy' as far as she was concerned, with respect to Joanna's future happiness.

In addition, she was most likely living proof that life was hard for a black person. So she would not have wanted Joanna, by association with John (or her children by virtue of being half black) to suffer this fate. So even though she was black herself, her maternal instincts for Joanna would have overidden any kind of solidarity she could have had with John.
There was also the possiblility of a kind of 'Stockholm syndrome' that was commonly displayed by black slaves and servants in America's slave trade history, that is perhaps too complicated to go into in an already long post, but which I am sure was a particular ailment of Tilly's.

This would explain the scenes 0:16:25 - 0:16:47 and 0:55:16 - 0:56:20 in the video below.

And to cap it all, she makes the common (female) mistake of projecting: "And you are not even that goodlooking!"

No Tilly, you got it wrong! Even if John had not been handsome, (and erm...dear God he was :-) good looks alone would not have been what drew Joanna to him...
His medical degrees and the confidence arising thereof may have something to do with it though...

The Manosphere for the win, for drumming this point home to both men and women. It certainly removes a lot of stress from the dating game once this simple principle is understood, I think.



Now, the next point I make is perhaps a little unfair...
But this point actually confuses me a little.

I was stunned by Joanna's naïvety. I think even shocked may be the better word to describe it.

On the one hand, whilst I expected a 23 year old woman from 1967 to be somewhat naïve, what surprised me was her seemingly exaggerated child-like and woefully immature state.
Is this a true picture of 1967?
Can the older readers among us confirm this?

This is a sticking point for me. Sure, 23 is young, by today's standards, for marriage.
But in 1967, she was practically an old maid by that age :-)

And yet, I feel Joanna was not a good candidate for marriage. At least not yet.
She had to be 'led' in everything.
Note that her lack of intimacy with John was because of John's restraint, for example, something which her mother, I am sure, particularly liked John for.

She was 'hard work' in the same way a child is.
She saw nothing 'wrong' in inviting John's parents over to dinner even though John himself was reluctant about this (with good reason).
She thought nothing of drastically reducing her 'thinking time' over her impending marriage by deciding to fly out to Geneva with John the same night rather than waiting the previously agreed-upon 2 weeks.

She thought her kids would all end up President of the US, as John informed her father.

In other words, Joanna was really a child still.
And she was lucky to have met John who was mature and confident.
But by jolly, he would have had a hard task 'saving her from herself' their whole married life until she matured a bit...

I think as time went on in the course of this one day in the film, John was beginning to see what he was walking into :-)




Mr. Drayton's speech (from around 1:34:00 to the end) is pure Mansophere mantra.

His reference to his wife's 'lack of reason' stemming from her romantic notions made me chuckle...
Where oh where had I heard that before...

:-)



The full film is below. Well worth a viewing if you have a couple of hours to kill...