I wandered over to HUS and The Private Man and...
They both announce the passing away of Thomas V. Munson. He died yesterday from liver cancer.
I loved to read Munson's comments. They were as long or longer than mine (heh!) and were extremely entertaining and insightful.
From what Susan at HUS says, he was a family man. I also know he was a lawyer.
And we all know he was a king of The Manosphere...
May he rest in peace.
I shall miss his comments, and his outrageous jokes about his various medical treatments.
Although of course I did not know him in real life, I think it would be fair to say that he enjoyed his time here on Earth.
That already is consolation enough for his family and friends, I am sure.
At the end of the day...that's all that counts.
Eternal rest, give unto him...
X3.
Friday, June 29, 2012
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
The dash for the foreign woman, good or bad?
Having taken an exceedingly long time to digest the whole MGTOW situation (aherm), I now turn my attention to yet another sore point for Team Woman.
Disclaimer: Whilst I accept that this looks like an attempt at the inflammatory, I hereby declare that it is in fact not as it appears. I just want to understand something. At least that's my (hamster's) story and I am sticking with it :-)
That something is actually rather specific.
For this reason, this post will be brief.
To illustrate my point, it may help to point out that the original title was to be 'The dash for the foreign bride...' but that would not have conveyed the point of this post sufficiently.
A more appropriate title would have included a word which also means 'cat', but in the interests of decorum...
In this post, I am not referring to situations where people of different cultures or races coexist in the same space, aka city or country.
I am specifically referring to the scenario where a man travels to a foreign country in search of a woman.
But not necessarily for a bride, which is my specific gripe :-)
Tourism is great - in general.
But I am referring here to a 'tourism' of a different kind.
Whilst I was thinking about this topic, Metak and JV seemed to be reading my thoughts and started a private duel which somehow started off as a debate about chivalry and ended up as a double rant about men moving abroad to escape Western Feminist TM women. Both Metak and JV make excellent points.
Here are a few relevant excerpts from their discussion by way of 'context':
Metak kicked off with this:
A. Schopenhauer at work here... ;-)
It was an observation of A.S. in his work 'On women' where he compared western Europe with other parts of world and realized that men here were stupid for treating women in that way and that made western men laughing-stock for other societies...
JV:
I suspect that there are regimes far more oppressive to the western man than feminism.
Metak:
Name one... ?
JV:
Take your pick of regimes world wide. The world is not a warm fuzzy blanket for the rest of the world.
Metak:
And yet American men and to large degree men from western European countries are fleeing in such a large numbers in other countries that are not infested with feminist shit...
I understand the 'fleeing' part. I would flee too if I were made to feel like a second class citizen in my own country.
But are their motives towards the women on foreign shores noble when they flee America and Western Europe?
This is my specific question.
I get it.
Women on foreign shores are always more appealing than women under one's nose. Even without the clouding issue of feminism.
For that matter, foreign men...but alas this post is not about women's tastes.
Maybe this whole business is just another manifestation of the Coolidge effect but the wool is being pulled over our eyes. Afterall, what screams 'variety' more than a foreign woman with features that are different?
Especially one who isn't infused with feminist s_______ as Metak explains?
There are some cultures in the world, which to Western men at least, seem to produce more 'feminine' women than in the West.
And I daresay, to other cultures in the world, perhaps Western women are all the rage too? I don't know.
The Manosphere's assertion that 'foreign women' are more feminine, more pleasant, more friendly, more inviting, more attractive...
Are all good... so far.
I think I agree!
But I don't understand one thing.
Maybe my female brain is in the way here...
And I just know Metak is going to call me out on this one :-) He has afterall done it before on this and closely related topics...
These men also seem to revel in the realisation that these foreign women are also easier to...
They pose fewer challenges than the harridan Western feminist TM, precisely because of her femininity.
She is not a 'difficult' woman to get to know, except 'getting to know' this woman is unfortunately not what these men have in mind.
This is a small subset of the brotherhood, I know.
But I am interested in the activities of this small group simply because whatever occurs in the (pure) SMP spills over into the MMP to some degree, wherever the setting, whether it is in Europe, Asia, the moon or Mars.
My specific question is, if the 'foreign woman' is so easy to get, compared with Western Feminist TM, isn't this, um, just a transfer of venue for just another hookup scene?
Just because the venue has moved from California to the Ukraine doesn't change the fact that it is still a hookup culture, no?
Is this a new tactic?
Flatter these women into believing that they are somehow 'better' than Western Feminist TM in order to get them to deliver the goods?
Am I entering a forbodden locker room?
See, if I were assured in no uncertain terms that men going aboroad to seek women were really on the hunt for good feminine potential wives, I swear I wouldn't be penning this post now...
But it seems to me that at least some men are just seeking more docile women with whom to start a whole new cycle of decadence.
And in ten years, rinse and repeat. Western Feminist TM has been replaced by Eastern Feminist TM who got pumped and dumped by Western Man...
And why am I so bothered by this?
Have I got this wrong?
Please indulge me and tell me that I have.
All the while explaining it to me like I am a 6 year old...
This is of no concern to me, of course, but I wonder how the men-folk feel when their women are 'preyed upon' by Western men? Do they care? Do they get some incentive from this activity? (And I don't mean the unscrupulous ones who 'pimp' their sisters to any old stranger. I mean the wider male population of decent standing).
And how do men feel over in the West when there are news reports of Western women being similarly treated?
There have been a few disturbing trends in the UK of late - of a nature which is not exactly identical to the one we discuss here, but nonetheless noteworthy.
Is a foreign woman treated fairly even when she is wifed up? Why are cases of domestic violence against these women headline news? Are these reports 'exaggerated' in the manner of false rape accusations?
I genuinely do not know enough about this. I believe I should.
Explain it to me like I am a 6 year old...please.
Disclaimer: Whilst I accept that this looks like an attempt at the inflammatory, I hereby declare that it is in fact not as it appears. I just want to understand something. At least that's my (hamster's) story and I am sticking with it :-)
That something is actually rather specific.
For this reason, this post will be brief.
To illustrate my point, it may help to point out that the original title was to be 'The dash for the foreign bride...' but that would not have conveyed the point of this post sufficiently.
A more appropriate title would have included a word which also means 'cat', but in the interests of decorum...
In this post, I am not referring to situations where people of different cultures or races coexist in the same space, aka city or country.
I am specifically referring to the scenario where a man travels to a foreign country in search of a woman.
But not necessarily for a bride, which is my specific gripe :-)
Tourism is great - in general.
But I am referring here to a 'tourism' of a different kind.
Whilst I was thinking about this topic, Metak and JV seemed to be reading my thoughts and started a private duel which somehow started off as a debate about chivalry and ended up as a double rant about men moving abroad to escape Western Feminist TM women. Both Metak and JV make excellent points.
Here are a few relevant excerpts from their discussion by way of 'context':
Metak kicked off with this:
A. Schopenhauer at work here... ;-)
It was an observation of A.S. in his work 'On women' where he compared western Europe with other parts of world and realized that men here were stupid for treating women in that way and that made western men laughing-stock for other societies...
JV:
I suspect that there are regimes far more oppressive to the western man than feminism.
Metak:
Name one... ?
JV:
Take your pick of regimes world wide. The world is not a warm fuzzy blanket for the rest of the world.
Metak:
And yet American men and to large degree men from western European countries are fleeing in such a large numbers in other countries that are not infested with feminist shit...
I understand the 'fleeing' part. I would flee too if I were made to feel like a second class citizen in my own country.
But are their motives towards the women on foreign shores noble when they flee America and Western Europe?
This is my specific question.
I get it.
Women on foreign shores are always more appealing than women under one's nose. Even without the clouding issue of feminism.
For that matter, foreign men...but alas this post is not about women's tastes.
Maybe this whole business is just another manifestation of the Coolidge effect but the wool is being pulled over our eyes. Afterall, what screams 'variety' more than a foreign woman with features that are different?
Especially one who isn't infused with feminist s_______ as Metak explains?
There are some cultures in the world, which to Western men at least, seem to produce more 'feminine' women than in the West.
And I daresay, to other cultures in the world, perhaps Western women are all the rage too? I don't know.
The Manosphere's assertion that 'foreign women' are more feminine, more pleasant, more friendly, more inviting, more attractive...
Are all good... so far.
I think I agree!
But I don't understand one thing.
Maybe my female brain is in the way here...
And I just know Metak is going to call me out on this one :-) He has afterall done it before on this and closely related topics...
These men also seem to revel in the realisation that these foreign women are also easier to...
They pose fewer challenges than the harridan Western feminist TM, precisely because of her femininity.
She is not a 'difficult' woman to get to know, except 'getting to know' this woman is unfortunately not what these men have in mind.
This is a small subset of the brotherhood, I know.
But I am interested in the activities of this small group simply because whatever occurs in the (pure) SMP spills over into the MMP to some degree, wherever the setting, whether it is in Europe, Asia, the moon or Mars.
My specific question is, if the 'foreign woman' is so easy to get, compared with Western Feminist TM, isn't this, um, just a transfer of venue for just another hookup scene?
Just because the venue has moved from California to the Ukraine doesn't change the fact that it is still a hookup culture, no?
Is this a new tactic?
Flatter these women into believing that they are somehow 'better' than Western Feminist TM in order to get them to deliver the goods?
Am I entering a forbodden locker room?
See, if I were assured in no uncertain terms that men going aboroad to seek women were really on the hunt for good feminine potential wives, I swear I wouldn't be penning this post now...
But it seems to me that at least some men are just seeking more docile women with whom to start a whole new cycle of decadence.
And in ten years, rinse and repeat. Western Feminist TM has been replaced by Eastern Feminist TM who got pumped and dumped by Western Man...
And why am I so bothered by this?
Have I got this wrong?
Please indulge me and tell me that I have.
All the while explaining it to me like I am a 6 year old...
This is of no concern to me, of course, but I wonder how the men-folk feel when their women are 'preyed upon' by Western men? Do they care? Do they get some incentive from this activity? (And I don't mean the unscrupulous ones who 'pimp' their sisters to any old stranger. I mean the wider male population of decent standing).
And how do men feel over in the West when there are news reports of Western women being similarly treated?
There have been a few disturbing trends in the UK of late - of a nature which is not exactly identical to the one we discuss here, but nonetheless noteworthy.
Is a foreign woman treated fairly even when she is wifed up? Why are cases of domestic violence against these women headline news? Are these reports 'exaggerated' in the manner of false rape accusations?
I genuinely do not know enough about this. I believe I should.
Explain it to me like I am a 6 year old...please.
Saturday, June 23, 2012
The gourmet meal...of red pills!!!
Occasionally, I notice either on this blog or other blogs hosted by women, a man would ask that Red Pill advice be disseminated to the wider world of women, by women.
Because they (men) can't do it all...
They are doing their bit for their fellow men. They cannot be responsible for educating women too.
I say mais bien sûr! to that. But of course!
These men have a point.
But alas, the logistics are hard to pull off.
For me personally, here are my hang ups: (some might say, excuses!)
1. I am an introverted, quiet woman in real life. That means what I say is often not taken seriously, and I am labelled 'naïve' a lot, mostly by other women. So although I have no problem with that, any message I might have is often lost in the ether.
2. (And this probably explains Reason No.1): I tend to shy away from precisely the kind of women I am tasked with 'educating', i.e. nasty Blue Pill women. They were ousted from my herd the minute I noticed how toxic they were. The few interactions I have with them don't go well. We are effectively 'mutually exclusive'.
In a rather selfish manner, I prefer the company of other Red Pill women, or just women who are not in any way conversant with Manosphere mentality (wouldn't know The Mansophere if it came and sat on their heads) but who are naturally good women to hang out with. I have several of these women around me. The older ones among them are what I call my 'Proverbs 31' or 'Titus 2' women.
Selfish because I learn more from them than they do from me, so I am in fact a parasite to them. It is not exactly a symbiotic relationship I have with these women, but I am sure they don't mind. And I shall return the favour to someone else when I am in their position :-)
3. I also think that men make good relationship advisors, for both men and women. And this is why no matter how good a female role model a woman has, she also needs a good male one. This is why fathers/big brothers/uncles are gold dust, and this is also why I spend time perusing Manosphere blogs, despite the (sometimes) vitriol :-)
So I am not in any way saying 'you do your own dirty work, fellas!'
It's more, 'sure, I'll do my best, but you could do it better!' So please carry on your good work! Educate us women, and you will be repaid handsomely for your efforts.
:-)
One commenter here is doing just that.
Totally unsolicited by me (I promise!) he offered me this post as a free gift :-)
Bless you Bill, you are a good man for doing this.
This is what Bill sent me. I post it as it was sent to me. No 'doctoring' on my part.
Bill can provide more info as and when required.
On this post, I am a mere bystander. Any questions should be addressed to Bill.
usher / conference staff assistant. Let's call her Anne.
She looked to be about 30. Tall (6 feet 1 inches), slender, nice facial
features. A pretty young woman in a city full of pretty young women. By Las
Vegas / NYC / Hollywood norms, she was about 80th percentile. In another other
major metro area, probably 90th or better.
I wasn't looking to pick her up. But I wanted to test out my Game. Why not try
it on an attractive young woman in the Heart of Darkness?
I had Anne's phone number in 5 minutes. I saw her a few more times as the
day went by and chatted with her briefly each time. She gave me escalating IOIs
as time passed.
She called me the next morning to meet for coffee before the conference started.
We had lunch together, then made a date for a private dinner that evening. IOIs
continued.
Here's what transpired at dinner:
** I toned down Game. She escalated the IOIs. Rather than respond to her
interest, I started feeding her bits of the Red Pill. **
Anne, l'm not planning in getting into your pants. If I was, we'd be well on our
way right now.
** Her eyes lock on mine, she blushes, then looks down and squirms a bit in her
seat. **
You and I both know that's true. So let's put that behind us, because it isn't
going to happen.
** She looks a bit puzzled, then smiles slightly. **
Anne, today you are 29. This year, you are going to be 30. That's a big
milestone. Your Twenties are about to be over. Where do you want to be in five
years?
"Uh, I don't know. I haven't really thought about it."
On your birthday in 2017, you're going to be 35. Right?"
"Yeah..."
Let's talk about where you see yourself on that day, when you turn 35.
Do you want to still be hustling for day jobs, living day to day, worrying about
whether you can make your next rent payment? Pay the minimum on your credit
cards? Put gas in your car?
"No."
What one thing would make your life more stable? Give you something to plan
around?
"A house. I want a house of my own."
You want a house. One that you own, even if it's with a mortgage. How do you get
from here to there?
** Blank look **
You need a steady job. One that has been paying well for a while, so that you've
been able to save up 5 or 10 percent of the purchase price for a down payment.
In almost any major city in America, a house starts at $100,000 or so. Often a
lot more. So you need to have a steady job long enough to be able to save up at
least $10,000.
Can you do that in your present circumstance?
"No."
If you can save $400 a month, you can have that down payment in two years. If
you can only save $200 every month, you will need over four years. That means
you need to have that job in the next year.
** We go into a small sidebar on why she should switch to Sales or Marketing
from her present modeling gig. **
Anne, you say you want a house by the time you turn 35. There is another route.
Marry a man who has a good, steady job who can buy that house. Or significantly
contribute towards buying that house.
"How did we go from wanting a house to me getting married?!"
Because the odds of you getting that house all by yourself aren't nearly as good
as the odds if you are married. To a good man with a steady job. Earning as much
or more than you. Especially if he is earning more than you. Does that make
sense?
"Yes. I see your point."
Do you want children?
"Huh? I don't know. How did we get to talking about children?"
Because we are talking about where you want to be at 35.
You are at the peak of your fertility right now. In the next few years it will
start to decline, if it hasn't already done so. Lots of doctors will tell you
that, if you are going to have children, you need to be done by 35. Certainly
before 40.
Fertility starts falling fast in your late thirties. Birth defects start rising
by 40. So you want to be done well before then. Age thirty-five is a good
target.
If you decide you want children, you probably want more than one. Spacing them
out by two or three years helps a lot. If for no other reason than having more
than one in diapers at a time is exhausting.
So if you want to have two children and be done by 35, then you need to have
that first baby in the next two or three years. By the time you turn 33. That's
in 2015. By 2014 would be better. That's two years away.
You and I both know that children need a mother and a father. Parents who will
stick together and raise those children to adulthood.
You don't want to end up as some guy's baby-mama, right?
"Oh hell no!"
Marriage takes work. A married couple need two or three years together to settle
into the relationship, before adding the stress of children. So if you are going
to have that first baby by your birthday in 2015, you need to be married by your
birthday in 2013.
That's next year.
** Wide eyes. Swallow hard. **
That means you need to find your future husband and father of your children THIS
YEAR.
"!!!"
Think about what I just said. Did I miss something? Did I say anything that
isn't true? Is my logic, my reasoning, my chain of causality flawed?
"No..."
So let's think about who that man is.
Think back to high school. Twelve years ago. The Year 2000. You are 17 years
old. You are blossoming into beautiful young womanhood.
** Smile. Blush. Far-away look. **
Who are the boys you remember being attracted to? Who did you have a little
tingle inside for?
"The jocks."
Of course. Good looking, self confident, graceful, exciting to be around. Alpha
males.
Did they treat you well? Did any of them offer you some sort of commitment? Or
comfort? Or support when you needed it?
"No."
Who do you remember from that last year of high school who would be suitable
husbands and fathers today? Steady jobs. No addictions to alcohol or drugs or
gambling? No baby-mama drama of their own?
"The quiet guys."
Yeah, the shy quiet guys. If the jocks were the Alphas, these guys are the
Betas. Solid, dependable, kind, supportive.
They were invisible to you. They didn't exist in your world. None of them gave
you the tingle deep inside like the Alpha males, did they?
"No..."
Do you think those guys, a dozen years later, have steady jobs and stable
incomes? Like the kind you need to qualify for a mortgage?
"I guess so. Probably."
What about the guys you had the tingles for? Think most of them are holding
good, steady jobs? are ready to commit to lifelong marriage and raising
children?
"Not many."
Or are they still bouncing from job to job, boozing it up, and chasing skirts?
Do they now have a baby-mama? Or two?
"Probably."
Which one would be there to help you buy that house?
"The quiet guy."
Which one would help you raise children? Be a father and not just a baby-daddy
to your future children?
"The quiet guy."
So why aren't you with one of those quiet guys?
** She goes into an explanation about how she just ended an 18 month
relationship with a dysfunctional Alpha. An alcoholic gambler who was all but
living in a casino. I stop her story after a few minutes. **
You wasted a year and a half of your young life. One-twentieth of your total
time on Earth. On this guy. Why?
"Well, at first he was fun. It was exciting. Then..."
At first, he made you feel special by doing fun, edgy stuff. Then, you felt
special because you thought you were special enough to fix him. Right?
"Yeah..." Eyes downcast.
You aren't that special.
** Her eyes snap open in shock and the beginnings of anger. **
Because no one is special enough to fix somebody like that. Not you. Not me. Not
Mother Theresa. No one.
Are you dating anyone right now?
"I'm on Match and Plenty of Fish."
Are you exclusively dating anyone?
"Well, almost. There is this one guy. He's smart, has a good job. He's a lawyer.
He has a house."
Do you have the tingles for him?
"Not really."
Do you think you could?
"Uh, I don't know."
Then try this: the next time you go on Match or PoF, look at each guy's photo
and profile. Find ONE good thing about him. It might be in his profile. It might
be in his photos.
Maybe his face isn't attractive, but he has a nice haircut. That should tell you
that he wasn't a winner in the genetic lottery (like you), but that he is trying
to make the best of what he has.
In the next week, look for something good in every man you meet, in person or
on-line.
After a week of doing that, take another look at the guy you are seeing. I bet
you'll find several good things about him that you never noticed before. Some of
those things might even spark the tingle.
** And this ended the conversation. **
What does everyone think?
I am thinking...how lucky was Anne to have met Bill at that precise time in her life...
But what what about Bill's message to Anne?
Fair or foul?
Scary or sane?
Any thoughts?
Because they (men) can't do it all...
They are doing their bit for their fellow men. They cannot be responsible for educating women too.
I say mais bien sûr! to that. But of course!
These men have a point.
But alas, the logistics are hard to pull off.
For me personally, here are my hang ups: (some might say, excuses!)
1. I am an introverted, quiet woman in real life. That means what I say is often not taken seriously, and I am labelled 'naïve' a lot, mostly by other women. So although I have no problem with that, any message I might have is often lost in the ether.
2. (And this probably explains Reason No.1): I tend to shy away from precisely the kind of women I am tasked with 'educating', i.e. nasty Blue Pill women. They were ousted from my herd the minute I noticed how toxic they were. The few interactions I have with them don't go well. We are effectively 'mutually exclusive'.
In a rather selfish manner, I prefer the company of other Red Pill women, or just women who are not in any way conversant with Manosphere mentality (wouldn't know The Mansophere if it came and sat on their heads) but who are naturally good women to hang out with. I have several of these women around me. The older ones among them are what I call my 'Proverbs 31' or 'Titus 2' women.
Selfish because I learn more from them than they do from me, so I am in fact a parasite to them. It is not exactly a symbiotic relationship I have with these women, but I am sure they don't mind. And I shall return the favour to someone else when I am in their position :-)
3. I also think that men make good relationship advisors, for both men and women. And this is why no matter how good a female role model a woman has, she also needs a good male one. This is why fathers/big brothers/uncles are gold dust, and this is also why I spend time perusing Manosphere blogs, despite the (sometimes) vitriol :-)
So I am not in any way saying 'you do your own dirty work, fellas!'
It's more, 'sure, I'll do my best, but you could do it better!' So please carry on your good work! Educate us women, and you will be repaid handsomely for your efforts.
:-)
One commenter here is doing just that.
Totally unsolicited by me (I promise!) he offered me this post as a free gift :-)
Bless you Bill, you are a good man for doing this.
This is what Bill sent me. I post it as it was sent to me. No 'doctoring' on my part.
Bill can provide more info as and when required.
On this post, I am a mere bystander. Any questions should be addressed to Bill.
Feeding the Red Pill
I met a young woman at a conference in Las Vegas recently. She was working as an usher / conference staff assistant. Let's call her Anne.
She looked to be about 30. Tall (6 feet 1 inches), slender, nice facial
features. A pretty young woman in a city full of pretty young women. By Las
Vegas / NYC / Hollywood norms, she was about 80th percentile. In another other
major metro area, probably 90th or better.
I wasn't looking to pick her up. But I wanted to test out my Game. Why not try
it on an attractive young woman in the Heart of Darkness?
I had Anne's phone number in 5 minutes. I saw her a few more times as the
day went by and chatted with her briefly each time. She gave me escalating IOIs
as time passed.
She called me the next morning to meet for coffee before the conference started.
We had lunch together, then made a date for a private dinner that evening. IOIs
continued.
Here's what transpired at dinner:
** I toned down Game. She escalated the IOIs. Rather than respond to her
interest, I started feeding her bits of the Red Pill. **
Anne, l'm not planning in getting into your pants. If I was, we'd be well on our
way right now.
** Her eyes lock on mine, she blushes, then looks down and squirms a bit in her
seat. **
You and I both know that's true. So let's put that behind us, because it isn't
going to happen.
** She looks a bit puzzled, then smiles slightly. **
Anne, today you are 29. This year, you are going to be 30. That's a big
milestone. Your Twenties are about to be over. Where do you want to be in five
years?
"Uh, I don't know. I haven't really thought about it."
On your birthday in 2017, you're going to be 35. Right?"
"Yeah..."
Let's talk about where you see yourself on that day, when you turn 35.
Do you want to still be hustling for day jobs, living day to day, worrying about
whether you can make your next rent payment? Pay the minimum on your credit
cards? Put gas in your car?
"No."
What one thing would make your life more stable? Give you something to plan
around?
"A house. I want a house of my own."
You want a house. One that you own, even if it's with a mortgage. How do you get
from here to there?
** Blank look **
You need a steady job. One that has been paying well for a while, so that you've
been able to save up 5 or 10 percent of the purchase price for a down payment.
In almost any major city in America, a house starts at $100,000 or so. Often a
lot more. So you need to have a steady job long enough to be able to save up at
least $10,000.
Can you do that in your present circumstance?
"No."
If you can save $400 a month, you can have that down payment in two years. If
you can only save $200 every month, you will need over four years. That means
you need to have that job in the next year.
** We go into a small sidebar on why she should switch to Sales or Marketing
from her present modeling gig. **
Anne, you say you want a house by the time you turn 35. There is another route.
Marry a man who has a good, steady job who can buy that house. Or significantly
contribute towards buying that house.
"How did we go from wanting a house to me getting married?!"
Because the odds of you getting that house all by yourself aren't nearly as good
as the odds if you are married. To a good man with a steady job. Earning as much
or more than you. Especially if he is earning more than you. Does that make
sense?
"Yes. I see your point."
Do you want children?
"Huh? I don't know. How did we get to talking about children?"
Because we are talking about where you want to be at 35.
You are at the peak of your fertility right now. In the next few years it will
start to decline, if it hasn't already done so. Lots of doctors will tell you
that, if you are going to have children, you need to be done by 35. Certainly
before 40.
Fertility starts falling fast in your late thirties. Birth defects start rising
by 40. So you want to be done well before then. Age thirty-five is a good
target.
If you decide you want children, you probably want more than one. Spacing them
out by two or three years helps a lot. If for no other reason than having more
than one in diapers at a time is exhausting.
So if you want to have two children and be done by 35, then you need to have
that first baby in the next two or three years. By the time you turn 33. That's
in 2015. By 2014 would be better. That's two years away.
You and I both know that children need a mother and a father. Parents who will
stick together and raise those children to adulthood.
You don't want to end up as some guy's baby-mama, right?
"Oh hell no!"
Marriage takes work. A married couple need two or three years together to settle
into the relationship, before adding the stress of children. So if you are going
to have that first baby by your birthday in 2015, you need to be married by your
birthday in 2013.
That's next year.
** Wide eyes. Swallow hard. **
That means you need to find your future husband and father of your children THIS
YEAR.
"!!!"
Think about what I just said. Did I miss something? Did I say anything that
isn't true? Is my logic, my reasoning, my chain of causality flawed?
"No..."
So let's think about who that man is.
Think back to high school. Twelve years ago. The Year 2000. You are 17 years
old. You are blossoming into beautiful young womanhood.
** Smile. Blush. Far-away look. **
Who are the boys you remember being attracted to? Who did you have a little
tingle inside for?
"The jocks."
Of course. Good looking, self confident, graceful, exciting to be around. Alpha
males.
Did they treat you well? Did any of them offer you some sort of commitment? Or
comfort? Or support when you needed it?
"No."
Who do you remember from that last year of high school who would be suitable
husbands and fathers today? Steady jobs. No addictions to alcohol or drugs or
gambling? No baby-mama drama of their own?
"The quiet guys."
Yeah, the shy quiet guys. If the jocks were the Alphas, these guys are the
Betas. Solid, dependable, kind, supportive.
They were invisible to you. They didn't exist in your world. None of them gave
you the tingle deep inside like the Alpha males, did they?
"No..."
Do you think those guys, a dozen years later, have steady jobs and stable
incomes? Like the kind you need to qualify for a mortgage?
"I guess so. Probably."
What about the guys you had the tingles for? Think most of them are holding
good, steady jobs? are ready to commit to lifelong marriage and raising
children?
"Not many."
Or are they still bouncing from job to job, boozing it up, and chasing skirts?
Do they now have a baby-mama? Or two?
"Probably."
Which one would be there to help you buy that house?
"The quiet guy."
Which one would help you raise children? Be a father and not just a baby-daddy
to your future children?
"The quiet guy."
So why aren't you with one of those quiet guys?
** She goes into an explanation about how she just ended an 18 month
relationship with a dysfunctional Alpha. An alcoholic gambler who was all but
living in a casino. I stop her story after a few minutes. **
You wasted a year and a half of your young life. One-twentieth of your total
time on Earth. On this guy. Why?
"Well, at first he was fun. It was exciting. Then..."
At first, he made you feel special by doing fun, edgy stuff. Then, you felt
special because you thought you were special enough to fix him. Right?
"Yeah..." Eyes downcast.
You aren't that special.
** Her eyes snap open in shock and the beginnings of anger. **
Because no one is special enough to fix somebody like that. Not you. Not me. Not
Mother Theresa. No one.
Are you dating anyone right now?
"I'm on Match and Plenty of Fish."
Are you exclusively dating anyone?
"Well, almost. There is this one guy. He's smart, has a good job. He's a lawyer.
He has a house."
Do you have the tingles for him?
"Not really."
Do you think you could?
"Uh, I don't know."
Then try this: the next time you go on Match or PoF, look at each guy's photo
and profile. Find ONE good thing about him. It might be in his profile. It might
be in his photos.
Maybe his face isn't attractive, but he has a nice haircut. That should tell you
that he wasn't a winner in the genetic lottery (like you), but that he is trying
to make the best of what he has.
In the next week, look for something good in every man you meet, in person or
on-line.
After a week of doing that, take another look at the guy you are seeing. I bet
you'll find several good things about him that you never noticed before. Some of
those things might even spark the tingle.
** And this ended the conversation. **
What does everyone think?
I am thinking...how lucky was Anne to have met Bill at that precise time in her life...
But what what about Bill's message to Anne?
Fair or foul?
Scary or sane?
Any thoughts?
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Know your body?
They do say that too much information is a bad thing.
They also say a little knowledge in the wrong hands is a dangerous thing.
I can see the sense in both statements.
The first statement, I have an example for.
It really does qualify as 'too much information'.
I was waiting with a good friend in the foyer area of a concert hall waiting for the concert to begin.
She is one of few in my entourage who doesn't mind trotting off to concerts with me. In fact more often than not, she drags me to these things :-)
Somehow I can't ever manage to persuade the male members of said entourage to do this.
Even those who share genes with me.
Even those who would spend all their free time in a concert hall if they were allowed to.
Maybe I am missing a huge hint.
:-)
Anyhow, we were having fun, sipping our drinks and chatting away about the upcoming concert as well as doing some people-watching, as you do...
Then suddenly, she said to me, completely out of nowhere, taking me by complete and utter surprise:
'Oh, I just ovulated'.
Just like that.
No warning given that I was about to receive classified information.
And the well-dressed middle-aged gentleman who just happened to pass by me at that precise moment was suddenly wearing my spluttered drink all over his lovely suit...
TMI.
Definitely.
But when I had recovered, and the man had been placated enough that I felt certain I wouldn't be getting a dry-cleaning bill anytime soon, I did find myself marvelling at this erm...precision.
Gynaecological functions aside, I do appreciate more and more the value of becoming 'body aware'.
Not so much focused on the workings of the body, but just simple things like being aware of one's body quirks, idiosyncrasies, marvels. Or just an appreciation for the different body parts, independently of the whole body as a unit.
I know a lot of people who have had body parts replaced.
A pacemaker or defibrillator, a knee replacement, a kidney transplant...
The one thing in common with these people who have had to have something 'replaced' or 'intervened upon' is that they are especially grateful for the 'borrowed time' they are getting.
Some of them get incredibly 'body aware'.
To the extent that it begins to intrude into their lives somewhat.
Of course some body parts can never be replaced. An amputated limb, an 'ectomy due to cancer...
And that body part forever becomes a phantom of sorts...
I have never really been (self) body aware. At least not in a way that is useful. But everyone else's body is fair game :-)
I have a rather strange affinity towards people's hands. It took me a long time to figure out where this came from.
In a similar manner to people trying to work out where their childhood fears originated from, I searched my brain's memory banks to formulate a hypothesis as to why the first thing I notice about someone is their hands.
I shall play the victim a bit and blame it all on my first ever piano teacher.
She was a nice but eccentric old lady, and she was our neighbour when I was about six and my parents decided it was time to get me to spend my hours after school learning something useful.
So off I was marched to the neighbour who had a piano in her home and who already had a long line of piano students my age.
The first thing she did was to ask to see my hands.
I won't easily forget her exclamation:
"Ah, we have here Rachmaninov hands! Real piano hands!"
Whatever that meant, I was delighted, because although I didn't know what 'piano hands' were, she made it sound like it was a good thing.
And then I spent the next 2 years having my 'piano hands' whacked with a pencil each time I hit a wrong note :-)
Years later, I learned that Russian composer Sergei Rachmaninov had massive hands. He could reach nearly 2 octaves on the piano and his piano concertos were the hardest to play because he composed for his own hands and not the average hands.
I also knew by this time that big hands on a girl are no use, except for playing Rachmaninovesque piano concertos :-)
So boo.
A good friend of mine told me a funny story about his organ-playing debut. He always knew he wanted to play the organ at a young age, but unlike the piano where the pedals are 'optional' for the most part unless you need to play some loud bits, an organist really needs to be able to reach the pedals from a seated position on a standard organ stool. So my poor friend had to wait until he was 11 and his feet could touch the ground from a high stool!
He had to wait for his 'organ legs' to develop before he was allowed near an organ.
Thankfully, whilst waiting, there was always the piano to learn...whether or not he possessed 'piano hands'.
So, ever since I was six, the first thing I want to know about someone new is, do they have piano hands?
There is something beautiful about well-developped fingers that coordinate perfectly with their owner's brain such that they can be used to create something beautiful.
To this end, I find that guitarists, harpists and violinists (at least their left hands anyway) exhibit this characteristic of 'piano hands' as well.
I kid you not. Such is the level of weirdness some of us can attain :-)
Incidentally, I believe that the internet/computer world we live in has indulged me in my weird hand issues somewhat.
I find that 'typist hands' look remarkably similar to 'piano hands' in their agility and beauty of motion.
We all have 'typist hands' these days :-)
Then again, this quirk of mine is not entirely my fault. There are people who gesticulate so much when they speak that you can't help but notice their hands, because their hands are literally in your face.
Italians anyone? :-)
And then you wonder if, if their hands were tied up, would they still be able to speak :-)
Ears and knees... I am even ashamed to go there :-)
The advantage of being 'body aware' is the huge self assurance that comes with knowing which colours suit one, what type of accssories are suitable for which attire, what pattern or style of dress is best suited to one's height and shape, to make up or not, things like that.
To this end, this man has been a godsend :-)
He has some really nice posts on all things 'feminine grooming' and other than professional advice, I think his site is a very good one for any woman interested in making the best of themselves using basic bodily knowledge. Skin colouring, face shape, body type. All this is useful in helping a woman achieve her best 'look'.
Of the two genders, one is particularly known for ignoring symptoms because they are generally less inclined to be 'preoccupied' with their bodies, unlike the other gender who are often labelled as 'hypochondriacs' by the first gender (mentioning no names) precisely because they are so inclined.
:-)
In the SMP, (everything in my posts end up being about the SMP afterall :-), men's health and women's health are equally important.
All the male visual cues, beauty, waist to hip ratio, glossy hair, white teeth, etc are pointers as to her fertility, sure, but they are also pointers as to her health.
A sick man (within reason, of course) can still father a child. But of course his role as provider for said child is perhaps jeopardised.
Whilst I am not ever going to be a 'No fat chicks' advocate as some Manosphere bloggers have taken to doing lately, and neither have I ever felt that an overweight man's value is reduced solely because of his weight, I can see that preventable measures to combat obesity are well within reach for many, and should be taken up.
The first rule of self-care has to be bodily care, no?
Healthy eating, avoiding smoking or excessive alcohol and having some way of expending physical energy are key.
And seeking medical help when something does not feel right.
Hard to do, but oh so worth it.
So somewhere between the woman who knows exactly which second she ovulates each month and the woman who didn't know she was pregnant until her tummy ache ended up with an unexpected and interesting outcome, should be women who know something (a lot!) about how their bodies function and how best to utilise this information to the best of her ability.
And men?
How many times have I heard, 'well he wouldn't be here if his wife/girlfriend/mother/sister hadn't pushed him to go to the doctor...'
Whilst the 'My body is my temple' crowd amuse me with their fastidiousness about maintaining the body beautiful, I think in fact they may have a point.
For our bodies do host our souls, our minds, our characters, our personalities, our spirits.
Our bodies host us.
So we have some duty to look after them the best we can.
Until we are parted from them for good.
Interestingly this is the concert we were waiting to see when I was informed of my friend's monthly event.
Beethoven's Chor Fantasie...
I just realised that of course 'Chor' (german, 'choral') is pronounced the same as 'corps' (french, 'body').
Interesting coincidence...
And now because of the weird Pavlovian conditioning of sorts I was subjected to, I can't hear this piece without thinking 'ovulation' immediately :-)
I would have loved to see her 'piano hands' up close...
And my wish is granted with close-ups of Hélène Grimaud's hands in her rendition of the same piece at the Last Night of the Proms. (I get my regular fix every minute or so in this video :-)
Oh what I wouldn't give to be the page turner here (not that she needs one lol)...or at least get on a front row seat just to get a good view of her hands...
And the words...the words! What beautiful words!
One of the lines here (05:29) reminds me of Inner Game :-)
And the very last translated line (06:05) reminds me of a comment made by JV...
Since this post has now officially turned into a self-indulgent and unbridled piano fest, might as well go the full hog and present Evgeny Kissin (great surname!) with Rach 2 (Rachmaninov Piano concerto No. 2).
The hands...the hands...
ST is in piano hand heaven...
And here he is again with Tchaikovsky's Piano concerto No. 1 (First movement):
Talk about 'piano strutting'!
Kissin has got to be the undisputed king of piano strutting :-)
The way he plays the first few bars is absolutely hilarious and almost cartoon-like.
Leif Ove Andsnes...piano god of the North.
Gives Kissin a run for his money in an outstanding Proms performance...
What is it about drum rolls and dramatic overtures? :-)
OK, I'm done now.
:-)
Monday, June 18, 2012
Hotel Rwanda and the peace baskets
I was inspired recently.
I was watching a documentary on the work of Rwandan entrepreneur, Janet Nkubana.
I was not so much enthralled by her (although it must be said, she is a truly gracious woman) as by the turn of events that enabled hundreds of women - and with them their menfolk and children - turn around their lives which by all accounts would have been previously described as 'dismal'.
Ms. Nkubana was one of the displaced people during the Rwandan/Tutsie genocide in 1994. As a young person she spent time in a Ugandan refugee camp along with her elder sister Joy.
When she was finally able to set foot back in her home country after the war, she describes the feeling as something close to 'heavenly'.
The very fact that she was no longer deried as a 'foreigner' in someone else's country and taunted for being a 'refugee' was a blessing in itself.
Then with her elder sister she set up a hotel.
Now, it is not her hotel which became the subject of the film 'Hotel Rwanda' starring Don Cheadle, but the two are similar in that both hotels really just became some sort of 'refugee camp' within their own country, if you like.
The hotel in 'Hotel Rwanda' was literally a shelter for fleeing targets of the war, and Ms. Nkubana's hotel became a different kind of refuge.
Returning and still displaced families had nothing but the shirts on their backs, and even that eluded some of them.
The women were mostly man-less because their menfolk had been killed during the war, or were in prison or being tried for war crimes thereafter.
Of course, wherever you find women you will find children very close by.
A lot were dying from hunger. Literally.
A hotel would have been seen by many as the pinnacle of 'food heaven'.
The ideal place to go for a crumb.
But as Ms. Nkubana recounts, no-one came begging, at least not after the first time.
When a woman came begging the first time (because she was so desperate and frankly there was nothing else for it), she made sure to return the next week with a basket that she had made of her own hands as a 'thank you'.
They all did this.
Because no-one begs in Rwandan society, no matter how poor one is, explains Ms. Nkubana.
One accepts a favour once when one is desperate, and then it's a trade-off thereafter...
Soon, Ms. Nkubana had so many baskets she didn't know what to do with them.
That is when the idea of the 'peace baskets' was born.
She set up a shop at the hotel and started selling these baskets on behalf of the women who made them.
Soon, more and more women joined the group, and before long, 'Gahaya Links' was born.
Women who looked like they were certain to die from hunger were now living productive and fulfilling lives whilst all the while recovering from their individual traumas and the atrocities of a war that seemingly came from nowhere.
As were the men.
Gahaya Links went international some 4 years ago.
I was thinking about all of this with respect to two themes I cannot seem to detach myself from until I have done it to death and I fully understand it :-)
The first concept this inspirational story brings up for me might well be related very closely to the last post in that these women received a certain celestial 'grace'.
They literally got a miracle as they went in search of a morsel of food which could well have been their last, as there was no guarantee that this morsel could come again.
But a small gesture on their part set off a chain reaction that saw them turn their lives around.
Now, the second theme or lesson I have picked up from this story is perhaps one that I have coined for myself (because I now see everything with respect to the (Western) SMP :-)
These women are not beating their chests Tarzan-style and declaring themselves 'strong and independent'.
But they are. Albeit by the grace of God.
For now at least there is a certain humility about them which is somewhat lacking in the world I live in, far away from theirs.
Refreshing to say the least, and humbling.
Ms. Nkubana describes how domestic violence figures in some parts of Rwanda have been slashed since Gahaya Links was set up.
The reason?
Before, when a woman would ask a male provider (if indeed she was lucky enough to still have one), for money to buy food, his shame at not being able to provide would cause him to become violent in most cases.
Ms. Nkubana did not see the desperation and abject poverty all around as a good enough excuse for male violence, but she acknowledged its role in the problem.
Since the 'peace baskets' became a way to earn money for a lot of women in the small village communities, their men have begun to show them a new kind of respect, she explains.
And men who would have otherwise buried their heads in the sand out of despair are now supporting their wives in their new venture, some even helping them with such tasks as bookkeeping, sales and marketing.
And of course, those men who are able, also have work of their own that either matches or surpasses the income of their wives.
As a related concept, another two questions arise for me:
1. Is this a new kind of 'feminism' Africa style?
I am inclined to think not. But a convincing argument as to why not would be most welcome :-)
In ten years' time, would these women demand that their menfolk do the housework and look after the baby while they fly first class to go on 'Oprah' to discuss the new Peace Basket Store that just opened in New York?
2. This is not so much a question but a 'like' Facebook style.
A lot of these women really are SAHM, because their children are currently too young to be separated from them for too long. But they are not lazy.
We discussed Paul Elam's bashing of a certain category of SAHM in a section of the last post.
I was on the verge of being upset at Elam's post until I realised that there are indeed different kinds of SAHM. One group that is working hard, and actually doing some work looking after baby (not easy no matter what anyone says) and keeping a home (and this group is the majority) and another group that don't quite reach statistical significance when it comes to proving their usefulness.
I was relieved to hear that Paul Elam was only addressing the latter group.
The women of Gahaya Links are clearly in the first group and are a credit to their communities.
And my final question is...can such beauty in the dynamics of a community be sustainable?
Would the next generation of girls in these communities turn out to be as inspirational as their mothers?
Or is this strictly a one-generation thing that would be lost as soon as the images of the genocide fade from the memories of its victims?
In other words, do human beings know how to hold onto a good thing?
Or are we destined to chase our tails as we continully play the game of 'trial and error' and 'let's fix the toy that ain't broke' to all our detriment?
Or am I just getting too cynical/fearful for the future/not trusting of the collective common sense of our world/focussed on potential pitfalls/(insert your own reproach) to enjoy the present?
Anyone who votes 'no' to the last question will be crowned president of my 'Sceptics Club'.
:-)
Seriously though, am I wrong to see where things might go wrong?
Or should I just relax a little...
I was watching a documentary on the work of Rwandan entrepreneur, Janet Nkubana.
I was not so much enthralled by her (although it must be said, she is a truly gracious woman) as by the turn of events that enabled hundreds of women - and with them their menfolk and children - turn around their lives which by all accounts would have been previously described as 'dismal'.
Ms. Nkubana was one of the displaced people during the Rwandan/Tutsie genocide in 1994. As a young person she spent time in a Ugandan refugee camp along with her elder sister Joy.
When she was finally able to set foot back in her home country after the war, she describes the feeling as something close to 'heavenly'.
The very fact that she was no longer deried as a 'foreigner' in someone else's country and taunted for being a 'refugee' was a blessing in itself.
Then with her elder sister she set up a hotel.
Now, it is not her hotel which became the subject of the film 'Hotel Rwanda' starring Don Cheadle, but the two are similar in that both hotels really just became some sort of 'refugee camp' within their own country, if you like.
The hotel in 'Hotel Rwanda' was literally a shelter for fleeing targets of the war, and Ms. Nkubana's hotel became a different kind of refuge.
Returning and still displaced families had nothing but the shirts on their backs, and even that eluded some of them.
The women were mostly man-less because their menfolk had been killed during the war, or were in prison or being tried for war crimes thereafter.
Of course, wherever you find women you will find children very close by.
A lot were dying from hunger. Literally.
A hotel would have been seen by many as the pinnacle of 'food heaven'.
The ideal place to go for a crumb.
But as Ms. Nkubana recounts, no-one came begging, at least not after the first time.
When a woman came begging the first time (because she was so desperate and frankly there was nothing else for it), she made sure to return the next week with a basket that she had made of her own hands as a 'thank you'.
They all did this.
Because no-one begs in Rwandan society, no matter how poor one is, explains Ms. Nkubana.
One accepts a favour once when one is desperate, and then it's a trade-off thereafter...
Soon, Ms. Nkubana had so many baskets she didn't know what to do with them.
That is when the idea of the 'peace baskets' was born.
She set up a shop at the hotel and started selling these baskets on behalf of the women who made them.
Soon, more and more women joined the group, and before long, 'Gahaya Links' was born.
Women who looked like they were certain to die from hunger were now living productive and fulfilling lives whilst all the while recovering from their individual traumas and the atrocities of a war that seemingly came from nowhere.
As were the men.
Gahaya Links went international some 4 years ago.
I was thinking about all of this with respect to two themes I cannot seem to detach myself from until I have done it to death and I fully understand it :-)
The first concept this inspirational story brings up for me might well be related very closely to the last post in that these women received a certain celestial 'grace'.
They literally got a miracle as they went in search of a morsel of food which could well have been their last, as there was no guarantee that this morsel could come again.
But a small gesture on their part set off a chain reaction that saw them turn their lives around.
Now, the second theme or lesson I have picked up from this story is perhaps one that I have coined for myself (because I now see everything with respect to the (Western) SMP :-)
These women are not beating their chests Tarzan-style and declaring themselves 'strong and independent'.
But they are. Albeit by the grace of God.
For now at least there is a certain humility about them which is somewhat lacking in the world I live in, far away from theirs.
Refreshing to say the least, and humbling.
Ms. Nkubana describes how domestic violence figures in some parts of Rwanda have been slashed since Gahaya Links was set up.
The reason?
Before, when a woman would ask a male provider (if indeed she was lucky enough to still have one), for money to buy food, his shame at not being able to provide would cause him to become violent in most cases.
Ms. Nkubana did not see the desperation and abject poverty all around as a good enough excuse for male violence, but she acknowledged its role in the problem.
Since the 'peace baskets' became a way to earn money for a lot of women in the small village communities, their men have begun to show them a new kind of respect, she explains.
And men who would have otherwise buried their heads in the sand out of despair are now supporting their wives in their new venture, some even helping them with such tasks as bookkeeping, sales and marketing.
And of course, those men who are able, also have work of their own that either matches or surpasses the income of their wives.
As a related concept, another two questions arise for me:
1. Is this a new kind of 'feminism' Africa style?
I am inclined to think not. But a convincing argument as to why not would be most welcome :-)
In ten years' time, would these women demand that their menfolk do the housework and look after the baby while they fly first class to go on 'Oprah' to discuss the new Peace Basket Store that just opened in New York?
2. This is not so much a question but a 'like' Facebook style.
A lot of these women really are SAHM, because their children are currently too young to be separated from them for too long. But they are not lazy.
We discussed Paul Elam's bashing of a certain category of SAHM in a section of the last post.
I was on the verge of being upset at Elam's post until I realised that there are indeed different kinds of SAHM. One group that is working hard, and actually doing some work looking after baby (not easy no matter what anyone says) and keeping a home (and this group is the majority) and another group that don't quite reach statistical significance when it comes to proving their usefulness.
I was relieved to hear that Paul Elam was only addressing the latter group.
The women of Gahaya Links are clearly in the first group and are a credit to their communities.
And my final question is...can such beauty in the dynamics of a community be sustainable?
Would the next generation of girls in these communities turn out to be as inspirational as their mothers?
Or is this strictly a one-generation thing that would be lost as soon as the images of the genocide fade from the memories of its victims?
In other words, do human beings know how to hold onto a good thing?
Or are we destined to chase our tails as we continully play the game of 'trial and error' and 'let's fix the toy that ain't broke' to all our detriment?
Or am I just getting too cynical/fearful for the future/not trusting of the collective common sense of our world/focussed on potential pitfalls/(insert your own reproach) to enjoy the present?
Anyone who votes 'no' to the last question will be crowned president of my 'Sceptics Club'.
:-)
Seriously though, am I wrong to see where things might go wrong?
Or should I just relax a little...
Janet Nkubana
Big sister Joy Ndungutse
Women at work! Do not disturb!
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Grace? Oh dear...
Most women pick a role model (of femininity) for themselves at some point in their lives. Most pick their Mom, or grandmother, or an aunt, or teacher, or big sister.
Some women are innately feminine from birth and do not need a role model :-)
Some aim higher than Earth for their role models :-)
For the Catholic among us, we have a great role model at out disposal.
Hail Mary, full of Grace...
Grace?
Can we emulate grace here on Earth?
Um, let's see.
Grace of gait and stance
A feminine gait is a pleasure to behold. Or at least, it should be, to men.
This is an art that definitely took me a long time to master. Being what is universally accepted as tall, I used to use my height as an excuse for my lack of a graceful gait for a long time. But there are taller women than me who I could easily call 'graceful' when they walk.
A good example is tennis player Maria Sharapova. At 6 ft 2, she is taller than me. And yet, her fluid, almost languid walk is quite graceful.
I do wish I had been a dancer at some point in my life. I notice that dancers (ballet, ballroom) not only have good posture, they also walk gracefully. Alas, other sports can help correct this problem, so all is not lost for the non-dancers amongst us :-)
Another very good example of graceful gait is exhibited by the actress Sophie Marceau in the film 'Firelight'. Throughout this film, one marvels at how she moves. She really does appear to glide. Quite fascinating to watch. And I am sure this adds to her appeal.
Erm, quite apart from her 'shelf' or synonym thereof...
:-)
By the way, one does not even have to be human to be graceful.
I notice that our cousins from the feline branch of the family are very graceful when they walk. They don't so much walk as 'strut' in fact.
Cats, lions, tigers, leopards, cheetahs...all of these animals seem to exude grace in a way that puts me to shame.
Dogs, deer, pigs and sheep do not seem to have this grace in as much abundance as our feline cousins.
Is this why there is no such thing as 'Dogwoman' or 'Pigwoman' in the lineup of male fantasy sirens, whereas 'Catwoman' and 'Pussygalore'** are longtime favourites?
Of course 'Dogwoman' and 'Pigwoman' otherwise known as 'b*tch' and 'Miss Piggy' are never terms of loving endearment. At least not in the way most women would perceive them to be.
Grace of action
Again, I wish I were better at this than I actually am. But 'room for improvement' is always nice to have :-)
I have always marvelled at how some women seem to exude grace even without trying. They are rare, these women, yes, which makes them even more special. Surprisingly, they are not always older than me. I don't know why I would expect a graceful women to be older necessarily, but I just do.
And then a younger woman proves me wrong and I am delighted, every time.
Grace of thought
I am not sure I can define 'graceful thinking' because I have not experienced it myself :-)
But I can guess as to what it might entail.
I think a hallmark of 'graceful thinking' is understanding. Not so much in the sense of comprehension as compassion. I think the reason for my own lack of 'graceful thinking' is that I need to know (as in have knowledge of) something before I can understand it. Extensive knowledge about a subject precedes my understanding of (or empathy with) said subject.
That is why I think I keep asking for something to be explained to me 'like I am a 6 year old'...
I know there are some women who will understand without the need for knowledge. They are not necessarily 'naturals' but they are certainly blessed with a certain 'grace'. I think it is a beautiful thing to witness.
And again, it is rare.
Grace of attitude
This follows on directly from 'graceful thinking', and is equally refreshing to see. Simply put, it is a woman without guile. She is not without her faults - no-one is perfect afterall, but she is patently above the petty b*tchiness that pervades the female reality.
Women who exhibit this trait appear self-contained and 'behind a wall' with their emotions but I think that is just a sign of their incredible self-discipline. They are (due to their emotional honesty) actually quite transparent, in that they are not too scared to show you when they are happy, sad, angry or annoyed, if you are close enough to them to matter to them.
Grace of demeanour
This is an easy one to assimilate in one's everyday life. It doesn't take much more than a few minutes of reflection to embrace these little 'actions' as part and parcel of one's daily routine.
I have noticed that it really is the tiniest things in life which make all the difference. Things that should be part and parcel of every little girl's 'education' now only gets dispensed if one attends the best Swiss finishing school, for the highest price.It needn't be so.
For example, retrieving an object from the floor. It used to be that every girl was taught to bend the knees when doing this. Not so anymore.
Some 'intolerable' offences against etiquette are perhaps more and more forgivable nowadays given our hectic lives. It used to be that a lady was never to be found drinking directly from a bottle (or even a can) or eating in the streets. But for practical reasons, these are perhaps lesser crimes than ever..although it is said that the former bestowes an unfortunate image, and the latter has perhaps contributed to the obesity crisis as it amounts to 'unauthorised' snacking.
A worse crime than the above two will remain always a particularly bad crime, both against fashion and etiquette. And that is, failing to manoeuvre oneself correctly in and out of a car when in a short dress...
Some might argue that the first crime there is the choice of short dress in the first place...
How high (or low in the case of tops) is appropriate for acceptable levels of decorum?
Speaking of dress, how much of 'grace' is depicted by grooming?
Is modesty the same as 'tasteful'?
Can one have one without the other?
No-one curtsies anymore. Sometimes to the Queen, yes. But more often than not, this is bypassed...
A loud voice...
It used to be that girls (especially in Catholic Irish boarding schools run by extra-strict nuns) would get beaten several times a day just for having a naturally loud voice. The idea was that a loud voice attracted the wrong kind of attention...
Cruel to be kind? Or plain harsh?
One thing's for sure. Grace as a whole is definitely missing in our current world, except in some pockets of glorious femininity.
It will be missed, for sure.
Hope it makes a comeback.
Wake me up when it does :-)
Although this post may seem like a venture into a 'ladies only' locker room, I think in fact men have a lot to contribute here, because afterall if men are the 'audience' of displays of femininity, then they more than women are primed for 'sniffing out' displays of 'grace' or lack thereof.
Am I right on this?
Or are men simply primed to sniff out 'hot' whatever their age?
In this regard, should men be divided into 'SMP-orientated (hot) and MMP-orientated (hot + other feminine qualities)?
Is there an alternative/better classification we could use?
The many faces of Grace: All of these women have the name 'Grace' :-)
Grace Park (actress)
**Oh God, what have I done?
:-)
*** Maggie Grace was apparently nicknamed 'Maggie Graceless' for a while growing up. I can so identify with this!
Having the limb coordination of a wooden puppet for most of the adolescent years is not necessarily fun.
Anyone remember the awkward teen years?
Some women are innately feminine from birth and do not need a role model :-)
Some aim higher than Earth for their role models :-)
For the Catholic among us, we have a great role model at out disposal.
Hail Mary, full of Grace...
Grace?
Can we emulate grace here on Earth?
Um, let's see.
Grace of gait and stance
A feminine gait is a pleasure to behold. Or at least, it should be, to men.
This is an art that definitely took me a long time to master. Being what is universally accepted as tall, I used to use my height as an excuse for my lack of a graceful gait for a long time. But there are taller women than me who I could easily call 'graceful' when they walk.
A good example is tennis player Maria Sharapova. At 6 ft 2, she is taller than me. And yet, her fluid, almost languid walk is quite graceful.
I do wish I had been a dancer at some point in my life. I notice that dancers (ballet, ballroom) not only have good posture, they also walk gracefully. Alas, other sports can help correct this problem, so all is not lost for the non-dancers amongst us :-)
Another very good example of graceful gait is exhibited by the actress Sophie Marceau in the film 'Firelight'. Throughout this film, one marvels at how she moves. She really does appear to glide. Quite fascinating to watch. And I am sure this adds to her appeal.
Erm, quite apart from her 'shelf' or synonym thereof...
:-)
By the way, one does not even have to be human to be graceful.
I notice that our cousins from the feline branch of the family are very graceful when they walk. They don't so much walk as 'strut' in fact.
Cats, lions, tigers, leopards, cheetahs...all of these animals seem to exude grace in a way that puts me to shame.
Dogs, deer, pigs and sheep do not seem to have this grace in as much abundance as our feline cousins.
Is this why there is no such thing as 'Dogwoman' or 'Pigwoman' in the lineup of male fantasy sirens, whereas 'Catwoman' and 'Pussygalore'** are longtime favourites?
Of course 'Dogwoman' and 'Pigwoman' otherwise known as 'b*tch' and 'Miss Piggy' are never terms of loving endearment. At least not in the way most women would perceive them to be.
Grace of action
Again, I wish I were better at this than I actually am. But 'room for improvement' is always nice to have :-)
I have always marvelled at how some women seem to exude grace even without trying. They are rare, these women, yes, which makes them even more special. Surprisingly, they are not always older than me. I don't know why I would expect a graceful women to be older necessarily, but I just do.
And then a younger woman proves me wrong and I am delighted, every time.
Grace of thought
I am not sure I can define 'graceful thinking' because I have not experienced it myself :-)
But I can guess as to what it might entail.
I think a hallmark of 'graceful thinking' is understanding. Not so much in the sense of comprehension as compassion. I think the reason for my own lack of 'graceful thinking' is that I need to know (as in have knowledge of) something before I can understand it. Extensive knowledge about a subject precedes my understanding of (or empathy with) said subject.
That is why I think I keep asking for something to be explained to me 'like I am a 6 year old'...
I know there are some women who will understand without the need for knowledge. They are not necessarily 'naturals' but they are certainly blessed with a certain 'grace'. I think it is a beautiful thing to witness.
And again, it is rare.
Grace of attitude
This follows on directly from 'graceful thinking', and is equally refreshing to see. Simply put, it is a woman without guile. She is not without her faults - no-one is perfect afterall, but she is patently above the petty b*tchiness that pervades the female reality.
Women who exhibit this trait appear self-contained and 'behind a wall' with their emotions but I think that is just a sign of their incredible self-discipline. They are (due to their emotional honesty) actually quite transparent, in that they are not too scared to show you when they are happy, sad, angry or annoyed, if you are close enough to them to matter to them.
Grace of demeanour
This is an easy one to assimilate in one's everyday life. It doesn't take much more than a few minutes of reflection to embrace these little 'actions' as part and parcel of one's daily routine.
I have noticed that it really is the tiniest things in life which make all the difference. Things that should be part and parcel of every little girl's 'education' now only gets dispensed if one attends the best Swiss finishing school, for the highest price.It needn't be so.
For example, retrieving an object from the floor. It used to be that every girl was taught to bend the knees when doing this. Not so anymore.
Some 'intolerable' offences against etiquette are perhaps more and more forgivable nowadays given our hectic lives. It used to be that a lady was never to be found drinking directly from a bottle (or even a can) or eating in the streets. But for practical reasons, these are perhaps lesser crimes than ever..although it is said that the former bestowes an unfortunate image, and the latter has perhaps contributed to the obesity crisis as it amounts to 'unauthorised' snacking.
A worse crime than the above two will remain always a particularly bad crime, both against fashion and etiquette. And that is, failing to manoeuvre oneself correctly in and out of a car when in a short dress...
Some might argue that the first crime there is the choice of short dress in the first place...
How high (or low in the case of tops) is appropriate for acceptable levels of decorum?
Speaking of dress, how much of 'grace' is depicted by grooming?
Is modesty the same as 'tasteful'?
Can one have one without the other?
No-one curtsies anymore. Sometimes to the Queen, yes. But more often than not, this is bypassed...
A loud voice...
It used to be that girls (especially in Catholic Irish boarding schools run by extra-strict nuns) would get beaten several times a day just for having a naturally loud voice. The idea was that a loud voice attracted the wrong kind of attention...
Cruel to be kind? Or plain harsh?
One thing's for sure. Grace as a whole is definitely missing in our current world, except in some pockets of glorious femininity.
It will be missed, for sure.
Hope it makes a comeback.
Wake me up when it does :-)
Although this post may seem like a venture into a 'ladies only' locker room, I think in fact men have a lot to contribute here, because afterall if men are the 'audience' of displays of femininity, then they more than women are primed for 'sniffing out' displays of 'grace' or lack thereof.
Am I right on this?
Or are men simply primed to sniff out 'hot' whatever their age?
In this regard, should men be divided into 'SMP-orientated (hot) and MMP-orientated (hot + other feminine qualities)?
Is there an alternative/better classification we could use?
The many faces of Grace: All of these women have the name 'Grace' :-)
Grace Bol (model)
Grace Kelly/Princess Grace of Monaco (actress)
Grace Hightower (wife of Robert De Niro), actress
Grace Jones (actress)
Grace Park (actress)
Maggie Grace (actress)***
Nancy Grace (prosecutor/journalist)
Ha! Took the words right out of my mouth :-)
**Oh God, what have I done?
:-)
*** Maggie Grace was apparently nicknamed 'Maggie Graceless' for a while growing up. I can so identify with this!
Having the limb coordination of a wooden puppet for most of the adolescent years is not necessarily fun.
Anyone remember the awkward teen years?
Monday, June 11, 2012
Will the young pretty feminist stand up please?
Picture the most ardent feminist...
Um, on second thoughts, don't...
Don't wanna ruin your appetite...
This...is how I imagine a Manosphere denizen would start his standup comedy routine.
It is not strange or weird that men see feminists as older, less attractive, and brash.
Blow me down with a feather, but looking around, yes, they have a point.
Many people will agree that young, pretty women have no need for feminism, in fact.
This makes sense to me too.
Except...
I have a question.
Who exactly is a feminist?
Here's a little test:
Which one is the feminist out of these two women?
1.The one who in response to a man who refuses to help a woman in distress: 'She can help herself anyway! She can kill her own snakes!'
2. The one who responds to such a man: 'How sad. I wish he would help'.
I think most people would agree that Woman No. 1 is more likely to be the feminist.
And Woman No. 2 may well be viewed with suspicion. Explanation further down.
Another try:
1. The one who says to a man who offers to carry her heavy bag: 'No! I can do this myself!'
2. The one who asks a man to help her carry her bag when she seems able enough to do it.
I think everyone would agree that Woman No. 1 is perhaps the one who shows more 'feminista' tendencies. Especially if she appears offended that a man has offered to help her and thus thinks she is too weak to carry her own bag.
And Woman No. 2 is 'an entitled princess'.
And some might go even so far as labelling Woman No.2 in the first example in the same way if her mindset is more 'he should do it!' than 'well, pity he didn't, but there we are'.
Her attitude rather than her words belie any feministic tendencies she might harbour.
In the second example, if a woman refused nicely, making it clear to the man that she really did not need his help but thanks anyway, very kind of you, I don't think any man would feel slighted. More to the point, he wouldn't feel she was one of them feminazi types.
And I think everyone would also agree that the woman who in accepting help from a strange man says 'thank you' to him in a genuinely nice manner is definitely not showing feminist tendencies, whatever her age.
I find more and more that 'feminism' is a question of attitude...
And somehow some older women who should know better are getting it horribly wrong.
Why is this?
And why is this in fact good news for the archetypal feminist?
It is wrong to presume that a man will help only a young beautiful woman who needs his physical help.
More and more, I am seeing young men refuse to help a woman if they perceive her to be rude, brash, uncouth or ungainly even if she is young and 'hot'. Most definitely if she is not-so-young and not-so-hot.
This is really only something I have seen in the last five or so years.
Or maybe I was simply blind to it before, I don't know.
The same man who will refuse a young woman of childbearing age his help will have no problem coming to the aid of an old granny type who smiles at him so sweetly he might need insulin shots to neutralise the sugar (to borrow a brilliant phrase from Metak :-).
But I had the general sense of the reverse situation because I was more used to a younger woman being charming (some might say 'manipulating' but I insist on the use of the word 'charming') when she needs something from a man whereas there is a growing crop of older women who are harsh and angry and still expect favours from said young men, such as help with something heavy, giving up seats on trains, etc.
This is perhaps a physiological finding, aka the 'Daddy's little princess' who can twist Dad round her little finger like a pro versus the archetypal and sadly not-so-fictional-anymore five-time baby-mama who also happens to be angry, scary and frankly unpleasant and who demands that a Real Man 'wife her up NOW' (but by the way, the kids WILL come first).
We see more of the latter and I can see how this doesn't work anymore (um, did it ever?).
Chivalry died because it was murdered.
And the resuscitation team did not even turn up because rigor mortis had set in by the time someone thought to call them.
And now we must all live with the consequences.
It is really a question of attitude.
Some women are naturally man-friendly. Some have had to learn.
But I always find these man-friendly women to be generally woman-friendly too, strangely enough.
The man-haters are identifiable by their general hatred of everyone.
In this, at least they are consistent. Which is a twisted silver lining of sorts...
Feminism (at least the kind we are all familiar with these days) as an ideology rings hollow to me and has done for a long time but not in way I could understand.
Moreover, the 'representatives' of said ideology are not helping their cause any. These women who claim to have the best interests of women at heart are being exposed as liars and fraudsters all the time. And it seems this notion is gathering momentum.
Some of them have led sad and unfulfilled lives as a result of their unfortunate choices.
But instead of advising the younger generation of women to take heed, they advise the very same choices that have led them down the path of unhappiness and bitterness.
We briefly touched on this dark aspect of womanhood in the post about circumcision where female circumcision was mentioned in the comments section.
Which led us to discuss a woman whose abortion had caused her so much pain that...her only advice to women in a similar position was...'Go ahead and have that abortion, grrl!
What?!
I would have had so much more respect for these feminist women if some of them came clean and said,'Look, we made a mistake. It happens. But don't follow in our footsteps, unless you are sure that's what you really want. You are still young - you can change your life starting now...'
But no.
They would rather see young women today descend into hell like they did.
And now, weirdly enough, a young woman learns all about morality and femininity from men.
The Manosphere (at least the woman-friendly version) has done more for young women than feminists ever have.
Priceless.
On some level, I do understand the older, bitter feminist though.
It is too late for her.
She can't turn back the clock.
That is quite painful on a deeply personal level.
But...surely she wasn't always like this??
Ah,mais si.
Yes she was.
These women started on the path to feminism when they were young and beautiful.
That is, they started out on this journey at a time they didn't really need feminism. But they wanted it. So they created it.
The whole sex-positive thing could not have been started by old women. Not biologically possible.
Perhaps that's the problem.
The best years of these women were wasted on an idea which was flawed.
But they couldn't get off the express train until it crashed into the station at the final destination.
Whole lives had been spent developing and nurturing lies and hype that needed repeating so many times in order for them to stick.
And stick they did.
The other women who used their lives more correctly have no reason to be bitter.
They are also suffering of course.
No-one is trouble-free.
They may be lonely old spinsters, they may be divorced, widowed, happily married, whatever.
But they are not angry, bitter, loud and selfish women.
And so today, are there young and pretty feminists?
Unfortunately yes.
Some are unbelievably feminine-looking on the outside. Really beautiful women.
And yet they harbour tremendous man-hate which is not apparent to any man until he is hooked.
Sure, some of these women are misguided. They are capable of 'growing out' of this hopeless mindset.
I think this applies to the majority of the young and pretty feminist population.
Some are just that way because that is their own adopted ideology - no particular indoctrination involved.
But am I wrong on this?
Isn't all of feminism one big indoctrination?
Can a woman be a feminist in a vacuum? In a way that a girl can be 'born feminine'?
I dunno. But I suspect not.
I knew a woman when we were both very young (teens) who was so into the whole feminism thing that even at my young age, I sensed something was not quite right with her.
I avoided her like the plague, as did most boys our age and older. Even though she was much more beautiful, much more 'feminine-looking' than I could ever hope to aspire to.
There was just this undercurrent of something being wrong about her.
But I just couldn't put my finger on it.
Unlike all the other young, feminine women our age, I just couldn't click with this one.
Now I understand why she made me uncomfortable.
It was always 'women this, women that' with her, non-stop.
She chose a very woman-centric career which effectively meant that she would only interact with women.
She was also quite brash and abrasive and turned off even strangers.
And yet with all this 'women good, men bad' mantra of hers, she was very competitive with other women...which suggested to me that she wasn't particularly someone who liked women all that much afterall...a source of confusion for me.
The young and pretty feminist is still a feminist.
But unlike her older counterpart, this one is still curable.
All she needs to know is that she doesn't need feminism.
She may not only have bought it, but might now have shares in Feminism Inc.
All she needs to be told is that a market crash is coming. Those shares will be worthless soon.
That's all it takes to solve this problem.
The young and pretty feminist still has a chance.
If only she will stop listening to the old and bitter one.
Anyone know a young and pretty feminist?
Um, on second thoughts, don't...
Don't wanna ruin your appetite...
This...is how I imagine a Manosphere denizen would start his standup comedy routine.
It is not strange or weird that men see feminists as older, less attractive, and brash.
Blow me down with a feather, but looking around, yes, they have a point.
Many people will agree that young, pretty women have no need for feminism, in fact.
This makes sense to me too.
Except...
I have a question.
Who exactly is a feminist?
Here's a little test:
Which one is the feminist out of these two women?
1.The one who in response to a man who refuses to help a woman in distress: 'She can help herself anyway! She can kill her own snakes!'
2. The one who responds to such a man: 'How sad. I wish he would help'.
I think most people would agree that Woman No. 1 is more likely to be the feminist.
And Woman No. 2 may well be viewed with suspicion. Explanation further down.
Another try:
1. The one who says to a man who offers to carry her heavy bag: 'No! I can do this myself!'
2. The one who asks a man to help her carry her bag when she seems able enough to do it.
I think everyone would agree that Woman No. 1 is perhaps the one who shows more 'feminista' tendencies. Especially if she appears offended that a man has offered to help her and thus thinks she is too weak to carry her own bag.
And Woman No. 2 is 'an entitled princess'.
And some might go even so far as labelling Woman No.2 in the first example in the same way if her mindset is more 'he should do it!' than 'well, pity he didn't, but there we are'.
Her attitude rather than her words belie any feministic tendencies she might harbour.
In the second example, if a woman refused nicely, making it clear to the man that she really did not need his help but thanks anyway, very kind of you, I don't think any man would feel slighted. More to the point, he wouldn't feel she was one of them feminazi types.
And I think everyone would also agree that the woman who in accepting help from a strange man says 'thank you' to him in a genuinely nice manner is definitely not showing feminist tendencies, whatever her age.
I find more and more that 'feminism' is a question of attitude...
And somehow some older women who should know better are getting it horribly wrong.
Why is this?
And why is this in fact good news for the archetypal feminist?
It is wrong to presume that a man will help only a young beautiful woman who needs his physical help.
More and more, I am seeing young men refuse to help a woman if they perceive her to be rude, brash, uncouth or ungainly even if she is young and 'hot'. Most definitely if she is not-so-young and not-so-hot.
This is really only something I have seen in the last five or so years.
Or maybe I was simply blind to it before, I don't know.
The same man who will refuse a young woman of childbearing age his help will have no problem coming to the aid of an old granny type who smiles at him so sweetly he might need insulin shots to neutralise the sugar (to borrow a brilliant phrase from Metak :-).
But I had the general sense of the reverse situation because I was more used to a younger woman being charming (some might say 'manipulating' but I insist on the use of the word 'charming') when she needs something from a man whereas there is a growing crop of older women who are harsh and angry and still expect favours from said young men, such as help with something heavy, giving up seats on trains, etc.
This is perhaps a physiological finding, aka the 'Daddy's little princess' who can twist Dad round her little finger like a pro versus the archetypal and sadly not-so-fictional-anymore five-time baby-mama who also happens to be angry, scary and frankly unpleasant and who demands that a Real Man 'wife her up NOW' (but by the way, the kids WILL come first).
We see more of the latter and I can see how this doesn't work anymore (um, did it ever?).
Chivalry died because it was murdered.
And the resuscitation team did not even turn up because rigor mortis had set in by the time someone thought to call them.
And now we must all live with the consequences.
It is really a question of attitude.
Some women are naturally man-friendly. Some have had to learn.
But I always find these man-friendly women to be generally woman-friendly too, strangely enough.
The man-haters are identifiable by their general hatred of everyone.
In this, at least they are consistent. Which is a twisted silver lining of sorts...
Feminism (at least the kind we are all familiar with these days) as an ideology rings hollow to me and has done for a long time but not in way I could understand.
Moreover, the 'representatives' of said ideology are not helping their cause any. These women who claim to have the best interests of women at heart are being exposed as liars and fraudsters all the time. And it seems this notion is gathering momentum.
Some of them have led sad and unfulfilled lives as a result of their unfortunate choices.
But instead of advising the younger generation of women to take heed, they advise the very same choices that have led them down the path of unhappiness and bitterness.
We briefly touched on this dark aspect of womanhood in the post about circumcision where female circumcision was mentioned in the comments section.
Which led us to discuss a woman whose abortion had caused her so much pain that...her only advice to women in a similar position was...'Go ahead and have that abortion, grrl!
What?!
I would have had so much more respect for these feminist women if some of them came clean and said,'Look, we made a mistake. It happens. But don't follow in our footsteps, unless you are sure that's what you really want. You are still young - you can change your life starting now...'
But no.
They would rather see young women today descend into hell like they did.
And now, weirdly enough, a young woman learns all about morality and femininity from men.
The Manosphere (at least the woman-friendly version) has done more for young women than feminists ever have.
Priceless.
On some level, I do understand the older, bitter feminist though.
It is too late for her.
She can't turn back the clock.
That is quite painful on a deeply personal level.
But...surely she wasn't always like this??
Ah,mais si.
Yes she was.
These women started on the path to feminism when they were young and beautiful.
That is, they started out on this journey at a time they didn't really need feminism. But they wanted it. So they created it.
The whole sex-positive thing could not have been started by old women. Not biologically possible.
Perhaps that's the problem.
The best years of these women were wasted on an idea which was flawed.
But they couldn't get off the express train until it crashed into the station at the final destination.
Whole lives had been spent developing and nurturing lies and hype that needed repeating so many times in order for them to stick.
And stick they did.
The other women who used their lives more correctly have no reason to be bitter.
They are also suffering of course.
No-one is trouble-free.
They may be lonely old spinsters, they may be divorced, widowed, happily married, whatever.
But they are not angry, bitter, loud and selfish women.
And so today, are there young and pretty feminists?
Unfortunately yes.
Some are unbelievably feminine-looking on the outside. Really beautiful women.
And yet they harbour tremendous man-hate which is not apparent to any man until he is hooked.
Sure, some of these women are misguided. They are capable of 'growing out' of this hopeless mindset.
I think this applies to the majority of the young and pretty feminist population.
Some are just that way because that is their own adopted ideology - no particular indoctrination involved.
But am I wrong on this?
Isn't all of feminism one big indoctrination?
Can a woman be a feminist in a vacuum? In a way that a girl can be 'born feminine'?
I dunno. But I suspect not.
I knew a woman when we were both very young (teens) who was so into the whole feminism thing that even at my young age, I sensed something was not quite right with her.
I avoided her like the plague, as did most boys our age and older. Even though she was much more beautiful, much more 'feminine-looking' than I could ever hope to aspire to.
There was just this undercurrent of something being wrong about her.
But I just couldn't put my finger on it.
Unlike all the other young, feminine women our age, I just couldn't click with this one.
Now I understand why she made me uncomfortable.
It was always 'women this, women that' with her, non-stop.
She chose a very woman-centric career which effectively meant that she would only interact with women.
She was also quite brash and abrasive and turned off even strangers.
And yet with all this 'women good, men bad' mantra of hers, she was very competitive with other women...which suggested to me that she wasn't particularly someone who liked women all that much afterall...a source of confusion for me.
The young and pretty feminist is still a feminist.
But unlike her older counterpart, this one is still curable.
All she needs to know is that she doesn't need feminism.
She may not only have bought it, but might now have shares in Feminism Inc.
All she needs to be told is that a market crash is coming. Those shares will be worthless soon.
That's all it takes to solve this problem.
The young and pretty feminist still has a chance.
If only she will stop listening to the old and bitter one.
Anyone know a young and pretty feminist?
Saturday, June 9, 2012
Game lessons from INTJ behaviour...and naughty comedians
Everyone has a cross to bear in life. Some heavier than others.
Mine appears to be ... INTJs :-)
Wherever I go, I seem to trip up on them.
I thought I could escape them in real life by hiding out in internet-land.
Only to find that internet-land is absolutely swarming with these fellas :-)
Danny, here's looking at you, Maestro.
And I am pretty sure Brody is INTJ too :-)
When I read this post of Danny's, it made me laugh out loud, because I have seen this in action my whole life.
Bellita, I think it was, who said, quoting her Mum, 'Whatever you resist, persists'.
With this in mind, I shan't fight it anymore.
Forevermore, I shall be subject to INTJ craziness :-)
But it's not all bad with these guys.
Far from it.
One thing I notice about them (which tickles my fancy no end) is their ability to 'send people up'.
I am not sure if this british expression is understood by non-Brits.
Just in case it isn't, I guess it is similar to the Game concept of 'agree and amplify', except it is done more 'actively' rather than passively in response to the 'victim's' own deluded thinking, as is the case in 'agree and amplify'.
To be perfectly honest, much as I am an avid Game advocate, I don't feel it is my place to study it in any great depth, other than enough to appreciate its nuances, as I understand that:
1. I wouldn't want to diminish or dilute its effect on me when I am its 'recipient', and
2. I am as likely to need to learn Game for myself as a bald man needs a comb.
So I know the basics, and not much more.
But I was keen to try out my newfound knowledge when Danny asked his masterclass students to point out the Game concepts as demonstrated in this film.
Easily distracted creature that I am, however, even though I went on to review this film in not one but two posts, I still did not answer Danny's questions about the Game concepts, and touched on everything but Game in my wordy reviews :-)
So here is 'Firelight Take 3: the Game concepts Danny was on about' :-)
But first (yes, I digress a lot!), back to INTJs, I notice that part of their apparent lack of 'social graces' stems from the fact that they hate to be boxed in to societal boundaries.
I am sure Danny will confirm this.
Prince Charles sums it up best when he expressly declares his disdain at being 'ever the performing monkey' when he has to perform his royal duties...
Prince Philip might well be an INTJ, at least when it comes to this. I think his so-called 'gaffes' which seem antisocial to most, are actually a manifestation of his weird sense of humour which he feels no need to curb even in situations which call for this type of restraint.
So he will 'send people up' and end up 'getting people's backs up'.
What's more, I always wonder why the Queen never seems upset when he does this, even in her presence.
I think I have an explanation for this too.
INTJs are indeed private and even secretive individuals. (I have never met a female one, but despte their relative rarity, I know the internet is absolutely crawling with them in disproportion to their relative numbers in real life :-)
INTJs live in a world of their own. But occasionally, they get tired of their own company and let someone in. Someone they rigorously test until deemed 'suitable'.
I am not sure why they do this, but I think perhaps, as per most comedians, they really like an audience for their antics. That adds to the fun.
When they are 'sending up' some unsuspecting indiviual who really is clueless as to what is going on, the INTJ gets a kick out of knowing that someone else (a third party) is in on the joke.
I think the Queen is Prince Philip's 'side-kick' in this regard, which is why she never appears upset with his gaffes.
It is quite the privilege for the non-INTJ to be allowed into this position of honour, so they hold it dear. It quickly becomes one of their guilty pleasures :-)
The INTJ is allowed to freely indulge in their defiance of social etiquette if they have an 'accomplice' such as this, especially a woman, who will 'alibi' for him.
If he goes too far, it is she who has to lead him back to within acceptable limits. Because he really has no limit :-)
And God help them both if she too is an INTJ, because then, it really will be a case of the blind leading the blind...
There are two British comedians who are especially good at this 'sending people up' game. Here they are in action:
First up, Sacha Baron Cohen as 'Ali G' who took Britain by storm around ten years ago with his 'faux-ghetto' persona.
This particular clip is especially funny given the general subject matter of this blog:
And then there is Paul Kaye, who goes by the name of 'Denis Pennis' and likes to interview his 'victims' in an American accent, for some obscure reason :-)
Back to 'Firelight', I think now that Elizabeth Laurier might well be an INTJ. I did wonder in one of my previous reviews whether she was INTJ or INTP but on reflection, I think I now have my answer.
In the scene with her daughter Louisa, she executes the 'agree and amplify' thing to perfection.
As PUA tacticians would add, she also managed to seriously 'mess with Louisa's head' in the process.
Except, 'mess' is not the word commonly used in this context, but in the interests of decorum...
00:20 to 01:27...
INTJs love their little head-games. And the fewer people that are 'privy' to their self-entertainment the better for them. But they do like at least one person to share in this with them. It has come to my attention that I have been an unwitting 'co-pilot' in this regard for a long time.
But now I am very much a willing 'accomplice', even if that means that sometimes I am taken to the 'dark side' of acceptable limits of humour :-)
I wonder - do other personality types do this?
Is this funny or unacceptable, by the way?
Why am I reminded of this 'sending up' phenomenon when I witness the tearing apart of (usually) a woman (but not exclusively) on a Manosphere blog by male commenters who seem to form a 'hyena pack' in their ferocity?
Surely they can't all be INTJs having a laugh, literally, in hyena fashion, can they?
Can they?
Whatever it is, it is only fair to say that this phenomenon does take at least a minimum standard of some intelligence, no?
One's gotta admire the smartness behind it...
Unless of course, one is the victim.
Then it's just not funny at all...
Ali G on feminism again:
:-)
And finally, DON'T watch this next video if you are a sensitive type. His interviews with the lesbian couple and the Catholic priest I think border on the unacceptable...this is EXACTLY what I mean by the 'dark side' of humour...
Unfortunately, this is what INTJs do best...
Mine appears to be ... INTJs :-)
Wherever I go, I seem to trip up on them.
I thought I could escape them in real life by hiding out in internet-land.
Only to find that internet-land is absolutely swarming with these fellas :-)
Danny, here's looking at you, Maestro.
And I am pretty sure Brody is INTJ too :-)
When I read this post of Danny's, it made me laugh out loud, because I have seen this in action my whole life.
Bellita, I think it was, who said, quoting her Mum, 'Whatever you resist, persists'.
With this in mind, I shan't fight it anymore.
Forevermore, I shall be subject to INTJ craziness :-)
But it's not all bad with these guys.
Far from it.
One thing I notice about them (which tickles my fancy no end) is their ability to 'send people up'.
I am not sure if this british expression is understood by non-Brits.
Just in case it isn't, I guess it is similar to the Game concept of 'agree and amplify', except it is done more 'actively' rather than passively in response to the 'victim's' own deluded thinking, as is the case in 'agree and amplify'.
To be perfectly honest, much as I am an avid Game advocate, I don't feel it is my place to study it in any great depth, other than enough to appreciate its nuances, as I understand that:
1. I wouldn't want to diminish or dilute its effect on me when I am its 'recipient', and
2. I am as likely to need to learn Game for myself as a bald man needs a comb.
So I know the basics, and not much more.
But I was keen to try out my newfound knowledge when Danny asked his masterclass students to point out the Game concepts as demonstrated in this film.
Easily distracted creature that I am, however, even though I went on to review this film in not one but two posts, I still did not answer Danny's questions about the Game concepts, and touched on everything but Game in my wordy reviews :-)
So here is 'Firelight Take 3: the Game concepts Danny was on about' :-)
But first (yes, I digress a lot!), back to INTJs, I notice that part of their apparent lack of 'social graces' stems from the fact that they hate to be boxed in to societal boundaries.
I am sure Danny will confirm this.
Prince Charles sums it up best when he expressly declares his disdain at being 'ever the performing monkey' when he has to perform his royal duties...
Prince Philip might well be an INTJ, at least when it comes to this. I think his so-called 'gaffes' which seem antisocial to most, are actually a manifestation of his weird sense of humour which he feels no need to curb even in situations which call for this type of restraint.
So he will 'send people up' and end up 'getting people's backs up'.
What's more, I always wonder why the Queen never seems upset when he does this, even in her presence.
I think I have an explanation for this too.
INTJs are indeed private and even secretive individuals. (I have never met a female one, but despte their relative rarity, I know the internet is absolutely crawling with them in disproportion to their relative numbers in real life :-)
INTJs live in a world of their own. But occasionally, they get tired of their own company and let someone in. Someone they rigorously test until deemed 'suitable'.
I am not sure why they do this, but I think perhaps, as per most comedians, they really like an audience for their antics. That adds to the fun.
When they are 'sending up' some unsuspecting indiviual who really is clueless as to what is going on, the INTJ gets a kick out of knowing that someone else (a third party) is in on the joke.
I think the Queen is Prince Philip's 'side-kick' in this regard, which is why she never appears upset with his gaffes.
It is quite the privilege for the non-INTJ to be allowed into this position of honour, so they hold it dear. It quickly becomes one of their guilty pleasures :-)
The INTJ is allowed to freely indulge in their defiance of social etiquette if they have an 'accomplice' such as this, especially a woman, who will 'alibi' for him.
If he goes too far, it is she who has to lead him back to within acceptable limits. Because he really has no limit :-)
And God help them both if she too is an INTJ, because then, it really will be a case of the blind leading the blind...
There are two British comedians who are especially good at this 'sending people up' game. Here they are in action:
First up, Sacha Baron Cohen as 'Ali G' who took Britain by storm around ten years ago with his 'faux-ghetto' persona.
This particular clip is especially funny given the general subject matter of this blog:
And then there is Paul Kaye, who goes by the name of 'Denis Pennis' and likes to interview his 'victims' in an American accent, for some obscure reason :-)
Back to 'Firelight', I think now that Elizabeth Laurier might well be an INTJ. I did wonder in one of my previous reviews whether she was INTJ or INTP but on reflection, I think I now have my answer.
In the scene with her daughter Louisa, she executes the 'agree and amplify' thing to perfection.
As PUA tacticians would add, she also managed to seriously 'mess with Louisa's head' in the process.
Except, 'mess' is not the word commonly used in this context, but in the interests of decorum...
00:20 to 01:27...
INTJs love their little head-games. And the fewer people that are 'privy' to their self-entertainment the better for them. But they do like at least one person to share in this with them. It has come to my attention that I have been an unwitting 'co-pilot' in this regard for a long time.
But now I am very much a willing 'accomplice', even if that means that sometimes I am taken to the 'dark side' of acceptable limits of humour :-)
I wonder - do other personality types do this?
Is this funny or unacceptable, by the way?
Why am I reminded of this 'sending up' phenomenon when I witness the tearing apart of (usually) a woman (but not exclusively) on a Manosphere blog by male commenters who seem to form a 'hyena pack' in their ferocity?
Surely they can't all be INTJs having a laugh, literally, in hyena fashion, can they?
Can they?
Whatever it is, it is only fair to say that this phenomenon does take at least a minimum standard of some intelligence, no?
One's gotta admire the smartness behind it...
Unless of course, one is the victim.
Then it's just not funny at all...
Ali G on feminism again:
:-)
I am not sure if this woman realises how much she is being 'sent up'. Perhaps she is aware, and is just playing along... I really hope this is the case...for her sake...
And finally, DON'T watch this next video if you are a sensitive type. His interviews with the lesbian couple and the Catholic priest I think border on the unacceptable...this is EXACTLY what I mean by the 'dark side' of humour...
Unfortunately, this is what INTJs do best...
Thursday, June 7, 2012
Anti-social or just a normal male?
Welcome to The JV show!
Each time JV comments, a new post is born :-)
I could retire my post-finding hemisphere and just depend on her for ideas :-)
So thank you, JV.
For your gems.
Here is something JV said, which I was starting to ponder about anyway. PVW also made a similar comment that made me think.
The background to my thoughts on this is perhaps a little selfish, in a longwinded sort of way.
I mean, if I am going to somehow produce ten children, the names of which are already entered into the old cerebral database, to be dished out at appropriate intervals :-), it is statistically reasonable to expect a good number to be boys.
Sure, I could end up with ten girls.
But that would be (statistically) improbable.
It follows that I have to think about one day being in charge of a man's early life.
By being his mother.
Why do I need to think about this?
Because I imagine I already know how to raise a woman. Because I am one.
I have to prepare myself specially to (co-)raise a man.
Is this overthinking things a tad?
Indeed.
But that's what I do best :-)
On a side note, I am currently wary of both genders when they are still under the age of reason and still under three foot.
The girls game me and the boys show me things I am not expecting to see.
:-)
I think I am going to need all the help I can get.
Back to the topic in hand, PVW said this in the context of educating girls:
"...when I heard about the Oprah Winfrey situation, I thought that in South Africa, can it be a matter of young men in such a more patriarchal society, young men are deemed empowered merely by their existence, while for young girls, they need extra efforts for their empowerment."
I know any future daughters I have will get an education.
That's a given.
First wave feminism achieved this for already at least three or four generations of modern families.
No problem there.
But I am not so sure about my future sons now.
Because it is no longer about leveling a playing field anymore.
It is now about some sort of retribution against manhood.
I didn't sign up for that.
But it might be what my future son will get.
And now I am starting to feel queasy for him before he is born.
Neurotic motherhood at its best :-)
This is what JV said, to further fuel my neuroticism:
This, in the context of 'ball-busting' women:
"It's funny, but your post idea was something that I was thinking about the other day. A friend of mine who is a single mother has a son who was goofing around with my teenager. The insults were fast and furious, and my friend was horrified. She turned to me and said, "I just can't get him to stop doing that." I told her to not worry about it. It's how boys socialize.
But it got me to thinking how varying degrees of teasing insult is a part of male social skills, whether it's among their friends, or the teasing neg with women. Training that out of a boy could cause a lot of problems."
The problem with a feminised society is that it can produce two types of men:
1. In the majority group will be those who just feel isolated and want to run fast from that society, because there is nothing in it that they can identify with.
2. In the minority, the men who are 'feminised' and as a result become unattractive to the vast majority of women.
Neither category is desirable.
I am sure there are 'matriarchies' that worked in ancient times.
But our attempt at 'matriarchy' in the current clime is not working.
Because it is a false and confused kind of matriarchy, precisely because it is borne out of dissent at patriarchy, without a prior negotiation.
It is a funcional matriarchy rebelling at an actual patriarchy.
If more and more households with children are consisting of mostly single mothers, then in thirty years we will have more of the above categories.
But I think I spot an unseen fiend (no typo).
Even in a 'normal' family setting of both parents who are in 'traditional' roles (for want of a better expression), early childhood is going to be spent in the majotity of the time with Mother.
This is not just practical, it is also natural.
A father's 'input' grows with the child's age. That's not to say that he is unnecessary at Day 1 of course.
All I am saying is that the needs of a baby are overwhelmingly at the door of Mother from Day 1 and the direct interaction with father comes later.
If Mother is clueless as to the specific needs of boys, even the most 'advantaged' boys in society, i.e. those who have both parents living under the same roof by age sixteen will lack something they really ought not to do without.
I am reliably informed (by the men of The Manosphere) that boys are singled out at school for ridicule and punishment much harsher than befits their 'crimes'. The problem is said to (partly at least) stem from the fact that the majority of teachers in schools are female.
If this is true (that boys are being singled out in this way), then I don't think the problem is that their teachers are female at all. There has to be an unseen force at play here. In this sense, the female teacher might just be a puppet on a string in a macabre 'Punch and Judy' show where Judy is made to punch Punch more times than is necessary to keep the show funny.
One of the tools at a school's disposal may be the accusation that a boy is 'violent'.
Is this criminalising 'normal' little boy behaviour or is this indeed the start of the long road to 'Her Majesty's pleasure' aka prison for young Tommy?
Was JV right to be nonchalant about her friend's son's behaviour or is she aiding and abeting a future outlaw?
In Britain, around 10 years ago, a new trend started: Handing out ASBOs (Antisocial Behaviour Orders) to 'unruly' teenagers like smarties. Guess which gender got the majority of these?
And what about the adult men?
Apparently not much changes between ages 5 and 50 :-)
I was once went on a road trip in a party of four, with a married couple in their 50s and a friend in his 40s.
The two men frequently had each other's heads in an underarm head lock whilst I and the other woman looked on in sheer embarrassment whenever this was done in full view of polite company.
To me it was like kindergarten all over again but my female friend assures me this is normal behaviour even for a 50-something year old man :-)
As we celebrate the diamond Jubilee of our dear Queen Elizabeth, my thoughts veer towards two astounding realisations:
1. She has effectively been 'married' to Britain and the Commonwealth for 60 years.
She took vows of loyalty and alliance to the nation, and she has kept them.
2. If she has been Queen for 60 years, she has been married (in the normal sense of the word) for longer than that, because she was already married (and Prince Charles was already a toddler) by the time her father died and she became Queen.
For any woman whose eternal lament is 'he has no social skills, he does and says whatever he wants whenever he wants', spare a thought for our dear old Queen Liz.
Prince Philip has never been known for his social graces and tact.
In fact he is so well-known as 'HRH Prince of Gaffes' that diplomatic relations with certain countries of the world have only been maintained because of the love and respect that the inhabitants have for our dear Reina Elizabeth.
In lesser circles, Prince Philip would have been branded as downright antisocial. He may even have earned himself an ASBO.
And yet, he managed to avoid being thrown out of Buckingham Palace all these years.
He managed to evade being thrown out of the country the literal way.
He escaped the grasp of the guillotine executioner at The Tower of London.
Other spouses of the reigning monarch of England have heard the words 'off with their heads' for much less than the 'crimes' of the impossible Prince P :-)
Does Prince Philip get away with it because he is a man and therefore his tactless jibes at the unsuspecting public (foreign or otherwise) are considered a variant of normal?
Here are some goodies from the national treasure chest of HRH Prince P's gaffes, for your entertainment.
Please note that these were all said to high-ranking people who formed part of a welcoming committe for the royal party:
On a tour of Canada: "We don't come here for our health. We can think of other ways of enjoying ourselves."
During the recession he mused: “Everybody was saying we must have more leisure. Now they are complaining they are unemployed."
When accepting a figurine from a woman during a visit to Kenya he asked: "You are a woman aren't you?"
He asked a Scottish driving instructor in Oban: "How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to pass the test?"
The Duke asked a British student who had been trekking in Papua New Guinea: "You managed not to get eaten then?"
At a Buckingham Palace drinks party, he told a group of female Labour MPs: "Ah, so this is the feminist corner then."
On being offered fine Italian wines by Giuliano Amato, the former Prime Minister, at a dinner in Rome, he is said to have uttered: "Get me a beer. I don't care what kind it is, just get me a beer!"
In Cardiff he told children from the British Deaf Association, who were standing by a Caribbean steel band: "If you're near that music it's no wonder you're deaf".
He told a World Wildlife Fund meeting that "if it has got four legs and it is not a chair, if it has got two wings and flies but is not an aeroplane and if it swims and it is not a submarine, the Cantonese will eat it."
“You look like you’re ready for bed!”
- To the President of Nigeria, dressed in traditional robes.
Said to black dance troupe Diversity at the Royal Variety Performance: "Are you all one family?"
To Australian Aborigines during a visit to Australia with the Queen he asked: "Do you still throw spears at each other?"
To the Aircraft Research Association, he said: "If you travel as much as we do, you appreciate the improvements in aircraft design of less noise and more comfort, provided you don't travel in something called economy class, which sounds ghastly."
While touring a factory near Edinburgh he said a fuse box was so crude it "looked as though it had been put in by an Indian".
It seems no group, clan or nation has managed to escape Prince Philip's sharp wit.
And yet, the most celebrated woman in the world thinks the world of him.
So much so that she has been his loving and faithful wife for over 60 years.
Is he a strutting, rebellious and feckless alpha with an unusual sense of humour?
Or a witless, embarrassing and antisocial sigma?
Or...just a normal male?
Are we in danger of making manhood extinct by the time my sons get born?
Or are we going to let men be men?
And for that matter, let women be women?
Each time JV comments, a new post is born :-)
I could retire my post-finding hemisphere and just depend on her for ideas :-)
So thank you, JV.
For your gems.
Here is something JV said, which I was starting to ponder about anyway. PVW also made a similar comment that made me think.
The background to my thoughts on this is perhaps a little selfish, in a longwinded sort of way.
I mean, if I am going to somehow produce ten children, the names of which are already entered into the old cerebral database, to be dished out at appropriate intervals :-), it is statistically reasonable to expect a good number to be boys.
Sure, I could end up with ten girls.
But that would be (statistically) improbable.
It follows that I have to think about one day being in charge of a man's early life.
By being his mother.
Why do I need to think about this?
Because I imagine I already know how to raise a woman. Because I am one.
I have to prepare myself specially to (co-)raise a man.
Is this overthinking things a tad?
Indeed.
But that's what I do best :-)
On a side note, I am currently wary of both genders when they are still under the age of reason and still under three foot.
The girls game me and the boys show me things I am not expecting to see.
:-)
I think I am going to need all the help I can get.
Back to the topic in hand, PVW said this in the context of educating girls:
"...when I heard about the Oprah Winfrey situation, I thought that in South Africa, can it be a matter of young men in such a more patriarchal society, young men are deemed empowered merely by their existence, while for young girls, they need extra efforts for their empowerment."
I know any future daughters I have will get an education.
That's a given.
First wave feminism achieved this for already at least three or four generations of modern families.
No problem there.
But I am not so sure about my future sons now.
Because it is no longer about leveling a playing field anymore.
It is now about some sort of retribution against manhood.
I didn't sign up for that.
But it might be what my future son will get.
And now I am starting to feel queasy for him before he is born.
Neurotic motherhood at its best :-)
This is what JV said, to further fuel my neuroticism:
This, in the context of 'ball-busting' women:
"It's funny, but your post idea was something that I was thinking about the other day. A friend of mine who is a single mother has a son who was goofing around with my teenager. The insults were fast and furious, and my friend was horrified. She turned to me and said, "I just can't get him to stop doing that." I told her to not worry about it. It's how boys socialize.
But it got me to thinking how varying degrees of teasing insult is a part of male social skills, whether it's among their friends, or the teasing neg with women. Training that out of a boy could cause a lot of problems."
The problem with a feminised society is that it can produce two types of men:
1. In the majority group will be those who just feel isolated and want to run fast from that society, because there is nothing in it that they can identify with.
2. In the minority, the men who are 'feminised' and as a result become unattractive to the vast majority of women.
Neither category is desirable.
I am sure there are 'matriarchies' that worked in ancient times.
But our attempt at 'matriarchy' in the current clime is not working.
Because it is a false and confused kind of matriarchy, precisely because it is borne out of dissent at patriarchy, without a prior negotiation.
It is a funcional matriarchy rebelling at an actual patriarchy.
If more and more households with children are consisting of mostly single mothers, then in thirty years we will have more of the above categories.
But I think I spot an unseen fiend (no typo).
Even in a 'normal' family setting of both parents who are in 'traditional' roles (for want of a better expression), early childhood is going to be spent in the majotity of the time with Mother.
This is not just practical, it is also natural.
A father's 'input' grows with the child's age. That's not to say that he is unnecessary at Day 1 of course.
All I am saying is that the needs of a baby are overwhelmingly at the door of Mother from Day 1 and the direct interaction with father comes later.
If Mother is clueless as to the specific needs of boys, even the most 'advantaged' boys in society, i.e. those who have both parents living under the same roof by age sixteen will lack something they really ought not to do without.
I am reliably informed (by the men of The Manosphere) that boys are singled out at school for ridicule and punishment much harsher than befits their 'crimes'. The problem is said to (partly at least) stem from the fact that the majority of teachers in schools are female.
If this is true (that boys are being singled out in this way), then I don't think the problem is that their teachers are female at all. There has to be an unseen force at play here. In this sense, the female teacher might just be a puppet on a string in a macabre 'Punch and Judy' show where Judy is made to punch Punch more times than is necessary to keep the show funny.
One of the tools at a school's disposal may be the accusation that a boy is 'violent'.
Is this criminalising 'normal' little boy behaviour or is this indeed the start of the long road to 'Her Majesty's pleasure' aka prison for young Tommy?
Was JV right to be nonchalant about her friend's son's behaviour or is she aiding and abeting a future outlaw?
In Britain, around 10 years ago, a new trend started: Handing out ASBOs (Antisocial Behaviour Orders) to 'unruly' teenagers like smarties. Guess which gender got the majority of these?
And what about the adult men?
Apparently not much changes between ages 5 and 50 :-)
I was once went on a road trip in a party of four, with a married couple in their 50s and a friend in his 40s.
The two men frequently had each other's heads in an underarm head lock whilst I and the other woman looked on in sheer embarrassment whenever this was done in full view of polite company.
To me it was like kindergarten all over again but my female friend assures me this is normal behaviour even for a 50-something year old man :-)
As we celebrate the diamond Jubilee of our dear Queen Elizabeth, my thoughts veer towards two astounding realisations:
1. She has effectively been 'married' to Britain and the Commonwealth for 60 years.
She took vows of loyalty and alliance to the nation, and she has kept them.
2. If she has been Queen for 60 years, she has been married (in the normal sense of the word) for longer than that, because she was already married (and Prince Charles was already a toddler) by the time her father died and she became Queen.
For any woman whose eternal lament is 'he has no social skills, he does and says whatever he wants whenever he wants', spare a thought for our dear old Queen Liz.
Prince Philip has never been known for his social graces and tact.
In fact he is so well-known as 'HRH Prince of Gaffes' that diplomatic relations with certain countries of the world have only been maintained because of the love and respect that the inhabitants have for our dear Reina Elizabeth.
In lesser circles, Prince Philip would have been branded as downright antisocial. He may even have earned himself an ASBO.
And yet, he managed to avoid being thrown out of Buckingham Palace all these years.
He managed to evade being thrown out of the country the literal way.
He escaped the grasp of the guillotine executioner at The Tower of London.
Other spouses of the reigning monarch of England have heard the words 'off with their heads' for much less than the 'crimes' of the impossible Prince P :-)
Does Prince Philip get away with it because he is a man and therefore his tactless jibes at the unsuspecting public (foreign or otherwise) are considered a variant of normal?
Here are some goodies from the national treasure chest of HRH Prince P's gaffes, for your entertainment.
Please note that these were all said to high-ranking people who formed part of a welcoming committe for the royal party:
On a tour of Canada: "We don't come here for our health. We can think of other ways of enjoying ourselves."
During the recession he mused: “Everybody was saying we must have more leisure. Now they are complaining they are unemployed."
When accepting a figurine from a woman during a visit to Kenya he asked: "You are a woman aren't you?"
He asked a Scottish driving instructor in Oban: "How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to pass the test?"
The Duke asked a British student who had been trekking in Papua New Guinea: "You managed not to get eaten then?"
At a Buckingham Palace drinks party, he told a group of female Labour MPs: "Ah, so this is the feminist corner then."
On being offered fine Italian wines by Giuliano Amato, the former Prime Minister, at a dinner in Rome, he is said to have uttered: "Get me a beer. I don't care what kind it is, just get me a beer!"
In Cardiff he told children from the British Deaf Association, who were standing by a Caribbean steel band: "If you're near that music it's no wonder you're deaf".
He told a World Wildlife Fund meeting that "if it has got four legs and it is not a chair, if it has got two wings and flies but is not an aeroplane and if it swims and it is not a submarine, the Cantonese will eat it."
“You look like you’re ready for bed!”
- To the President of Nigeria, dressed in traditional robes.
Said to black dance troupe Diversity at the Royal Variety Performance: "Are you all one family?"
To Australian Aborigines during a visit to Australia with the Queen he asked: "Do you still throw spears at each other?"
To the Aircraft Research Association, he said: "If you travel as much as we do, you appreciate the improvements in aircraft design of less noise and more comfort, provided you don't travel in something called economy class, which sounds ghastly."
While touring a factory near Edinburgh he said a fuse box was so crude it "looked as though it had been put in by an Indian".
It seems no group, clan or nation has managed to escape Prince Philip's sharp wit.
And yet, the most celebrated woman in the world thinks the world of him.
So much so that she has been his loving and faithful wife for over 60 years.
Is he a strutting, rebellious and feckless alpha with an unusual sense of humour?
Or a witless, embarrassing and antisocial sigma?
Or...just a normal male?
Are we in danger of making manhood extinct by the time my sons get born?
Or are we going to let men be men?
And for that matter, let women be women?
Defiant as ever...
But still the best royal consort to date...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)