Thursday, July 12, 2012

Don't touch his manhood, or hers

I was already thinking a lot about this topic when Bellita made this comment in the post 'Grace? Oh dear...':

"Do you remember my "Masculine Women" post, ST? It attracted a couple of male commenters (new visitors) who said they believed that femininity is natural to women, that it is easy for us to give into it, and that women who are "masculine" are just fighting their true nature. I thought it was an odd thing for them to say, given how many women had already chimed in to say that being "girly" had never come naturally to them . . . and I wondered whether that was a pretty fantasy they needed to cling to at the time. When a man is surrounded by harsh women but keeps telling himself that all they have to do is "stop fighting" their "natural" feminine energy, then he won't have to be bitter about them just yet."

And this was my reply:

"And it seems you are reading my mind again, for just today, I was thinking about masculinity and femininity in this same light. I think I agree with you that femininity does not come as naturally to (some) women as masculinity does to men. It frustrates me to think this, but I have a theory or two as to why this might be the case. Draft of post in progress."

I had come to a profound and sad conclusion that (at least today), femininity is more fragile than masculinity.
But why do I think this?
And why did Bellita also seemingly think that femininity is not necessarily a feature for (at least some - but maybe I would venture most?) women?
In some, it is actually a bug...

It frustrated me to think this way. Because the only possible follow up questions to all the above would be:

1. Is this fragility to do with femininity itself?
2. Is it to do with the people on whom it is supposedly bestowed, i.e. women?

Which is it?

Consider this.
A man is prepared to go to war with another if his masculinity is called into question. In reaction to an offending man he may come close to drawing blood. In reaction to an offending woman (as perceived as 'lack of respect') he will become extremely belligerent.

A woman nowadays is more offended by her shortcomings in 'masculine pursuits' being pointed out, than those in 'feminine pursuits'. I fully recognise that there is a good reason for that. The 'rat race' of life is not the exclusive preserve of men. It has not been for the last 100 years or so. So a woman needs to be just as good when it comes to 'masculine pursuits' as men.

The problem with this is that femininity becomes the first casualty in the war of survival.

The sequence of events is as follows:

Feminism gets born.
Women are given the drive and the incentive to go out there and 'get their own bacon'.
Women do.
They are now in direct competition with men who now view women as 'in their face'.
Men, who are naturally dominant become even more so.
Women become even more 'masculinised' in order to cope with this increased resistance from men.
Men react by becoming, well, more masculine.
So do women.
And all the while, femininity disappears little by little until such time as a search warrant is issued.
By which time it is too late and the search is called off. The search party is recalled and the memorial service begins...

Femininity is all but dead in western society now.

We now have two classes of men in the current SMP:
1. The men without breasts.
2. The men with breasts.
    That's it.

The men without breasts are not happy with the men with breasts because the men with breasts are not women. Which is what the men without breasts want.
The men without breasts keep saying they want women.
The men with breasts don't know what a 'woman' is, so they ignore the men without breasts.
So the men without breasts decide it's time to GTOW.
And the men with breasts are forced to do the same. But not out of choice.

How did we get here?

I know exactly why.
If this sounds like a bold statement, here is an even bolder one:

I don't need a man.

Rule number one of Feminism Inc.
And the killer of normal male-female relationships since 1952. Or thereabouts.

Whilst it is true that no human being needs another to survive (unless they are an infant), the ideology that a woman does not need a man (for the simple joie de vivre that this should evoke in her) is a destructive one which has seen the anticipated 'dominoes effect' come into play ever since.
We are where we deserve to be.

This article is extreme (as with all my examples!) but consider that in Britain today, this young woman is typical.
There is plenty depressing about this article, and I got a sense of what others thought about this young woman by reading as many of the (1000+) comments as possible.

The most depressing thing I thought was (and surprisingly, no-one made this point so far), her total lack of a desire to be a wife.

It used to be that young girls would dream of becoming a bride, and a wife, and a mother, in that order.
The dream of motherhood persists for most women of childbearing age who are not already mothers.
More and more, the deam of 'bride' is fading.
The dream of 'wife' already died. And for some, it was never in the offing.
Why?

The last bastion of femininity to die would be motherhood.
Even the 'butchest' of lesbians want to be mothers (or 'fathers').
Of course there are women who don't want to be mothers, ever, who are still feminine women.
I limit this discussion to those who have the usual (for want of a better word) 'feminine/maternal instincts'.
If and when the dream of wearing the pretty white dress dies, a woman still wants to be a mother.
Hence the rise of the turkey baster.

Motherhood is (one of) the most natural of feminine instincts.
It is only right. I have no problem with this, of course. As a woman myself, I am only too familiar with this phenomenon affectionately dubbed 'baby rabies' by our sweet cherubic brothers of The Manosphere :-)
(You toerags*, you :-)

Petty insults aside, whilst there is absolutely nothing wrong with following one's natural instincts, there arises a major problem however when anyone (man or woman) wants 'something for nothing'.
A free lunch.
Those who say there is no such thing are right.

The girl in the above article (and I refer to her as such because it is clear to me that her level of maturity is still sadly in the 'girlhood' range. She is not yet a woman. But she has two children entrusted to her care. If I weren't  an optimist, I would exclaim 'Tragic!'. But she can turn things around, if she wants to one day soon).

This girl has no need for a man.
Because The State is her man. Many men in The Manosphere have previously made this point.
She is also justifying her one night stand at 12 and again at 16 (resulting in the birth of her two children) as 'doing the smartest thing in her life' to date.
On one level she is right. Children are a blessing, no matter how one acquires them. But more relevantly to this discussion, The State has aided and abeted her in her wayward folly, because she is not being made to see the error of her ways. And more importantly, she is not made to suffer any penalties. It is her children who will suffer on her behalf, of course.
Fatherless and relatively poor (because Mother is spending her money in the clubbing scene) all their childhood, they won't have it easy, for sure.
But I am sure and I hope they will eventually overcome the obstacles we can all see ahead.

This is the reason I am so much against the 'single mother by choice' brigade.
It denies children their right to their father.
It denies men the chance of a good wife (note I do not consider this a 'right' - but that's another discussion).
Because a selfish woman wants to indulge her desire to become a mother without the 'hassle' of a man.
Some will go as far as the fake wedding, so they can at least indulge in the dream of wearing the pretty white dress for a day. But after that lovely day, the dream is over.

The current problems in the SMP will never be solved unless women get it into their minds that they need men. Even if this is technically false as I alluded to above.
And the first step is to recognise the problem.
There are many women who do not even know that they harbour 'I don't need a man' thoughts.
And yet they cannot put their finger on the source of their cognitive dissonance.

How nice would it be (at least for men and future children, and then for society at large)  if every woman said to herself...
I plan to become a good wife first, then a good mother, then a good grandmother...

Not everyone will win at every step.
But it doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

For the girl above, this thought was absent. So of course the behaviour which follows should not surprise.

Perhaps the best way to resuscitate femininity is for women to aim to be good wives. Whether or not they succeed.
At least for those who want to be mothers (but of course not exclusively).
And let Nature or Providence or whatever esle we can call it take its course.












* 'toerag' is Brit slang meaning 'rascal' or 'rogue'.

32 comments:

dannyfrom504 said...

It's pretty disheartening when women cry that they're equals but pull the victim card as soon as it benefits them.

Bellita said...

ST, I don't have much time to comment at the moment, but I wanted to respond to two things you've written here . . .

The current problems in the SMP will never be solved unless women get it into their minds that they need men.

This is true. It's not very PC, but it's true.

Men react by becoming, well, more masculine.

But I'll have to disagree with this. I think that men react by dropping out. It is, after all, the masculinized women who are wondering where all the "good" men are. Of course, you also mention this unfortunate consequence later in your post.

Anonymous said...

Hi, ST, PVW here.


Some random thoughts. I think that some of the arguments here can easily lead to stereotyping: ambitious woman succeeding an a male-dominated field, she must be masculine!

A successful woman, she must not need a man!

And yet, quite often the feminine women in today's smp, ie., those who are reserved, modest, not loud, are they getting attention from the married-minded men?

Not always, because the men they might be interested in know they are not going to be easy, and so they go where things are "easier," or they believe these women are going to be high maintenance, ie., require dating, marriage, etc., and they are not ready for that or they don't want it, with them, etc., etc.

I see nuance; there is a difference between not wanting a man and knowing one is not guaranteed a man and living accordingly.

Spacetraveller said...

Danny,

N'est-ce pas?
I'm afraid I am just as guilty of this as the next woman.
So I fall on my sword accordingly.

I find that really understanding the differences between the sexes helps tremendously.
Being in the dark here is a recipe for disaster.

Bell,
I wonder if 'dropping out' is something 'masculine'? Given that a man can more easily 'drop out' than a woman? Is it not simply a typically masculine way of dealing with a rotten situation?
Rather than acquiesce, he either 'drops out' or 'digs his heels in' and calls it as he sees it (if he thinks there's any hope he will be listened to).
Could this be a true, do you think?
(This is a blind stab in the dark - I genuinely don't know the answer to this).

dannyfrom504 said...

Bell-

I overheard a woman ask this very question about "where have all the good men gone" and I almost jumped in and opined, but instead had my inner monologue took over.

And you are 100% right. Men simply see no point in engaging in a no win battle. Survival instincts kick in and a man simply seeks other sources of solace. For the most part "marriage worthy men" (worthy according to women's standards) are simply seeing no point in exerting any energy or worry onto women. Thus the MGTOW movement.

It's not a man's biological impulse to reproduce Per se, just an impulse to seek sex. Do I feel any urge to be a father- NO. I really don't and I LOVE kids, I do.

But I don't feel my life is validated by my becoming a father. Rather, I like the fact that I DON'T have kids. I feel fortunate. I'm VERY indifferent on having kids. Until I find a woman that I KNOW I want around for 20-30 years, that KNOW (and is that really possible nowadays) will be faithful a true partner....I can't even consider kids.

Guess who's to blame for my attitude?

Spacetraveller said...

@ PVW,

Thank you for your random thoughts.
I would like to explore some of them with you if I may.
Actually, all of them :-)

"...ambitious woman succeeding an a male-dominated field, she must be masculine!"

Yes, I agree with you entirely that this is often the case - stereotyping does occur with a woman like this.
But before I launch into my 'it's not fair' song-and-dance, I would like to first examine why.
Does she give off an air of being 'a tough nut to crack'? I mean, there are so many examples of scary 'ball-busting' women out there that I don't need to give you specific examples to support my argument here, I hope.
Now granted, I know that these women need to act and think in a certain way to get 'to the top'. But on the other hand, there are women who get there who never scare anyone wth their demeanor. What does the second group have that the first group doesn't? I
say all of this in the full recognition that I myself could well be in the first group too. Please don't think I exclude myself from this. I don't, at all.

Now, if one is perceived a certain way, there are only 2 options: carry on as before, claiming that everyone else is 'wrong' or find out if there is a way to change things. I prefer the latter option. So, assuming a woman does not wish to appear 'masculine' when she is just trying to do her (masculine/male-dominated) job, how should she conduct herself? What is happening currently is that women are resorting to the 'masculine approach' and that ain't working too well for them, it must be said.

"A successful woman, she must not need a man!"

This particular stereotype surprises me somewhat, because it is usually the woman who tells herself she does not need a man after she has tried to find one and failed. Again, I don't exactly blame her, and I take on board your explanation that she is simply 'coping'. If you aske me, it is not an efficient way of coping, because it is lying to oneself, in the same manner of '...and I am not ashamed to say it!'. But I guess you are not asking me lol.

"And yet, quite often the feminine women in today's smp, ie., those who are reserved, modest, not loud, are they getting attention from the married-minded men?"

This should not be a reason to 'lose the feminine'.

"...there is a difference between not wanting a man and knowing one is not guaranteed a man and living accordingly."

Agreed. But does the average single woman know this difference?
How many women are there who swear blind that they don't want a man, only to go off-the-scale deliriously happy when one shows them the least attention? It is endearing to see, actually, but it also reveals the underlying desire to be with a man. And yet you wouldn't know it to hear the woman go on and on about how happy she is to be single and free. My approach of declaring to anyone who would listen that I would love to get married and have a family may be annoying. But at least I am not lying to myself. The cognitive dissonance would be too much to bear. But it seems there are women who don't mind the schizoid pain that this brings.

Am I making any sense at all?
Sorry for the ramble.

Spacetraveller said...

@ Danny,

Thank you for your male perspective on this. It may irk some women to know that women like me care about a man's opinion on this.
But I think I am only going where the smart money is...

There are lots of marriageable men with your self-same take on things. It would be a shame if women didn't listen to what you (collectively) had to say.
I can hear it now...
'And what about us? Who will listen to us'?

My reply (in typical PVW style - by the way, please back me up on this, as a married woman, PVW):
'He will listen to you once you have listened to HIM first'.
That's how it is. Same as men can do nothing to fight a woman's hypergamy instincts, I believe women should not try to fight this 'quirk' of manhood either. Because it would end in a fail-fail situation, if I may say so.
A major difference between my Grandma and me is that whilst my Grandma learned to be a wife AFTER she got married, I need to learn to be a wife BEFORE marriage. Otherwise I may never get married.

That's the price we are all paying for Feminism.
(Playing the victim somewhat here, but I speak the Truth - Capital T, no?)

Bellita said...

@Danny
Men simply see no point in engaging in a no win battle.

This puts an ironic twist on the current interpretation of the expression "Man up!" To women, it means engaging in the battle, even if it is a no-win battle. But since that goes against what a man would normally do, it is not actually "manning up."

@ST
A major difference between my Grandma and me is that whilst my Grandma learned to be a wife AFTER she got married, I need to learn to be a wife BEFORE marriage. Otherwise I may never get married.

Oh, the truth of this . . .

And this is why it is hard to get through to some women who are still having fun being single. (Note: this does not necessarily mean casual sex!) They reason that they will have time to be good wives when they get married . . . or good steady girlfriends when they find men they love . . . and there's some logic in that. Why worry about being a wife before you even have a boyfriend? But modern circumstances are the argument against it. You might have to convince a man who is husband material that you are wife material before he will even ask you out!

metak said...

@ST

I'm not surprised at all by the actions of that British girl.. I applaud her! ;-) She's doing the smartest thing that she could do and she knows it! ;-) It's so simple. Just use your 'magic hole' and pull those babies out of it and the Government will pay you for doing it.. ;-)
What do you expect it's going to happen if a bank decides to introduce "we'll let you take as much money as you can carry on Friday!"? ;-)

Even fiction can't compete with this kind of crap.. ;-)

just visiting said...

But are men becoming more masculine? The men in the sphere might be working toward that aim, but that leaves a lot of feminized men walking around.

ST, you claim that men will go to war if their masculinity is questioned, but most will just take it. Even if they wanted to do something about it, they lack the ability or the courage. Or fear the consequences, whether it means getting their a$$ beat, getting charged, losing their pension, or getting sued. Now days, just yelling at someone is "violence".

Our laws do not encourage femininity in women or masculinity in men. But our mindsets don't encourage it either. Our society is fear based. We fear the vulnerability of femininity, and they fear the ramifications of masculinity.

just visiting said...

As for the young woman in the article, her words say one thing, her face another. She's haggard and old looking before her time. Joy doesn't do that to you. Stress and unhappiness do.

Anonymous said...

PVW here, thanks for the reply, ST

ST:

Does she give off an air of being 'a tough nut to crack'? I mean, there are so many examples of scary 'ball-busting' women out there that I don't need to give you specific examples to support my argument here, I hope.
Now granted, I know that these women need to act and think in a certain way to get 'to the top'. But on the other hand, there are women who get there who never scare anyone wth their demeanor. What does the second group have that the first group doesn't?

My reply:

But here is where it gets interesting....A woman can be in the second group, never compromising her femininity in order to be successful, but the presumption might be that when "push comes to shove," in the end, that is what she will be like, in that she has the training, the instincts to be like the first even though that is not her natural instinct.

I can think of several examples of this; highly successful "lady lawyers" who are graceful, feminine in their private lives, dealing with their husbands and children, but in their public lives, they have hard core killer instincts and know how to go for the jugular.

Re being successful and not needing a man; it need not even be a matter of her telling herself that, but if she is so successful, ie., like the "lady lawyer" friend I have in mind, a man might wonder what can he offer her? That happened with her--she married a man who was accomplished in his own way, but not to the extent that she was...

I don't believe at all that because traditionally feminine women might suffer in the smp that they should give it up at all. But some do, because it seems that the other types win--they are the ones who always seem to be wanted, for what purpose, though? Yet, even if it is for sex only, fair numbers of them work their way up into other types of workable possiblities.

This makes sense, what you are saying, and I don't believe those women who want marriage should say as a defense mechanism that they don't.

But don't forget that there is a lot of emotion involved in women dealing with these things, the kinds of things that can be difficult to talk about even among close friends.

As I think about the young relatives in that boat, there is a lot of shame that they feel whether or not anyone is saying to them "why aren't you married," because in their mind, it is what they really wanted, and they blame themselves as though there is something wrong with them.

Anonymous said...

ST:

My reply (in typical PVW style - by the way, please back me up on this, as a married woman, PVW):
'He will listen to you once you have listened to HIM first'.
That's how it is.

My reply:

It is a mutual discernment process; they have to be willing to listen to each other simultaneously, in my view.

Does it matter who speaks first? All that matters is that each side must be willing to hear and work towards understanding the other, whether he speaks first or she does.

Spacetraveller said...

@ Bellita,

"You might have to convince a man who is husband material that you are wife material before he will even ask you out!"

The title of that horror movie is ...
'Welcome to the current SMP...'
Can't make this stuff up!

Metak,

Absolutely...she knows how to work the system and she has proven (as do many like her) just how easy it is. She is effectively stealing from the honest tax payer.
But...let's not forget that in fact she is shooting herself in the foot. As many people commented, as did JV, just look at her. She looks much older than 22. She is not actually enjoying this life she has chosen for herself. So she now has my sympathy instead of my admiration for successfully 'beating the system'.

JV,

Enough people have mentioned that there are so many feminised men about that I should start believing it. Of course I know there are some, but I never thought they were in high enough numbers to be a significant group. Perhaps I am deeply wrong on that. I remember in the 'Angry Man' post, someone raised that point...

PVW,

Yes the balance between keeping one's femininity for one's personal life and dishing out the masculinity to the rest of the world seems like a good compromise! :-)
But alas, some of us are quite incapable of that daily switchover...
It would be confusing to say the least... but worth a try, I guess...
Hm, your answer to my question sounds very diplomatic!
Mutual discernment? Che cosa? What's that? Is that even doable in real life?
Someone has to give in first, not so?
I must say, my personality type is the most conflict-averse of all, hence our reputation as relentless peacemakers (now I give away my MBTI lol), so I cave in rather quickly in conflicts. I know this about myself, so now it doesn't surprise me anymore. I have accepted my 'pushover' persona. It usually works for me, but occasionally someone decides they will pull one over on me. Then I have to get all tough on them. But it's exceedingly rare...

I thought it was only in the movies where both the man and the woman say 'sorry' at the same time, both start laughing at the same time, say 'sorry' again simultaneously, rinse and repeat, until the make up kissing starts...
:-)
I really have to stop watching so many rom coms...
It's damaging my perception of reality...

:-)

Anonymous said...

ST:

Mutual discernment? Che cosa? What's that? Is that even doable in real life?

PVW replies:

Buongiorno, Miz Polyglot! Now that I think about it further, perhaps it begins with the man, since men are traditionally the ones who pursue?

But she has to be with him in the mutual discernment as they are getting to know one another.

So to give an example, when I first began dating the husband, I got a sense of his past history and what his concerns were in looking for a long term relationship, so I knew what I was working with.

At the same time, he knew I was looking for something long term, so we were experiencing mutual discernment; we both knew what we were looking for, so we were working towards getting to know each other in order to see whether it could work.

amy said...

ST: "It used to be that young girls would dream of becoming a bride, and a wife, and a mother, in that order."

Maybe I am looking at the wrong age group, but I can tell you that the mother-thing starts WAY earlier than the bride or the wife. Both of my little girls have started mothering baby dolls before they were a year old- and they were quite the devoted mothers, even my wild one. The older one (age 4) figured out this year that you have to get married to have a baby and was interested in the wife idea.... but then got distracted by the bride (because the bride gets a pretty dress). The younger (age 2) is still blissfully clueless.

Bellita said...

@Amy
Until you left your comment, I had completely forgotten that Helen Andelin made the same point in her book Fascinating Womanhood! She said that little girls will dream of being mothers and of being housewives long before they figure out there has to be a man in the picture somewhere. ;)

And that may be one reason many women, even those who are very family-oriented, may slip into the error of seeing men as merely a means to an end.

Square that lack of appreciation with a modern world that gives women equal earning power with men and access to sperm banks, and you have the self-absorbed SMP which ST is describing here! (And as she has already pointed out, giving modern women welfare "rewards" for their irresponsible behavior is just as bad.)

just visiting said...

Opting out will probably be the way of things. The cost of entitlement is too high.

Grasshopper said...

@ST… “…A man is prepared to go to war with another if his masculinity is called into question…”

“…he may come close to drawing blood…he will become extremely belligerent...”


These kinds of reactions are abandoned by sensible men in their teenage years.

There is a word for those men who continue to respond to perceived threats to masculinity with violence past age 18 –criminals.

@JV… “…they lack the ability or the courage. Or fear the consequences…”

Consider another possibility JV – he knows better than to react with violence. It is not fearing consequences – it is knowing the smart thing to do from the stupid thing to do – aka maturity.

There is an old saying “discretion is the better part of valor”.

This also kind of ties in to PVW’s comments about successful feminine women not getting the attention of men.

The other side of that coin is would most women even recognize the discreet form of valor in a man if they came face to face with it?

Grasshopper

just visiting said...

@ Grasshopper

I'm not suggesting that a guy has to go cave man. In Canada, using the wrong "tone" can get you into legal hot water. But...If people don't push back, legislation gets stupider and stupider. People will either become sheep like, push back, or drop out. Not unlike our current smp.

dannyfrom504 said...

it'll largely depend on the the individual man. masculine men will opt out, and the "cowed" men will stay blue pill and continue to be cannon fodder for the legal system until they run out of men to bleed.

Spacetraveller said...

Amy and Bellita,

Aha, of course...
You ARE right. The mothering thing does indeed appear first in a girl child's development...
So that tells me the 'mother instinct' is the first feminine instinct to 'arrive at the party' and is also the last to leave the building, so to speak.
So women must indeed work very hard to overcome the temptation to succumb to this basic instinct, because it removes men from the picture...

"And that may be one reason many women, even those who are very family-oriented, may slip into the error of seeing men as merely a means to an end."

Thank you Bell. This is similar to what I mean by 'There are many women who do not even know that they harbour 'I don't need a man' thoughts'. They would be genuinely surprised if one pointed out to them that they were indeed seeing men as peripheral rather than central to their lives. In many ways a woman really has to dig deep to see this in herself.

Somewhere before the teens, when social traditions are known to the child, she starts to dream about marriage as preceding motherhood...unless of course, that is NOT the social norm in her environment.
So perhaps in Amy Crowhurst's case, we shouldn't blame her. Note there is no mention of her father...
Chances are, her mother's eight other children may not all have come from the same father...Amy is living the life she was born into. How to break this vicious cycle???
I can tell you straight off the mark: giving young girls like this a flat of their own and welfare handouts is NOT the way to solve this problem!
Britain has got this very very wrong...
We will continue to have GENERATIONS more of this phenomenon if this incentive to remove men from the lives of women continues as is.
(And in all honesty, I should declare here that I am less bothered about the financial drain such an arrangement has on the economy of a country than the deleterious effects it has on the male-female interactions. Maybe I've got my priorities wrong here :-) but I somehow prefer to focus on the SMP angle rather than the financial one).

Grasshopper,

"There is a word for those men who continue to respond to perceived threats to masculinity with violence past age 18 –criminals."

Agreed. Unless of course if you consider that there are other less violent ways to 'draw blood' such as doing it the 'white collar' way which is way more effective than the street violence variety.
Same result, different tactic.

"The other side of that coin is would most women even recognize the discreet form of valor in a man if they came face to face with it?"

Oh this requires tons of maturity, Grasshopper. It really does.

Danny,

What I am about to say may not be palatable to you. But I believe it is true. Or True.

In the end, it pays for a man to have his own little family or 'team' that he cares for and they care for him. Because a man will always pay for some woman, somewhere through the taxation system. If you were a taxpayer in Britain right now, you too would be paying for Amy Crowhurst and her children.
The tragedy of the MGTOW movement is that men are denying themselves the chance to at least pay for their own kids. (Unless they are of course also choosing to use surrogates/adopt etc).

The lesser of the two evils is to at least dole out the money to someone who has genetic ties to you. Because you are always going to dole out the money anyway!

(This is true for childless 'career women' too of course. But somehow the effect is mitigated by the knowledge that her self-worth is not tied to her work).

dannyfrom504 said...

ST-
but i DO have a little family Love. my son's at home sleeping and guarding the house. i take care of him. he takes care of me.

my tax $$$ going to entitlement programs is one thing. doling out $$$ to an ex wife/baby momma and RARELY getting to see my child.....

NO. not just no, hell no. that's unacceptable.

Spacetraveller said...

Metak,

"Just use your 'magic hole' and pull those babies out of it and the Government will pay you for doing it.."

Somehow, I missed this comment of yours the first time round.
Ironically, this is exactly what some governments ARE doing right now. In the 'Mama's boys' post, I mentioned that Italy is paying its young people to have babies. So Amy Crowhurst is simply offering her um, 'services' and the government is rewarding her accordingly. You're right - we can't make this stuff up.

A friend of mine summed it up best recently: The morally upright, intelligent people find they cannot afford to, or don't feel they have the right conditions under which to 'breed'. The less intelligent, immoral ones are going right ahead without so much as a glance back.
It's surely the wrong way round?
But there we are...

@ PVW,

Thinking more about the 'woman at work' thing, I have always stated that the state or employer does not help a woman stay feminine. At my old workplace, a colleague got pregnant (she had already been married 4 or 5 years at this point). You wouldn't believe the hassle she got, just for getting pregnant. She was basically read the riot act by none other than a female (unmarried and childless of course) boss of hers. Now looking back, I think that boss was deeply jealous...
She was generally a very unpleasant woman. But her saving grace was that she was indeed very good at her job...
Her exact words to my pregnant colleague was: 'I thought you were serious about your career!'
As if a career is more important to a woman than her desire to have a family...!
My colleague was in tears as she recounted this conversation to me.
Shortly afterwards, she dropped out altogether...
I say 'good for her'. There is more to life than a career (for a woman). Any means of earning money is good. But if the career stands in the way of the priority (the family), goodbye career. My colleague was brave, and no doubt got punished for her decision, but I am sure she is happier for it now.

Once, ten years ago, I was watching a documentary about 'women at work'. A woman (let me set the scene for you - and I am not being unduly harsh here: unattractive, short manly hair, unflattering trouser suit, mid 50s - now I recognise she was an all-out feminist, I just didn't know it at the time) was talking with such disdain at women who (and these were her exact words - after 10 years they are still etched in my brain): 'attached' themselves to men so they could eat. She was describing marriage!
She had more respect for women who were super-duper career women who were 'getting their own darn bacon!'
Would it surprise you to learn she was a single woman with no kids?
And more importantly she was so full of man-hate it was almost palpable...
Such is the bunch of lies women of my generation are being fed daily. This woman was a bare-faced liar. She was clearly unhappy with her own life choices. Her face said it all. But what was her advice to younger women? Do as I did!
Did we not talk about this in an earlier post with regard to abortion and female circumcision?
A man-hating woman also hates women. I make no mistake about that nowadays. As soon as I smell 'man-hatred' in a woman, I know to get my running shoes on, and fast. The correlation is too strong to ignore...

Danny,

Yes...Brody is indeed your son.
But his and your DNA are a little different, lol.

I agree that the risk of divorce messes things up a bit for my argument. This is why it is imperative to minimise that risk to as near to zero as possible...

dannyfrom504 said...

i'm avoiding the risk. lol.

Brody is just fine.

Anonymous said...

ST:

"Thinking more about the 'woman at work' thing, I have always stated that the state or employer does not help a woman stay feminine" and your observations of radical feminist types who criticize women who want marriage.

PVW:

It depends on the workplace and the women in those places.

I've been fortunate that although my workplaces (academia) have been known to attract the radical feminist type you describe, it has also attracted the type of women who are non radical feminists, that is, if they even think of themselves as feminists at all. Of course, we all benefit from feminism in our workplace whether or not we want to recognize it. As I look around, most of them are married with families, absolutely feminine, yet the types who, as I have said, have been capable of succeeding in our male-dominated field at the same time they are fantastic wives and mothers.

What is interesting is that some of the older non-married types might on the face of it fit the "stereotype" of single-manhating-career driven woman, which is why I'm concerned about that possibility, but it is easy for me to tell the difference.

They have an air of femininity and attractiveness, they don't come off as radical feminists; they don't denigrate the women who are married with families, even though they might be sensitive on some level that others might presume they never wanted marriage and families.

In addition, when they do write or research on topics of interest to women, ie., feminist type topics, they don't come off as radical feminists; they appear to be within the more conservative camps...

These are the women I think of that I don't want to see get lumped in with all the others. Things just didn't work out for them for whatever reason; I'm not privy to private details, of course.

amy said...

ST: "More and more, the dream of 'bride' is fading."

And I say good riddance. The dream of the bride is often a distortion of the dream of the wife. The wedding was never about the Bride, but the Union. Now it is "Her Special Day" and the groom is like an accessory.

Spacetraveller said...

PVW,

"These are the women I think of that I don't want to see get lumped in with all the others."

Yes. I agree that the good ones should be left out of the boxing ring. Sorry if I seemed to be lumping everyone in together in the same pot. I definitely don't intend to do that.

About your 'mutual discernment' (I am starting to fall in love with this phrase, by the way - where did it come from - did you make it up?) I do like your own example with your husband. And this:
"Now that I think about it further, perhaps it begins with the man, since men are traditionally the ones who pursue?"
when squared with my 'He will listen to you once you have listened to HIM first' means the man speaks first and the woman listens first, and not the other way round. So we are both in the same ballpark I think, no?

Amy,

"The dream of the bride is often a distortion of the dream of the wife."

So true. Did you ever watch 'Bridezillas'? Put me off weddings for as long as I watched that show. I was beginning to wonder if there was a way to get married without bothering with a wedding. (And I am someone who likes weddings!)
No wonder so many men hate weddings. They are excluded from the whole process, even at their own weddings!
And the cost! Eye-popping!

Anonymous said...

ST:

About your 'mutual discernment' (I am starting to fall in love with this phrase, by the way - where did it come from - did you make it up?)

PVW:

Tee hee...I'm not sure you are going to want to hear this one as it comes out of....drum roll.....Protestantism!

Ha, ha, ha!

Mutual discernment describes the process used to describe the means by which an Episcopal parish calls a new priest to minister to the congregation: honest, open communication, listening carefully, discovering each other in the process and praying for guidance.

This has been on my mind lately, as I'm on the search committee to find a new priest, and we are using that phrase a lot: "mutual discernment."

The same way we are getting to know the candidates and thinking about how they will fit into the congregation in light of our needs, they are getting to know us and thinking about how we will fit them in light of their needs. Once we are clear on our end, we make an offer. If they are clear on their end, they accept.

ST:

I do like your own example with your husband. And this:
"Now that I think about it further, perhaps it begins with the man, since men are traditionally the ones who pursue?"
when squared with my 'He will listen to you once you have listened to HIM first' means the man speaks first and the woman listens first, and not the other way round. So we are both in the same ballpark I think, no?

PVW:

Yes, that is what I meant, that as I thought of it, we are on the same page!

Spacetraveller said...

PVW,

Hahaha, I am not anti-Protestant lol.

This reminds me of a joke made by a protestant British/Irish comedian at the height of the IRA bombings in London.
He said: 'I don't hate Catholics. I just hate their religion!'
Hahahaha!

Mutual discernment..it's a cool phrase.
Might borrow it to impress a few people :-)
It will gain a similar status in my 'hall of fame' as 'Roll your own alpha' (Bellita) and 'Beware Greeks bearing gifts' (Metak).
:-)

Bellita said...

@ST
This reminds me of a joke made by a protestant British/Irish comedian at the height of the IRA bombings in London . . .

And that remnds me of a joke by Lee Mack . . .

"How many Irish Protestants does it take to screw in a lightbulb? One! They're brilliant! How many Irish Catholics does it take to screw in a lightbulb? One! They're brilliant, too! DON'T HURT ME!!!"

Hahahaha!

Spacetraveller said...

Hahaha, Bellita,

It's amazing how different factions of the SAME religion fight each other constantly, no?

All this reminds me of yet another joke by another British comedian who was fed up with the situation in Northern Ireland and who sums up my above feelings best:

"On one side of the border are CHRISTIANS who want to kill the other CHRISTIANS on the other side of the border..."

Same goes for the Sunni/Shiite muslims...

@ Amy,

"The older one (age 4) figured out this year that you have to get married to have a baby and was interested in the wife idea...."

Amy, this reminds me of the story I once heard about Richard Branson. He says that he and his wife only got married at the request of their eldest child, Holly, when she was 8! Can you imagine it?
'We only got married because our 8 year old said we should'.
Hahahahaha!
It's funny.

I guess Holly, like your elder daughter had just figured out that you have to be married to have babies and therefore thought it odd that her own parents had 'forgotten' to get married!
And who said adults were wiser than kids?
:-)