Friday, July 20, 2012

Having it all...

In the last post, Bellita diagnosed a fundamental problem I did not know was even there.
(But maybe the fact that I did not know it was there is itself a problem! as explained below):
The possibility that many women harbour a dislike for men but are not actually aware of it. It just shows up in their actions, catching unwitting men by surprise.

I am so pleased we discussed this at length, because now I feel that (to me at least), specific strategies to deal with this problem can be sought and aired.

(Yes I know there are men who hate women too. But as a woman, I cannot help them - wouldn't know how. They will have to find their own solutions, if they want to.
This post, as does many other posts on this blog, deals with what women can do to change the status quo. If this translates as 'girl on girl hate', so be it.
But I am not guilty as charged. Even if judge and jury convict me :-)


A few people mentioned possible solutions to the manhate problem.


Bob Wallace mentioned the word 'envy'.
That got me thinking, and I made a cursory foray into this line of thinking right at the end of the last thread.
But other aids to my thoughts popped up.
For which I am grateful (note this word). Because they help clarify my jumbled thinking on this.

Aid No. 1: I read a post from Badger ages ago. But it didn't really register. I guess my mind was not yet fertile enough for this seed to grow. Now it is.

Envy. Not good. And I don't even need to go into the moral aspects of why envy is not a good thing.
Just this is enough, at least for me, and Badger also makes this point:
One is usually woefully misinformed about what exactly one is being envious about.

People's lives, no matter how 'out there' they might seem belie a private component that is never displayed to the outside world.
As usual, I shall use extreme examples to make my point:

The billionaire who is only so because he sold his grandmother to a drug cartel 20 years ago.
The size zero model who is bingeing on cotton wool balls and feels a sense of emptiness.
The happily married couple who don't remember what love means anymore.
The clever kid at your child's school whose father beats him every morning because he can't remember his 8Xs table at 6 o'clock in the morning.

Be careful what you envy. You just might not like it if it were suddenly yours.

Why is this relevant?

Enter Aid No. 2:
"I don't want it all. I just want enough".

The above was uttered by a female 'millenial' on a TV programme about her and her peers.
Music to my ears.
Cause for celebration.
Because this is the next generation and I thought they were all worse than my lot :-)

There are little pieces of evidence that feminism is dying a slow death everywhere one looks.
(But these are often overshadowed by evidence to the contrary on the whole, still. I admit that).

So it's really encouraging when I happen upon a gem like this :-)

The speaker of the above was a young South African woman, 26.
She ran her own fashion boutique and was a fashion writer/blogger.

She was being interviewed for a programme about 'Millenials'.

As is the fashion (no pun intended) when faced with a woman who is doing something useful and positive with her life, her interviewer asked her the eternal question:
'Do you want it all'?

Without a pause she said, 'No, I don't want it all. I just want enough'.

This young woman must have seen a tombstone of a woman with the following epitaph on it:
'I got it all.'

Thanks but no thanks, she had said to herself.
Good girl.

'Having it all' was one of the greatest lies of feminism that entrapped millions of women.

My generation and hers are beginning to spot the bogey.
Some are getting off the express train to hell.
Some were never really on it in the first place.

All are collectively doing the equivalent of sticking two fingers up in the face of Feminism.

As the above young woman said, it is not necessary to have it all.
No-one needs it all.

We just need to be grateful for what we already have. This is my own biggest lesson, I have to say.
Gratitude never really came easily to me.
But I see that many more people suffer this problem too.

My joke about Feminism and 'p-envy' and the widely quoted 'Apex Fallacy' in The Manosphere are manifestations of a recognition of this lack of 'gratitude'.
When women start to feel less grateful for what or who they are (feminine beings) and start to crane their necks to peer into a man's life, they will automatically see only the good things he has.
His nice job which pays well (nevermind that he is putting his health at risk doing it), his strength (he works out a lot, that's why he has those pecs :-) his confidence (he was a nerd for the first thirty years of his life)...and so on.

A woman who is not feeling grateful for her own natural gifts (which are numerous!) will not see the man's 'not so good' lot in life.
The fact that his self-respect is based on his work so he is condemned to work till the day he dies, or his retirement, whichever comes first.
The fact that he is inherently more likely to die from a serious illness sooner than a woman for two reasons: he is less likely to get screened routinely and he is also a known 'under-reporter' of unusual symptoms.
The fact that he is likely to lose everything he has built in his whole life, on the say-so of one woman. Usually in one word... and in one fell swoop...

Gratitude. Prevents the need to envy and therefore (incorrectly) dislike another .

There is another aspect to 'gratitude' that I now also realise is crucial.
And that aspect cures 'overentitlement'.

We all know a woman's 'list' is long.
Mine is :-)
That is not so much a problem unless the woman takes it so seriously that she prices herself out of the market altogether.

Bellita talks a lot about whittling down 'the list'.
I find it difficult to do this, personally, but I know it must be done.
The hamster must be overridden :-)

But perhaps an alternative strategy to 'whitling' down the list to one or two items might be... (and this is so similar to 'whittling down' that it is by no means revolutionary) trading off a little by adjusting what we bring to the table.

So if a tall, dark handsome man (assuming that's at least 2 out of 3 of what I want) wants a woman who is short, thin and under 25, I am in trouble on at least two counts. I would have to offer him something else to make up for my 'deficiencies.'
And in being grateful that I get at least something in him that I want, I too become more than willing to give him something that I don't intrinsically have, but that I can achieve.

With reference to the last post, if 'Jeff in Sacamento' wants a tall, blonde, Polish and charming woman, a short American brunnette had better give him the last one if she wants him.
(Assuming Jeff can be persuaded to change his taste in women, that is).
But she won't, unless she is grateful for what Jeff has to offer in the first place.
That is, unless Jeff is somewhat appealing to her.

In many ways, therefore, the advice for a woman to 'look for the one good thing' in a potential suitor is useful advice. Because it primes her mind to be grateful for something.
This is not to say she can bypass her own attraction triggers however. That would be a really tall order.
But the rationalisation hamster can do funny things when it is allowed free rein :-)

Is Modern Woman so entitled because she has too much?
And yet perceives herself to have too little?
Is she just too ungrateful and that's why she always wants more from men?
Is this a First World thing?
Or a worldwide thing?

If Modern Woman really is that insatiable, then perhaps marriage is the last thing she should seek?
Because marriage doesn't automatically make you happy if you are not already happy.
In fact it can make you unhappy, according to field reports...


Neither Jeff nor the woman will 'have it all'.
But there are ways to get most of it...
And it starts with gratitude.


I am glad I know this now.
Better late than never.



Having it all? Or having none of it?

45 comments:

Anonymous said...

ST:

A woman who is not feeling grateful for her own natural gifts (which are numerous!) will not see the man's 'not so good' lot in life.

PVW's reply:

And this is the complaint the more conservative cultural/difference feminists had of the absolute equality liberal feminist types, that (because of their envy, as you are suggesting) they defined equality on men's terms, which is only a losing battle.

The more conservative types were talking about women's equality on women's terms, ie., that having it all doesn't have to mean having it all at once, or in the exact way a man would.

Some examples, as I think about women in my cohort: marriage and children while we were in graduate school--we were younger and the only demands on our time had to do with writing our dissertations. We didn't have the demands of a full time job.

Others went back to school after the children were older or if they were in graduate school as young single women, they didn't choose the more demanding fields in their professions.

just visiting said...

Envy and bitterness. Throw in self loathing of the feminine, too many disappointments in sex and relationships,inability to generate an attitude of gratitude, unrealistic romance fantasies, weak character, envious friends, juggling career and home and the defense mechanism of the hamster, stir, pour , bake at 350 and voila

Life of the modern woman.

Doesn't sound like much fun.

Though, I don't think it's as bleak as all that for most women. In fact, I think this represents the minority. At least I hope so.

Ceer said...

Hypergamy has been with us for ages. There is a certain wisdom of the grass being greener on the other side of the fence.

Starting with thanksgiving and gratitude doesn't just make good moral sense, it's also good common sense.

Good decision making starts with good information. Good information starts with accurate perception.

Bellita said...

Re: "I don't want it all. I just want enough".

This reminds me of another of Badger's old posts. I finally went over to Danny's blog the other day, read the "controversial" threads, and found that Badger had linked one of his posts there. The line that jumped out at me was the one in which he contrasted a hypergamous woman's desire with an average man's desire . . . The woman will want only The Best (aka "steak"--Oh, dear!), while the man will be really happy to find a "diamond in the rough" who turns out to be a really great match for him. A "diamond in the rough" can be "enough"! (It even rhymes! ST, we should turn it into a slogan! Hahahaha!)

And whenever the concept of "enough" is brought up, I remember a beautiful children's book I once read. It was about a poor Jewish family that entertained a mysterious visitor who may or may not have been the Prophet Elijah. I can't remember the plot, but the lesson was, "Enough is plenty." And it is. :)

Spacetraveller said...

@ PVW,

Touché. Agreed.

JV,

No, it doesn't sound like fun at all :-(
Why would anyone sign up for that? There are better options out there...

Ceer,

Accurate perception. Gold dust. There is a reason I keep saying 'explain it to me like I am a 6 year old'...Don't want to get it wrong and miss the correct message. That could end up costing the difference between the slow train to heaven and the non-stop express train to hell.

Bellita,

'A diamond in the rough is enough'.
Amen to that.

amy said...

I've had a hard time taking envy seriously as a vice since I read the Samantha Brick headlines.

Spacetraveller said...

Amy,

Hahahahaha!
I see what you mean...

You know, I DO think she is a beautiful woman...and it amuses me that she feels the need to say it so often and so vehemently.
But I can see why she attracts scorn...

Anonymous said...

Bellita:

The woman will want only The Best (aka "steak"--Oh, dear!), while the man will be really happy to find a "diamond in the rough" who turns out to be a really great match for him. A "diamond in the rough" can be "enough"!

PVW replies:

It seems to me that both men and women today want the best, and not just women, ie. the alpha whose sizzle they don't realize will soon fizzle out because he is too busy having fun and not settling down.

What would be the equivalent of men wanting the diamond in the rough, I wonder? It would seem to me that men who had that view would be more likely to say that rather than wanting the 8-10, they would rather have the 5-7: she is not super hot, she is presentable, she tries, she has a nice personality, etc., etc.

dannyfrom504 said...

the trouble with "having it all" is that it comes at the price of eventually you're having...

nothing.

i'd NEVER want to have it all. right now i'm as close to having it all as western society deems proper. and it's too much...

i'll be making a HUGE downsizing when i leave florida. and i've already started.

Ceer said...

@ Spacetraveller

About Samantha Brick. Is she only famous for cooing about how other women hate her for being pretty, or has she written anything with substance? I did a cursory search and came up empty.

Coincidentally, this is what happens when a pretty, well kept woman hits the wall. Focuses on few positives left. Lives in the past. Tries to leverage social pressure to elevate her status.

A woman who's truly happy with her marriage will typically be content to be beautiful in her husband's eyes. A woman who desires wider social attention has to advertise like this.

I'll say this for her, she still seems very feminine. In her younger days she may have made Jeff a happy man.

Bellita said...

@PVW
It seems to me that both men and women today want the best, and not just women

I think that modern men who are suddenly raising their standards (or "upping their Game") are doing so in response to an unrestrained quest for the best (Hey, another rhyme!) in modern women. But while there are some who probably could get an HB8 who is also kind, sweet and a good cook, I don't know how many others can manage the same--if only because there are only so few HBs to go around, at any given time.

And it does seem to me as if some men who are raising their standards are cutting off their noses to spite their faces, because if the women around them are as awful as they claim, then the only satisfaction the men can ultimately have is pointing and laughing at the thousands of middle-aged women with cats who can't find a husband, from the loneliness of their own eternal bachelor pads. That is, "the quest for the best" (another way to say "having it all") is a game that nobody wins.

What would be the equivalent of men wanting the diamond in the rough, I wonder? It would seem to me that men who had that view would be more likely to say that rather than wanting the 8-10, they would rather have the 5-7: she is not super hot, she is presentable, she tries, she has a nice personality, etc., etc.

I actually hear a lot of guys saying this. (As Deti recently commented on HUS, thousands of men don't need an Angelina Jolie and would be perfectly content with a Patricia Heaton.) The source of their frustration seems to be that women with "SMVs" of 5 to 7 have "MMVs" of 2 to 4. That is, they're not even worth it.

dannyfrom504 said...

Bell-

i'll just leave this here.

http://dannyfrom504.wordpress.com/2012/05/27/give-me-a-7-any-day/

Anonymous said...

Bellita:

What would be the equivalent of men wanting the diamond in the rough, I wonder? It would seem to me that men who had that view would be more likely to say that rather than wanting the 8-10, they would rather have the 5-7: she is not super hot, she is presentable, she tries, she has a nice personality, etc., etc.

I actually hear a lot of guys saying this. (As Deti recently commented on HUS, thousands of men don't need an Angelina Jolie and would be perfectly content with a Patricia Heaton.) The source of their frustration seems to be that women with "SMVs" of 5 to 7 have "MMVs" of 2 to 4. That is, they're not even worth it.

PVW replies:

Yes, I can understand that; the 5-7 smv with a mmv of 2-4. The men need something better. But where are they going to find them?

I guess it is hard for me to see this quandary, because it seems to me that most of the women I know who are married are in the 5-7 (or lower) range, but all of them seem to have a high mmv--married for years, nice families, family-oriented husbands.

As for some looking to be at the lower smv range, they might have been higher when they were younger, but aging and putting on weight affected them.

Oh, and there is something else going on, the flip side of the post from Badger, which originally came from Dannyfrom504's pal Dogsquat.

Not only do other men in their quest for the best wind up envying and wanting what other men have (she is an 8-10 in the smv, so she must be an 8-10 on the mmv), but if a man is with a woman who has a smv of 5-7, he might be disparaged by friends who don't realize that her mmv is an 8-10.

So it's the obverse; envy from some guys, and disparagment from others...The question is whether he knows himself enough to know what his true needs are and act accordingly!

Speaking of Deti, I think I have seen him talk about that very issue. I don't know whether he faced envy or whether he just wanted to finally be like the guys who got the 8-10 types.

He practically had a 5 dying to be with him, a 5 smv with an 8-10 mmv, all that he could see were the 8-10 smv types who gave him hell in the end. The 5 got married within a few years of leaving school. Several years after that, he married a former carousel rider....

I saw dannyfrom504's post on 7s; it was an interesting read.

Anonymous said...

Bellita:

And it does seem to me as if some men who are raising their standards are cutting off their noses to spite their faces, because if the women around them are as awful as they claim, then the only satisfaction the men can ultimately have is pointing and laughing at the thousands of middle-aged women with cats who can't find a husband, from the loneliness of their own eternal bachelor pads. That is, "the quest for the best" (another way to say "having it all") is a game that nobody wins.

PVW replies:

But they don't see it that way; they have enough (or believe they will get enough) game to keep trying for and getting the 8-10s, and if they can't, they will not hit the wall the way a woman might as she ages; they will be able to pull women in their 20s to 30s when they are in their 40s and 50s. It happens all the time.

On the other hand, if they continue gaming until they are in their 50s, they might be pulling women in their 40s, as they will be competing with men in their 30s and 40s for the same younger women. Having a family, if they want one, might be harder then with an older woman.

Or, as a final matter, they will become part of MGTOW, so they will not care when the time comes that they can't get the kind of women they want, or they would be glad to get women for casual only--they don't want anything long term.

Bellita said...

@PVW
I guess it is hard for me to see this quandary, because it seems to me that most of the women I know who are married . . .

Sorry to cut you off there, but I don't know if it's helpful to point at people who have already found each other when we're discussing people who are still looking.

This reminds me of Deti asking Susan why all the women who say they want to marry and do good by "Betas" (I feel as if I should put money in a jar whenever I have to resort to Greek letters!) also claim they can't find any, while Deti sees thousands of lonely "Betas" who can't even get a woman to have a drink with them. And Susan's answer was to tell him to go to a neighborhood park and look at all the dads playing with their children! They were surely talking past each other . . .

But Deti had a point there, which was that it's quite possible that many of the women who say they want "Betas" don't really want "Betas." Even the SMV 5-7 who also has an MMV of 5-7 (or higher) will probably be holding out for an "Alpha". The problem isn't the men being unable to find the women, but the women being unwilling to date the men.

But they don't see it that way; they have enough (or believe they will get enough) game to keep trying for and getting the 8-10s

PVW, I hope I don't come off the wrong way when I say I'm not sure why I should care. I think they are making a mistake in not learning to be happy with "good enough" (which is the same mistake they know very well women are making), but they have the right to do as they please with their own lives. And having had a lot of my well-meant advice thrown back in my face or exposed as truly bad counsel since I discovered the Manosphere last year, I'd rather not tell men what to do! :P

I'm obviously interested on a theoretical level, but the question of what to do about it seems to be an issue for the male locker room.

Grasshopper said...

@B… “…the only satisfaction the men can ultimately have is pointing and laughing … from the loneliness of their own eternal bachelor pads...”

I disagree with you on this B. I think never married men middle age men have it much better than married men and never married women. And by middle age I hope they have better sense than to point and laugh at anyone, even in the literary sense of the phrase.

A 50 something never married man can look forward to retiring early and exiting the corporate rat race. He has a lot more discretionary income and he has a lot more saved. His testosterone levels have dropped considerably and he does not miss the companionship of women so much.

His future looks pretty bright.

He looks over at his married age group peers. A 50 something married man, with kids, is wondering if he can ever retire, is stressing as to how he can afford to put his children through college, or pay for his daughter’s wedding or wondering if they will ever move out of the house.

If he gets laid off from work – finding a new job at the same pay at that age (from what I have read) – is extremely difficult. The never married man if laid off at that age is not near as stressed since he does not have the same financial obligations.

I cannot speak for middle age women – but I think they feel a greater sense of loss or regret than does a man if they do not have children.

Also, women place a higher value on their social status then do men. An older never married woman is at the bottom of the social hierarchy among women– married women being tops, followed by widows, younger never marrieds and divorcees in that order. Men for the most part do not care as much about their social standing.

If it is really true (and I don’t really buy this but hypothetically) that women make far less than men then it would follow that she does not have the same amount of savings. She therefore can’t retire as early or as well for this reason.

So the 50 something never married man to me seems very lucky compared to his age group peers.

Therefore when he is younger, if he takes the proper long term view, he can and should be far pickier than women in his age range.

Grasshopper

Bellita said...

@Grasshopper

That's true. The hypothetical man I had in mind was one who continued sour-graping. Of course, a reasonable man would get over it and probably come to see his lot in life as as "steak." (Oh, Grasshopper, I couldn't resist!) And this is what most men probably do.

Anonymous said...

PVW to Bellita:

I am not trying to give advice to anyone, ie., regarding already marrieds making comparisons or what single men might do, ie., if they really want the 8-10s but will not take the reasonable 5-7s they are around.

I'm just making observations, and of course, all observations are colored by what we see around us.

Susan and I live in similar communities. Like her, I see the beta husbands and daddies all the time; they aren't alpha types, and I don't see them suffering as they are running around town with their happy-looking wives and children.

The same way there are men who note the betas can't get the time of day from women, there are plenty of women who get no attention from anyone, and they are not 1-2s!

Just another observation....

These beta husbands and daddies were once single men; they managed to pull it off, and I wonder about how they did it. From the beta men I know who successfully married, they weren't looking for 8-10s. As men, they are probably in the 5-7 range, and their wives are as well.

Bob Wallace said...

Where there is envy, there is no gratitude. Without gratitude there is no happiness. The biggest red flag demonstrating envy is putting someone else down.

The serpent in the story of the Garden of Eden has traditionally been a symbol of envy, hate and anger. John Milton well understood that in "Paradise Lost."

One of the biggest and underappreciated problems in the relationship between men and women is each's envy of the other. Feminism, based on pulling men down, is based on women's envy of men. The Manosphere, to the extent it puts women down, is based on men's envy of women.

just visiting said...

@ Bob

The envy of each others power.

for women, it's the outward projection and possession of power in the world.

For men, it's the magnetic allure of drawing in. The possession of the power of attractiveness.

Ceer said...

@ PVW

These beta husbands and daddies were once single men; they managed to pull it off, and I wonder about how they did it.

At its most basic, the requirement is contact. You have to have contact between the right two people at the right time in an environment where they can engage socially.

Bellita said...

@JV and @Bob
The envy of each others power.

In the "Manhaters" thread, I narrowed down the definition even further for Amy: a "manhater" is a woman who blames all her problems on men. (Thanks for the insight, Bob!) This is what is implied by her assumption that a "good man" is one who serves a woman. You are refining it even more JV, when you say it has everything to do with envy of power in the world.

In the meantime, I have also seen that parallel envy of women's power of attractiveness among some men. And it's true that women of very bad character get away with a lot of things simply because they are attractive, while many men get nothing and are told that they get nothing because they're not attractive enough. We've seen the effects of the same on unattractive women--and it's bad enough. (I believe it was Bob who pointed out to me that feminism, far from being a way to level the playing field for all people, regardless of sex, is actually a way to level the feminine playing field for all women, regardless of attractiveness.) I've said that the Manosphere is the bastard son of feminism, but I'm still surprised at every uncanny resemblance I uncover.

Bellita said...

@PVW
I am not trying to give advice to anyone . . . I'm just trying to make observations . . .

Then I'm sorry. I misunderstood your intent.

Bob Wallace said...

"I don't want it all. I just want enough".

Enough is as good as a feast...if you know how to enjoy every sandwich. :-)

Spacetraveller said...

@ Ceer,

Re Samantha Brick, I see what you mean. She is still beautiful. She doesn't need to broadcast it quite so much though! :P

"A woman who's truly happy with her marriage will typically be content to be beautiful in her husband's eyes. A woman who desires wider social attention has to advertise like this."

Good point. I never thought of it like this. The question is, why does she need approval from other people if her husband is enamoured with her beauty as she reports? Strange...

@ Bell, PVW, Danny,

I think men wanting 'enough' is accurate. Danny's post is testament to what I believe is a typical sentiment among men for what they want in the MMP. (Which is different from what they want in the SMP!). It is women who typically (because of their hypergamy instincts) want 'the best'.
But is this wrong per se? It just is, no?

@ Bob,

"Enough is as good as a feast...if you know how to enjoy every sandwich..."

Never a truer saying...
Just today, someone sid to me, 'If one looks at what others have, one will never be happy'.

Being happy with what one has is a wonderful gift.
Being happy with 'enough' is gold in itself.
Badger has a nice recent post about 'stone soup'. It beautifully describes this sort of thing.

Spacetraveller said...

@ Grasshopper,

You are right. I do believe that men really can live without marriage in a way that women can't.
Whilst a man who doesn't do the marriage/kids thing can also have regrets, I don't think it will eat into him as much as it can a woman (at least those who did want marriage but for one reason or other didn't get it).
And when men do have regrets, it is usually at an age when it really doesn't matter anymore...

Bell and Bob,

"I believe it was Bob who pointed out to me that feminism, far from being a way to level the playing field for all people, regardless of sex, is actually a way to level the feminine playing field for all women, regardless of attractiveness."

Oh if only I could be this magnanimous about the intentions of feminism!
Bell and Bob, do you really believe this could be true of feminism??
Hm,why do I believe it was more about tearing men down than 'making it better' for ALL women?
For one, the lower social class woman never really benefited from feminism at all...unlike the (upper) middle class woman...

Bob Wallace said...

"Hm,why do I believe it was more about tearing men down than 'making it better' for ALL women?
For one, the lower social class woman never really benefited from feminism at all...unlike the (upper) middle class woman..."


Feminism benefited schooled (not educated), high-IQ (not smart) women. The not-s0-smart, $9 an hour women never benefited...I don't think they were ever meant to benefit.

Feminism was in large part founded by man-hatinglesbians...and so many women have fallen for this evil. Now they wonder why they ended up without home, husband and children...

Spacetraveller said...

@ Bob,

"...and so many women have fallen for this evil..."

This is true. It has become the way of life now. Even those who are not advocates are trapped in this nightmare.

@ Ceer,

"At its most basic, the requirement is contact. You have to have contact between the right two people at the right time in an environment where they can engage socially."

So true, Ceer. The other factor is 'timing'. Two people could be so right for each other...but at the wrong 'time', it just doesn't work...

@ JV,

"for women, it's the outward projection and possession of power in the world.

For men, it's the magnetic allure of drawing in. The possession of the power of attractiveness."


Wow, JV, you just keep churning these out, don't you! You are an endless well of wisdom!
:-)
What an eye-opener this comment of yours is...
The thing about envy is that the one who is being envied has no idea why he or she is being envied, because they know that their life is far from perfect.

As a woman, I would never have believed that a man would envy a woman for her 'power of attractiveness'! I would likely say to that: 'What power of attractiveness?'
And I am sure men would be incredulous as to how much women envy their so-called 'possession of power'. They might say 'What power? Where?'

In both cases, it's a case of 'you cannot be serious'!
:-)

Oh the folly of envy...

Ceer said...

@ Spacetraveller

As a woman, I would never have believed that a man would envy a woman for her 'power of attractiveness'! I would likely say to that: 'What power of attractiveness?'

That just means women have hand/initiative/advantage in the SMP and consequently the MMP. What happens because of that is based on what women want. Right now, I see a declining population, young people aren't being motivated, and men are very much unhappy.

Combine this with the fact that women are being brought up with the discipline of "do what makes you feel good", the morals of "a woman's morality comes from within", and a responsibility of "society is responsible for taking care of you"...isn't it any wonder why?

I've seen such women use this power. They are awful to be around beyond age 30 or so. My guess is if you can't SEE this power, then chances are you're not using it. There's a certain wisdom about power and corruption that applies here.

Ceer said...

@ Spacetraveller

Good point. I never thought of it like this. The question is, why does she need approval from other people if her husband is enamoured with her beauty as she reports? Strange...

To borrow from evo-psyc, women have an inborn need to find some place in the herd. They are much more connected to the social intricacies naturally. Natural female power is closely related with attractiveness. I remember Ashley Judd going into a tizzy (through her media person) when someone suggested she wasn't attractive anymore. You just don't see young women act like that.

If you look around the interwebz, there aren't any OLD pictures of Samantha Brick. She certainly didn't write any "I am beautiful columns". In light of the previous paragraph, does it look more like vanity, or female political position jockeying?

Spacetraveller said...

Ceer,

"If you look around the interwebz, there aren't any OLD pictures of Samantha Brick."

Excellent point, yes.
So, in summary, young women (some of them) don't know the power of their own beauty, and paradoxically are extremely attractive as a result. And the older woman who is not so attractive thinks she's the bees' knees, and annoys everyone with her assertions that she is the most beautiful of all when she is clearly not. Hahahaha...life is funny, isn't it?

dannyfrom504 said...

ST-
I'm almost 40, I don't have kids, and I've never been married. I feel absolutely no regret or that anything is missing from my life.

I'm sure if I were a woman I might feel different.

Anonymous said...

ST:

So, in summary, young women (some of them) don't know the power of their own beauty, and paradoxically are extremely attractive as a result.

And the older woman who is not so attractive thinks she's the bees' knees (PVW would add, because she used her beauty as a weapon all her life), and annoys everyone with her assertions that she is the most beautiful of all when she is clearly not. Hahahaha...life is funny, isn't it?

PVW's reply:

I have seen this a bit, among younger and older attractive women: 6-7 and range perhaps?

They are either oblivious to their own attractiveness, or they don't want to make a big deal out of it, because it is somewhat uncomfortable or embarrassing for them, if they are the introverted types.

From they time they became young women, they have dealt with men constantly checking them out and/or trying to talk to them even when they are not seeking the attention.

They handle it with grace, though. The most amusing might be a "deer in the headlights" look: "Is he interested in me, what/why/how, or is there something wrong, ie., something doesn't look right? If he is interested, how do I feel about that?"

As older married women, they come across as the warm, comfortable and attractive "matronly" types who often look years younger. That is what good living does for them!

Spacetraveller said...

@ Danny,

"I'm sure if I were a woman I might feel different."

Yes you would! :P

@ PVW,

So true...

stagedreality said...

"No, I don't want it all. I just want enough"

The problem with this sentiment is that it doesn't start to dig into what is needed for women to 'have enough' instead of having it all.

The average woman still wants 'enough' on her terms, on her schedule, at her convenience. She wants to go to school, go to grad school, find a husband at grad school, marry him while doing a career for a couple years, pop out a couple kids, be a SAHM.

They don't think about what the man wants in any of this. Of where he'll be in his journey. It doesn't take into account his needs or desires, or how her life will fit into the timing of his.

This new widespread "I just want enough" slogan feminism has started to adopt is simply saying "Instead of demanding the ability of gorging myself on everying, I'll take less. I still want a serving of everything to MY satisfaction without any regard to the sacrifices it took to put it in front of me. I don't care about how healthy any of those servings are for me, how bad they are, I still want to taste it all. And in at least a decent amount!"

So, while it's a better slogan than the 'have it all' slogan that's been used for years. I hope you'll excuse any red pill men that aren't holding their breath, keep their cards close to their chests, and wait for women to actually lay all their own cards on the table first.
- Leap of a Beta

Spacetraveller said...

Staged reality,

Whoa, harsh...
Just kidding!

I do see your point though. But I think 'I just want enough' is a good step in the right direction.

"They don't think about what the man wants in any of this. Of where he'll be in his journey. It doesn't take into account his needs or desires, or how her life will fit into the timing of his."

I have to say, this comes with maturity. Women, like men, are selfish by nature until faced with the rigours of life. For women, this point (of 'unselfishness')generally arrives much earlier in their lives than men. The problem with life under 'feminism' is that it prolongs the 'selfish/adolescent phase of women...thereby leading to this indifference to what their male partner needs or wants.
I think it is sad, but at least the sentiment, 'I just want enough' should help to dispel the old myth that one can attain it all...It really does help!

Bellita said...

@Leap of a Beta

Do you know what your comment reminded me of? Coco Chanel's advice to women that before we leave the house, we take a look in the mirror and take off one thing. The ideas here are that a woman does not need all the accessories she thinks she needs and that it is always better to be underdressed than to be overdressed. Now I'm trying to figure out a way to "translate" this into this context.

Spacetraveller said...

Bell,

"Now I'm trying to figure out a way to "translate" this into this context."

May I help?
Perhaps it could be translated as 'you don't need it all...whatever you currently have, you could still survive with a little bit less. And in fact you might be better off with less...'

Such good advice from Coco Chanel!
I never heard it before - thanks for sharing it...

Leap of a Beta said...

@ Space Traveler
"I do see your point though. But I think 'I just want enough' is a good step in the right direction."

Agree, completely. If my previous comment didn't get that across clearly, I apologize. It certainly was my intent.

I applaud the direction it's going, I just don't think its there yet. This is mostly because, as of now, I don't feel like that there is the true spirit of authenticity behind the words coming out of their mouths. I think they have the "Want it all, just not all at once" mentality while saying "I just want enough."

So, while I'm sure if they repeat the "I just want enough" to themselves enough times, they'll get there eventually.... Right now I simply won't take them at their words but by their actions. I think a large part of this is the "I just want enough" speeches seem to be reactionary rather than proactive.

Leap of a Beta said...

@ Bellita

Never heard of her, but I like it. Both for fashion and for life. I personally am most attracted to women that can pull off simple and elegant looks - dress, a small hair piece, non-gaudy earrings, a small purse, and heels that aren't 4 inch pumps but are still elegant and match the dress.

As for the life thing... Yes, please. You can have a full and completely life without doing everything under the sun. You just have to find reward and content in the things you do pursue by intelligently choosing what those pursuits will be. Then trim the other stuff out and focus on what makes you content and satisfied.

Bellita said...

@ST
My own problem is that I can't take that advice because I almost never accessorize! :P Yesterday, for my tutorial job, I wore a red top, a white bolero cardigan, jeans, and shoes. No earrings, no necklace (unless my scapular counts), no bracelet, no ring . . . I always end up buying rosary bracelets so that I can be a little more "fancy," but then I always end up snapping them, too! ("Pretty" things come to me to die . . .)

What I had in mind for the "translation" was an exercise that a woman can do over and over, the way Coco Chanel's advice is an exercise meant to be done over and over. The only practical thing I can come up with right now is starting the week by making a list of everything "indulgent" she wants to do over the next seven days, and then deliberately removing one of them. Then she can go ahead and do everything else on the list but that one.

But now we see Leap's point. What if she has 101 things on the original list? "Scaling it down" to 100 would be laughable!

Then again, Chanel's advice was for women who are already stylish. Someone who already piles on the accessories or someone who might be arrested for the fashion police for other reasons (Mea culpa? Hahahaha!) would need different advice.

Leap of a Beta said...

@ Bellita

Haha, love the Pretty things part. Mostly because I lose/break things all the time myself - usually cool things I care about like hats, jackets, scarves, nice/expensive water bottles... Just don't give me gifts, they get lost ;)

I think the main reason with the "101" women is that they don't see those actions/desires as indulgent, but necessary. For her looks, her lifestyle, her 'sanity' while dealing with husband/work/life/kids.... Watch that hamster go. Thus my hesitation to see what "Enough" really means.

Spacetraveller said...

Bell,

"Pretty" things come to me to die..."

Hahahahahaha!
You're funny, Bell.
This had me LOLing :)

@ Leap,

"You just have to find reward and content in the things you do pursue by intelligently choosing what those pursuits will be. Then trim the other stuff out and focus on what makes you content and satisfied."

Priceless advice right there...

Brown said...

@B… “…the only satisfaction the men can ultimately have is pointing and laughing … from the loneliness of their own eternal bachelor pads...” I disagree with you on this B. I think never married men middle age men have it much better than married men and never married women. And by middle age I hope they have better sense than to point and laugh at anyone, even in the literary sense of the phrase. A 50 something never married man can look forward to retiring early and exiting the corporate rat race. He has a lot more discretionary income and he has a lot more saved. His testosterone levels have dropped considerably and he does not miss the companionship of women so much. His future looks pretty bright. He looks over at his married age group peers. A 50 something married man, with kids, is wondering if he can ever retire, is stressing as to how he can afford to put his children through college, or pay for his daughter’s wedding or wondering if they will ever move out of the house. If he gets laid off from work – finding a new job at the same pay at that age (from what I have read) – is extremely difficult. The never married man if laid off at that age is not near as stressed since he does not have the same financial obligations. I cannot speak for middle age women – but I think they feel a greater sense of loss or regret than does a man if they do not have children. Also, women place a higher value on their social status then do men. An older never married woman is at the bottom of the social hierarchy among women– married women being tops, followed by widows, younger never marrieds and divorcees in that order. Men for the most part do not care as much about their social standing. If it is really true (and I don’t really buy this but hypothetically) that women make far less than men then it would follow that she does not have the same amount of savings. She therefore can’t retire as early or as well for this reason. So the 50 something never married man to me seems very lucky compared to his age group peers. Therefore when he is younger, if he takes the proper long term view, he can and should be far pickier than women in his age range. Grasshopper

Spacetraveller said...

@ Grasshopper,

I really do hope Bell will be back to answer your comment. But in the meantime, I just wanted to put forward my own argument on this.

You make mention of a lot of fundamental truths, of course. No-one can argue with you there.

For examle, I agree with you that men on the whole definitely don't need marriage, at least not in the way women do.

But I think both sexes DO want companionship, and yes, it is of course possible to have companionship outside of marriage too.
The other thing I am becoming more and more aware of (and I promise you, I am not projecting female wants and desires here!) is that women simply crave marriage/companionship at a younger age than men. I guess this is for biological reasons. Afterall, after a certain age, the natural consequences of love/intimacy may not be possible for her, i.e. children (viewed on the most basic level).

So women start 'crying' younger than men.
Now if a man does want marriage (and I believe many do), and for one reason or other does not achieve it when young, he only arrives at that place where his female counterpart got to ten or twenty years earlier, say, when he is in his sixties or beyond. Unless he is a celebrity or some other special creature, his chances of finding what he wants may be reduced (agreed, not nil, like it can be for women of a similar age).

Perhaps this is what Bell is getting at? That men do not quite escape the pain of loneliness to the order that they imagine? They just experience it much later than women.

I do believe that a man who genuinely doesn't want a woman in his life really does escape this pain. Because he is realistic.

In this sense, if he really does believe that he is unlikely to meet a woman who is not a skank, or who will resist the temptation to do the whole divorce rape/EPL number on him, then he is truly a happy man who walks away from the SMP.
In this I agree that men do have the upper hand, because enough of them are seeing that there are indeed slim pickings out there...
So it is not a simple choice of marriage versus non-marriage. It is a choice between getting married to a worthy woman or avoiding marriage altogether. So it is a question of feeling (at least these days) that they have dodged a bullet by staying away from unworthy women who they believe - rightly or wrongly, I make no judgment on that - to be in the majority.
This I can understand. It really makes sense to me.

Women on the other hand are eternally optimistic (alright, alright, call it the hamster if you like, lol) and do believe that there IS a Prince Charming out there, so if she doesn't get married, she will always have the sensation of having 'missed out' on something good.
And even if she doesn't see men as 'something good', at least marriage itself is a better deal for a woman than it is for a man due to the current social and legal environment.
So of course there is every incentive for a woman to get married.
And if all fails, you can just have a wedding - to yourself!

This worrying trend is so sad, yes, but also revealing.
That the woman involved just wants a fancy party.
If she can't find a man to marry her, she'll at least have the party, which she will convince everyone is a wedding like any other. The ultimate in feminist 'empowerment'.
Hm. Interesting development in our current civilsation.