Monday, July 16, 2012

Manhaters


Following on from the last post, we continue to identify the specific problems resulting in the breakdown of male-female relationships which have led to the dissatisfaction of men with women and of women with men.

It has always been the point of this blog to seek those problems out, and to allow frank discussion of said problems.
Because I recognise that this is the first (of many!) steps in finding the solution.
I don't make assertions that a solution will be found on a global scale. Of course not.
But at least in our own little corner of the world, perhaps we can change something.

Beginning with ourselves.

I think Bellita, in her guest post here has entered head first into the crux of the problem.
This is not a blame game.
Neither is it a pest fest.

It is simply presenting the facts of the case before the Grand Jury.

In this case, the opinions of one man (or a few men) count as 'facts'.
Why do we do it this way and not present the woes of one woman or a few women?
Because we are women. We already know the woes of women.
And the media tell us everyday the shortcomings of men.
We are already familiar with that concept.
We want to hear something different. Because hearing the same thing over and over again does not change anything in our lives.

So here we are.
This is the case against Woman Inc.

What say you, Woman Inc.?
(And not just American Catholic Woman Inc. either, it must be said. I think this can be extrapolated to women all over the world who subscribe to the features of personality being bemoaned here).



Thank you Bellita, for an excellent post.
Certainly made me think.
And cry (figuratively speaking!) all at the same time.
Well, at least I can still 'multi-task' ;)



Jokes aside, I think this post hits an important milestone in the life of The Sanctuary.
It marks the time we 'hit the spot' in terms of identifying a major problem.
If I had a younger sister, she would be force-read this post every night for two weeks until she regurgitated it back to me verbatim.
:-)

Not out of malice, but love, of course. And knowing my imaginary little sister, she wouldn't thank me until her wedding day :-)



Bellita says:


From "Lucy Simmonds":  I blame men. Unmanly, unfocused men . . . I am an observant Catholic, as are most of the men in my immediate social circle. Most of them have stable, high incomes, and I would say with some degree of certainty, they do not engage in pre-marital sex. It would seem that these men are not doing anything wrong. My complaint is that they aren’t doing anything right, either.

A few months ago, an old friend from my religious blogging days shocked me when he said that mine was the only religious blog written by a woman that he had regularly read. Without going into the details of that blogosphere, it's safe to say that it is highly unusual for someone very active in that community to read only one blog by a woman . . . or only one blog by a man. That's hard to do unless you make a deliberate decision. It's a little like choosing to patronize only businesses owned by people of the same sex (already an odd--and impractical--thing to do), and then making one special exception.

When I asked him why I had been the special exception, he said simply: "You don't hate men."

I rushed to argue that I could name many women religious bloggers who didn't hate men either, but he refused to engage me, saying only: "I know some of them are your friends, so I won't give you any names or examples."

But the topic came up again in a later conversation. I had just mentioned a neighbor's dog that had sent me mixed signals--padding over to where I was seated, flopping against me, putting its head in my lap, and then growling and trying to bite me when I patted him--and my friend replied, "Sounds like a lot of those women bloggers I can't read."

He seemed more chatty, so I pressed him on the matter . . . and although he still refused to name any bloggers or give examples of specific posts, he explained that he defines a "manhater" as a woman who thinks that men have to make certain choices, or perform certain actions, before she considers them to be "real men" . . . and that those choices and actions usually involve them serving women in ways that advantage women but disadvantage men.

And then I remembered a dear female friend of mine who, a couple of years ago, wrote one of those "Where are all the good men in the Catholic Church?" posts. I didn't mind it at the time it came out, and even defended my friend when the link went viral and her blog attracted many angry comments . . . but suddenly I could see the same post through my male friend's eyes. And it looked very different. Without divulging any details about my female friend's life, I can see why someone like her might make a man ask, "What right does a woman with her history have to dictate to a man about his future?"

Having seen it once, I was able to see it anywhere I looked. For a whole week, it was as if my life had turned into The Invasion of the Body Snatchers. At the end of it, when I saw my male friend online again, I lamented: "'Manhaters' are everywhere!"

"Yes, they are," he agreed.

"And they have no idea that they're 'manhaters'!"

"Most men have no idea how much they're hated either."

That was a month ago. Now I want to tell him he doesn't give other men enough credit. From the increasingly dissatisfied (and increasingly shrill) posts by women in the religious blogosphere about men who aren't "manning up," I'd say that men have figured out what is going on and are refusing to have any part in it. But I'll concede to my friend that, for many men, Going Their Own Way is more subconscious than strategic . . . more passive than active. They know something is wrong, but they're not admitting what it is even to themselves. So (to use the imagery of a famous cliche) they quietly spend their time and money on video games rather than on dates, letting the world make fun of them as arrested adolescents, but remaining too "chivalrous" to admit openly that the women they meet don't measure up to a good game at the end of a long day.

But there are some men who try to explain themselves. The post I linked above drew the following comment from "Jeff in Sacramento":
"I read a bunch of comments and none seemed to hit the nail on the head. Here it is and although this is common knowledge and talk amongst us men, I am sure it will make some women crazy with hate and a sense of injury and injustice. Sorry.

In short, the problem is most Catholic American men do not like the personality of the American woman, the personality she received growing up in the US from her feminist culture.

Don't get us guys wrong. You may be a beautiful, successful, and smart woman. But we are looking for something different, especially many of us traditional Catholic men. Guys have an almost impossible time finding an American woman that acts like a lady and who appreciates a gentleman."

"From a guys perspective, we are looking for that perfect wife. The lady that has charm. (Charm , Charm, Charm - that is so important, can an American woman just give a nice, pleasant, sincere smile when we say hi?) . . ."


I'm quoting only the first part of his comment because I don't agree with the other points he makes, which are peripheral anyway, and I want to shoot straight to what I think is the heart of the matter . . . which is that women who want to get married but can't seem to bring men "up to scratch" should probably ask themselves whether they're women worth marrying.

It's true that Jeff does not speak for all men . . . or even for all traditionalist Catholic men. But I've read the same message over and over again, from other men, for over a year, and so don't think it is one to dismiss as merely one person's opinion. It's also true that those other men are mostly Manosphere denizens, who aren't representative of the entire adult male population either. Yet even the women who tune them out cannot ignore the caterwauling from our own corner. The fact is that the men we want to marry can no longer be bothered to marry us. I happen to think it's worth asking them why. Especially when they admit, like Jeff, that they really would like to be married.

The first reaction to Jeff's comment was from a woman who said: "I think it's actually cowardly and unmanly to blame women . . ." I wonder what that makes women like Lucy Simmonds, who state very explicitly, "I blame men." Lazy and unwomanly? But it's not a good idea to play the blame game. Let's just state the problem and figure out the best possible solution.

I think it's fair to say that the problem is that men don't feel motivated to woo women who aren't "charming," while women don't care to be "charming" for men who have no motivation.

And the solution is the part that women will not like . . . In this staring contest between the sexes, it is we who will have to blink first.

Inasmuch as women are the ones who want to be married (and are facing unprecedented competition from rivals as ridiculous as video games), we will have to turn on the charm--what I have called "Fascination"--and be attractive again. Otherwise we will lose.

And the argument that we don't really want to win such booby prizes as those unmotivated men we complain about rings really hollow against the chorus of blame and hate that demands that they "man up" and be "real men."

Is that really something that a "real woman" would do?





Back to ST:

Whilst all of these following defifnitions of "real women" may have some aspect of humourous 'truth' to them, they are nonetheless all missing the point...



















If she conforms to all of the above definitions of 'Real Woman', but lacks a certain 'X-factor' (or if you like, XX factor!), has she already lost the war perhaps?
Me thinks yes...
No-one is perfect. But part of that XX-factor is to seek to be as near to that as possible, and yet with the humility to recognise that perfection is only to be found in celestial circles.

:-)

If a man like 'Jeff in Sacramento' has done his bit to 'be a better man' and from his own description of how he envisages the good American Catholic male (assuming this is true), then I think it is a shame if he cannot find an equivalent American Catholic female. If each party does their bit to 'be a better version of themselves', the war is won.

For quality attracts quality.

And guess what?
Manhaters attract womanhaters.

It only stands to reason, no?

188 comments:

dannyfrom504 said...

Very good post. I often tell people,"I have no problem meeting women, i just have a problem meeting decent women- relationship worthy women."

I adore the idea of being married, I just don't see it as being a viable option for me in the current SMP. You want to know the solution don't you. I know how this plays out-

After a generation of women find how impossible it is to find a marriage minded man, they might start to change their feminist behavior. Once women are no longer catered to by the state (if that ever happenes), and they see that they really do need a man around for: protection, resources, reproduction (which happens to be the only thing you ladies need us for now tbh) will we see a change. But seriously....

I'm not holding my breath. I'm more corcerned with my retirement hunting camp in the woods. Seriously, why should a man get married these days? Answer me that. What benefit is it to a man to get married?

Spacetraveller said...

Well Danny,

If all women were as 'Jeff in Sacramento' describes, then no, I would see no point in any man getting married nowadays.

Thankfully, NAWALT :-)
So, assuming the good women can come out of the caves in which they are hiding, AND there are still men willing to seek them out, marriage is still on the cards for those who want it, even in today's messed up SMP.

But I agree that it is tough, and may not be worth the hassle, for many.

dannyfrom504 said...

My land, home, farm.......

Thats all I need. I can't wait to get to it.

metak said...

@ST

NAWALT -> Not-After-Wallet ;-)

The biggest problem here, is that marriage as we know it, is disappearing...
-Back to Hades where it belongs.. ;-) joke

Of course as a man I blame women for it.. ;-) Something that was merely a simple ritual to symbolize and express that which was already present has turned into an abomination and great business opportunity for lawyers..

You see ST, most of those guys (Jeff..) at some point turn to foreign women.. not because they want to start new cycle of debauchery.. I bet it feels good to get away from all those manhaters (feministas).

Manhaters attract manhaters. That's why you always find feministas gathered in groups.. like a pack of hyenas ;-)

Your post covers mostly Anglosphere and that's why I told you that those countries have become hell-holes for men to live in (especially when dealing with women).. of course there are good women and if a man wants to marry one he should apparently chase them out of caves with smoke.. ;-)

Anonymous said...

Hi ST, PVW here...

I find it interesting, these arguments on manhating among women who present themselves as men's allies...I can see where the argument comes from, women's entitlement seen as contempt for men who won't give women what they want...

As for the "where are all the good Catholic women" type arguments, now that is even more interesting, as a former Catholic, who when I was younger and in school, would have wanted very much to marry a Roman Catholic man.

I was part of the Catholic student culture "back in the day," mass on Sundays, Catholic student groups, retreats, etc.

I read some of the other responses to the post and to Jeff in Sacramento, and all I can think of is that women like that are there, but are they ignored?

This is something I noticed when I was younger and Catholic and in school, something about North American Roman Catholic culture, it can be a SWPL type culture, and that is the context the original poster was speaking from. Jeff spoke of these types of traditionalist Catholic men not finding what they want in the US and so they go overseas.

But here is the thing, there are plenty traditionalist minded Roman Catholic North American women but who don't come in the traditional SWPL type package, ie., including being a woman of color from a non-traditional SWPL type ethnic background (ie., not Latina, not Philippina, using the examples Jeff gave), and they are in those environments as well, but are they going to be noticed?

I hate to say it, but I have experienced more diversity, acceptance and recognition as a woman of faith within my Protestant denomination as a woman of color than I ever experienced as a Roman Catholic woman of color. If anything, my experiences contributed to pushing me towards leaving.

Funny, I met the husband while I was in school; I had already become Protestant, he was lapsed Catholic, and we DID NOT meet through any type of church group or function.

Spacetraveller said...

Metak,

"Something that was merely a simple ritual to symbolize and express that which was already present..."

What a lovely way to express what marriage is all about! Sometimes we forget that it is really about the love two people have for each other...too many obstacles in the way, that shouldn't be there.
Case in point: I almost missed this gem from you because it was buried under all the other stuff...

Bellita's post is insightful for a number of reasons, but I think the biggest reason for me is that it is very easy for a woman to hide behind 'religion' when the real problem is her 'gracelessness'. She may think it is fine to be 'charmless' because she is 'Catholic' and goes to Mass everyday!

Which brings me to PVW's comment:

I see what you mean about The (Catholic) Church. I have always had a slight issue with The Church as you know from the post 'Weapon of Mass destructon'. But I am slowly getting over it. Afterall, a church is only as strong as the people within it.

Jeff's comment is very frank. And surprisingly not particularly bitter. He simply states how he finds things. It is up to the rest of us whether we take heed or not.
Simple as that.

As for a woman who is supposedly men's 'ally' harbouring 'manhating' tendencies, it's a scary thing to address, no? One would have thought that 'religious' women would be the very last to be 'mahaters' but as Jeff discovers on a daily basis, this is a wrong assumption.
This tells me there is a different problem at hand other than the usual complaint of men against women, i.e. lack of self-respect, lack of moral code etc.
And that different problem is a snotty 'I am holier than thou' attitude, which tends to be found amongst the highly religious.
Hm, that attitude is not quite as irreversible as a high partner count, but it is just as bad in relationships in that it is quite capable of destroying (killing!)the decorum of normal man-woman interactions...

Anonymous said...

Hi, ST, I'll have to look for your Weapon of Mass Destruction post, I don't recall it.

As for religious women harboring man-hating tendencies and your observation about the "holier than thou" attitude, I see it going both ways in the contempt that some traditionalist men have for women and in the contempt some religious women have for men.

Man-hating? Not in the sense of the clear-cut radical feminists, but contempt in that they have an idea, in light of their religious perspective, of what men should be like, and they are critical of those who don't fit it.

But here is the thing, the traditionalist view of men in the Bible might very well fit closely with what these religious women's perceptions of men should be?

And if these men want to fit that ideal and say they are good men of their religious tradition, well, are they fitting the mold? Are the women? These women seem to believe they are. But do the men see it the same way, that is what Jeff is asking.

As I said before, the husband and I are religious, but we don't even look to those biblical views that so many traditionalists like, the submission and so forth, but we have lived our lives in a conservative-moderate fashion nonetheless.

I don't see Jeff as bitter either. But as you know, I do take issue with how many men see modern women and put them into narrow boxes: good in one narrow box, bad in another.

It is funny, even in Jeff's post, I was seeing a denigration of accomplished American women as being unfeminine, yet the ideal he held up of his friend's marriage, of a feminine woman was an accomplished woman, and someone mentioned, it seemed to be linked "tall blond Polish looks."

I must say that even as a woman, I don't have a problem with MGTOW because I wouldn't dream of telling men that their experiences with certain types of women shouldn't make them cautious and that they should "man up." I'm not a man, so I have no role in telling men how to live their lives as men. I might try to understand, but that is it.

In the same vein, as I mentioned, I have had some female students who are hard core radical feminists. Do I tell them well they just need to "woman up" and take it and understand how the men felt in the situations which led to the women feeling abused? No, I try to understand, but I don't criticize.

Spacetraveller said...

PVW,

"I'm not a man, so I have no role in telling men how to live their lives as men. I might try to understand, but that is it."

This is the golden rule of life as I live it (at least nowadays).

Because I am not a man (and I have no idea what his reality is, no matter how much I might feel I do), I cannot tell a man how to be. I don't share hs biology.
I permit myself however to tell a woman what's what. Because I know exactly how things are for her. Because I share the same biology as her. Of course other things such as our different perspectives on life, our geography, our cultures, etc. might be very different. So I still may not have the 'right' to do that. Granted.

Jeff in Sacramento's reference to the tall, slim, Polish blonde who was also accomplished is in fact testament to the fact that he is not at all bothered by a 'successful' woman. He celebrates it. But that woman clearly impressed Jeff not by her accomplishment primarily, but by her appearance. Which was pleasing to his eyes. Men are visual. You and I both know that. Remember in the post (yet another post for you to find, lol!) 'Dissidents of the sphere', I mentioned that the 'nice girl' with a good personality is 'invisible' to men?
Well, why is she invisible to men? Because of her frumpy appearance, that's what! That Polish woman Jeff refers to could have been the best economist in the world. Without her nice appearance, she would not have made an impression on him. As another female commenter noted, Jeff mentioned her appearance first before mentioning she was an economist. This makes sense. It should confirm to any woman reading his comment that men don't really care about a woman's work/career. It's appearance first, personality second, other specific things that are important to him third. In that order.
Remember we discussed before that to a man, any attractive woman will do, on first encounter? In the initial stages, no woman is 'special'. As long as she passes the 'boner test' she 'will do' for him. His mistake would be to assume that her attractiveness is all that he requires though. He really needs to ensure that she brings other things to the table. This is only when she becomes 'special' to him. Jeff thought that the Polish woman was a good example of 'special'. Sadly, she will not be for him though, because that woman was the wife of his friend if I understood things correctly on that thread.
Now, another concept I came across on that blog was the concept of 'heavenly grace' i.e. a woman's moral standing/sprituality being seen as 'mutually exclusive' with charm. Jeff made it clear that he needed BOTH in a woman. I also don't think the two need be mutually exclusive at all. I do think that the former should include the latter.
The 'holier than thou' attitude can get quite sickening at times. I feel a lot of sympathy for men who encounter this on a daily basis.
I am all for sexual morality 'superiority' of women over men. Recognising that Nature allows women the capability of being sexually purer than men. This is not something that should be used as a stick to beat men about the head with however. Rather I think it should be a part of femininity that women should celebrate and be grateful for. (I know this sounds incredibly 'niche'. But bear with me lol). I go on and on about chastity for women. There is a reason I do not insist on the same for men. Which takes me back to the first point I make in this comment: I cannot tell a man how to be.

There are other ways I expect men to be morally superior. And if that is lacking, I know he is not for me.

Spacetraveller said...

That is not to say that I expect all men to be sexually weak. No.
There is a minimum standard somewhere, even for men. Each woman needs to find that line of demarcation for herself. But it is counterproductive if that threshold is as high as some religious women want it. Because in fact it is unrealistic.
And let's not forget there are men who are sexually stronger than their wives. That is, his 'number' was way lower than hers. Those marriages are not necessarily doomed either.

I may seem to be 'giving men a free pass on this' but I assure you, I am not. The truth is, I am simply not stepping into the role of 'adjudicator' when it comes to men's morality. I sidestep that issue for the first reason I give above (aka my golden rule).

Ceer said...

--Spacetraveller

I'm a first time commenter who found your blog through Danny's. The first couple of posts I've read have been well thought out. Even though you're not writing with me as the target audience, I'd like to say thanks. Your ideas so far are worth reading. I'd like to share some of my thoughts.

In reading literature, especially online, I've learned to turn my critical sense more acutely to an author's tone. To me, the purpose of communication should be to spread accurate ideas and information. Conclusions and opinions should be clearly marked. Sure...I've studied techniques of persuasion and rhetoric in the classroom. Seeing them used in practice makes them feel dishonest.

You are not the only one who has seen this. I've been reading and paying at least a little attention, and I can confirm... it's out there.

Ever since I was little, the concept of marriage was important to me, so I decided to study it. In asking people who were married, many very nice people gave me their answers. What exactly they said isn't on topic to this post. What IS on topic is that it looks nothing like what a typical woman writer describes.

The quote from miss Lucy Simmonds seems pretty representative of at least part of the problem. She describes a man who doesn't engage in premarital sex and holds down a good job as "...not doing anything right..." Until I found the mannosphere, I would have found this absurd. Now, I understand (at least intellectually) that a good job and not sleeping around don't really give a woman tingles. Women have a NEED for emotional connection that good catholic men aren't trained to supply.

There are two ways to make godly men who are attractive to women.
1. Evangelize jerks into tempering their behavior to protect women.
2. Teach regular godly men to be more attractive to women.

Assuming that most men fall more into the jerk category and naturally develops qualities attractive to women, church culture has evolved along the lines to prioritize strategy 1. Which is fine...except the premise isn't true anymore. This means that the church culture is not equipped to handle a large chunk of its male population in an optimal way.

Ceer said...

Women, for their part, have been similarly malequipped. Tenants of feminism are designed to produce a woman who is emotionally equipped to go into the working world and earn her own living. Female biology makes this sort of life less likely to bear children, which is fine for the stereotypical unattractive, butch, man-hating type. In no way is she equipped to have children in any case, so it makes sense for her to go into the working world where she can at least be less bored. This makes less sense to women who may or may not be innately feminine, but who have enough (I feel like an ass for saying this bit, but it is true...) beauty to have a chance at a decent relationship.

From what I can tell, that's where the majority of both men and women are today... undertrained and getting their ideas from a source that doesn't have their true best interest at heart.

Jeff in Sacramento has an excellent point. Men are trained, incompetently sometimes but with good intention, to live their lives in marriage a certain way...to respect women. The same is not true for women. To teach a woman about holy living, having a good personality, or getting along with others (let alone all three) is considered an affront to common decency because it might cause a woman to become subservient.

This is blitheringly stupid on a number of levels. As a former leader, I recognize the necessity for tactful communication particularly when problems or differences come up...as they will. Holy living itself may be more highly valued by men than by women, but the results are positive for each. The moral system designed by the church is beneficial to everyone who abides by it. Every negative characterization I've seen is either an example of someone FAILING to abide by that system or deliberately misrepresenting it. Good personality comes in a variety of flavors, but it generally involves the person focusing on positive aspects of life, not being pushy except in very serious circumstances, and keeping the interests of others as a high priority.

Based on my previous dealings with women, they've very rarely assented when I asked them out to date. As a man within a certain closed social circle, you only get to ask that question a certain number of times because everyone knows about it. From this, I simply learned not to ask. From not asking, I rarely had a girlfriend. My last two were found online. In a related field, I've read about pickup artistry. Common practice is to do 1,000 cold approaches or more in order to develop the BASIC understanding required to do well. Woman asks "Where are all the good men?"...she takes thousands of approaches for a man to gather up the appropriate skill. It takes a while.

Bellita said...

First of all, thank you for hosting this guest post, ST! :) I see you've added your special editorial touches. ;)

Because I am not a man (and I have no idea what his reality is, no matter how much I might feel I do), I cannot tell a man how to be.

This reminds me of an insight I will try to track down now. A man said that when boys are growing up, they will want to please those who are raising them, whether the latter are women or men. The problem is that a boy who is raised knowing only how to please women will not be respected by other men. (Even more cruelly, his training to be nothing more than a "nice guy" will end up repelling the sex he has tried to please all his life.) Only a man can raise a boy to be a man who is respected by other men . . . and ironically, this is precisely the sort of man a woman wants.

Spacetraveller said...

Welcome to The Sanctuary, Ceer!

Before I forget, may I just say, this last post was Bellita's, not mine. So credit goes to her.

Thank you for your nice words re the blog in general.

You know, when you start out on a journey, you never know what the outcome will be. Will you make it to your destination? Would it be a pleasant journey? Will there be an accident on the way? Will you meet great people or terrible people on the way?
When I started this blog, I never knew where it would take me. I must say, I have been pleasantly surprised at the outcome so far.
There were so many things which escaped me before, I can't tell you (too ashamed) but better late than never...

"The quote from miss Lucy Simmonds seems pretty representative of at least part of the problem. She describes a man who doesn't engage in premarital sex and holds down a good job as "...not doing anything right..." Until I found the mannosphere, I would have found this absurd. Now, I understand (at least intellectually) that a good job and not sleeping around don't really give a woman tingles."

Well I didn't understand this either, until I too hit The Manosphere, and I am a woman!
Now you know why I have a certain respect for Game. Because I understand there is some truth in it. It helps women as much as men understand their own psychology. I joke a lot about being Gameable by just about anyone (which is actually true lol) but I understand the deeper message Game teaches about male-female relationships. That is not to say that I am a hopeless slave to Game techniques though. I am pretty sure that is not the case.


"Women, for their part, have been similarly malequipped. Tenants of feminism are designed to produce a woman who is emotionally equipped to go into the working world and earn her own living. Female biology makes this sort of life less likely to bear children, which is fine for the stereotypical unattractive, butch, man-hating type."

Here, I think you are using extremes to make your point. As someone who does this a lot, I don't complain of course! Rather I take your point in the spirit in which it was intended. Which is educational.
And I agree with you. Like most people, I never really understood the origins and purpose of feminism until a few good souls here pointed it out to me. And now it all makes sense...


And your last line makes me laugh out loud.
You are the only man so far whose response to 'Where are all the good men?' is...
'Oh, they are just outside practising their approaches... they'll be along shortly...'

Hahahahaha!
I like how you make it sound hopeful that they are somehow not all MGTOW.

This is similar to Oprah Winfrey's answer, which was...

'He's in Africa, and he's walking towards you'.
Hers is actualy less hopeful because 'He's in Africa, and he's walking' means he might just reach you on your 87th birthday when you lose that final obstinate tooth that wouldn't fall out like all the rest 3 years ago...and you are tripping over your seven cats to get to the commode...

Bellita said...

@PVW
the traditionalist view of men in the Bible might very well fit closely with what these religious women's perceptions of men should be

First of all, I don't know if it's helpful to talk about the Bible where traditionalist Catholics are concerned. ;) Perhaps you could bring in Mary and St. Joseph instead? Hahahaha!

But seriously, I know where you are coming from. And I agree that the Catholic "Manhaters" have their standards in the right place. But the problem is that they themselves are not motivating Catholic men to meet those standards, and the "Man Up!" approach is just not going to work.

just visiting. said...

The fact that a man has a good job and is not indulging in premarital sex doesn't seem mind blowing to that woman because it's what she is doing. There seems to be a lot of people who swallowed the "equality" pill hook, line, and sinker. Men and women who think the opposite sex think and feel just like them. No understanding at all of the differences. If she suddenly had a shot of testosterone at 20 times the amount normally found in her system, perhaps she might have a greater appreciation for such restraint.

Spacetraveller said...

Bellita,

"I see you've added your special editorial touches."

Um, moi? No idea what you are talking about.
*puts on innocent face*
:-)

"Only a man can raise a boy to be a man who is respected by other men..."

Oh yes. Any mother who denies her son access to his father or any other suitable male role model is doing him a great disservice.
I am ever so grateful that I know this now, before I have sons one day.
Of course daughters also need their father, but for very different reasons...


JV,

EXCELLENT POINT!!!
Excuse the capitals, I jut went a bit loopy when I saw your comment.
:-)

You always manage to exceed expectations, JV. How do you do it?
I have NEVER heard anyone say it like this before. And yet it is such a source of confusion for both men and women. Gosh, you are really onto something here.
The man might be thinking: 'What gives? I am earning well, I don't sleep around like X, Y and Z, and she STILL doesn't think it's enough?'
And the woman is thinking: 'So you are not sleeping around like X,Y and Z. So what? Guess what? Neither am I'.
She can afford to be glib about the celibacy part. Because she only has 1/20th of his sexual drive. And he is made to feel like dirt when in fact he is subject to a much higher degree of 'temptation' than she is.

Different genders, different standards. The 'equality' thing is confusing us all. To all our detriment.
As ever, thank you JV.

As I said to Ceer above, I don't judge a man when it comes to sexuality/morality. Because I am in no position to.

At least not until that shot of neat testosterone is injected into my veins..

Anonymous said...

PVW to ST re. women's looks, charm, etc.

Oh, I'm all for understanding that men are visual. But with the Polish blond reference, I was thinking about someone mentioning, so brunettes who might be shorter and not as slim are not worthy?

I remember chatting with the husband once about what he found attractive about me when we first met, my looks--he thought I had a nice shape (mind you, I'm not a size six, but I am a hard core gym rat--cardio and weights five days per week), he liked my smile, my personality.

And here is the thing, if he had a very narrow view, ie., SWPL view of what a woman's attractiveness is, the stereotypical blond who gets the halo effect (you were getting at this--men who act as though looks alone matter) he would have missed out on having a fantastic wife!

PVW to ST re. men's and women's views of sexuality, weaknesses, etc.

I would have had no problem with marrying a male virgin when I was younger, dating and virginal. I have relatives who fit that category, happily married going on 15 years, they have only been each other's sex partner, and that is beautiful!

Now the husband wasn't virginal when we married, but I was so intrigued that he had a voluntary period of long term celibacy. That was just too cool for words and on my wavelength: a handsome man who could get as much sex as he wanted but he chose not to!!! Oh yeah!

Spacetraveller said...

PVW,

"But with the Polish blond reference, I was thinking about someone mentioning, so brunettes who might be shorter and not as slim are not worthy?"

If you don't mind my saying so, that person who mentioned about the brunettes was being perhaps deliberately unreasonable? Jeff likes what Jeff likes. If he says he likes a blonde woman...
The man has a right to like what he likes, no? To accuse him of not liking brunettes when he says he likes blondes seems a little strange.
Your husband obviously liked you because you are a beautiful, attractive Black woman. To argue with him as to why he doesn't want a redheaded or a blonde woman with green eyes would be absurd.
Each to his own I say!

"Now the husband wasn't virginal when we married..."

I bet this is 'a feature not a bug' amongst many couples. And in increasing numbers, the woman is not a virgin either for that matter.
Which makes it all the more precious when a man tries hard to be like your husband was - celibate, as least for a while. And many men are in fact doing this. But Lucy Simmonds, as JV explains why, is still unimpressed.

And now the men see the women (especially the Catholic ones like her) as fastidious. And with that, charmless.

The verdict is in.

And now, this just makes me want to flee the courthouse.
Well, as they say, the truth hurts.

Charming Disarray said...

Amazing. A post about traditional Catholics in California from two women who've never been there and have admitted to knowing very few American men.

Just....amazing.

But I'm sure if I commented I would get shouted down because you both know more about the kinds of men who go to traditional Masses in Sacramento than a woman who's been there.

I got YELLED AT after a traditional Mass in Sacramento for politely and quietly removing myself from a group who wanted to go to a Sport's bar. I didn't make a fuss; I just let some of my friends know I was going to get some breakfast. And I got yelled at in front of a whole group of people.

These are the kinds of men who go to traditional Masses in Sacramento. But I guess pointing that out makes me a man-hater?

La-la land. Truly.

Charming Disarray said...

"he explained that he defines a "manhater" as a woman who thinks that men have to make certain choices, or perform certain actions, before she considers them to be "real men" "

There have always been tests of this sort for men in stable societies, just as there have always been standards set for how women should behave. Nobody hates anybody in this scenario. Your friend sounds like a spoiled kid who thinks his parents and teachers hate him if he has to do chores or homework.

Bellita said...

@CD
Actually, I have been to California. Twice, in fact. :) It's not my favorite state, though . . .

But let's not argue about that. In case I didn't make it clear in my post, this is not only about Californians or only about traditionalist Catholics or even only about Catholics. It's about a general phenomenon about men and women that I happened to learn about in an odd way. If I had thought it was a completely isolated phenomenon, I wouldn't have bothered to write about it.

These are the kinds of men who go to traditional Masses in Sacramento.

And what are the kinds of women who go to traditional Masses in Sacramento? Why are your observations about the men more valid than a man's observations about the women?

I got YELLED AT after a traditional Mass in Sacramento for politely and quietly removing myself from a group who wanted to go to a Sport's bar. I didn't make a fuss; I just let some of my friends know I was going to get some breakfast. And I got yelled at in front of a whole group of people.

CD, you seem to have taken this very general post as a personal attack against you, so I'm not sure how you will react to what I have to say now . . . but I'll give it a shot anyway. In the several months I've interacted with you online, I've found you abrasive, argumentative, insensitive toward others, and clueless about (or simply indifferent to) the way you may come across. So when you say that you did something "quietly and politely," my first reaction is skepticism . . . and the desire to ask a witness for an impartial account of what happened that morning.

Yes, it's true that of everyone here, you have the most experience with Catholics in Sacramento (again, not that this post is about Catholics in Sacramento), but I find I don't trust your assessment of them.

And I admit that that's not fair to you. We all come here with our anecdotes, which we share in good faith, and they should be taken in good faith. But it's also true that there are two sides to every story. Last month, I had my own short anecdote about ending a courtship with as much consideration for the man's feelings as I could muster, only to have him snap back at me in a way that really turned me off. And I had a certain interpretation of that incident. A commenter who didn't agree with my interpretation pointed out that all I was providing was my side of the story. Perhaps the man I had just rejected had seen a different side of me.

I bring this up, CD, because I don't think you see that the men you complain about might see something to complain about in you as well. And I'm not saying this to attack you but because it is exactly what I'm getting at in my post. Women have to blink first. As bad as the men may be, they're not going to change unless we change first.

Bellita said...

@CD
There have always been tests of this sort for men in stable societies

And they have always been given to men by other men.

Your friend sounds like a spoiled kid who thinks his parents and teachers hate him if he has to do chores or homework.

Do you want to know how you sound? ;)

Seriously, do you see what you've done in that analogy? You cast my male friend into a child . . . and women as his parents and teachers who have the right to give him homework.

Spacetraveller said...

CD,

"A post about traditional Catholics in California from two women who've never been there and have admitted to knowing very few American men."

CD, I don't think I need to go to California to learn about American men. Not that it is relevant, but in fact, I have been to California. (My work takes me to USA twice a year). I just haven't been to a Mass there...
It is true that I don't know many American men. But 'Jeff in Sacramento' makes his points very well. So well in fact, that I don't feel the need to travel all the way to America just so I can make the acquaintance in person of an American man to get his point of view. The internet has removed any such need...

"But I'm sure if I commented I would get shouted down..."

No, you wouldn't. Strongly disagreed with, yes.

"I got YELLED AT after a traditional Mass in Sacramento..."

I am sorry you had this experience. Clearly it hurt you a lot. I do sympathise.
But the men who shouted at you are not the only men in the world, you know...
There are better ones, I would hope. You need to 'smoke them out' of their caves. The way to do it is not by being 'acidic'. Which is the impression you currently give off, at least with your writing. Ignore this comment if you are entirely different in real life.

"There have always been tests of this sort for men in stable societies..."

Yes, I agree. There have always been tests of 'initiation' for young men throughout the ages. Today, these practices have all but died out, yes. But please note that these tests of initiation were doled out by male elders to younger men. Women are not to demand these of men. These tests were designed to test the manhodd of men as judged by older, more experienced men, as far as I understand it. To equate it with a woman's demands on men or a particular man is perhaps not the wisest option? Of this I am sure.
At least 4 women on this post (including me) have concluded that manhood is best left to men. The title of the last post began with 'Don't touch his manhood...'. If only I knew the significance of these words as I wrote them last week...

Spacetraveller said...

Heavens above, Bellita just made the same point I did about the 'inititation' thing.

At about the same time, such that we crossed wires.

It's a very important point, so I am glad we came to it quite independently of each other.

Spacetraveller said...

CD,

Um, there are traditional Catholics in Britain too, you know...and Switzerland, and Canada, and Germany, and Thailand, and Australia...

'Jeff in Sacramento' might be in Sacramento, but his thoughts may well echo those of a similarly aged man in Argentina for all I know.
The location doesn't really matter in this case. It's the concept that is of any importance here.

So Bellita is quite right that her guest post was more of a general post about men and women everywhere.
Hope this clears things up a little for you.

Anonymous said...

ST to PVW:

If you don't mind my saying so, that person who mentioned about the brunettes was being perhaps deliberately unreasonable? Jeff likes what Jeff likes.


My reply:

Perhaps s/he was being unreasonable, and he likes what he likes, and perhaps it was not the best analogy, but I could see some merit in opening up that type of discussion...It is a matter I have felt sensitive about, for obvious reasons, which you also alluded to and which I'll discuss below.

ST to PVW: and Your husband obviously liked you because you are a beautiful, attractive Black woman. To argue with him as to why he doesn't want a redheaded or a blonde woman with green eyes would be absurd. Each to his own I say!

PVW:

But you would be surprised, we have gotten used to it, but in today's world, we have faced the occasional nasty looks from complete strangers, men as well as women, who resent his preference! And this isn't coming only from other black folks who see me as a traitor, but white people, non-black women of color with some wierd sense of entitlement that if anyone is going to date white guys, it should be the women of their ethnic/racial group only!

Fortunately, the husband didn't face any social pressure from family and friends not to date or marry me, but think of the recent example of Mark Zuckerberg in marrying his Asian girlfriend...a lot of folks were mighty pissed off that any children by her would not be Jewish according to traditional rules in Jewish identity.

ST:

Lucy Simmonds, as JV explains why, is still unimpressed.

And now the men see the women (especially the Catholic ones like her) as fastidious. And with that, charmless.

The verdict is in.

PVW:

Whateva (rolls eyes)...It boils down to an old school saying, "just let a man be a man," and if a man is being a man in such a way that is positive and not detrimental, ie. he proves his integrity and value, ie., not having sex when it is easy for him to do so, or at least, his biology propels him to do so, and he has enough character to rise above it, that is the kind of man women need to be looking for!

That is why to me social proof in terms of men being wanted by other women was never of interest to me; in my mind, sex is just too easy for men to get all kinds of women. I'd rather have the man who would make both of us wait for it, or at least understand my interest in waiting....

Spacetraveller said...

PVW,

Yes, nasty stares when you are with your husband cannot be pleasant. Glad you and he were able to rise above it all.

"...a lot of folks were mighty pissed off that any children by her would not be Jewish according to traditional rules in Jewish identity."

About Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, there are two issues here: the racial and the religious. (And a possible third - political). I don't know which is worse...
The religious one reminds me of my own fears about having to 'settle' for a non-Catholic man. As a Catholic, I am obliged to raise any children I have as Catholic. It's the law as you know...Especially as a Catholic woman.
I also feel very strongly that the (nuclear) family should be unified in its religious views (this is in complete contrast to my extended family which is a true mish-mesh of all kinds of different facets of Christianity lol). So if I married a non-Catholic man, I would be torn between the need to raise my children Catholic and the need to take up my husband's faith so that I would satisfy the need for 'unity'. Absurd and needless worrying on my part, but there we are. I think a simple discussion in the event of such a situation would solve the problem, I would hope.
The political aspect can get interesting. There are some cultures ad nationalities which are 'patrilineal' and some which are 'matrilineal' as I am sure you know. So for example, if your father is German, you are German because Germany is a 'Vaterland' (doesn't matter where your mother comes from). If your mother is Jewish (?Israeli as well, not sure), you are Jewish, and no-one cares where your father is from, because Judaism is a 'matrilineal' culture. Other matrilineal countries and cultures go even further than this and use the maternal line for important things such as inheritance and property laws which basically means that you inherit stuff from your maternal uncle and not your own father. (I promise you I am not making this up! I think these cultures just have a particular mistrust of women lol, because afterall it is easier to prove maternity than paternity, so the fear of cuckoldry is taken out of the equation). If Zuckerberg's wife were Asian Jewish (is there such a combination?), there would be no problem for the religious zealots who hound them. The point is that their future children would not have the official title of 'Jewish' if their mother is not Jewish. To those for whom this sort of thing matters, it is quite a big issue. In many ways, I understand it, but it is of course no-one's businesss other than the Zuckerbergs themselves. The purely racial gripe against them, I am afraid I have no time for that.

"That is why to me social proof in terms of men being wanted by other women was never of interest to me..."

At the risk of contradicting myself, I see you share my views on 'Preselection'.
:-)

The point about Lucy Simmonds is that she openly admits that these men she is critiquing are hardworking, chaste men. And still she is not happy with them!
There are many facets to 'hypergamy' it seems.

I was just reading a comment from a man on Danny's blog, and he says 'even a combination of Jesus Christ, George Clooney and Bill Gates will not satisfy these women', to paraphrase a little. This comment made me laugh out loud, because I know it is an exaggeration. But I can see his point. And as modern women, we are not helping our cause...at least not when Lucy Simmonds makes comments like the above. It makes us all look so jolly hard to please. And yet, some of us aren't that fussy...

Whilst I wouldn't accept 'got a pulse and own teeth' as my only filter, I wouldn't be quite as fussy as Ms. Simmonds. A catholic man who is hard working and is even remotely chaste to boot? I wouldn't complain, I'm afraid...He'll have me at 'hello' lol.

Charming Disarray said...

Bellita,

You are entitled to your opinion of my behavior.

Did you notice that Danny posted my email address online? I've never done anything remotely that vicious or backhanded to anyone I've interacted with. But you think he's just great.

Maybe I don't trust YOUR judgement, either. Because you only react when people are unkind to men. You have a different standard from how women are treated.

Charming Disarray said...

It's also a bit weird to me that neither of you have any problem with men setting the standard of femininity.

This is how your reasoning goes:

A man gets to decide what's feminine because he's the one who is attracted to the woman or not.

A woman does not get to decide what's masculine, regardless of whether or not she finds the man attractive, because women have no place telling men how to be men.

I get a bit tired of the mind games around here, and the fact that, apparently, what you say is far less important than whether or not you say it in a gooey, honey-like voice and make sure to always flatter men along the way.

Just for the record, I often get accused of being too nice and quiet in real life. And on that occasion, I didn't even tell the guy who yelled at me that I was going to breakfast. I told a couple of my friends that I would meet up with them a bit later after getting some breakfast, and when word got back to him, he called me out in front of the whole group for "separating myself from the group."

Pretty weird, but at least I didn't drink the coolaide.

dannyfrom504 said...

CD-
it has since been removed after i made SEVERAL requests for you to leave my site. i'm sorry you brought me to having to resort to such an action.

and you NEVER done anything that vicious before...like i dunno: dedicating and ENTIRE POST about someone you don't even know personally.

but seriously, THANK YOU. i can now entirely shut my blog down since you've managed to prove and validate why MGTOW exists.

you're just too blind to understand it. and that's sad, because you're probably a very nice person.

Charming Disarray said...

"i'm sorry you brought me to having to resort to such an action."

Manipulative wife beater ranting.

You could have simply responded to my post in a reasonable way. That's what people do, right? They just respond. They don't lose their mind. I'm not the first person who has written an entire post based on a comment and I won't be the last. It's a normal part of being in the blogsphere. I guess your ego just couldn't take it.

Anonymous said...

PVW to ST, I understand your perspective regarding wanting the unity of faith and wanting to take your husband's faith.

I was so dedicated as a younger single woman to having a Roman Catholic family, but it was on my list of items to jettison as I went on my way to becoming Protestant. Yet, go figure, I married a lapsed Catholic when I became Protestant!

As I think you might have mentioned elsewhere, religion truly is a game for women nowadays, ie., numbers and so forth. So it baffles me when dedicated Catholic women are snarky to Catholic men who are truly living by their faith; both the men and women should rejoice in each other! And yes, I agree with your views on preselection.

Re. numbers and the inheritance of faith, it is something our Jewish "sisters" are dealing with as well, which was part of the response to Zuckerberg, as you said, political and religious.

I have heard of all you mentioned, the matrilineality. As long as a person's mother is Jewish, s/he is recognized as Jewish. As long as a person is Jewish, s/he is eligible to immigrate to Israel, I believe.

What is interesting is that nowadays, there are more and more Asian Jewish women, ie., through adoption by Jewish families, or through intermarriage.

So I am waiting to hear about a high profile marriage involving a prominent Jewish man married to a woman like that, just to shut those people up!

And there is an element of racism there; a Jewish writer I read recently describe discussions he had with others who harbor that type of prejudice, ie., Jews being pissed at Jewish men who intermarry yet refusing to recognize that within their own culture there are plenty of women of color who would technically be recognized as Jewish, but they aren't seen as "nice Jewish girls" as they are women of color, ie., Afro-Jewish women whose mothers were Jewish women married to men of African descent.

I know of an interesting story, a cantor (a type of rabbi, I believe) in NYC is Asian-Jewish, but in a unique way--her mother is Korean, her father, Ashkenazi (European) Jewish. She was raised Reform, which recognizes jewishness even when the mother is non-Jewish, as long as the father saw that the child was raised within Judaism.

dannyfrom504 said...

"Manipulative wife beater ranting."

so now you're a victim. classic.

so let's recap.

you disagree with my opinion.

you post negatively about me.

you TAUNT me to post your email after i told you to leave my site, you've stated your opinion, move on. and that you'll be placed in moderation.

you reply to my posting it like a little girl. i REMOVE your email.

you go back to the safety of your site to continue talking shit.

"if you can't take the heat" huh?

ST- see what i mean?

Anonymous said...

ST:

I think these cultures just have a particular mistrust of women lol, because afterall it is easier to prove maternity than paternity, so the fear of cuckoldry is taken out of the equation).

PVW's reply:

I never saw these cultures in that way; I always saw them as putting a special value on women's role in mothering, that women are the ones who impart values through socialization, and this happens from birth: "the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world."

A father can guide a mother in what he might want done, ie., pay for the religious schooling, but he must trust the wife will go along with it and impart the values in the day-to-day raising of the children.

Here is a funny story regarding this. I know a family in my congregation. "Lisa" was raised in an interfaith family; her father was secular Muslim and didn't want the children raised in any type of faith, it seems, and the mother, a cradle Episcopalian, seemed to go along with it. Yet, she sent the children to Episcopal schools from the time they were children.

Years later, the daughter, "Lisa" married a man who was raised Roman Catholic but lapsed. They migrated to what she knew, the Episcopal tradition she went to school in. She was baptized as an adult and the children were baptized as infants. He became Episcopalian this past spring, as he was received.

Lisa's dad is dead now, and her mom is still alive. She is still Episcopalian--I don't know whether she attended services during her marriage, but she attends services now. Things have come full circle. Her daughter, son-in-law and grandchildren are all Episcopalian.

Charming Disarray said...

People comment on and disagree with other bloggers all the time. I've had it done to me, and I didn't flip out the way you're flipping out.

The double standard among Catholics is a very serious problem that ends up hurting a lot of women and even some men--the ones who get ridiculed for waiting for marriage. I write about issues like this on my blog all the time, so when you attacked me here at ST's blog, where I had stated that I wasn't going to continue the conversation on that particular post, I thought it would make more sense to put it in a post because I have quite a bit to say on the topic.

None of that was anything different from what many other bloggers have done, and nothing that warranted you posting my email address.

I did NOT taunt you into posting it. When will you figure out that mind games have no effect on me? Can't you find some other way to communicate?

You could have just responded to my post in a grown-up and civilized manner. Then we could have had an interesting conversation about it.

Safety of my site? What about all my comments that you deleted, that were simply in response to comments made by other people about me? You really just want to silence me, and it's making you insane that you can't delete my blog, too. Is this what you do when you come across a woman you disagree with? You just do anything and everything to silence her? I have to admit, I had no idea that you wouldn't even TRY to have an actual conversation about the points I made. I thought you would at least make a counter argument of some kind. If I had know you were going to flip out to this degree, I probably wouldn't have bothered.

And, finally, you threatened to post my email before you asked me to leave. Not cool. And lying about it now isn't cool either.

Spacetraveller said...

@ Danny,

"ST- see what i mean?"

I'm afraid I do, Danny.
Not only do I see it, I hear it loud and clear too. And it's not pretty, I have to say.

Now I truly do understand what's happening in the SMP. What an eye-opener this whole episode has turned out to be!

"I get a bit tired of the mind games around here, and the fact that, apparently, what you say is far less important than whether or not you say it in a gooey, honey-like voice and make sure to always flatter men along the way."

No-one hears my voice when I make comments on this blog. So in fact it is the content of my comments and posts that people judge me by. And once again, I do not flatter Danny or any other man (unless I am specifically 'flirting' with him in which case it is obvious I am being palyful. You will notice I do that with whoever takes my fancy at that precise moment - it could be a man, a woman or a dog, I really have no social boundaries where being 'playful' is concerned lol. Hm, perhaps I need to work on this).
If I feel that something they say is not to my liking, I will either say it, or hold my tongue, whichever is more appropriate at the time.

Might I say something? If I don't, someone else will say it anyway.

Please refrain from using words like 'wife beater'. I know you are not intending this in the grave manner others will perceive it in, but still, prevention is better than cure. It is potentially defammatory, since Danny has committed no such crime, nor has he inclinations thereof.
Tempers flare, but we should still remain within social norms of civility. Deal? I hope so.

I do not necessarily agree with the 'double standard' either, but things are as they are. We either accept them, or we capitulate. Men have to accept women's 'hypergamy' and attraction for 'confident' men all the time. They have to 'suck it up', so to speak. We also have a few things we have to 'suck up' as women. Life is not fair. To anyone.
Even good Catholic girls.

Spacetraveller said...

PVW,

"I never saw these cultures in that way; I always saw them as putting a special value on women's role in mothering, that women are the ones who impart values through socialization, and this happens from birth: "the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world."

This is true. Excuse my scepticism! A lawyer who works within the system of one such matrilineal country once explained to me that the whole premise of those laws was to do with the uncertainty surrounding paternity. But maybe he was joking and I didn't get it? It's quite possible...

But I do see where you are going with this. I agree that women on the whole are the ones who drive religious education in families because they are the ones who spend more time with the child in his younger years. This is why The Catholic Church is seemingly more upset when a catholic man marries outside of the faith than when a catholic woman does the same - unless she states that she is converting to HIS religion in which case she won't be getting married in The Church anyway, (and similarly for Jewish men as opposed to Jewish women) because they know that it is the mother who holds the key to the child's religious training, at least initially. It's a case of 'another one lost' if the mother is not of the faith.
But I think this is an odd way of looking at things. Because in a family where the father is the true 'head', it is HE who should be determining what goes on, no? At least I feel he should have a big say in this matter.
In this case, mother should be doing what has been 'agreed and approved' by father...in the interests of family unity...

I know nothing about Scientology, but quite apart from everyone's assertion that Katie Holmes is doing the right thing by leaving 'crazy' Tom Cruise, I can't help but wonder: did she not know anything about his Scientology background before she married him? What changed then?

Can she really say that she no longer wants their daughter brought up in a faith she had subscribed to earlier?
Or maybe the 'religion' thing is a cover-up for a more plausible reason for divorce...
I dunno.

Ceer said...

@ CD

Please allow me to give you another explanation of man-hatred. Imagine a boy. He's not your super jock, straight A student, or incredibly charming class clown. He's ordinary and average. His view is that all the pretty girls seem to go for the super charming or athletic guys. So he asks his elders for advice about how to get ahead. They tell him:

1) keep your nose to the grindstone
2) don't get in trouble
3) be yourself with women

So the boy thinks he's got a reasonable plan set. He does as well as he can in high school, and goes on to college. He finds a job and doesn't get into trouble. His problem now is that women find him no more attractive than he was in high school. The problem isn't him...he's been following what he was told. He was open and honest with his feelings when he asked the girls out. They just all said no. He asks his grad school advisor about his girl problems...why don't they like me? She says that he's in school to study, not chase women. Since he also wants to start a family, he's starting to feel a bit frustrated.

He eventually learns that women aren't going to give him a chance so he goes back to playing video games. At least it's something to do while not working or studying. Let him simmer for about 5 more years, and he eventually comes across an editorial written by a woman. In not so tactful language she decries the lack of good men. He reads as she describes in detail about the scummy men she's forced to sleep with because there aren't any good ones. He reads her scathing and hurtful shaming language telling him he's not good enough. That he should have done more.

Our little boy, now a man is taken aback. He tells himself:
"I graduated 3 times. "
"I kept my nose clean. "
"I approached women...a LOT. "
"I was open and honest with them."

They all rejected him by not going beyond the first stage of contact.

This is the context in which he reads those words. Not only are his success, conduct, and drive not good enough... they aren't worthy of honorable mention. The woman is unhappy about banging some other guy who left her, so she heaps her ridicule for men in print: "If only the RIGHT man would have met me, I wouldn't have had this happen to me!"

Now, please put yourself in the boy/man's shoes. Isn't this what little boys are told by just about everyone? Can you see how the jilted woman's words might be interpreted as demeaning, insulting, or goal-post moving?

As a thought exercise, this is important. Because our little boy exists out there. He's NOT the guy that yelled at you after mass. He's the guy who filed out right behind you while you were too busy being angry at that man. You didn't see him approach you because he thought better of it. Think about what you'd have said...right then... if he asked you to breakfast.

Ceer said...

@ Spacetraveller

That is not to say that I am a hopeless slave to Game techniques though. I am pretty sure that is not the case.

I certainly hope that's not the case. My working assumption is that your worldview will be similar to mine: that you believe that effort is a primary force in a person's life...that effort is informed by grace...and that we can embrace behavior other than what our body agenda would have us do, even if it's with difficulty.

My bias with game is that it should be used to alpha up the more faithful members of society. Women would also benefit from being more aware of their own psychology, hopefully making better informed decisions.


Here, I think you are using extremes to make your point. As someone who does this a lot, I don't complain of course! Rather I take your point in the spirit in which it was intended. Which is educational.
I wouldn't use the term extreme. I was actually trained by my feminist mom to do the following:
-- when a woman says no, she means for you to stop completely. she always means what she says.
-- tiptoe around a woman's emotions. you never know what compliment she will misconstrue as an insult. best to be vague.
-- women are always to be believed because they have no reason to lie.
-- what women find attractive is random acts of generosity and chivalry. gifts especially.

No joke. I was actually taught this. In being trained in it, I can tell you... the official stated tenants of feminism have NO useful information to men. Not a generalization. Not hyperbole. Personal experience.

That said, feminists themselves have been vital to the research of game...to the extent their contribution is more important than the internet as a medium of information travel. Their contribution though, comes from individual feminists being the unwitting targets of game researchers, and also providing an era of society when a straightforward man CANNOT meet a woman and get anywhere. It's simply impossible. Enter game research.

Spacetraveller said...

Ceer,

Thank you for that picture you paint for us.
This is the sort of picture we as women need to see more of. Because we won't understand what you men are on about until we see life from your viewpoint. To borrow your own phrase and throw it back at you: it takes time.

There is a femnale equivalent of this, of course.
I think the major difference beween Bellita/me and CD is that we have moved on from focusing on the female equivalent and are happy to look at the male equivalent. CD is focused on the female equivalent and is not yet ready to see things from the other side of the fence. Because her experiences are perhaps too fresh in the mind?
It is a question of time. I hope one day she will not just look over the fence but actually climb over such that she is looking back at the female side of the fence with 'male' eyes and see what you (and I, and Bell, and JV) are seeing.

I agree that what your Mom told you is not what a woman really wants deep down. If a man tiptoes around my emotions, I get hives. This is true of me personally. I don't know how many other women this applies to, but I am willing to bet 'quite a lot'. Whether they admit it or not. Those that do not admit it will say things like 'I need a strong man'. And then you know they are reacting with hives to the 'weak' man. Sometimes one has to read between the lines, I guess.
About saying 'no', that's a difficult one. I would always err on the side of caution with that one. There is such a thing as a 'non-negotiable' that all women have. Confusing, I know. But there we are...

Spacetraveller said...

CD,

"This is how your reasoning goes:

A man gets to decide what's feminine because he's the one who is attracted to the woman or not.

A woman does not get to decide what's masculine, regardless of whether or not she finds the man attractive, because women have no place telling men how to be men."

Um, not quite...
This is not really how my reasoning goes, but I can see why you have arrived at such a conclusion. Apologies are in order, to you. Clarity is not my strongest point obviously.

I start again.
THIS is how my reasoning goes:
Femininity is best taught to girls by both a woman (best if this woman is her mother) and a MAN (best if this man is her father). That way, she gets to be taught what the older woman knows, but she also gets to 'practise' on a man growing up. Father is ideal, but so is big brother or any other man who has her best interests at heart and can defend her if necessary. Women who lack this balanced ideal find life generally harder than those who have it growing up. I am sure you agree with me that this is true.
This is why I see a father's role in a woman's life as MANDATORY if she is to have a normal life. Mother is usually a given, so I don't mention her so much. It is not because I don't think she is important in her daughter's budding femininity.

All women have their own ideal of masculinity. I have mine, you have yours.
But I believe men are not taught masculinity effectively by women, feminist or not.
Did you read Ceer's comment above?
That's a good example as to why a man can be led around the garden path even by a well-intentioned mother.
He needs a MAN to teach him how to be a MAN. After his infancy, Mother's influence on him is far less important than you or I will believe. There are several men who are sons of single mothers who are suffering as adult men.
I hear them. And I know not to deprive my own sons one day of a suitable male role model in their lives (i.e. their own father).

So to summarise, you were not entirely wrong about my reasoning. But you were not 100% right either. I hope my clearing this up for you was indeed helpful.

I am not saying my reasoning is right. But it is fair to say my 'reasoning' is borne out of silent observation and study of the current social dynamics. It's not Harvard level science, but for me, it will do...

Bellita said...

@CD
Did you notice that Danny posted my email address online?

Honestly, I did not. It has been about twelve hours since my last visit to Danny's blog--and frankly, I don't visit him that often any longer. (No offense, Danny.) I tend to stick to The Sanctuary and HUS these days. If what happened had not been mentioned in this thread, I wouldn't even have known about it, much less clicked over.

Maybe I don't trust YOUR judgement, either.

Then we're even! :)

It's also a bit weird to me that neither of you have any problem with men setting the standard of femininity.

It seems that we're talking about four different things here:

a) what women find attractive in men
b) what men find admirable in other men
c) what men find attractive in women
d) what women find admirable in other women

Re: A
Well, of course a woman has every right to say what she finds attractive in a man! :) The only thing I'm adding is that she perhaps does not consider whether she herself is attractive to him. (Yes, this is a completely separate issue . . . but inasmuch as women want to be married to men they find attractive, then it has to be repeated along with this one.)

Re: B
None of women's business, although we often stand at the sidelines and comment. (I include myself, of course.)

Re: C
And of course men have the right to determine what they find attractive about women! It may also be true that they fall into the same error of assuming they are already attractive to women when they aren't. But the game changer here is that men have two options not available to women: the foreign bride and the MGTOW lifestyle. So now I'm saying that if a woman does not want a man to opt for a foreign bride or for GHOW, then she must give him some motivation to choose her.

Re: D
None of men's business, etc.

Bellita said...

@ST
We seem to be cross-posting all the time! Hahahaha!

Charming Disarray said...

ST, basically all your saying is that both boys and girls need both a mother and father. I don't need to read your blog to figure that out. And you are more than happy to except advice from men and how to be a woman, so my point still stands.

So let me ask you and Bellita something: would you date a man who said he was Catholic, but who also declared that he was going to have his fun and do what he wants until he meets the right girl? (Obviously, this implies that he's sleeping around.)

Ceer, there are plenty of nice religious girls who are quiet and get overlooked, even though they've been told their whole lives that if they're "wife material" some man will choose them over the floozy. Everyone has to figure out for themselves how to attract the opposite sex. And are you sure you haven't overlooked some of these quiet girls at your church? They're everywhere. Many you were the one looking at the prettiest girl in the room and expecting her to fall at your feet and declare her undying love for you.

Also, I'm talking about girls who don't "bang" guys, so you're off topic.

ST, I will not refrain from using words that describe what I see as seriously abusive behavior. My point about wife beating was that men who engage in that behavior will find any way they can to claim the women provoked them. It's the same impulse, different scenario. Danny lashed out, lost his temper, did something he shouldn't have done, and then backtracked by putting the blame on me. I didn't make him post my email, although he claimed that I drove him to it. The fact that you zeroed in on that comment, and haven't even addressed the way that Danny has lashed out at me and revealed private information about me, shows me that you have a very heavy bias and you're looking for something to make me look like the bad guy about. There are women who do this in domestic violence situations as well, and it's very ugly and insidious. (But always sugar-coated.)

And again...all I did was write a post pointing out that nice girls don't date men with no self control. If this is true, why shouldn't I point it out? If it's not true, why can't you or anyone else make a counterargument? Have I said something incorrect? Because none of the nice girls I know would date men with Danny's attitude, and I think it's worth pointing it out. It's certainly not a crime to point it out.

Bellita said...

@CD
So let me ask you and Bellita something: would you date a man who said he was Catholic, but who also declared that he was going to have his fun and do what he wants until he meets the right girl? (Obviously, this implies that he's sleeping around.)

It's kind of funny that you added that he was "obviously" sleeping around, because it wasn't obvious to me in your original question.

But a direct question deserves a direct answer, so . . .

Yes, CD. Yes, I would date a man who was Catholic and who said he would have his fun until he met the right girl, if he was also attractive to me.

I think that hits very close to what you're getting at. These men are not attractive to you. And that's totally fine! I'm not telling you to find them attractive. We all have our non-negotiable turn-offs, and believe it or not, I respect yours. All I'm saying at this point is that what you have described is not a non-negotiable for me. Perhaps if I met the man in question and found other things about him I couldn't live with, then I wouldn't date him.

If it makes you feel any better, though . . . If you had asked, "Would you date a man who had donated sperm to a fertility clinic?" . . . Then I would have said HELL TO THE NO!

Ceer said...

@ CD

And are you sure you haven't overlooked some of these quiet girls at your church?

That's an excellent question. The answer goes to the heart of a major problem concerning what a man can actually do. In short: in any particular social circle, a man gets only a set number of approaches before he becomes "that guy" who people think will approach anyone. Sure, some of that can be mitigated by using indirect indication of interest...but at some point the guy HAS to lay it on the line. What's worse...the girl may reasonably take such indicators of interest as pedestalization or just being a regular nice person.

What's worse is church is precisely the sort of insular culture that breeds rumor mongering...enabling unfair female competition and meddling from outside sources. To men, the disadvantage in that situation is clear.

In that sort of climate, when a man is willing to make the first step, the onus then goes onto the woman to recognize and reciprocate.

@ Spacetraveller

This point ties towards something you've asked about before.

The idea of neutral matchmakers gives the couple plausible deniability and does NOT increase this limited approach number.

Consider these scenarios:

1) A man comes to church. He asks out 10 women fully directly, each one in turn. Each one turns him down.

2) A man comes to church. He asks out one woman. Jim grabs him by the shoulder and steers him to the two women in the corner, introducing them. Janet sees him and introduces him to her daughter. Said daughter's 3 friends come over and strike up a conversation. One of those friends takes him by the hand and introduces her to her cousin, who introduces him to her mom, who introduces him to her friend and her two step daughters. He then left for home without a date since none of the eligible girls gave him an IOI.

Which guy looks better?

In both cases, the man was attracted to 10 women. He talked to 10 women he was attracted to only to get shot down 10 times.

The difference is not lost on men.

@ CD again

THIS principle is why I'm absolutely sure there's AT LEAST one woman who would have agreed to date me at SOME point that I didn't catch. The corollary is the reason for that.

Ceer said...

@CD

You seem to be hung up on declaring some sort of double standard.

I see the situation like this:

Men get to set the rules by which women play. They are accountable for the rules they set.
Women get to set the rules by which men play. They are accountable for the rules they set.

I think we can all agree that if a man sets the rules by screwing everything that walks, (preference to the pretty ones is inferred) this will have the effect of saying "personality doesn't matter, long term suitability doesn't matter". It would also be amazingly shallow.

The counter to this is...don't play by the rules set out by that subset of men. Either find one that doesn't or don't play.

There is a parallel that the men are experiencing. It goes something like this:
Woman says the SMP rules state she gets to screw alphas for the first 20 years of her sexually active life, never give a second thought to training for marriage, put my career ahead of alphas, alphas ahead of the future husband. After all that, try to find a man to settle down with, preferably an alpha. Ok, Mr. Guy-without-charisma, now that I'm 38 and unmarried, I'll give you a shot.

Women are taught this is the way of things from a young age... that there is nothing wrong with it. So many, many women set that as the default. The problem is, not only is this shallow...it's biased against the very men women say they want to settle down with.

The men crying foul about this aren't impinging upon a woman's power to set the SMP rules. That would require something like actual forcible rape or reducing women to legal slaves. What they're actually doing is the second part...holding women accountable for the rules they set.

I myself have postulated that there is a second rules set that women will tend to use. They sit at home or at work. They don't initiate with any man to protect their "chastity". They don't carry themselves in any sort of open manner. They don't bother to speak in a feminine way with the boys they find attractive. They don't go out to places where cold approach is clearly acceptable.

In otherwords, the rules are: "I'm hidden somewhere. You have to be psychic to find me because the normal cues of looks, attitude, ioi's, and location are COMPLETELY USELESS! Good luck. *wink* "

@ Spacetraveller

btw, is this too snarky?

Anonymous said...

ST:

Tom Cruise, I can't help but wonder: did she not know anything about his Scientology background before she married him? What changed then?

Can she really say that she no longer wants their daughter brought up in a faith she had subscribed to earlier?
Or maybe the 'religion' thing is a cover-up for a more plausible reason for divorce...
I dunno.

PVW:

Who knows, the religion thing could be a proxy for something else, but if it isn't, and her claim is legitimate, I'm with you, what changed?

But I can guess at what changed. She probably began without a firm commitment to the faith she was raised in, Roman Catholic, and was at a stage where she began dating him and didn't think about the implications of what his faith would mean, or if she did, she figured "well at least the children will have a faith tradition."

As far as I can tell, she was introduced to the tradition through him, and not on her own, which makes a big difference.

Eager to "commit and submit," she "went along to get along," (excuse the cliches) and converted.

In addition, he is much older and was more established, which could have very well pushed her towards taking that stance.

Women who believe in submission to men (ie., and who don't see submission as a mutual thing between husbands and wives) better be very careful of what they are submitting to.

A woman with her own faith tradition should be considering, as you have, and I did as well, what faith traditions we can live with in a husband. For both of us, Roman Catholicism is where it began.

You will remain within Catholicism, but I was more flexible liturgically and theologically, so that I could date (and marry) a man within a certain range of Christian faith.

So perhaps she didn't think carefully and discern on her own behalf; she might have just discerned insofar as what she can offer him, ie., marriage and joining his tradition, but not thinking about what she really needs. From what I have read, she has returned to Catholicism.

Spacetraveller said...

CD,

Yes I accept advice from men on how to be a woman because their advice is remarkably useful. Not to discount advice from women, which I still need.
I don't quite understand how this dynamic works, which is that men have a great way of teaching women about what men want, whereas women are virtually useless at doing the same for young men. This is no criticism of women. Perhaps it is just a function of feminism, i.e. only in the last 50 years or so that this has happened like this. I don't know.

"So let me ask you and Bellita something: would you date a man who said he was Catholic, but who also declared that he was going to have his fun and do what he wants until he meets the right girl? (Obviously, this implies that he's sleeping around.)"

Yes. Not that I have ever had a man tell me he was 'going to sleep with many women and then come right back to me.' It's an absurd scenario, but if you don't mind me saying, it's an absurd discussion we are having here.

It's not that I don't have 'standards' for my future husband, CD. It's that I choose my battles very carefully. A man is different from me. He may well see the benefit of staying monogamous now, when he is older/more mature. But his past is simply not of great importance to me or to society in general. It's a niche view that you have. And it's one that I would share with you if I thought it was a viable one. But the point is, I won't indulge in the shaming of a man who is subject to a much higher libido than me. If one day I decide to do the experiment and self-inject with as much testosterone as Danny, then, just maybe, I might congratulate myself if I still manage to control myself better than him. Until then, I am afraid it's a case of 'no comment'.
This does not make me a 'Danny flatterer'.
I am simply refusing to judge him in a 100m race where I am starting at 30m from the finish line and he is at the start line.
Similarly, I am sure Danny won't judge me for not being able to lift my own body weight in iron, or not being able to stomach the idea of entering a combat zone.
Different genders, different standards.
I think it is fair to say that some people who read your latest post (male and female) felt that your self-congratulatory manner on something that should be routine among women anyway just smacks of the 'holier than thou' attitude they have come to recognise and loathe in today's (Christian) women.
I support your decisions. You know I do. I spend hours saying women should be as close to virginal as possible, and take hits from Metak who remains unimpressed with me on this score :-)
But when you start using this as a stick with which to beat down (figuratively speaking!) a man whose biology is different from yours, somehow I start to feel something's not quite right...
We are all called to be moral beings, yes. But some of us have more of an advantage than others when it comes to certain aspects of morality. Don't sit on your high horse and judge someone who is labouring harder than you to achieve what comes easier to you. That's landing one 'below the belt' if you don't mind me being frank.
To throw back your own words at you: Not cool.
If you are going to 'shame' men for not being chaste enough, make sure the conditions of play are equal for you and them. Otherwise your comments are simply laughable.
Hence the reaction you are getting.
I hope I have cleared things up for you a little bit.

"And again...all I did was write a post pointing out that nice girls don't date men with no self control. If this is true, why shouldn't I point it out?"

No self-control...
See above.

Why you shouldn't point it out...
See above.

Bellita said...

@ST
Not that I have ever had a man tell me he was 'going to sleep with many women and then come right back to me.' It's an absurd scenario

Wait a minute. Is that scenario what CD "obviously" meant?

Anonymous said...

This is CD posting from my phone.

If you and Bellita want to date men who have lower standards for themselves than women, you will find that they expect sex before marriage. I hope you're prepared to deal with that. Also, in my post I specifically called out for praise men with high standards for themselves in ths regard. You ignored that. I also stated simply that the women I know quite simply aren't interested in men with attitudes like Danny's. This must be true because there are a lot of complaints in the Manosphere about how good women won't give them the time of day. Saying that these women should lower standards won't cut it because for one thing, it's pointless to demand it, and secondly, there is biological reason why good women are turned off by men like this.

Ceer, there can be a case made that religious girls should put themselves out there more. I do see the need for that. But keep in mind that many women have experienced pressure to have sex from nonreligious men and sulleness and anger from religious ones. Food for thought.

But really, if you think women give horrible advice, why are you having this conversation with a bunch of women and expecting us to fix the problem?

And ST, women struggle just as much to remain pure precisely because we are more emotional and want to feel loved. Our struggle is not as physical as a man's but it is much more painful. The playing field is even, just in different ways. Until you acknowledge that, you will continue to be confused.

Anonymous said...

No bellita. You can see the attitude I'm talking about by reading the quote from danny at the top of my post. Surely you didn't miss that? There's no mystery about it. Again, the mind games get old.

I'm starting to wonder if either of you have dated much? This attitude is everywhere.

Anonymous said...

Aaaaand another thing. St, you seem to be under the impression that I'm demanding something or telling men how to act. I'm not. I'm just relating facts. the good religious girls I know in real life prefer not to date immoral men. If I honey-coated reality and pretending that wasn't true, would it be any less true? You can make whatever attacks on my personality as you wish, but nothing will change the fact that my sister and my unmarried friends would not date a man unless they were sure he took Catholic rules of chastity seriously. My married friends turned down many men who did not fit that description before they met their husbands. And men like danny complain that good girls are hard to find, so obviously I can't be far from the truth, can I?

And we love the truth, even if it hurts, instead of pretty lies. As Paloma Faith would say, do you want the truth or something beautiful?

Bellita said...

@CD
Also, in my post I specifically called out for praise men with high standards for themselves in ths regard.

What does your post have to do with anything? I've made it very clear that I am reacting to a writer named "Lucy Simmonds", specifically to her charge that men who are already meeting your standards are not meeting hers. Unless you are "Lucy Simmonds", please stop making this about you.

To be honest, I haven't even read your post, which is why I haven't weighed in on your business with Danny. (Heck, I've barely read his post.)

So now I have to ask . . . Do you have the impression that this post was a direct response to yours? If so, then I hasten to assure you that I composed the first draft two weeks ago. (I can't speak about ST's introduction and other little touches.) That our posts came out at the same time was a complete coincidence. By imagining things that are not there, you're playing mind games with yourself.

So now that you know that our posts have nothing to do with each other, perhaps you can stop trying to force them together and actually address the point I make here, which is that women have to blink first.

And because you seem to define this "blinking" as having premarital sex, let me clarify that I am going with the partial definition offered by "Jeff in Sacramento": I simply mean being charming.

Bellita said...

@CD
Saying that these women should lower standards won't cut it because for one thing, it's pointless to demand it, and secondly, there is biological reason why good women are turned off by men like this.

Now this gives me something to work with!

I've actually given up on the lowered standards meme. I think that women can trim down their wish lists to some extent, but I would never recommend that a woman grit her teeth and commit to a man she can't bring herself to find attractive. You might even say I agree with you that asking women to lower standards is pointless! ;)

But the problem, as I see it, is that more and more men are perceived as unattractive, which is very bad news for women who would like to be married. And I also see other people thinking that the solution is to tell the men to "Man Up!"--that is, to make themselves more attractive so that women will want to marry them.

But now we're getting an answer from the men, to the effect of: "Why should we try to attract these women when they are also not attractive to us?"

Add the game changers of men being able to attract foreign brides and/or be perfectly happy with an MGTOW lifestyle, and "local" women have only one choice. If we want these men to care about attracting us, then we have to work doubly harder at being attractive to them.

That's all I'm saying.

It's not about you and it's not about Danny. I wrote my post before you wrote yours and he wrote his, so please don't make this about your drama.

Ceer said...

@ Spacetraveller

...men have a great way of teaching women about what men want, whereas women are virtually useless at doing the same for young men. This is no criticism of women. Perhaps it is just a function of feminism, i.e. only in the last 50 years or so that this has happened like this. I don't know.

This may be the case for some female advise givers, but I think the reason for the near universality of female uselessness in this respect has to do with the fact that women are not required to reflect deeply about what they find attractive. Typically, when a woman encounters this question, she thinks of it in terms of "now that I'm attracted to a man, how can he make me happy?" The man's problem is more along the lines of "how can I spark attraction so that a woman will notice me?" A completely different question. Due to the fact that a well-meaning woman will give completely the wrong advice to a young man, I'm inclined to think women just aren't wired in the proper way to come up with an adequate response by themselves.

Most women who practice game today rely on male teachers.


@ Anonymous

But really, if you think women give horrible advice, why are you having this conversation with a bunch of women and expecting us to fix the problem?

Because the maintenance of any marriage market requires the cooperation of both sexes. With regard to the topic at hand, women need to know how to set up their rules set so the right men win and the wrong men loose. I'll take it a step further. Women DEFINE who the right and wrong men are by HOW they set up the rules.

I don't expect to see any personal return from my efforts here. My expectation is that with increased awareness, the next generation will not suffer like the current one has.

...there can be a case made that religious girls should put themselves out there more. I do see the need for that. But keep in mind that many women have experienced pressure to have sex from nonreligious men and sulleness and anger from religious ones.

Not only can the case be made, I personally find it persuasive. Some men disagree about this because it turns them off.

I don't doubt that faithful women face that pressure...it's just like faithful men face the pressure of having half naked women cavort in front of them...sometimes even in church.

I've long since learned that any negativity of any sort (no matter how justified) during the period before a woman is completely attached to you...results in immediate, unconditional dismissal. This also applies to female friends. Complete emotional mastery is a prerequisite to any contact.

...women struggle just as much to remain pure precisely because we are more emotional and want to feel loved. Our struggle is not as physical as a man's but it is much more painful.

That sounds testable. Let's see you say that after a hundred cold daygame approaches.

Bellita said...

@CD
The playing field is even, just in different ways.

???

I'll let ST tackle that one. :P

nothing will change the fact that my sister and my unmarried friends would not date a man unless they were sure he took Catholic rules of chastity seriously.

No one is trying to change this fact. But at the risk of making you even angrier, I wonder whether you and these other worthy ladies believe that chastity is all you have to bring to the table. I do respect the high standards you have for your future mates and the high standards you hold yourselves to, but are you also aware of what men happen to want? To use an extreme example, a completely chaste woman who is morbidly obese isn't going to impress a potential suitor. I'm not saying that you, your sister and your friends are like this. I'm just wondering if you know what men are looking for in a wife.

And just in case you want to make this about sex again, I "obviously" don't mean premarital sex. I'm sure "Jeff in California" would never pressure a woman into premarital sex. All he's really looking for is some charm.

Ceer said...

@ Bellita

The term "man up" is typically used towards men as shaming language to get them to do something for the user's best interest. Over the course of reading many uses, it typically means "put your livelihood in danger", "be a tool", "I'm thinking of you last", or some combination thereof.

It's a term that IMMEDIATELY pings my BS detector, causing me to disregard anything this person says.

I've actually given up on the lowered standards meme. I think that women can trim down their wish lists to some extent, but I would never recommend that a woman grit her teeth and commit to a man she can't bring herself to find attractive. You might even say I agree with you that asking women to lower standards is pointless! ;)

This goes to the heart of the alpha/beta divide. Women who seek relationships have two sets of criteria. Alpha for entering the relationship, beta for keeping it. Based on your theory school, these two sets are either mutually defeating, or orthogonal. It's a question of values, what a woman can expect to attract with her beauty, and how fast a woman will stick to her principles given alpha tingles.

Spacetraveller said...

CD,

"If you and Bellita want to date men who have lower standards for themselves than women..."

Oh dear Lord.
She hasn't heard a word I said...

"...you will find that they expect sex before marriage."

CD, pull up a chair, sit down, get comfy.
I have news for you.
Every man expects sex before marriage. Even Catholic ones.
Dear Sister in Christ, I see your problem.
Somehow, you think that because you are a 'good Catholic girl', you deserve a man who is not going to 'stress' you by demanding sex from you before he commits.
If so, I feel your pain. That is every woman's story, CD. I know it is hard sometimes. I do.

But know that you are not the only one going through that. Lashing out at men who you see as the 'aggressors' is not going to help you any. In fact it might increase your pain.

"Also, in my post I specifically called out for praise men with high standards for themselves in ths regard. You ignored that."

If you are going to nit-pick, I shall follow your lead.
This is a rather giant leap of the imagination, CD. Just because I won't judge a man who is 'immoral' by YOUR standards, I have no praise for one who does? Do you honestly believe that?
Once again let me say it loud and clear: I shall judge both types of men on what a man should be judged on. His 'number' per se is not the big issue. Why are you so fixated on this, if I may ask?

"This must be true because there are a lot of complaints in the Manosphere about how good women won't give them the time of day."

You really must not quote The Manosphere if you have not bothered to understand their point of view.
Men of all calibres are complaining that good women won't give them the time of day. Even the ones who are still virgins. Their 'number' does not somehow seem to be the deciding factor. Do you see where I am going with this?

"Saying that these women should lower standards won't cut it because for one thing, it's pointless to demand it, and secondly, there is biological reason why good women are turned off by men like this."

Actually, I am asking you to show a little humility, CD. Your post seemed unusually pompous. And your attitude here and at Danny's blog seems to back up that initial impression. A little humility might go a long way.

"But keep in mind that many women have experienced pressure to have sex from nonreligious men and sulleness and anger from religious ones."

So there it is in a nutshell. There is a 'problem' with everybody! The religious ones, the non-religious ones. That's everybody, no? Is there anyone else left, CD?

"But really, if you think women give horrible advice, why are you having this conversation with a bunch of women and expecting us to fix the problem?"

Um, as far as I was aware, my comments are addressed to both men and women wherever I post, be it this blog, Danny's, TPM, HUS...
It is true that I feel women can help improve things for themselves by doing something different from what they have been doing previously. I guess this is what Bellita means by 'blinking first'. I find it a good policy, so I shall follow it. I do wish you would properly read my comments before you respond to them. I said women give unhelpful or downright useless advice to young men. Did you forget I was a woman? Another woman's advice to me vis à vis femininity is welcome. Particularly if it is a wise woman like Bellita.

Spacetraveller said...

"And ST, women struggle just as much to remain pure precisely because we are more emotional and want to feel loved."

You are addressing this to another woman. Interesting. You think I don't know all this?
I sense this is the crux of the problem, CD. Fear not, you won't be judged for finding it hard. Everyone has been there, even good Catholic girls. No need to make Danny pay for your pain. He has his own problems.

"Until you acknowledge that, you will continue to be confused."

The sources of my confusion are varied. One of them is you in fact. I don't get it. I had a different view of 'nice Catholic girl'. And now I will never argue with any man who says to me 'you know, the Catholic girls are the worst..." I have seen the evidence.

"I'm starting to wonder if either of you have dated much?"

I can't and won't speak for Bellita. I am on the 78th floor of a convent on the highest mountain in Switzerland. I have no contact with men. Does this make me 'good Catholic girl' enough for you?

"If I honey-coated reality and pretending that wasn't true, would it be any less true?"

Reality? Or just your version of it?

"You can make whatever attacks on my personality as you wish..."

Personality attacks? Where?

"As Paloma Faith would say, do you want the truth or something beautiful?"

The truth is beautiful, CD.

Grasshopper said...

@JV…”…If she suddenly had a shot of testosterone at 20 times the amount normally found in her system, perhaps she might have a greater appreciation for such restraint…”

@ST… “…I won't indulge in the shaming of a man who is subject to a much higher libido than me…”


Ladies … Thank you. These comments are highly commendable and really significant to me as a man.

I have expressed similar sentiments at times over the years to women and usually get silence in return. I really think most women don’t understand their bias in this area.

Cleary this is not the case anymore. Until this thread I have never heard a women express a clear understanding of a man’s point of view on this subject.

What a brave new world we live in.

Grasshopper

Anonymous said...

Grasshopper re:

@JV…”…If she suddenly had a shot of testosterone at 20 times the amount normally found in her system, perhaps she might have a greater appreciation for such restraint…”

Ladies … Thank you. These comments are highly commendable and really significant to me as a man.

PVW:

Which is why I could appreciate the husband's restraint and self-imposed celibacy; it said a lot about his maturity as a man and his potential for a long term committed (and faithful) relationship.

Spacetraveller said...

@ Bellita,

"All he's really looking for is some charm."

Yes. And that's the one thing Jeff will not get from Charming Disarray.
Her hard-earned chastity is enough.

And she would be surprised if Jeff didn't find that enticing enough.

Honestly, CD, you are fast becoming your own worst enemy.
This forum is designed to help us all get what we want out of the SMP. You are sabotaging yourself beacuse you refuse to hear what everyone is saying to you. And it is so sad, I can't tell you!

Ceer,

"In otherwords, the rules are: "I'm hidden somewhere. You have to be psychic to find me because the normal cues of looks, attitude, ioi's, and location are COMPLETELY USELESS! Good luck. *wink* "

Couldn't have said it better!
You DO know these women rather well, don't you?
:-)

"...but I think the reason for the near universality of female uselessness in this respect has to do with the fact that women are not required to reflect deeply about what they find attractive."

Much as I hate to admit this, I find it is true. But perhaps there is a good reason for this. Men are the ones doing the pursuing in most cases. They are the ones who really need to think about the strategy involved...
Pre-Manosphere, I had no real need to understand any of this...or so I thought.

"Women DEFINE who the right and wrong men are by HOW they set up the rules."

In other words, as women go, so goes society.

"That sounds testable. Let's see you say that after a hundred cold daygame approaches."

Ceer, I was just about to say, 'You should not be requiring CD to make daygame approaches, mate!' Until I remembered that she would happily challenge you to a chastity contest that she will of course win, unless you have undergone an orchidectomy.

So now I say 'go ahead Mister'. Let's see how CD will fare on a single day of 'daygame approaches'. Perhaps she will learn what men have to go through and will take herself down from her high horse.

@ PVW,

Your comment at 17 July 7.39AM rings true to me. One needs to be well grounded before getting into a marriage...Hard to do though, because people naturally change as they get older, as do their priorities...

Bellita,

"Wait a minute. Is that scenario what CD "obviously" meant?"

Who knows, Bell? Who knows...? I took a wild guess given that I was given no alternative setting to play with.

"And we love the truth, even if it hurts, instead of pretty lies."

See? This is evidence that CD actually reads more of The Manosphere than she lets on. 'Pretty lies'? Where have I seen this expression before?

Bellita,

"The playing field is even, just in different ways.

???

I'll let ST tackle that one. :P "


My reply:

"......"

(Oh I do so miss Dogsquat!)


Grasshopper,

You are welcome Sir.
The very fact that you as a man feel the need to thank women for saying this (something we should know!) is testament to the deep lack of knowledge about the opposite gender that clearly exists today. We are fed only half-truths and 'pretty lies'. Well, at least The Manosphere is all about the 'whole truth'. But as you can see, some of us (mentioning no names) don't think much of The Manosphere...

Spacetraveller said...

@ PVW,

"Which is why I could appreciate the husband's restraint and self-imposed celibacy..."

Tell me, did you ram the idea of celibacy down his throat, ever?
I would guess you simply imposed your own standards and he had his, and you both found you were compatible. I bet you didn't 'lay down the law' in a haughty, charmless way turning him off you. I bet if you had read him the Riots Act as CD does in her post about Danny, Mr. PVW would have run for the hills no matter how chaste and beautiful you were. You didn't go into this relationship EXPECTING and DEMANDING past celibacy on his part, even though it was something you expected of yourself. I am willing to bet my last Swiss franc on this...

I don't think we should be asking anymore, 'Where did all the good men go?'
Instead, we should be asking, 'Where did our charm, grace and gentleness go?'

Charming Disarray said...

"Every man expects sex before marriage. Even Catholic ones."

Then why do I know men who were not only willing to wait, but who also, in the case of my husband's friend, have pretty harsh words for men who pressure Catholic girls to have sex with them? It's obvious that you're experience is a bit limited, and I'm sorry for that.


"I know it is hard sometimes. I do."

Are you seriously accusing me of being pompous after writing drivel like this?

"Just because I won't judge a man who is 'immoral' by YOUR standards, I have no praise for one who does?"

According to you, the kind of men I've described, who I know in real life, don't exist.

"His 'number' per se is not the big issue. Why are you so fixated on this, if I may ask?"

I have stated about three times now that this is not about virginity. In case it isn't clear, it's also not about whether or not a man has ever had sex outside of marriage. Oh wait, that's the same thing.

I don't know how else to make this clear to you. I'm sorry. I'm trying. But I never once used the word "number."

"You really must not quote The Manosphere if you have not bothered to understand their point of view."

Musn't I? I'm going off things I have read, and directly off Danny's blog. Surely he doesn't mean something completely different from what he said? You can look at the quotes on my blog if you want. I didn't alter them.

"Men of all calibres are complaining that good women won't give them the time of day. Even the ones who are still virgins."

And there are women who are virgins who also complain that Catholic men won't give them the time of day. Would sleeping around help them in this respect?


" "Saying that these women should lower standards won't cut it because for one thing, it's pointless to demand it, and secondly, there is biological reason why good women are turned off by men like this."

Actually, I am asking you to show a little humility, CD. Your post seemed unusually pompous. And your attitude here and at Danny's blog seems to back up that initial impression. A little humility might go a long way."

What was pompous about what I said? If I say, for example, that my sister has refused to date men that she has a pretty good idea are interested only in immoral relationships, and that she's finds their attitude annoying and a turn-off, in what way does that show that I lack humility? It's just a simply statement of fact. You're stretching things pretty far here.

Or is what you mean by humility agreeing with whatever you or Bellita says?

Charming Disarray said...

"So there it is in a nutshell. There is a 'problem' with everybody! The religious ones, the non-religious ones. That's everybody, no? Is there anyone else left, CD?"

Yes, the good men who are committed to living a moral life and waiting for marriage, who I am now mentioning for the third time, and whom you continue to disregard.

"Um, as far as I was aware, my comments are addressed to both men and women wherever I post"

So are mine, and yet I'm repeatedly getting accused by you of lecturing men. You also told me that I shouldn't have written what I did because it's useless for me to tell men what to do, even though, again, my post was aimed at both men and women.

"I do wish you would properly read my comments before you respond to them."

Ha ha ha.

"I said women give unhelpful or downright useless advice to young men. Did you forget I was a woman?"

Did you forget that you just said that your writing is directed at both men and women.?


"Another woman's advice to me vis à vis femininity is welcome."

Okay, then, here we go. It's unfeminine for a woman to pander to immoral men, not the least of which reason is because it sends a message to the good men that all their efforts are useless. By your actions here, you are encouraging men to be immoral. What motivation does a man have to fight against his temptations if all it will get if for him to be ignored by good Catholic women who prefer the company of the bad boys and who make excuses for them? A real feminine woman upholds virtue. Femininity that is not founded on virtue, but instead on lies and manipulation, is damaging both to the woman herself and to society as a whole.

Charming Disarray said...

"Tell me, did you ram the idea of celibacy down his throat, ever?
I would guess you simply imposed your own standards and he had his, and you both found you were compatible. I bet you didn't 'lay down the law' in a haughty, charmless way turning him off you. I bet if you had read him the Riots Act as CD does in her post about Danny, Mr. PVW would have run for the hills no matter how chaste and beautiful you were. You didn't go into this relationship EXPECTING and DEMANDING past celibacy on his part, even though it was something you expected of yourself. I am willing to bet my last Swiss franc on this..."

I wasn't demanding anything of Danny. I was explaining to him why good girls won't date him.

I agree that it's important to find someone who shares your values and walk away from the others.

Heck, that was my entire thesis!

Amazing.

Anonymous said...

ST:

Tell me, did you ram the idea of celibacy down his throat, ever?
I would guess you simply imposed your own standards and he had his, and you both found you were compatible. I bet you didn't 'lay down the law' in a haughty, charmless way turning him off you.

PVW:

I remember quiet conversations, but not an inquisition, asking questions, listening carefully for the answers and not expressing an opinion, positive or negative, ie., when were you last in a relationship, what in your view led to the break-up, etc., etc.. But I did come to an assessment of what I was hearing, I just didn't tell him about it, and didn't tell him that his answers contributed to my continuing interest in seeing him. I just continued to go out with him, listening, discerning and responding in light of what I learned. I learned his personality and how to negotiate a relationship with him in light of all that.

Charming Disarray said...

"I have no contact with men"

Suddenly it all makes perfect sense. This is all theoretical to you. You actually, in fact, have no clue what it's like in the real world.

Also amazing.

So in THEORY you would date a man who does not necessarily have the same moral standards as you.

Whereas I, in actual fact, have dated men who have not had the same moral standards as I have, and have found out that it does not lead toward marriage. If you want to know why, read the part of my post about men who can't, all of a sudden, join the Olympics just on a whim.

In fact, I just got out of a relationship with a man for this exact reason. But if it makes you happy to believe that some man will come along with his wild days behind him, who is so struck by your charm and lack of judgement toward him that he's inspired to wait for marriage, then you go right ahead and keep on daydreaming.

I'm sorry. My tone makes me a horrible person and a bad Catholic. Well, at least I am aware of what the Catholic Church teaches on sexuality, up to and including St. Paul's word towards men: "It is better to marry than to burn."

Pretty sure he didn't say, "It is better to sleep around than to burn. PS. This doesn't apply to women."

Charming Disarray said...

"The very fact that you as a man feel the need to thank women for saying this (something we should know!) is testament to the deep lack of knowledge about the opposite gender that clearly exists today. We are fed only half-truths and 'pretty lies'. Well, at least The Manosphere is all about the 'whole truth'. But as you can see, some of us (mentioning no names) don't think much of The Manosphere..."

I mentioned this exact issue on my post. I explicitly stated that good girls in particular have an appreciation for men's struggles in this area. Please stop trying to make it look like I haven't. It's dishonest of you.

Charming Disarray said...

"Who knows, Bell? Who knows...? I took a wild guess given that I was given no alternative setting to play with."

Given no alternative? Danny's quote, right at the beginning of my post. Are you serious?


""And we love the truth, even if it hurts, instead of pretty lies."

See? This is evidence that CD actually reads more of The Manosphere than she lets on. 'Pretty lies'? Where have I seen this expression before?""

I literally have no idea who you're referring to. Pretty lies is a common expression.

Charming Disarray said...

Bellita,

"No one is trying to change this fact. But at the risk of making you even angrier, I wonder whether you and these other worthy ladies believe that chastity is all you have to bring to the table. I do respect the high standards you have for your future mates and the high standards you hold yourselves to, but are you also aware of what men happen to want? To use an extreme example, a completely chaste woman who is morbidly obese isn't going to impress a potential suitor. I'm not saying that you, your sister and your friends are like this. I'm just wondering if you know what men are looking for in a wife."

Good grief, obviously a woman who brings nothing to the table except chastity is not marriage material. Is this really where we are? And almost half of my friends are married, so obviously someone thought they would make good wives.

It's an interesting question, though, because you don't ask Ceer if the male virgins who get ignored are bringing anything to the table except chastity.

Bellita said...

@CD
I mentioned this exact issue on my post

I never thought I was the kind to act up if I didn't get enough attention, but . . .

This is a thread under my guest post!!! Why isn't anyone talking about my thesis? Why is it all about CD and her post???

Cue music . . .

"Nobody knows where my Johnny has gone/ Judy left the same time . . ."

:P

Bellita said...

@CD
Good grief, obviously a woman who brings nothing to the table except chastity is not marriage material. Is this really where we are?

Yes, CD. This is where we are. And I'm not being sarcastic. Nor am I trying to turn this into an attack on you and your friends.

Let me tell you where I was one year ago. I wanted to get married and I believed I'd be good wife material. But the first time I heard the question, "What do you bring to the table [besides chastity]?" I couldn't answer it. Worse, when I named some of my traits in a mixed forum, a couple of men told me that I was off the mark. (And I cried. :P) But it was ultimately a great learning experience because it was the first time I saw things from men's point of view.

And almost half of my friends are married, so obviously someone thought they would make good wives.

That's great! I'm happy for them. For my own sake, as a woman who wants to be among their ranks, I ask, "Why did their then-boyfriends think they would make good wives?"

This is a question asked in good faith. "Jeff in Sacramento" said that he would consider a woman wife material if she fit the description in his comment. Since you don't seem to care for that description, why not share an alternative? What would the husbands of your friends say makes a woman "wife material"?

It's an interesting question, though, because you don't ask Ceer if the male virgins who get ignored are bringing anything to the table except chastity.

As I told you a few posts ago, what really matters to me is that a man is Catholic and attractive to me. ("Attractive" brings into play a lot of arbitrary likes and dislikes of mine, so I won't attempt to demystify it.) I'm asking women what they bring to the table because I'm asking myself what I bring to the table. What my future husband brings to the table is his own concern.

And believe it or not, CD, I'm actually quite prepared to die an old maid, if it so happens that I never meet a man who is both Catholic and "attractive" to me.

Spacetraveller said...

CD,

"Then why do I know men who were not only willing to wait, but who also, in the case of my husband's friend, have pretty harsh words for men who pressure Catholic girls to have sex with them?"

Did you mean 'husband's friend' or 'friend's husband'?

Must I spell everything out, CD?
Every man expects sex. Even if he does not get it, he will expect it. You seem to berate them for something which is natural. I do not advocate immorality. I simply refuse to 'preach' to a man. I shall say this one more time: Until I have his Nature, I will not denounce him for his Nature. But you, you go right ahead. See where that leads you.

"It's an interesting question, though, because you don't ask Ceer if the male virgins who get ignored are bringing anything to the table except chastity."

Hallelujah! At last we have a breakthrough!
CD, the reason Bell does not ask Ceer this question is that MEN ARE NOT JUDGED FOR THEIR SEXUAL HISTORY !!!!!

And with that, THIS tired woman bows out of this ridiculous game of 'chasing our tails'.

@ PVW:

Thank you for a beautiful description of how to be in a meaningful relationship full of mutual respect and discernment ;)


@ Bellita,

Your comment at 1.37PM is exceedingly funny.
Hahahahahahahaha!

Have you ever thought about stand-up comedy? You'd be great at it :-)

Charming Disarray said...

I'm sorry, Bellita. The conversation about my post migrated over here because Danny banned me from posting at his site and deleted all my comments, and because I guess no one who dislikes what I wrote wants to comment on my blog.

I'll keep my comments limited to your post from now on. You made the point that you would be perfectly happy dating the kinds of men who Lucy Simmonds criticizes in her article, and accuse her of being too picky.

But didn't you notice that the whole point of her post was that those men aren't dating ANYONE? Not even foreign brides? Her whole point was that those men simply aren't interested in getting married, as far as she can tell. She never said she didn't want to date them. It sounded to me like she would be happy to date them.

I've seen some of this in my circles as well. I know at least two guys in their twenties who I'm assuming aren't living unchaste lives, but who aren't preparing for their future or dating either. Neither has any stability.

To which I say, it's their life. No one has to get married. But if and when they meet the woman able to "charm" them into settling down, they won't have much to build a future on. One of them doesn't even have a car.

But if you said you would love to date these men, you would probably find that they're not interested in dating anyone. That's the complaint.

And in all fairness I also know some good Catholic girls who are less interested in getting married and settling down than in having a certain amount of freedom and fun in their twenties. There's something to be said for not getting hitched right at 22 and spending the next several decades having babies. (Lovely as they are.)

Charming Disarray said...

Well, I said I would stop, but here goes one more. Sorry, Bellita. And yes, obviously, I mean my friend's husband, not my husband's friend.

"Every man expects sex. Even if he does not get it, he will expect it. You seem to berate them for something which is natural. I do not advocate immorality. I simply refuse to 'preach' to a man. I shall say this one more time: Until I have his Nature, I will not denounce him for his Nature. But you, you go right ahead. See where that leads you."

What I mean by expect is "demand it in a relationship" not "would kind of like to have it but is prepared to do without and will not break off a relationship if he doesn't get it." You seem to think "expect" refers to the latter. It doesn't, not the way I've been using it.

And I haven't denounced anyone. I've simply stated that the women I know prefer to date men who won't pressure them for sex.

I would never have thought this would be such a controversial statement among a group of Catholics.

Nowhere, at any point, have I berated men for being tempted or for simply wanting to have sex.

Spacetraveller said...

CD,

"I know at least two guys in their twenties who I'm assuming aren't living unchaste lives, but who aren't preparing for their future or dating either. Neither has any stability."

Dear Lord. The GALL of this! YOU get to decide what's best for them? Ah bon!

I thought because you had switched to Bellita's post as opposed to yours, your thoughts might somehow magically improve. Evidence that my hamster needs to die.

"One of them doesn't even have a car."

Heaven forbid! He doesn't have a car?
He should be shot! Immediately if not before!

Have you any idea what you sound like, CD?
Do you?

"Nowhere, at any point, have I berated men for being tempted or for simply wanting to have sex."

No, you simply label them 'immoral'.

Spacetraveller said...

"But didn't you notice that the whole point of her post was that those men aren't dating ANYONE? Not even foreign brides?"

Welcome to MGTOW, honey!

And just this evening, you have managed to singlehandedly show me exactly why this movement exists.

Congratulations.

Charming Disarray said...

""Nowhere, at any point, have I berated men for being tempted or for simply wanting to have sex."

No, you simply label them 'immoral'."

No, I don't. This proves that you've understood NOTHING that I've said.

Bellita said...

@CD
But didn't you notice that the whole point of her post was that those men aren't dating ANYONE? Not even foreign brides?

Actually, I did! :) Foreign brides are only one of the two new options. The other is the MGTOW movement, which I refer to when I bring up the video game cliche. So women are facing competition not just from their foreign counterparts, but also from video games (and all that this metaphor represents). My proposed solution is that women become so "dateable" that men will be ten times more motivated to ask them out. (Whether or not it will prove successful is yet to be seen, but to paraphrase Chesterton, it has not been tried and found wanting but found too hard and not tried at all.)

But if you said you would love to date these men, you would probably find that they're not interested in dating anyone. That's the complaint.

One of my premises is that the reason some men are not interested in dating anyone is that they haven't found a woman they consider better worth their time than a good video game. (Again, that's just a metaphor.) I will concede that it's possible that these men are arrested adolescents whom women should give up on. But before women do that, I think they should try listening to what the men want in a woman and see whether they themselves are meeting those requirements.

And now you might ask, "Why should the women bend over backwards to be attractive when the men are not doing squat to be attractive in turn?" That's a fair question. And I realize that one weakness of my post is that it doesn't share a certain insight I reached in an older thread. That insight was that a woman can indeed motivate a man to be better than he is. Those men you mention who are not laying foundations for a future and don't even own a car? They don't have any incentives from women to be otherwise.

Do you remember my homeschooling post that quoted you, which attracted a commenter who said that her husband had told her before they were married that he didn't want to climb the corporate ladder, so they'd always be poor? I happened to see a comment you left on P____'s blog about that, criticizing this man for expecting his wife to do more work (namely, homeschooling) than he was willing to do. And that was a reasonable critique. But now here's the surprise . . .

The husband is now climbing the corporate ladder. He honestly didn't want to do it before, but he's happily doing it now. He said that having a wife who believed in him made him more confident and more ambitious. And he admits he never could have achieved this without the help of a good woman. This is what I mean about the kind of inspiration a woman can provide to a man. And this is what I'm encouraging women (starting with myself, of course) to do.

Bellita said...

@ST and @PVW
Re: celibacy and standards

Your conversation reminds me of one of my mother's former relationships. (This is a story I've already shared on HUS.)

When I was much younger, she dated a very traditionalist Catholic man. (Think "Jeff in Sacramento" times 100 . . . to the tenth power. ;) Hahahaha!) He never pressured her into sex and they never had any conversations about what either of them expected from marriage . . . but it was just clear to my mother what his standards were.

Later, when I asked her why she broke off the courtship, she said it was because she didn't want to give up her flamboyant fashion sense . . . or have up to fourteen children! (Hahahaha! The man was one of fourteen siblings, but I don't think he would have insisted on breaking his parents' record. :P) Note that he never explicitly said he expected these things. It was very clear from their conversations, their dates (to pilgrimage sites!), their dinners with his family, and even his conversations with a younger me (telling me I couldn't watch MTV in house!) what those standards were. And my mother realized she didn't want to live up to them.

This man ended up never getting married. But to this day he is one of my favorite "uncles" and I know he would have been a good step-father . . . and of course, a good father to any of his own children. And a great husband to a woman with a sense of humor and a talent for suffering. ;)

(Seriously, his mother once told my mother that as soon as he was old enough to walk, she started praying two daily rosaries. One for all her children and all her intentions . . . and one just for him! She laughed as she related this, but she was also dead serious!)

just visiting said...

Holy cow! This thread blew up.I just wanted to thank ST and grasshopper for their kind words waaaay back in the thread. I keep getting interupted in real life, and have not had a chance to go through the comments yet. So I'm going to do that now, lol.

Charming Disarray said...

Not having a car in California is different from not having a car in, say, Rome or London or New York. Unless you literally will go nowhere outside your house, you won't be able to get around unless you bum rides from your friends. Having a car in California is ALSO expensive, what with insurance, registration, gas + long distance, etc, so a person who bums rides off his or her friends is not only putting a burden on them but is also happy to coast along not having to pay for anything their friend is paying for.

And for the record, I judge girls in California just as harshly for not having cars, and for the exact same reason. But most of my friends seem to manage it!

I'll address the rest later. I keep forgetting I have actual things to do today.

Bellita said...

@CD
Not having a car in California is different from not having a car in, say, Rome or London or New York.

I didn't mean to make the car an issue. Thank you for the context.

But extremes aside, I do look forward to reading your thoughts on my proposed strategy for women.

just visiting said...

Femininity isn't a magic pill which can solve all ills, but I think that it can go a long way in solving quite a few. If we have generations of men who are unmotivated to marry or would rather play video games before going off to his job bagging groceries....well, we've got some work to do. Because ultimately, what you are looking at is the liberated male. and it isn't him that's complaining about his lifestyle (which is just fine by him) It's the women and society that are wondering about broken social contracts. Why he isn't "manning up".

We've talked about chastity, number counts and femininity on this blog. We aren't all that fond of feminism. Traditionalism seems to be our bent. I don't think that we're in danger of supporting slut walks anytime soon, and I think that we agree that obesity is not going to take us where we want to go. Hooking up or being baby mammas isn't our thing. I doubt that any of us would divorce frivilously. But there's a lot of that going on in the culture, and it's demotivating.

But, perhaps one of the most demotivational aspects of womanhood today, is an utter lack of charm. I'm not surprised that this is what Jeff zeroed in on. And yet, it's something that we can give all men (and women). This is tough to do sometimes, especially if we strongly disagree with something or someone, or want to make a point. But it would seem that even in our daily activities, we switch off into auto pilot.

My grandmother used to have a saying about being concsious of your actions, because you might be the only bible that someone ever reads. Perhaps we need to apply that to femininity and charm. To find our empathy so that we can see the virtues and sacrifices of men. But also because you may be the only example of femininity, grace and charm that another can hold up as a real world example. As a template. Or to inspire.

Grasshopper said...

@PVW… “…Which is why I could appreciate the husband's restraint and self-imposed celibacy…”

And I am sure he appreciated your accurate perception of his character.

I understand what you and the other ladies are saying about a man’s moral values and how this appeals to you.

The risk moral men face with this approach is that some women will see his lack of physical interest as a lack of interest period. In the worst case scenario she might actually think he is gay.

The moral man’s dilemma is that he has to show some physical interest in a woman he likes but not too much. And not too soon. He does not want to risk her thinking that is all he is interested in nor does he want her to think he is not interested in that at all.

And if the two enter into something serious and start spending a lot of time together there will be plenty of opportunities for temptation to get the better of them. It is not a scenario where the man is pressuring the woman or visa versa. There is genuine mutual affection.

I’ve been there and I know.

Grasshopper

Charming Disarray said...

Bellita,

"Since you don't seem to care for that description, why not share an alternative? What would the husbands of your friends say makes a woman "wife material"?"

That is an interesting question. I don't know my friends' husbands well enough to ask them that, but I can tell you that one of my friends often asks her husband for input when I ask her for advice about guys, and he very often is much harder on the guys than I am and has higher standards for me than I have for myself. I KNOW that's not what you're asking, but it's sort of related. I do look to this particular friend for guidance in how I should act as well, because obviously whatever she did worked. But there's another side to remember, too. Just being married isn't enough. It's what kind of marriage you want. My friend has the kind of marriage I want. The kind where she's treated with respect for who she is and not because she's altered herself to conform to some other person's definition of feminine. The kind where she is just honest with her husband and can even be headstrong and feisty, because that's how she is, and he responds neither by being rude to her nor by being wimpy and just giving in. They have lot of humor in their marriage as well. And she's just a lovely person in general. She has NO hesitation saying that good men are hard to find, and that there are a lot of duds out there, and she nevers feels the need to use tactics on them to get them to be better men.

Some of my other friends are married to the type of men I know could never be happy with, and so I have little interest in what their husbands saw as wife material.

"As I told you a few posts ago, what really matters to me is that a man is Catholic and attractive to me."

I've thought the same thing, and run into problems early on when the guy started pressuring me for sex and then dumped me. Date whoever you want, but trust me when I say this is a very black and white issue. If a guy hasn't decided to wait for marriage before he met you, he's not going to change his mind after you two start dating.

"I'm asking women what they bring to the table because I'm asking myself what I bring to the table."

Fair enough. Everybody should works towards self-improvement.

Charming Disarray said...

"He honestly didn't want to do it before, but he's happily doing it now. He said that having a wife who believed in him made him more confident and more ambitious. And he admits he never could have achieved this without the help of a good woman. This is what I mean about the kind of inspiration a woman can provide to a man. And this is what I'm encouraging women (starting with myself, of course) to do."

I'm sure there's a lot of truth to this, but I think it comes down to what you can tolerate. There are things that I may think are not ideal but would not be a deal breaker for me, but would be for other women. If it's not a deal breaker, and you marry the guy, sure, you might be able to inspire him to be better. But deliberately overlooking something that is a serious issue for you in the hopes that you can inspire the guy to change is a recipe for disaster.

"Dear Lord. The GALL of this! YOU get to decide what's best for them? Ah bon!"

What are you talking about? Didn't I say I think they can do whatever they want? These guys are both my friends. I wish no harm on them, and I think that rather than assuming that there's something wrong with ALL women, that obviously neither of them has found the woman he really wants to marry. What on earth is wrong with thinking that? I don't resent them for not wanting to be with me. Actually, one of them liked me for a while, but there was no click on my end in spite of a FORMER crush I had had on him, and I also had a pretty mild crush on the other at one point. None of it ever came to anything, but I even chatted with one of them a couple days ago. I don't know why you read so much criticism into what I wrote.

My only point was that Lucy Simmons sees men who don't seem interested in dating anyone, and so do I, so while in this case I'm not bothered because I know and like both of these guys, I can see objectively where someone like her might be coming from. It's a fact that neither of them are in a position to support a family, and both have (gasp!!) admitted it. But in the end I think people can do what they want in the absence of other obligations.

Charming Disarray said...

"I understand what you and the other ladies are saying about a man’s moral values and how this appeals to you."

Thank you very much for saying this. The level of vilification I was getting for saying that I and my friends and my sister find these values important and appealing was very shocking. It's good to hear a man react to this idea with calmness and understanding.

"The risk moral men face with this approach is that some women will see his lack of physical interest as a lack of interest period. In the worst case scenario she might actually think he is gay.

The moral man’s dilemma is that he has to show some physical interest in a woman he likes but not too much. And not too soon. He does not want to risk her thinking that is all he is interested in nor does he want her to think he is not interested in that at all."

True, and I'm sure this is tricky for the man, but if he's genuinely interested and there is chemistry, the woman will be able to tell, I think. My ex boyfriend never even came close to pressuring me, but I never thought he was gay or not interested. Certainly physical affection plays an important role in all this.

There is a lot tricky balancing both men and women have to do while dating, and it's not always easy.

Ceer said...

@ Spacetraveller

Every man expects sex. Even if he does not get it, he will expect it.

Oh boy... THIS line of thought is a major contributor to the problem. Women are acutely aware that men want sex. They don't want to be thought of as a slut. Very quickly, they put up an anti-slut defense. Here's the catch. ASD has no manual, so is typically based on a woman's own feelings...after all, she relies on her feelings in other cases. The issue with this, is that charisma will tend to disarm a woman's feeling triggers...this is the success mechanism for pua game.

I said before that the onus is on the woman to create a rules set that selects for good men. The selection mechanism is at the heart of this issue.

@ CD

It's an interesting question, though, because you don't ask Ceer if the male virgins who get ignored are bringing anything to the table except chastity.

Another attempt at conjuring a double standard straw man. Good women select for men according to alpha qualities and applied faith. Good men select for beauty and applied faith. There's a difficulty of matching men/women in the general population. My guess is that adding requirements REDUCES the selection rate. If you are an unmarried man or woman above the age of 30, chances are you've been in the market for over 10 years. That's a long time to come up empty. Any person male or female would RIGHTLY question their strategy at that point.

Funnily enough, I've never been asked the following questions in real life:
-- Are you a virgin?
-- Do you view sexuality as controlling you, or do you control your sexuality?
-- Are you willing to wait till marriage to have sex?

The answer is ALWAYS inferred from other behavior, which requires a selection mechanism. Any woman who says that ALL men respond in the stereotypical ways have a defective selection mechanism...which defaults to shutting down the relationship.

Ceer said...

@CD

True, and I'm sure this is tricky for the man, but if he's genuinely interested and there is chemistry, the woman will be able to tell, I think.

This puts a heavy reliance on alpha characteristics. As we have previously stated, there is no mechanism for most men to train to be alphas. The ones with naturally charismatic vibe have NO problem taking their pick of women. Requiring this of men while giving them no opportunity to develop the proper characteristics is entirely possible, but ask yourself...is it fair to complain about the lack of attractive, good men at the same time?

Please look back at your own experience. I'm sure good men have approached you or some of your friends in the past. Maybe you didn't find them attractive. That's fine. Let's say your friend Betty is approached by your other friend George. Betty doesn't find George attractive. During the interaction, does George receive some sort of incremental reward to make it worth one of his social group approaches (remember those?). It could be in the form of fun experience, learning about being more charismatic, an introduction to a new person?

Many intelligent men will see repeatedly failing with women without a short-term reward as no forward progress while at the same time consuming one or more resources. As a man's mating instinct lessens over time, he has to make a rational decision..."Let's tally all that I've gained from dating, and the costs. Am I making progress towards my goal of being married, or am I just spinning my wheels for no reason?"

Keep in mind that the competition offers hookups (vague catch-all term including snuggling, kissing, and various sex acts) as a short term reward. How do you compete with that?

Surprisingly well, actually, given the right strategy. I forget the link, but allow me to recite from memory... A group of men were surveyed about their choice of sexual partners. The question asked them to relate, that all things being equal, which woman would they choose?

1) Hard to get
2) Easy to get
3) Hard for me to get, but easy for others
4) Easy for me to get, but hard for others
5) Some 5th choice that I don't remember

Out of our 5 choices, from a 100% total, over 70% of the men chose choice 4. The second highest being 1. The top choice dwarfed 2 and 3 by more than an order of magnitude. The takeaway is obvious... men put a premium on their investment, but not at the cost of woman's TRUE fidelity.

My point is this... Men play by the following rules: morality is important. But return on investment is more so. They require that on average, their interactions with women be more rewarding than keeping the alternative resource. Men that don't get married early, will additionally require that they feel like by dating, they are becoming more attractive to women at a sufficient rate to find someone before they hit the wall.

Ceer said...

@ CD

I've thought the same thing, and run into problems early on when the guy started pressuring me for sex and then dumped me.

Most pua schools actually teach this as strategy. The working assumption is that if a woman will not have sex with you within 3 dates (or the equivalent amount of face time) she has already chosen to not have sex with you. Any further contact from her is her way of her way of stroking her ego by leading the man on. The dreaded LJBF comes to mind.

Spacetraveller said...

Bellita,

The story about your mother is both heartwarming and heartbreaking at the same time!

Whilst I totally agree with her decision not to be a 'reluctant bride' for a man who would not be her first choice man, I also feel bad for you that you 'lost out' on a man who you think would have been a great stepfather.

@ JV,

"But, perhaps one of the most demotivational aspects of womanhood today, is an utter lack of charm."

And this is why I think Bellita's post is so important.
I shall address this issue later. The rest of the comment where I got this excerpt of yours from, JV, is as usual, full of good sense and insight.

Grasshopper,

I take it you were addressing PVW with your last comment...

Ceer,

"Oh boy... THIS line of thought is a major contributor to the problem."

I am afraid I disagree, Ceer.
When I say a man expects sex, it does not mean that that is the ONLY thing he is looking for, or that he wants it NOW irrespective of the circumstances. Whilst there are undoubtedly men like this, the vast majority ARE reasonable human beings. A man DOES want sex (at least until a certain age). Far more often than a woman (usually). When and how and where and in what circumstances he gets it depends on whichever gatekeeper he is with. I think it is very important for women to be realistic about this need in men and act accordingly. What is not cool is:
1. To beat him about the head for wanting sex before marriage, and
2. To (needlessly and without good reason) deny him sex when he has fulfilled all the right conditions for getting it. In the Catholic couple's (and of course other couples') case it would be marriage. In other cases it might just be a LTR. In yet others, it might be a STR.
And Grasshopper's point about a man holding back is important too. Yes there is a risk that
1. The woman (who knows how biology works), might wonder if he is interested in her at all, or
2. Wonder if there is an issue such as the example Grasshopper gives, that he is gay. It may not be my conclusion necessarily (and from what CD says, it was not hers either. PVW says virtually the same thing) - I am just stating that there is a risk of this that men have to consider. Some women WILL make the assumption that a man is 'holding back' because he is moral or shy or just being decent. In the initial stages of a friendship/relationship, this would be the right attitude for her to have if she wants a chaste man. Most men will make a move at some point or other, no matter how religious he is. How a woman reacts says a lot about HER. She can choose to say, 'I like you. But I am waiting for marriage' in a NICE way. Dare I say it, in a CHARMING way. He can take it or leave it. Or she can go ahead if she wants to. It's her body, her choice.
There is however no need to lash out at him for making that move. As I said before (in the post 'Fascinating or Forward...), the 'bitch shield' NEEDS to be applied, but it does not have to be done in a 'bitchy' way.

"Easy for me, hard to get for everyone else."

Yes. I have heard about this survey too. And it makes absolute sense to me.

CD,

"My friend has the kind of marriage I want."

Your problem is this: You want something. But you are not prepared to do what it takes to get it. You want it to fall into your lap with no effort from you. For the kind of marriage you want, being chaste is not enough. More than one person has said this to you. To be married to a MAN, you have to give him what HE wants. And Jeff in Sacramento has told you: He wants charm. You can bleat on and on about being chaste till the cows come home. Without charm, Jeff (or any man) would still not buy what you are offering. Is this clear enough?

Spacetraveller said...

CD,

"If a guy hasn't decided to wait for marriage before he met you, he's not going to change his mind after you two start dating."

This is patently false. But I won't bother to explain why. Perhaps someone else can take on this burden...

In one of your comments, you claim I haven't heard anything you have said.
Having slept on it, I can see now that you are right.

I haven't heard a word.
And now I know why. EXACTLY why.

It's simple. My view of you is heavily coloured by a certain contempt for men that I perceive wherever and whenever I encounter you. Granted, this is not the same as manhate. If I were to believe it was imaginary, so many other people have made similar comments that I cannot continue to think that I am mistaken in my perception.
In real life, I (usually) have the good sense to avoid women like you, (and I alluded to this in Bill's guest post - The gourmet meal of Red Pills) because they create in me a certain 'cognitive dissonance' I know I cannot abide.
But here in 'internet land' I force myself to keep interacting with you, and finding that whatever decent argument you make, I cannot react logically to it because I bypass that and (subconsciously) react emotionally to the contempt of men that I 'smell' in your words.
There have been many 'clashes' between a man and a woman, 2 women, or 2 men on this blog. But I have never felt the need to do more than the cursory, 'What happened, people?'
Not so in your case. I ask myself why (my favourite question).
Having a basic love and respect for men is central to my being (and I am sure you have noticed this as you keep making the assertion that I treat men better than women, which is not true). The 'hourglass device' I talk about in my post about 'lovable rogues' come to mind.
I react rather badly (and catastrophically!) when I have to operate in a situation in which it is absent. So with that in mind, I hope you will see where I am coming from. And where maybe others are coming from. Just stop for one second accusing me of giving men a 'free pass' and maybe, just maybe, you might see that you are not giving them even the baseline minimum. If you think I am singling Danny out for special treatment, think again. I reacted in a similar manner when I thought you were being the same way towards TV Munson.
My internal dialogue pathognomonic of 'cognitive dissonance' when I am interacting with you goes something like this:

"But she is making a clear point about..."
Yes, but the contempt...
"But she is an intelligent woman..."
Yes, yes, but the contempt...
"But she is a 'good girl'."
Yes, yes, yes, but the contempt...
"But she is a 'good Catholic girl'."
Yes, yes, yes, yes, but the contempt...
"But she is agreeing with you that..."
Yes, yes, YES, YES, YES, but the contempt...


Do you see? Each time, I can't help but zero in on the contempt I perceive in your words. It is distracting me from whatever else you have to say.
You may not actually intend to emanate this 'contempt' I speak of.
But I am afraid, it's how you come across. It is the impression I get. Every time. And I can bet that if I, as a woman (to whom this is NOT directed) can feel this way, how much more men, to whom it IS directed?

Spacetraveller said...

I can't hear you, as long as there is this contempt as background noise in your words. Because all I can hear is the noise. You are giving me the bug, and not the feature, CD.
Lose the contempt and you will lose the 'on edge', belligerent me. And instead, you will get the reasonable, cheery, sugar-coated me.
But more importantly for you, add an 'n' to 'me' and...guaranteed, you will be better off. If marriage to a man is what you want.

'Jeff in Sacramento' was asking for too much when he asked for 'charm'. I think he should settle for 'an absence of contempt'. That's a good place to start.

Over and out.

Spacetraveller said...

"So there it is in a nutshell. There is a 'problem' with everybody! The religious ones, the non-religious ones. That's everybody, no? Is there anyone else left, CD?"

Yes, the good men who are committed to living a moral life and waiting for marriage, who I am now mentioning for the third time, and whom you continue to disregard."


Looking through the comments again, I came across this gem from you, CD.

And now, let me give it to you straight. AGAIN.

"...the good men who are committed to living a moral life and waiting for marriage..."

His name is 'Jeff in Sacramento'.
And he already told you he doesn't want you if you don't give him charm.
Is this understood now, finally?

Grasshopper said...

@ST…”…I am on the 78th floor of a convent on the highest mountain in Switzerland…”

OK this has really got me curious… why build a convent that is 78 floors or more?

I mean the Alps are already one of the highest places on the planet. I thought the whole get closer to God thing was supposed to be taken in the spiritual sense. Did I misunderstand the sermon?

LOL… I couldn’t pass this one up…
; - )

Grasshopper

Bellita said...

@CD
Thank you for answering my questions. I really do appreciate it. :)

The kind where she's treated with respect for who she is and not because she's altered herself to conform to some other person's definition of feminine.

I see what you mean. As I said earlier, I'm prepared to die an old maid if I can't find a man whom I think I could have a good marriage with. But I'd also like to address the idea of altering oneself to fit another person's definition of femininity (or for the men, another person's definition of masculinity!), because it seems to be the "red herring" in the greater debate.

"Femininity" can be such a controversial term that even I don't want to use it any longer. But it covers traits like kindness, pleasantness, optimism and charm, which I think any woman can express without having to alter herself. Since, however, it also covers attention to one's appearance and a gentleness in manner that would be considered effeminate in men but not in women, I can't quite do away with the female-specific term.

Are these really so difficult to cultivate? It may be that "Jeff in Sacramento" is completely wrong and that the women he specifically calls out are already kind, pleasant, optimistic, charming, and pretty and gentle to boot, in which case he has misdiagnosed the problem. The reason I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt is that his description of American Catholic women applies even to my non-American (and semi-observant) friends . . . and yes, even to myself, as I was a year ago. (Perhaps some might say it still applies to me now! :P)

The idea of "altering" oneself to suit someone else's ideals implies a loss of integrity. I don't think that is what I have tried to do with myself, although, of course, you are free to disagree. I would describe what I'm doing as trying to hit notes already on my natural "vocal range" that are just "higher" than what I ordinarily play. I'm the same person; I can just "sing" more complicated pieces now.

Bellita said...

@CD
If a guy hasn't decided to wait for marriage before he met you, he's not going to change his mind after you two start dating.

One reason I brought up my mother's former suitor is that I think my own standards are as freakishly obvious as his. I doubt there is a man who would ask me out after knowing me for some time and not understand that certain things are off the table. So this theoretical man you're so passionately trying to warn me away from will probably never ask me out anyway.

Having said that, this sort of celibacy is a big thing to ask of a man. Even if it is already required by his religion, it is still a huge demand for a woman to make upfront. I'm not surprised that if so many women don't have this expectation, many men also don't feel obligated to meet it.

Bellita said...

@CD
If it's not a deal breaker, and you marry the guy, sure, you might be able to inspire him to be better. But deliberately overlooking something that is a serious issue for you in the hopes that you can inspire the guy to change is a recipe for disaster.

I'm certainly not recommending we disregard our deal breakers. S____'s marriage was just a perfect real-life example of what "charm" can do. Having said that, I am with JV in pointing out that "charm" is not a magic pill that will make everything okay. But I think it's fair to say that it is the missing ingredient in the modern dating and mating world, and all I'm suggesting is that we throw it back into the mix.

My only point was that Lucy Simmons sees men who don't seem interested in dating anyone

At this point, my suggestion to Lucy would be to ask them out herself. It's not the ideal romantic scenario, but unless she wants to count on suddenly becoming "charming" and having them fall besotted at her feet, it's probably the best strategy available to her.

Bellita said...

@Ceer
Funnily enough, I've never been asked the following questions in real life:
-- Are you a virgin?
-- Do you view sexuality as controlling you, or do you control your sexuality?
-- Are you willing to wait till marriage to have sex?

The answer is ALWAYS inferred from other behavior


This is true. There were many things I have had to ask about, but the other person's view of sex often comes out loud and clear.

The working assumption is that if a woman will not have sex with you within 3 dates (or the equivalent amount of face time) she has already chosen to not have sex with you.

This refers to women who are okay with casual sex, the reasoning being that if they will sleep with other men on the third date, it's a red flag if they don't sleep with you on the third date. (By any chance, Ceer, have you read Jesus Mahoney's New York Times price discrimination analogy?) But the basic idea that a woman already knows within the time it takes to go on three dates whether or not she will ever sleep with a man (which, to some, means marry a man) is true.

Bellita said...

@ST
You can bleat on and on about being chaste till the cows come home.

Bleating and cows? Cows who are presumably mooing? This must be the funniest mixed metaphor I will read all month! Hahahaha!

Spacetraveller said...

@ Grasshopper,

"I mean the Alps are already one of the highest places on the planet. I thought the whole get closer to God thing was supposed to be taken in the spiritual sense."

LOL.

My working hypothesis when I posted that comment was that CD wanted to believe I was "not living in the real world" so she could dismiss my views easily. I figured it would make her happy to believe I was some recluse with no experience of "the real world" as she puts it. I decided to play along.
So, I shall let CD continue to believe that I live in a convent 78 floors up on a remote Swiss mountain, and this is why I am 'flattering' men. Obviously I am 'clueless' because I don't encounter men in my daily life...
Like I said before, I have met with similar 'putdowns' from women in real life too who immediately accuse me of 'naivety' when I challenge them on their views on men. It is for this reason that I stated on Bill's guest post that I am unable to engage these women in conversation. I lose them at 'hello', so to speak. They dismiss me rather quickly, and I also feel the need to flee from them, so the opportunity for discussion never arises. I need to find a way to circumnavigate this 'problem'. I am working on it, lol. Maybe I need to change my approach. I need to do something different.
(Having said all this, Grasshopper, I must say, CD IS a better quality woman than the women I encounter in real life that I describe above. CD can reverse her situation by simply changing her attitude, that's all. The other women I describe above have deeper problems. In one sense, I am being extra hard on CD precisely because I feel she is 'remediable' (in the nicest possible sense!), same as I too was, and Bell also states she was). We are all on a journey of self-improvement afterall. And we can help one another get there. Self-diagnosis is fraught with difficulties. That's why if others can see what you yourself don't see, all the better.


@ Bellita,

"I would describe what I'm doing as trying to hit notes already on my natural "vocal range" that are just "higher" than what I ordinarily play. I'm the same person; I can just "sing" more complicated pieces now."

What a great way to describe this attempt at what I would call simply 'self improvement'.
I was also 'uninformed' before I hit The Manosphere. Striving to be 'a better woman' is not the same as 'becoming someone else'. As you say, Bell, it is more a case of 'becoming a better version of oneself'.
However one defines 'better'.

Re bleating and cows, Bell, don't get me started!
You know 'word play' or 'wortspiel' is one of my 'guilty pleasures' ;)

Here's another, specially for you:
'Barking at men isn't going to solve the issue. They will simply roar back at you'.

Ceer said...

I have a personal story that is related to this current topic. Specifics will be expunged because only the general meaning is important.

Several weeks ago, I drove with my friend to a group meeting of some sort. My friend is the local leader of said group, where as I've only been in for a few months. My friend's normal "herald" is going to be absent, so he asks me to fill in. I assent, and he fills me in.

After my friend's runthrough, several hours pass. I get up to herald, and do an passable job, but ooze noobiness. As the event closes, I know I've goofed, but try not to show it. I mention it to my friend and apologize. He says not to worry about it, that it was in fact a passable job.

Then an official from another park shows up. He puts on a kind smile. Runs down everything I did right...not a very long list. At the end of it, he simply mentions that we can work on the rest. He and I didn't really have much of a relationship before this, but the subtext was clear. I messed things up. I did other things right. His strategy is to focus on what is right, then build from there. Here's the key. Even though his communication was obvious and specific, his demeanor made clear to me that his goal was mutual benefit. I laughed, told him I got the message, and promised to practice.

Everyone in this organization tends to focus on the positive. There are specific reasons for that. Young people take out their free time to keeping this group active. Regular group members can be hard to come by, much less true leaders. The other park's official saw what he valued, was able to get it across in a tactful way while delivering the full truth of the message.

As a side note, the official's focus on the positive aspects of my performance is a common way to teach effectively, it's part of his teaching strategy, rather than is demeanor.

dannyfrom504 said...

Mahal-

luff you. sers-lee.

just visiting said...

Re 78 floors and high mountaintops

And here I thought I'd found the answer to your handle, "Spacetraveller". I was going to offer to send oxygen tanks, lol.

Spacetraveller said...

@ JV,

"I was going to offer to send oxygen tanks, lol."

Hahahahahaha, JV.
Thank you. Much appreciated! ;)

Charming Disarray said...

I won't be coming back. I'm going to unlink to your blog in general and stop reading. I think one fundamental difference between us, ST, is who we look to for guidance.

In the blogging world, I look to Simcha Fischer, The Darwins, Dorothy Cummings Maclean, Betty Duffy and other conservative bloggers for insight and guidance. And yes, more of them are women because they write about things that are relevant to my life. Most Catholic male bloggers write about theological topics that are way over my head or don't interest me, but I wish there were more who had something to say about everyday life. I follow them when I find them.

You look to pick up artists and the young and naive women who find them interesting, thinking that if you select the least offensive ones, you've found a group of people with high standards that you can look up to and learn something from. This has poisoned a lot of your writing.

By the way, all of the bloggers I mentioned above that I admire are happily married, and none of them like the Manosphere. Some have written some pretty harsh words about it, in fact. I can send you some links if you like. Every last one of them in a happy marriage, remember.

So, I won't be back. Good night and good luck.

just visiting said...

There was this woman I heard about. Brought up in foster care, (though eventually going to live with her uncle)

She ended up getting involved with a rather bad ass alpha type. Real player with thug tendencies. Didn't have much choice in the matter. In that neck of the woods, his word was law. People died on his say so. They called him King, and his main lady they called Queenie. Pretty Asian girl, but things went bad after a night of partying and he called her to come over. He wanted to show her off, but she was worried about being around a bunch of rowdy drunk guys. She didn't show, so that was the end of Queenie. Alpha cred and all that.

Meanwhile, the woman I heard about was selected for rotation. A harem any alpha would be proud of. Being ambitious she wanted Queenie's spot. With the help of her swishy and stylish male friend, who had the inside info on what King found attractive, she nailed it.

Time goes by, King decides he has to do something about what he perceives as a threat to his power. A rival faction. Blood's going to be shed. Lots of it. And the woman who took Queenie's place (and who he wifed up) gets worried. Those are her people. Worse, he doesn't know.

But wifey is obsevant. And wifey has taken advice, perhaps from less than holy people on what King finds attractive. On what makes him tick. And king loves his wife.

She is able to use this influence to avoid the blood shed of her people. Knowledge used to good purpose.

Now,we can judge Wifey for learning what King would find attractive. After all, her motives were far from pure. She was a girl in a harem wanting to be number one. When she did marry, it was outside of her faith to a man who was divorced And the person who gave her advice and placed her in the best position in the harem was not exactly the holy type.

But the bible is funny that way.

Charming Disarray said...

Happily married Catholic man on the Manosphere:

http://the-american-catholic.com/2012/02/21/the-unmanly-bitterness-of-the-manosphere/

Spacetraveller said...

JV,

What a beautiful and unique way of telling us the story of Esther!

And how applicable you make it to our current situation ;)
I thoroughly enjoyed it. And learned from it. Merci infiniment!

Now, I HAVE to ask you, JV:
Which of these are YOU?
"...pick up artists and the young and naive women who find them interesting..."

I of course only listen to these two groups of people.

So which one are you, JV?
Please tell me. It's important for me to know.

Lost said...

112 comments......
CRAZY!

Keep it up!

Bellita said...

@Danny
Thank you. :) But I'm just a "young and naive" woman with "poisoned . . . writing," so what do I know? ;)

@JV
Esther's story actually put me off a little when I finally understood it as an adult.

@ST
CD's parting shot about male Catholic bloggers reminds me of the quote from my male friend that has been forgotten in the kerfuffle:

"Most men have no idea how much they're hated either."

@Lost
I'm sorry, but the show seems to be over now. Thanks for dropping by, though! ;)

dannyfrom504 said...

Mahal-

You are one of the absolute sweetest women I know. And I feel privileged to know you. I would suffer the worst pain to defend you.

just visiting said...

@Bellita

Lol, as a kid, I remember thinking that the Sunday school teacher looked rather uncomfortable in the telling of it. Reading it as an adult, you see even more details that make you wonder. Hardly a black and white morality lesson. But I think that's the point. You can't wait until all of life circumstances or even your self are perfect and holy to do good.

Violets are noticed growng in the cracks of sidewalks and rubble all the more because of the their surroundings. Bloom where you grow. Becoming a hot house orchid in this world, too precious and delicate to seek knowledge and act on it because the message is uncomfortable or the messenger not pure enough is not innocence. It's willfull ignorance. It's a form of arrogance and entitlement. And sometimes our messengers in life have dirty faces, lol.

Knowledge is power, and how power is used , for good or ill, is up to the individual. I think that most people will use sphere knowledge toword stronger relationships. Some will become corrupted by it. Knowledge and power have always had that effect on humans. It's one of the reasons people have banned the bible through out the ages.

@ ST

Am I a PUA or young and easily influenced ?

Lol.

Grasshopper said...

@ST…”… I need to find a way to circumnavigate this 'problem'. I am working on it, lol. Maybe I need to change my approach…”

Along these lines may I suggest a couple of books? They are both oldies but goodies.

One is “The Power of Positive Thinking” by Dr. Normal Vincent Peale. First published in 1952.
I have read and reread this book so often it is literally in taters and held together by tape. The principles are time tested and just as relevant and effective today as they were when first published.

Another is “How to Win Friends and Influence People” by Dale Carnegie. First published in 1936. Part 3 of the book is “How to win people to your way of thinking”

I have taken the Dale Carnegie class too and highly recommend it. Most of the class is practical applications of the principles face to face with your classmates. It costs a bit (or did) but it is well worth it.

Grasshopper

Ceer said...

@ Just Visiting

*wags finger* Shame on you for trying to increase your lot with women by using game! ;)

On a more serious note, applied learning of game can lead to an occasion of sin... which doesn't have to result in actual sin. It depends on how you use the opportunity. Definitely a necessary risk in our culture.

@ Spacetraveller and Bellita

I found CD's words to be most telling. For all her focus on requiring a man to be chaste...she let a big requirement through unemphasized. "I would never recommend that a woman grit her teeth and commit to a man she can't bring herself to find attractive." We saw this in her own actions. Attractiveness comes first. When she lowered her standards, she dated men who were attractive and less moral. No mention of men who are highly moral but less attractive.

Women define the rules by their actions. How they talk doesn't enter into it. Parsed for bunk, here's what I heard from CD in order of relevance.
1) You must display alpha mannerisms from when we first meet for about a month solid.
2) You had to have been born that way because I view alpha training as immoral.
3) You must be able to effectively communicate you have an income at or above my peer group.
4) You must be a catholic, and take the faith seriously.
5) Previous failings must be hidden effectively.

All this comes to a very exacting standard. It's the female equivalent of asking a woman to:
1) Be less than 25 and pretty.
2) You can't have worked out or worn make up.
3) Must have already proven to be good with children and LOVE them.
4) You must be catholic and take the faith seriously.
5) Have a well paying job.

How many women do you know like that?

There's also a historical side of game that I find fascinating... it goes something like this:

Women sometimes marry a less manly man so they can try to change him. Being the good beta he is, he was subject to his wife's correction...and she succeeds in instilling some alpha. Now being the alpha that he is, he starts chasing skirt. The woman decides she doesn't really like that.

It seems to me a woman who knows game has a better shot at a happy life. Particularly if her husband embraces both catholic faith and game.

Ceer said...

@ Grasshopper

Thanks for the suggestions. I may take you up on those.

Bob Wallace said...

Most women who hate men don't know they hate men. They think men deserve how they treat them because they blame their problems on them. Projection is the first defense people engage in.

Curiously, the few women who have absolutely depised me had no idea why they despised me. All of them had certain things in common: they were fat and unattractive.

Almost always, when someone puts someone else down, it's because of envy, which is a universal but underappreciated force in people.

Grasshopper said...

@Ceer… “…Thanks for the suggestions. I may take you up on those…”

You’re welcome Ceer.

As a man of faith I think you will really enjoy reading Dr. Peale.

Carnegie is more geared toward career and job but I thought the principles would be useful to ST in the situation she described. I know they were helpful to me.

Grasshopper

Spacetraveller said...

@ Grasshopper,

Thanks. I shall look up those books. There must be something I am doing wrong, clearly. My mindset is all wrong for the task at hand, so to speak.

@ Ceer,
Your first point about attractiveness is one I think Bellita has been making a lot. When Bellita replied 'Yes I shall date a man who is not chaste, IF he is attractive to me' is an answer I can identify with too. And for most women, certain displays of her own 'definition' of masculinity would do it. Irrespective of how chaste he is.

Those standards you list are pretty steep, aren't they?
You see, this is the thing. It is so easy for us women to want certain things from men. I think it's because we don't realise how impossible it is... until we hear a man say something like 'be 25 years or under'. And if you are like me, over 30, then you suddenly realise how impossible it all seems. Keep these comparisons coming, Ceer. They help put things in perspective!
(And of course we will secretly hate you for pointing out the hard facts of life...)
:-)
You can't win, Ceer!


Welcome to The Sanctuary, Bob!

"Curiously, the few women who have absolutely depised me had no idea why they despised me. All of them had certain things in common: they were fat and unattractive."

My head is spinning from working out why a woman who is NOT fat and unattractive may hate men.

The fat and unattractive women have an obvious reason to hate men, yes. It is understandable the predicament they are in. But what about the other 'haters'? Especially those who are not conscious of this?

Is this a dirty locker room to enter? We all know what happens to the curious cat. Will I die if I enter a very dirty place in a woman's soul?

Is this about the '"If Mama ain't happy, no-one else gets to be happy" syndrome?

Female happiness has steadily decreased in the last 50 years, or so I hear.
Fewer and fewer of us are getting what we want - marriage. And so we are unhappy about this, yes.

So is it possible that women are just lashing out at men (who are seen as the ones denying us said marriage) when the real problem is that we have lost the art of acquiring marriage in the way that our grandmothers did? So now we are blaming men when we should be looking at our own selves?
If this is true, then the most attractive women will be the ones to be the most hateful, because they are already playing with the best cards and still not winning the game. The fat one already knew she lost the game but she is joining in with the attrractive one in the 'hating' in the hope that no-one notices the difference between them...
But...with this theory, you would expect that the married ones would be happy enough...
But if 70% of divorces are initiated by women, (but the reasons for this may be more nuanced than I think) then clearly there are lots of unhappy, married women about too.

I am only looking at this problem from the women's side obviously, because I am a woman.
It is quite uncomfortable to 'go there'...
But somehow I really want to understand more about this. I think it is highly relevant to the current atmosphere in the SMP.

Bob, you suggest the other problem could be envy. I agree: the Apex Fallacy comes to mind.
Anyone else know of, or can suggest other theories?
No matter how painful or 'unmentionable' they might be?
Best if a plausible solution could be offered too.

The horse has already bolted. Too late to close the barn door now lol. I think with Bob's comment, Pandora's box is now well and truly open. Never to be closed again :-)

Bellita said...

@Danny
Thank you. I'm very moved by that, but you're far too kind to me.

@JV
I love your flowers analogy! "Bloom where you're planted" has been a mantra for me for some time, but I never thought of it in the way you've just described. Thank you!

By the way, the last time I had reason to think of Esther, I was reading a (non-Catholic) book called Bad Girls of the Bible (or something like that!). The author praised the first queen for not compromising her integrity just to remain part of the harem, but also praised Esther for everything she did to be Number One in the harem . . . although I'm sure the author would never have phrased it that way! It would be interesting to read that book again using a Game lens . . .

@Grasshopper
Another is “How to Win Friends and Influence People” by Dale Carnegie.

I read this one in high school! And I actually put some of the advice into practice! I was really skeptical that it would work, and was certain that the person I was trying it on would accuse me of being fake . . . but she was actually really moved that I had acknowledged her hard work on a project. (I was trying to squeeze in after the deadline, and Dr. Peale's advice was to make sure the person I was inconveniencing knew that I appreciated her efforts and knew that I was making her job harder. But when I voiced my appreciation, I may have actually made her job easier! Oh, the paradoxes . . .)

Bellita said...

@Ceer
For all her focus on requiring a man to be chaste...she let a big requirement through unemphasized.

Well spotted! One thing I thank the Manosphere for is pointing out that women tend to expect male attractiveness as if it's a given . . . when it's actually something that a man may have to work extremely hard on.

@Bob and @ST
Re: envy

I have no doubt that women don't desire "alpha" males as much as they envy them and want to be them. This man is free in a way a woman never will be. (So women who feel the most envy will try to bind one by arguing that he is not really free . . . that he will be judged by his sexual past, for instance . . . when that actually isn't the case.)

metak said...

@ST

"Anyone else know of, or can suggest other theories?
No matter how painful or 'unmentionable' they might be?"


Could one theory be that they didn't had a father and they're somehow angry?
I've noticed when I was in high school and earlier in my life that absence of father and single mother raising daughter on her own can create these manhaters. As Bob said they didn't knew that consciously.

"Best if a plausible solution could be offered too."

Get her father back so he can treat her like his princess for a day.. it works! ;-)

Spacetraveller said...

Bell,

Your take on the envy thing is spot on, I think.

It reminds me of my linking 'feminism' with 'p-envy'.
It really does make sense to me.

Having identified this problem, what's the solution, in your opinion?

For women to have their own goals and stop wishing for men's goals?
For women to become suddenly impossibly angelic, as some might put it?
For women to recognise this tendency and work to combat it?

How would you put it without offending the sensibilities of the average woman?

Bearing in mind that this is potentially a... um, delicate topic.
(I would attempt this challenge myself, but now I feel unqualified to do so until I have read the books Grasshopper recommends!)
:-)

Spacetraveller said...

Metak,

Good point.
Yes, 'father hunger' is a term I have heard which could relate to this topic of 'manhate'.

Whoa, the solution you propose might be impossible to achieve.
Dad is very often in these cases not even in the picture sometime before the child is born...

HUS is discussing thi topic right now...

Ceer said...

@ Spacetraveller

I'll put myself in a woman's shoes, and take things on from that perspective. Let's have fun with this. I'll make up a scenario with some more obvious issues. Assume faith isn't a problem, by which I mean, they either have faith requirements that are being fulfilled, or faith difference isn't an issue.

Betty and Gina are friends who live in today's society. Their moms taught them that they were strong women who could have it all. Their successful fathers give them everything they want. Betty is very pretty, and has many opportunities to hook up in college. Gina isn't so pretty, but has mostly the same number of opportunities. They both graduate and get a good jobs. Life is good. Men out in the real world approach them left and right so they can just take their pick.

They see 3 types of men:
Grungy men
Pretty Good men who are attractive
Goody two shoes men who are unattractive or weird

Getting the conventional mating advice from all over, Betty views sex as for personal fulfillment. Everyone says to her: go for the ones you're in love with. After all, marriage is about love, right? So she chooses the men she likes from among those who talk to her. She can tell almost right away, but usually gives the guy about 5 minutes with her. Why not?

After picking a few guys, a pattern emerges. She tends to choose the pretty good guys. After all, they're a nice balance of looks, attractiveness, and success. Soon though, they start turning into jerks. It's a slow process, taking anywhere from a month to a year. They change. Every single one. She's not asking for that much!

So she cries to Gina who, being a good friend, comforts her. Those men are jerks. She doesn't know why Betty goes out with them, when there are plenty of nice guys out there. The nice guys should man up...it only takes a little confidence. A little confidence goes a long way. Also, the grungy guys are just horrible. Probably diseased. The few fit guys turn into jerks...they do that just to be mean!

Gina has her own problems. She gets her advise from her eclectic social circle. They comprise of geeks, skater, sportsmen, and more. They focus on what the guy can achieve. Is he successful? Is he friendly, and does he get along well with others?

Sure, some of them have nice jobs, good cars, interesting hobbies...but there's something weird about them. The few times she actually sees someone who likes her and is attractive...HE mysteriously disappears. So she tries dating a few weirdos. Well, they annoy her. They're not intelligent like her. Sure, they have degrees in "Computer Science", "Mechanical Engineering", but they lack common sense. They don't take what she says seriously. Any time she tries to communicate tactfully, the men ignore her. Any time she communicates bluntly, they accuse HER of being a bitch.

What's worse, is that both women have other friends that have gotten married. These other girls are able to find men, but they can't. Sure, they have unmarried friends too, but they are a combination of too picky, don't have a good personality, or aren't very attractive.

Neither woman is willing to give up on men. They've got a lot of living left to do, and

Here's the challenge...assuming Betty's SMV is 8 and Gina's SMV is 6, and they are both 26. Rebuild the scenario from the male perspective (or unbiased perspective with male and female perceptions if you prefer). The challenge is collaborative.

Ceer said...

@ Spacetraveller

My previous comment is designed to respond to your large post above. If it's getting too far off topic, feel free to move it.

How would you put it without offending the sensibilities of the average woman?

Based on my understanding of game, this is the wrong question. Allow a reframe.

For men: how can you put it while at the same time getting and maintaining alpha status in her eyes?
For women: when can you put it so she has a higher chance of already being out of her comfort zone?

Spacetraveller said...

@ Ceer,

I do like your 'scenarios'.
I think they are accurate, for sure. This is exactly what is happening now in the SMP...

"For men: how can you put it while at the same time getting and maintaining alpha status in her eyes?
For women: when can you put it so she has a higher chance of already being out of her comfort zone?"


Hahahaha!
Good point.

Grasshopper said...

@B… “…I read this one in high school!...”

I thought I detected the influence in your writing!

In fact, getting back to your OP, … [finally ; - ) some 100 posts into it – better late than never I suppose]…

I think what you’ve espoused will work because I see the basic underlying principles consistent with the ones in these books. I know for a fact those work.

And as you mentioned your co-worker really appreciated being on the receiving end. I know when a co-worker goes Peale or Carnegie on me I know exactly what they’re doing and I still love it.

Putting that into the context of a romantic relationship (OK call it charm) and I really think you have a winning idea B!

Grasshopper

dannyfrom504 said...

Everyone-

I'd like you to notice the dynamic between me and Bellita. Mahal in Tagalog=sweetheart. I have nothing but the deepest and most sincere respect for Bell. I do. I also have spoken to her IRL. And I can tell you there's not a malicious bone in her body.

But as you can see, masculinity and femininity are so fluid when they come in contact. I would fight and die for Bell....I would, and she and ST know it. And both are women I would walk down the aisle with if it were possible.

Ceer said...

He's giving you preselection, ST and Bel.

lol

dannyfrom504 said...

Ceer-

shut up. lol.

Spacetraveller said...

Danny,

I like Bellita too!
:-)

Um, did I just get on 'the wrong bus'?
Hahahaha!

You know we think the same of you, Danny...
:-)

@ Ceer,

I have been dying to ask this question ever since I shared my views on my own definiton of 'preselection'. Perhaps I shall ask you specifically?

Which is more important to you when deciding if a particular girl is 'worthy' (all other things being equal of course): That her male friends who are also your friends think she is 'cool' or that your sister who knows her well, thinks she is a great girl.

You may already know that I think highly of Danny, not really because of his female friends, but because he is highly respected by many men.

just visiting said...

@ Bellita

I'm glad you liked the flower analagy, and the book you mentioned would be interesting to read through a game lens.

Envy is an interesting concept and should be examined further. I think father hunger might play into it , but I have to admit that the women that I've known who are hard core alpha chasers had fathers in the home.

Ceer said...

@ Bellita

This is quite the real world question. You personalized it to me, so I'll proceed from there. I'm VERY selective with whom I call a "friend". I require:

-- that they demonstrate the ability to act in my interests
-- the ability to talk with me frankly about real personal and public issues
-- at least one common activity

As it so happens, most of my real life friends are male, conservative, catholic, and highly intelligent. They are also at least aware of fundamental theory for game.

My "sister" is a 20 something woman who managed to snag her "nerd" just out of college, is married with a house and a kid on the way. Intelligent, but also won the cultural lottery in that she was born into a family that places a high value on marriage AND forced her to communicate well with nerds. She is a more lapsed catholic.

Here's the contrast of important differences:

Friend:
-- Game aware
-- faith bonus
-- male perception

versus Sister:
-- common sense bonus
-- female perception

Both of these will offer useful advise. This may differ from "correct" advise. Obviously, the advise is going to differ in emphasis. Probably in details. Maybe even in recommendation. My move here is to get specifics. Why do they like some things and not others? Then, I parse that through the filters of faith and game for clues about things I might have missed.

If I had to pick one or the other, as in a could meet one or the other thing...I'd be a close call, but I'd pick my sister. Not because she'd give me better advise. The friends would do that. It's because the sister has a feminine perspective that I'm not THAT good at yet. And I know more game theory than my friends.

In other words...guys view preselection as a utility tool.

Bellita said...

@Ceer
Their moms taught them that they were strong women who could have it all.

I felt I didn't have to continue reading after this sentence (although, of course, I did). That seems to me to be one of the biggest roots of the problem. I've had issues with the "strong woman" ideal for years because it seems to be about some parody of strength. I suppose men will have similar issues with the "sensitive man" ideal. It's not that there's anything wrong with being strong or sensitive, but that the types that are claiming the labels are getting the traits wrong!

@Grasshopper
I thought I detected the influence in your writing!

Really?! :) Then it must have seeped into my subconscious, because except for the advice which surprised me when I put it into practice, I can't consciously remember much else.

But I'm sure there are a lot of other influences (not all of them books) that have helped this line of thinking I have now.

@Danny
You're very kind, but you have to stop now because it's making me embarrassed about coming back to the thread!

amy said...

Today the Sanctuary smells like the men's locker room. I kind of think that I should quietly leave.... but I did want to comment on Bellita's post. I am still working through the basic premise of the post, "Manhaters are everywhere." Really? Where? In the Catholic circles, you say? (I hang out there, am I a manhater too?) Is anyone else struggling to see this? Who qualifies to be a manhater? I am considering the definition that she gave, "he defines a "manhater" as a woman who thinks that men have to make certain choices, or perform certain actions, before she considers them to be "real men" . . . and that those choices and actions usually involve them serving women in ways that advantage women but disadvantage men." So....can men be manhaters? I've read plenty of male bloggers on the same topic. It seems to me that much of religion, philosophy, and literature (written by men) have been devoted to the question what actions make a 'real' man. Or, if it is a gender specific hate crime, what about George Eliot- she spent an alarming number of words describing the choices and actions of Fred Vincy and (dare I say) his arrested adolescence. Are mothers manhaters when they try to form their sons into men? I don't want it to get ugly, asking for spefic examples, but I am struggling to see the phenemena. I've seen manhaters in a surprising number of places, in addition to the expected (my kid's arn't alowed to watch disney princesses), but the definition doesn't seem reasonable or true. It seems to promote paranoia or a witchhunt. I've more to say, but prudence dictates one thing at a time. (Please don't blast me- I considered asking Bellita privately, but thought that I should make it public, in case another lurker has the same question.)

Spacetraveller said...

@ Ceer,

Interesting about who you would take advice from regarding a potential mate. Your thought processes in arriving at your conclusion are super clear.Thanks for that.
It was interesting!

Bell,

I agree with you about the 'strong woman' thing.
This is in part what I was referring to when I wrote the post 'Don't touch his manhood, or hers'.
Women are keen to be seen as 'strong'?!
Why?

It kind of bothered me that I was not impressed by that, and in a really weird way it made me wonder if I was 'woman' enough because I didn't want to be 'strong'.
Talk about cognitive dissonance hell!
But now I just recognise it as feminist drivel and I know to ignore it.

And I see the Red Pill men are reacting the same way to the whole 'sensitive' man thing, as you point out. Nothing wrong with being vulnerable, a genuine human being with feelings. But when anything is 'trademarked' it should suddenly be viewed with suspicion.

Spacetraveller said...

Bell,

I just spotted Amy's question, which is a valid one.
I shall leave you to tackle it (pressed for time and will probably be absent for 2-3 days).

Amy, thanks for making it a public question. It is an important one. And I know Bell has great responses to it.

Bellita said...

@Amy
"Manhaters are everywhere." Really? Where?

First of all, thanks for your questions, Amy. I'm glad that you did decide to ask them publicly. :)

When I was having my "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" moment, I was actually immersed in the secular world. I had noticed that some Young Adult novels were full of certain tropes that I'd say have symptoms of "manhating". Since I don't want to write a thesis, let me just name one . . . the "Buffy" type who is so literally empowered and equal that she can beat men up (instead of "needing" them). So it's not totally a religious thing.

So....can men be manhaters?

Addressing this on the most literal level . . . I honestly don't know if men can be "manhaters"! (Dare I ask the gentlemen on the thread to answer this?) But it seems to me that if men could, their "manhating" would take a different form than what I've described here.

Getting to what you actually mean . . . I think the crucial part of the definition is "ways that advantage women but disadvantage men."

If a man decides to do something that will advantage him and disadvantage women (although he doesn't directly intend to do them harm), have you noticed that women assume there is something wrong with him? If he decides to look for a foreign bride, women will say he can't handle a "strong woman" and needs a "submissive" wife. If he decides not to pursue women at all, women like Lucy Simmonds will blame him because they can't go on any dates! Only rarely do the women assume that the fault lies with themselves!

And there is the assumption that because the woman wants to get married, the man should propose marriage. But there is very little thought about what men are giving up in order to give women what they want, whether it's his "freedom" . . . or any casual sex opportunities.

And now I'd like to touch briefly on one of CD's last comments about chastity also being a requirement for Catholic men. (I do agree with her on that point, by the way.) When I said that it is still a huge thing for a woman to expect, even if it is already required of a man by his religion, I meant that women tend not to appreciate the effort it takes for a man to wait for marriage. The attitude is, "It's what he's supposed to be doing, so why should I praise him for it?" That is, they see appreciating him for it as akin to giving everyone a Participation Trophy just for showing up. I suspect that a lot of the hard work men do is considered "Participation Trophy" stuff. But then when men decide they'd rather not participate in the dating/mating world any longer, suddenly they are the ones who are "wrong."

"Hate" may sound like a strong word, but for every man who has ever been a wallet, a packhorse or cannon fodder, simply because a woman needed financial support or protection, and then was told not to expect any thanks because it was his job . . . I suspect "hate" is too mild a term!

Let me know if that answers your question. And I won't let anyone blast you. I promise! :)

Ceer said...

@ Amy

You've come in quite a ways through a very long thread (at least for this blog), so from that alone, I can see why you would be confused. Add onto that, the difficulty of wrapping your head around this topic. As Spacetraveller implied earlier, this isn't your fault...it really is a difficult topic. I think we'd all understand if you prefer to pick this topic up later in a different thread where it's discussed again.

Or, if you prefer to get up to speed, keep reading. I'll do my best to explain. Man-hate is a phenomenon without a common and simple definition, but rather defined by one or more qualities of the person's expression. Not all man haters are women, but in the current culture, women tend not to be corrected for this type of faux pas. The reason for this is that many men who actually care about this find that arguing with such a woman is pointless because they find it difficult to persuade her logically (hinting at deeper issues being the root problem), and the general lack of magazines directed at women to deal with the issue. For the most part, women don't naturally notice this, but to many men, it's a serious issue.

Ceer said...

Let me give you a general outline of what man-hate is, and then I'll give you a good example. Man hate comes in two general forms, systemic and invective.

Systemic man-hate typically results from one or more of several designs
1) actual requirements for success differ significantly from stated requirements (moving the goal posts)
2) forcing a man to do something against his personal interest and then not giving proper compensation
3) stating that the sexes are equal in a certain area while normalizing female majority in some disciplines and treating male majority as an injustice
4) changing a social convention to minimize a woman's responsibility while at the same time emphasizing a man's
-- defining something typically male (characteristic of both alpha and beta) as evil, wrong, or criminal

Note, all of these go directly against a man's SMP interests in one way or another. When all men got married, or at least had this opportunity, this state of affairs was at least tolerable because of the potential value return.

Invective man-hate is a more nebulous concept, but none the less comes through loud and clear when:
1) a man is chastised for breaking a societal convention that does not exist
2) a social convention is set up that directly conflicts with how a man's nature operates without giving a corresponding value in tradeoff
3) a reasonable request or statement is made of a man in a completely unreasonable tone
4) directly indicating lack of respect for a man without good reason
5) failure to defend a man when the situation clearly warrants it
6) assuming a man operates like a woman and then showing disrespect when he does not
7) breaking a social convention specifically to gain an advantage over a man in the SMP

These tend to put men off viscerally. This list is probably not exhaustive, but should give you a pretty good idea of a few big things to look for. Keep in mind that

Now, for the example. It's a little dated, but still valid. You can see the article here: http://gizmodo.com/5833787/my-brief-okcupid-affair-with-a-world-champion-magic-the-gathering-player

Allow me to give you an analysis of these points:

A woman decides to go on the internet and find a date. In looking through profiles, she picks out one and goes to meet him. Due to the fact that online profiles cannot contain all information (nor should they because they are a form of biased communication), the man leaves out a detail about one of his hobbies. While the hobby is safe, legal, non-exploitative, and intellectually stimulating. The woman is still viscerally repelled by this hobby. She decides she is viscerally unattracted to him, and unceremoniously dumps him. All of this is fair enough, EVEN the part that goes against the guy. Those are the breaks.

The woman then proceeds to go onto Gizmodo, writing an article about the experience without asking the guy's permission (invective 7) in order to warn other women away from him (invective 3) because she doesn't like him as a person for playing this game (invective 1). She makes the point of specifically requiring men to divulge complex negative information in a space-limited advertisement (invective 2 & system 2). The article spawns waves of commentary. A few alpha men and team women piled on this topic to assure women that said authoress was in the right and the man in the wrong (system 4).

An alpha tops this dogpile by sycophantically agreeing with the woman's visceral reaction (invective 5, 6 AND 7 rolled into one, at least talented at something) while attempting to shame said activity participants for said activity (invective 1).
http://guyism.com/humor/gizmodo-writer-dates-magic-the-gathering-world-champ-nerds-get-mad.html

I can't find any examples of the women defending the female author that I remember. Perhaps someone could provide a good link.

This article is so overt that it's hard not to miss the...subtext. Man-hate.

Hope this helps.

Ceer said...

@ Bellita

I honestly don't know if men can be "manhaters"! (Dare I ask the gentlemen on the thread to answer this?) You may dare. I gave an example above. Typically men will engage in this due to sexual competition. They are typically alphas who are mouthing platitudes women speak to deflect female criticism while simultaneously deflowering them or betas who believe that toeing the line will convince a woman to let up on annoying invective against HIM.

Asking the question above is fine as long as it's for the right reasons. Taking from the answer that man-hate isn't really real because of the answer...is an effective way to avoid the issue and maintain a poor understanding of what's going on. I'm not saying you're guilty of this, just pointing out that I perceived this subtext in the original asker's question.

I suspect that a lot of the hard work men do is considered "Participation Trophy" stuff. This is the wrong frame. Men have a quite different sociology when it comes to work. The natural tendency is to work for himself and provide for his immediate family only as much as necessary. Outside of that, his instinct is to rest.

Traditional marriage itself has an element of unnaturalness to it. A man must sacrifice his promiscuous sexual nature. He must commit gobs of time where he would work for himself to work for his wife and children. Men had to spend effort enforcing this unnatural state of affairs. That said, traditional marriage doesn't break system 2 because of compensation factors of nearly guaranteed reproduction opportunity, community respect, access to increased social network, and in many places actual systemic preferential treatment.

Many women don't recognize this, but respect, children, and having a buddy are all naturally important to men. Men are emotional beings though. If one of these basic drives is denied him long enough, it will eat at him until it creates a resentment defense mechanism. Aren't all of the points above related to one of these three concepts?

Instead, foster the view that from a man's perspective, social compensation should roughly equal his investment. If it's greater, participation trophy. If it's less, thankless.

Ceer said...

@ Amy

For more specific examples at hand, I'd like to compare and contrast Spacetraveller's and Bellita's posts with Charming Disarray's.

First, the tone. I have to infer this from the words because inflection isn't available, but the intent behind Spacetraveller's and Bellita's questions seems to be influenced by curiosity, desire to know the truth, and genuine concern. They make their bias clear. Accurate information gives them better calibration for male/female relationships. Charming Disarray seems to question specifically to find a disconnect between the person's stated beliefs and a specific ethic or practice. This is a classic debate type question. Which is fine. She's here to make a point. In doing so, she reveals her bias. Her interest is clearly to keep men operating by marriage 1.0 rules in a marriage 2.0 environment.

Second, the tactics. ST and Bel tend to go for a direct information transfer, then on to persuasion. They don't hide their disappointment when CD disagrees with what they are trying to say because they feel they make valid points. CD used a tried and...effective emotional tactic... invented double standard. Which is a type of straw man argument. She repeatedly misrepresented comments from ST, Bel, and me into something contrary to the faith, and at the same time damaging to both men and women. She was trying to rework our arguments, which isn't fair. She also continued a fight with Danny from another blog. I didn't catch the first part, even though I read Danny's blog.

This, at least, is my general perspective on the previous comments.

Bellita said...

@Amy
I answered your question as soon as I read it, but I also got to sleep on it. And while all my scattered thoughts were settling in my subconscious, it came up with a new insight.

Male and female experiences are not exact opposites or parallels, but I think it's safe to say that the male equivalent of the "Manhater" is what the Manosphere calls the "White Knight." This is a man who acts in a certain "approved" way around women not because he thinks it's the right thing to do, but because he hopes it will increase his chances of getting sex. (And if you think I've just described Game adherents, well, there are some Men's Rights Advocates who scornfully assert that Gamers are just another sort of White Knight! MRA extraordinaire Paul Elam has even described some fellow MRAs as "one blowjob away from being a White Knight." But I digress . . .)

The "White Knight" might seem like too specific a character also to be "everywhere"--too much of a caricature, perhaps--but I suspect he is everywhere, too. On the last new Manosphere blog I visited, I read an anecdote from a man whose date suddenly started crying when they were at a restaurant. There had been a death in her family, so he hadn't caused it and was actually trying to comfort her, but then a complete stranger (male, of course) came over to ask her if she was all right, basically implying that if the first man was making her cry, then this second guy would "rescue" her. For me, the eye opener was the blogger's assessment (and I paraphrase): "He was in a restaurant full of unattached women he could have approached, but he went for the crying girl who was already with a man." And the second guy made that choice (whether he was conscious of it or not) because he believed his chances for sex with the crying girl were much higher than his chances with any of the other women . . . or even because his display would increase his chances with the other women watching.

This is the first time I've thought seriously about the "White Knight" character, so I'm open to corrections from others more familiar with the concept.

Bellita said...

@Ceer
Typically men will engage in this due to sexual competition . . . [edit] . . . betas who believe that toeing the line will convince a woman to let up on annoying invective against HIM.

I wrote my latest reply to Amy before I read your comment. Did you, by any chance, just describe a type of . . . "White Knight"? :P

Instead, foster the view that from a man's perspective, social compensation should roughly equal his investment.

Thanks for the clarification. I brought up the Participation Trophy because it seems to me that this mentality in women is what has led this great lack of respect for men. But I do see what you're saying.

Ceer said...

@ Bellita

What I was describing was something similar to (but distinct from) a white knight. Deceptive betas can have many of the attributes of true betas, but act much more deviously around women.

A certain middle aged widow got lucky and married again to a devout christian husband. She decided it would be a good idea to listen to one of her male friends, who said to kick out the new husband, and let him move in with her. He used arguments like "this man is lazy, he doesn't work" when he's injured and on disability, and "he used you for your money" when they live in the house from her first marriage on HIS salary. He then goes on to say "your first husband wasn't very good at all, he left you all alone" when, knowing he did not have long to live, spent his time building a nice house for her on her mother's land, then died a few years later.

So she DOES kick out the new husband, shack up the male friend, and goes to counseling because she can't understand why she doesn't seem to deserve a good husband. Yes, this REALLY happened.

This male friend is in no way a "white knight" because his actions were not only completely self serving, they were so disrespectful to the other men I would qualify them as man hate. The specific topics being leveraging marital separation (system 2 and invective 7 and probably invective 4), and bad mouthing the husband who widowed the woman (invective 4).

Typically a white knight's biggest failing will engage in aggressive behavior to protect women when it's inappropriate. WK's are actually victims of previous (system 4) manipulation that they have been taught to perceive as the way society works (usually through invective 1). For their part, WK usually act without expectation of direct compensation, but are genuinely nice people who THINK they are doing a good turn.

People who are interested in maintaining a fair and just society as a whole tend to be more reasonable people than those who act out of self interest. As such, even when they act against the interests of other men, it's normally out of ignorance or stupidity rather than outright hate.

A certain blog post comes to mind:
http://www.theuniversityofman.com/blog/the-crying-game-tears-of-the-fair-maiden.html

The white knight handles the situation poorly here by sending off fight signals (standing in someone's personal space while dealing with an issue), acts against the man's personal interest (by attempting to solve a problem right in front of the guy), and shows poor social cue reading due to anti-man bias (omfg, a woman near a man is crying, he must be doing something untoward, and she needs a rescue). The last part comes closest because it reveals what he thinks about other men when he knows NOTHING about the situation. He comes close to breaking invective 4 with his physical display (AND NOT his wording)...but he obviously believes he has just cause AND isn't directly benefiting from the engagement.

@ Amy

Hope this previous example helps you as well.

Ceer said...

@ Bellita

Haha, I didn't finish reading your post properly before responding. Turns out we read the same post at UMan. The key detail for me is he did not "have the balls" to approach any of the other women. Quite possible he was just there to have a quiet drink. The fact he didn't approach again that night isn't quite as telling as there is no mention of him doing approaches before the waterworks were let out. Taken together, my inference is he's not an approacher that particular evening.

The quip about the balls is probably male posturing about someone who invaded his space. That's actually a big trigger point for a man's natural threat mechanism. I remember seeing a video clip of an ignorant Sookie running into this.

just visiting said...

I think that another example of man hate is the scorn heaped on betas, not just by women, but by men.

I'm always a little uneasy (ok, a lot uneasy) when I see this in the sphere. I don't see beta traits as weak. However, their APPLICATION can come from a place of weakness. I don't confuse the two.

But it makes me queasy. It reminds me too much of feminist scorn (as well as male scorn) towards the feminine.

Bob Wallace said...

"then the most attractive women will be the ones to be the most hateful, because they are already playing with the best cards and still not winning the game."

They end up hostile, bitter spinsters, usually on psychiatric drugs, ending alone in apartments with a cat (cats), and blaming all their problems on men. They're hostile because of their envy of men and put men down - and they don't even know it. I've seen this several times, and it's got to the point when I run across these kind of women I tell them what their problem is. I've been told by these cruel women that I'm cruel, and had them scream at me, "You're not married!" I've seen them scream that latter comment at other men.

Bellita said...

@Amy
I slept on it again (Hahahaha!) and I think that "manhating" in women can be summed up as "blaming all their problems on men."

@Ceer
Turns out we read the same post at UMan.

It was a good story, wasn't it? :)

@JV
I think that another example of man hate is the scorn heaped on betas, not just by women, but by men.

What a good point! That didn't even occur to me!

While I would have been content to say, "Let the men decide who the 'real men' are," it is true that "betahate" is just as unbalanced as the type we've identified here.

Spacetraveller said...

Bellita,

Great answer to Amy's question!

"And there is the assumption that because the woman wants to get married, the man should propose marriage. But there is very little thought about what men are giving up in order to give women what they want, whether it's his "freedom" . . . or any casual sex opportunities."

I agree with this, having seen the scale of the aggressive demands women (sometimes inadvertently) make on men. I think Ceer also made the point I am about to make, which is, that all these demands are fine, as long as there is some compensation for the man. In today's 'Marriage 2', the man gives, and the woman takes. There seems to be not much 'reward' for the man. This is the problem. This needs to change. Even if the divorce laws were all revised to be in favour of men, this 'compensation' for men within marriage would still need to change for men to deem marriage a worthwhile proposition, surely.

@ Ceer,

I read that article about the woman who dated the gamer ages ago, and I must admit, I was rather disappointed in her. Her attitude is what is killing the friendship between men and women. All she had to do was reject the man quietly and nicely if his hobby was not to her liking. There was certainly no need to write an article about him and reveal his identity in the manner she did. In fact, revealing his name to all and sundry may well have been a serious infringement of his human rights, let's not forget.
It is this kind of attitude which smacks of 'How dare he not be what I WANTED in a man' which reeks of 'entitlement. This is at very core of 'manhate', I think. She blames him for not having been HER ideal, so of course she has to 'punish' him for that. Which is exactly what she does.
She could have just said a brief 'No thank you' to further dates from him if he had asked. That's what the rest of us do :P
This public shaming of a man who in fact earns a good living (apparently) from his hobby is just not on. I am afraid I was with 'Team Man' on this one.

Bell and Ceer,

I am not sure what to make of White Knights...maybe I need to sleep on it :-)

@ JV,

Can 'beta hate' be a form of male chastisement of men they deem too 'feminine'? Is this other men telling pure betas to 'man up'?
If a woman tells a man to 'man up', it seems offensive to men. But if other men say it to their fellow man, then is it not in order? In this sense, I agree with Bell when she says "let the men decide who the 'real men' are...". 'Beta hate' could be seen as an act of love (cruel to be kind) rather than scorn/contempt which is the kind of 'manhate' a man could experience from a woman. I am sure that the beta will come to appraciate that he is only being helped by others who call out his undiluted 'betaness'...because in his current state, he will be unattractive to women.

(By the way, I assume you are referring to undiluted beta traits (which really are a turn-off to women) as opposed to a display of vulnerability in a man who has already attracted a woman by his alpha self - big difference between the two!)

@ Bob,

I know what you mean...
It is sad to see these women because they had all the 'gifts' from the Almighty to make things work for them but for whatever reason, they squandered them. It is so unbelievably tragic, I can't tell you.

Spacetraveller said...

@ Ceer,

I meant to comment on this yesterday, but got distracted by something else (so many issues to tackle on this thread!!):

"Her interest is clearly to keep men operating by marriage 1.0 rules in a marriage 2.0 environment."

This is the primary mistake of many women today, including me.

I think I said before on a recnt post that unlike my grandma, I need to 'be a wife' before I get to be a wife. I am of course not talking about certain 'wifely duties' here lol, but pretty much everything else.
The playing field has changed. The rules have changed. So must we all, if we are to adapt properly to the new conditions of the current SMP.

The other point I forgot to make was with respect to the woman who publicly humiliated that gamer man.

The first few lines of the article denote her attitude towards internet dating.
I shall quote it here verbatim:

"Earlier this month, I came home drunk and made an OKCupid profile. What the hell, I thought. I'm busy, I'm single, and everybody's doing it. Sure, I'd heard some stories, but what was the worst that could happen?

Two weeks into my online dating experiment, OKCupid had broken me down. It was like the online equivalent to hanging out alone in a dark, date-rapey bar. Every time I signed on, I was hit by a barrage of creepy messages."


Might I say (at the risk of sounding exceedingly oldfashioned here) that this is a pretty 'graceless' way of expressing oneself. I notice that TPM's 'awful dating profiles' includes profiles by women who start their profile with a variation of 'well, this is beneath me but I am forced to do this because I have no other choice'. This immediately puts an interested man down. Because HE is made to feel like he is scum and the online dating scene is his natural (untoward) habitat.
That is not the way to attract a man...or anyone else for that matter.
So I think part of her problem was that she went into internet dating with the wrong attitude.
Funny how the symptom is very telling of the final diagnosis, huh? It doesn't surprise me therefore that she reacted so badly to the man in question. In may ways, she would have reacted similarly to just about any man. A different man, a different trait she does not like...
She needs to clear her head of this 'contempt' of internet dating first, before trying again. Similarly, if she harbours contempt of men too, she needs to get rid of it before getting ready to approach or be approached by men. Otherwise, it won't work. She will always find something about ANY man to complain about. Her hamster will have a field day with just about any man, in turning him from a saint into a devil.

Anonymous said...

ST:

If this is true, then the most attractive women will be the ones to be the most hateful, because they are already playing with the best cards and still not winning the game. The fat one already knew she lost the game but she is joining in with the attrractive one in the 'hating' in the hope that no-one notices the difference between them...

Bob:

They end up hostile, bitter spinsters, usually on psychiatric drugs, ending alone in apartments with a cat (cats), and blaming all their problems on men. They're hostile because of their envy of men and put men down - and they don't even know it.

PVW replies:

It is interesting, I have seen women who envy men but don't despise them, they are not angry. They are just sad, because they believe men live in a world where they can get whatever they want.

It is the apex fallacy; they see the alphas they want with lots of options and to get one of them, there is fierce competition and they will have to go through lots of hoops.

But they don't want to go through that. Yet, the betas whom I know were around them and were interested, what happened there, "they were not ready" for the seriousness of the beta types who were quite clear about what they wanted, marriage.

Of course, those betas married years ago, and the women get the Christmas cards. The women are now in their 30s, competing of course, with women in their 20s.

But they spent lots of time hanging around the alphas who were not serious....not for sex, I don't think, but in the hope that they would win in the end--familiarity breeding content, similar to the plight of the beta orbiter, women who act as alpha orbiters--friends who stick around in the hope the alpha might want to date them eventually.

Ceer said...

@ Spacetraveller

In may ways, she would have reacted similarly to just about any man.

Keep in mind, the man she chose to go out with...twice...was well educated, worked at a good job in finance, made oodles of money, and was a champion card game player.

Apparently, he played poker as well as magic. That hints at real alpha skill. It may have been situational alpha, but we KNOW he was showing high beta signs because the beta stuff had to have been discussed.

I think a lot of uneducated women look at the internet and technology in general and see it run by geeky guys. Guys they don't know. Guys that are beta. Since use of the internet is related to technology, everyone who uses it is a geek. That's the expectation.

Except in any significant portion of any population, that simply won't be true. Internet dating sites have a total of MILLIONS of men. Would YOU believe there aren't quite a few alphas in there?

The reality is that technology culture attracts a good variety of men and women to work for it. Intelligent, young men and women are particularly well suited to exploiting advanced technology. Like any culture or subculture, you gain a much better view first hand than you do otherwise.


In may ways, she would have reacted similarly to just about any man. A different man, a different trait she does not like...
She needs to clear her head of this 'contempt' of internet dating first, before trying again.


This is about the size of it. Men see this all the time, based on a particular screening tactic employed by women. The interaction goes well until a particular undesirable bit of information comes along. Then, she shuts down emotionally. Sometimes this is overt, sometimes covert. This sort of thing should be used only if a non-negotiable presents itself.

A more reasonable selection method would be something like: go on several dates with the guy, learn what you can, have fun, and give enough time to see some of the deeper qualities. If you reject someone, you should be rejecting them for the right reasons.

Ceer said...

@ Bellita & Spacetraveller Re: Just Visiting

I think that another example of man hate is the scorn heaped on betas, not just by women, but by men. --JV

Can 'beta hate' be a form of male chastisement of men they deem too 'feminine'? Is this other men telling pure betas to 'man up'? -- St

...it is true that "betahate" is just as unbalanced as the type we've identified here. -- Bel


I'd say that male chastisement and beta hate overlap, but neither is a subset of the other, if that makes sense. Let me give examples... There's beta chastisement Roosh and Roissy style geared towards the intended recipient's best interest. There's also beta chastisement Donny Deutsch style feminist-line toting chick crack/scorched earth attack on the few genuinely manly qualities betas tend to possess while he screws lots of women behind the scenes.

They both have biting tone, so it can be difficult to tell the difference, especially with no author background. It's a matter of reading the motive of the speaker.

Spacetraveller said...

Ceer,

Thanks for the male perspective on this...
It is interesting to me, but I cannot find exact parallels between 'man on man' hate and 'woman on woman' hate. Perhaps because I am more familiar with one than the other?

amy said...

Real life unexpectedly descended on Friday in the form of out of town family. I want to leave a brief thank you for your replies. I've had some time to think about what you said. I'll come back to post again if I have time.

Spacetraveller said...

Amy,

I join you in thanking Bellita and others for their comments on this. I can tell you that it is a topic I was not particularly aware of until recently. And I am glad I am able to reflect on it now. I think it underpins a lot of the problems of today...by its very nature of being 'under the radar'...

Ceer said...

@ Spacetraveller

It is interesting to me, but I cannot find exact parallels between 'man on man' hate and 'woman on woman' hate.

I doubt you'll find many. Men and women naturally compete in different ways.

I think it underpins a lot of the problems of today...by its very nature of being 'under the radar'...

A lot of times this takes the form of an underlying assumption in the writing. Something that's always there, but never directly stated.

Anonymous said...

That Gizmodo article about internet dating was truly awful. I hope the author gets exactly what she deserves...

Spacetraveller said...

@ Anonymous,

Yes I agree it was indeed awful.
If I might use strong words, utterly graceless and charmless.

But perhaps she already regrets this unfortunate episode.
I hope she comes to see just how bad it was in the fullness of time.

Anonymous said...

dannyfrom504 said...
"What benefit is it to a man to get married?"

First post on the thread, and only one attempt at answering this one.

No, seriously. I started my entire exploration of the 'Manosphere' as well as misandry, misogyny, and Miss Manners, in an attempt to answer some questions put to me about six months ago, by my 14 year old grandson, about women, marriage and the state of both. I found that I was appallingly unprepared to answer that very question Danny posted here.

So tell us, ladies. Why should a single man get married nowadays?

And before you answer with the obvious, a dog is a pretty good companion and answering 'sex' WILL allow me to make a chortling sound akin to a raccoon dying of pneumonia, which passes for laughter from yours truly.

The Navy Corpsman

Spacetraveller said...

NC,

"And before you answer with the obvious..."

I am not sure what you mean by 'the obvious'!

But if I may attempt to answer this question...

A lot of men here have stated that they believe that marriage IS a good thing even for them, (i.e. not just for women).
But, and here's the catch...ONLY with a good woman.
So to answer your question, a man should only get married if he thinks he has found a good woman for him (whatever he sees as 'good').
Otherwise, don't bother...
I think it was JV who first got me to understand that you can change the current divorce laws as much as you like, but if you enter into marriage with a woman who really doesn't love you, you will still end up 'scuppered'. It is an individual thing which cannot be 'cured' by legislation...

As for sex, that cannot be used anymore as a 'bargaining tool', in or out of marriage. I think a woman who declines sex (and this is only appropriate outside of marriage of course - I do think it is a heinous crime to deny one's husband sex if there is no good reason to) should be doing that as part of a wider philosophy in an 'outcome-independent' manner and not to 'entrap' a man. Because it woudn't work nowadays...for the simple reason that sex is so cheap and can be easily obtained elsewhere...

Bellita said...

@NC
First post on the thread, and only one attempt at answering this one.

I didn't bother to answer because it seemed to me that a man who is convinced that there is no good in marrying will not be swayed by anything a woman says anyway. Nor would I advise a woman to target any of these men. Hence my focus on "Jeff in Sacramento," who actually does want to be married and is just frustrated because he can't find any woman who is "marriage material."

Why should a single man get married nowadays?

NC, I know you're asking sincerely and not because you have a chip on your shoulder, but I can only repeat what I said earlier. If a man already sees no benefit in getting married (whether in a civil or a religious ceremony), then nothing anyone--woman or fellow man--says will change his mind. So why should she try?

Spacetraveller said...

Bellita,

"I didn't bother to answer because it seemed to me that a man who is convinced that there is no good in marrying will not be swayed by anything a woman says anyway."

There is that, yes.
But I think we are also missing out a huge chunk of the pie (if you imagine of the sum total of 'marriageable men' as one huge pie!).

I think men in general are more likely to be convinced by 'action' than women (who let's face it will accept 'sweet nothings' without a back-up due to their auditory nature mixed in with - in this case - an unfortunate consequence of her soft-headed feminine nature). Sure, a man is quickly swayed by a pretty face too because he is visual, but his natural masculine and logical (read: hard-headed) nature will usually dissuade him from committing to this one beautiful woman simply because she passed the boner test.
Men (including the proponents of the MGTOW movement) who actually do want marriage are currently indistinguishable from those who are MGTOW for their own personal growth/development. The reason is that both groups are just standing by waiting....and waiting....and waiting...for women to get their act together. They won't change their mind about MGTOW until that happens. So it looks like they are permanently unswayable. Some of them are, but unlike women, these men will not be swayable with words, but action. Since action takes longer than words to effectuate, it looks like these men are 'forever' unconvince-able.

Ever since your post, I was trying to work out in my head why I found 'Jeff in Sacramento' such as iconic figure.
Like you, my focus is on him not because I want a man like him, but because he is among those who actually talk! As I keep saying, I am surrounded by 'quiet men' who don't say anything. They communicate everything by their actions and expect me to do the same. When they are displeased about something I have done, they won't say. I just get the cold shoulder lol. When I do something they think is nice, I get a reward without words :-)
It's been this way my whole life!
So whilst 'Jeff in Sacramento' is a breath of fresh air to me because he is talking (um, if he overdoes it I will get hives lol), I am especially grateful to him because he is telling me what his 'quiet brother', aka my own male entourage, is thinking but will never tell me.
His talking won't necessarily make me want to swap my lot for him, but at least he is providing a good public service to women. So we should listen to him to improve things with our own individual circle of males. I am sure there is a woman somewhere who will listen to Jeff (and therefore be tamed by him to use another of your recent analogies. Keep 'em coming Bell!) and will also think he's the bees knees...That would be a personal triumph for Jeff and an apt reward for his taming of so many other women...

So in summary, men want 'action' from women. So they appear 'slow to warm' to the idea of marriage. This is however only so because 'action' from women takes time! The quicker women act, the quicker men will respond...

It's not fair on women, but there we are...

Bellita said...

@ST
You probably have it right. Men will not be swayed by words (no matter how reasonable) but by actions. So NC's otherwise excellent question cannot really be addressed in this thread!

I also agree that it's great to have a "Jeff in Sacramento" spell things out for us. How we would we know what action to take if he (and others like him) kept silent?

Anonymous said...

Very interesting... but I find myself dissatisfied with your responses. It's not that men don't WANT to be married, although there are a few of those in every generation. It's that they don't want to get married when the entire concept is set up to fail, at least for them, from the beginning.

It was not always thus, and it took time for it to change to where it is. What's even more ironic, is that men are classically defined as 'aggressive' and 'confrontational', yet very few opposed the legislation that took away their rights as fathers and husbands, never believing these laws would be used to the extent they are now. Many many men just went along with it, til they or someone they knew was crushed by the system.

I understand your reluctance to to answer, but I also would like to point out that any given mature male would at least keep an open mind about themselves or advising someone else, and marriage. This isn't about convincing a man to marry, who is dead set against the idea. I asked because I genuinely want to know what the benefits are, in today's society. The obvious answer is 'companionship' or 'partnership' with a woman, and this is quite valid; I've made it very plain that my wife and I are partners in life. But, I was hoping for other valid ideas as well.

The entire MGTOW movement has wildly differing opinions as to why the individual men are refusing to participate in the 'marketplace'. Naturally so, since each individual has arrived at the red pill through their own experience. The PUA websites mostly claim a non-interest in marriage, yet I can think of two of those sites where the principal PUA/mentor has gotten married, in the past six months of my reading their sites. Danny (and others) state they would dearly love to find a woman to set up housekeeping with, but that it is far more difficult than they ever imagined. Clearly, if a man (or woman) doesn't want to be married, such statements and actions would not be made. Yet, at the same time, many express their doubts that marriage would even be worth the time and hassle it takes to search for that One.

Bellita said... "You probably have it right. Men will not be swayed by words (no matter how reasonable) but by actions. So NC's otherwise excellent question cannot really be addressed in this thread!"

Oh, do be careful Miss Bellita. Men have been swayed by words from women for as long as there have been men and women. Some say men invented language in order to woo women, in the first place, and that women turned out to be better at it.

The Navy Corpsman

Spacetraveller said...

NC,

"Men have been swayed by words from women for as long as there have been men and women. Some say men invented language in order to woo women, in the first place, and that women turned out to be better at it."

*Chuckle*
I have no doubt that this was once true. But events stemming from the 60s killed that tendency in men at point blank range...
Making sure there were no survivors left...
And et voilà! that is the happy place we all are at now...

Bellita said...

@NC
The first answer that popped into my mind was children. I didn't say it because the last time I did, someone told me that men don't want their own children a tenth as much as women do. :P

A second answer was that it's good for the community when marriage (or if you prefer, "lifetime commitment") is the norm for relationships, especially where children are involved. (I don't mean "serial" marriage. Divorce should not be part of that norm.)I understand that there are some couples who have made such a commitment to each other but don't care to go through a ceremony to make it "official." If they, too, are "forsaking all others" until death, then I will count their relationship as a marriage.

My third answer is tradition. I do think our ancestors got a lot more right than they got wrong, and that much of what they got right is not just practical but also beautiful--and therefore worth preserving for future generations.

My fourth answer is the most subjective of all. I think there is something very ennobling to the character (I might even say, to the soul) in the act of trusting someone to be the best "deal" you're ever going to get and in the companion act of living up to the same trust from him or her. Ideally, your partner will stick with you as well, but the ennobling is probably doubled if you are "dumped" but still remain faithful.

There are many more things I could say about this, because I've believed in it for many years. But it's always hard to explain. A metaphor I read in a book about the classical trivium is coming to mind. The author said that some learning is like transitive verbs that need objects, because that learning enables you to act on something. But learning the trivium is like an intransitive verb that doesn't need an object, because it only acts on you. (Her example for the intransitive verb: To bloom.) I think that even if a marriage serves no useful purpose in the world, that as long as it enables one's character "to bloom," then it is a good thing.

Another example coming to mind is "going the distance" in the first Rocky movie. Rocky would say that the best thing he got out of that match was proof (for himself more than for anyone else) that he was finally able to finish something he had started. It was more for him than for anyone else--and more for making him a better man than making him a better boxer.

Jacquie said...

Why should a single man get married nowadays?

Children

NC,

I read with interest a few weeks ago your comments from January I think it was, about MGTOW. I asked my husband to read it also and he was just as interested and intrigued. Doing some research about MGTOW brought me to a manifesto that helped me outline a subject I’d wanted to write about on my blog: femininity. The vast amount of reading we have both been doing have opened a lot of dialog and we both recognize much of we’d seen but didn’t quite understand, and has also given us a different perspective of everything around us. Our children are all adults, none are married yet. We raised them mostly in fundamental churches, none of us currently attend any church on a regular basis. They are not quite sure what to make of my husband and I and the changes see in us. I guess it would be expected.

It is difficult to advise them recently in light of all we have read. Our oldest lives with a very nice man, we like him. I don’t feel the need as much to ask her when they plan to marry. Our son is dating a young woman we wish he weren’t, too many red flags. My husband counseled him recently to move in with her, they are talking about getting married. She doesn’t want to have the appearance of evil by them doing this, yet they are sexually active and I don’t know how my son cannot see the hypocrisy of that. Too many other flags to mention. I am not sure if advising any of them to marry is best except that I know they all want children. I believe children should have mom and dad make a commitment on paper, even though I know there are so many who don’t opt to marry even for this reason.

When my husband and I talk about what we would do if one of us should go before the other and we each agree that we would probably not marry again. We would possibly find someone to share good times with and be exclusive; companionship. But not sure if marriage again would be of an added benefit at this stage in our lives.

So the answer would depend on if a man wants children and he feels that the legal commitment is needed for raising healthy children.

Jacquie said...

@ Bell

I like that you brought up "going the distance". I'm very much an optimist and this past year has been filled with so many highs and lows because of this. I see that there are not as many who believe in "going the distance" as once were.

One of the main catalysts for my husband and I to examine ourselves and our relationship and make changes was because of all the couple we saw our age dissolving their marriages. These were marriages in the 25+ range where children had reached adult age and moved out. The couples split because there was no longer a reason to stay together.

In our reevaluation we realized that we still held common goals. We still saw the world similarly even though the way we each see it is changing we are each changing in the same direction. For the progress we have made together and individually I have felt the highs, we are better people individually and it has made our relationship better. The lows is what I see now that I have removed the rose colored glasses. My son asked my husband and I recently about the changes; it is not so much that we have changed, but that we had to changed the way we respond to what we see. We no longer see the world as how we want it to be, but we see it for what it is. We have also moved further on in life and what we viewed earlier we now see from a different vantage point, a different perspective. With new information our opinions have changed. The good thing is that with all the changes we still are facing the same direction going the same way, going the distance; and we are working proactively to keep it that way.

just visiting said...

I wrote an answer to this, but erased it. It just didn't satisfy what I wanted to say. Children and a stable cilvilization are hardly going to convince a man to marry.

But Belita's Rocky analagy puts words into something that I couldn't put my finger on. You grow as a person. But you also grow as a soul.
There is a range of experience that comes from marriage. And not all of it is sunshine and rainbows. A lot of that growth comes from sacrifice. Not a popular concept in this day and age. But, there's a depth and range that comes from feeling, experiencing,examining and asking the big questions. And living through it.

You can experience love and intimacy without commitment. But there's an added dimension, a quality that requires you to think and feel outside of the box when you can't just walk away when things are difficult. And there's a wonderful dimension to being someones ideal, and being with your ideal.

There's no better feeling in the world than being in love and the two of you being on the same page, growing, and both trying to be the best possible people that you can be.

Bellita said...

@JV
And to think that I almost erased the Rocky analogy! ;)

I love your comment, by the way. It takes one who has lived it to describe it properly. While I still see it "through a glass darkly," you have seen it "face to face." Thanks for that beautiful description!

just visiting said...

Thanks! I'm glad that you didn't erase the Rocky analogy. It describes it perfectly.

Anonymous said...

Now see? That wasn't so difficult. (ha!)


Now, take it back 50 years, and realize the exact same things you lot have pointed out, were true back then as well.

The point I'm trying to make is, marriage is really no more and no less than it was for the past 5000 years, excluding of course, arranged marriages. What HAS changed, is the people involved in it. Spacetraveler pointed this out a couple months ago with her 'low hanging fruit' analogy. And, of course, it does not help when the mainstream media blasts us everyday with bad news on nearly every aspect of society.

Since my grandson asked me that question, I spent quite some time on the internet to learn what is going on nowadays, and I really struggled to give him an answer that was unbiased, yet at least somewhat optimistic. By the way, I have four grandsons and one granddaughter, and I was pretty convinced that I would tell them all to remain single.

Yet now, I think I'll give them the advice somewhat similar to an aggregation of the points ya'll just made. Especially to the eldest, as he has already had the 'anything worth doing is going to be difficult' speech from both his father and myself.

But rest assured, I will spend a lot of time explaining the pitfalls of the legal system as pertains marriage, where the government plays God in making marriage a legal contract, rather than a sacred trust.

I'm also going to point out to the boys the technological aspects of surrogacy and so on. I know Spacetraveler is now quivering with righteous indignation, so I'll add that I will also point out the disadvantages a single parent has to deal with.

Thank you, ladies, for playing along. As I have said before, you're definitely outliers on the bell curve. I admire your willingness to take a stand which is quite unpopular in society today, for the sake of keeping faith with yourselves.

The Navy Corpsman

Anonymous said...

Jacquie said...

"NC,

I read with interest a few weeks ago your comments from January I think it was, about MGTOW. I asked my husband to read it also and he was just as interested and intrigued. Doing some research about MGTOW brought me to a manifesto that helped me outline a subject I’d wanted to write about on my blog: femininity. The vast amount of reading we have both been doing have opened a lot of dialog and we both recognize much of we’d seen but didn’t quite understand, and has also given us a different perspective of everything around us. Our children are all adults, none are married yet. We raised them mostly in fundamental churches, none of us currently attend any church on a regular basis. They are not quite sure what to make of my husband and I and the changes see in us. I guess it would be expected. "

I'm wondering what comment I made, that was so interesting.

Raising kids has never been easy, in any way. I firmly believe that all parents fail in some way, but that the best parents realize this and try even harder, and we never really understand until we raise our own children.

The one thing I was trying to get across, and clearly failed at, was that marriage is seldom supposed to be about oneself, but rather selfless. At least, that's how my wife and I view it. All the posturing and Gaming and other preliminaries are merely there to ensure that you're finding the One that you can spend the rest of your life with... the easy part is finished when you say "I do".

Every man has an ideal of feminine nature in women and every woman an ideal of masculine in men. (at least, hetero men and women do) The very best compliment I can give a woman is that she is 'elegant'. That one word sums up the totality of the feminine, for me. The whole idea of me telling my wife to act 'ladylike' just sets my teeth on edge, and she would likewise never tell me to 'man up'! The best relationships should logically therefore be between Mr X who meets Miss Y's masculine requirements while she simultaneously meets his wish for femininity.

But, I'm quite progressive, too. I believe that if a woman wants to act like a man, she can. If a man wants to be a drag queen, he can. I wish them both luck in finding someone who wants that, if that is their wish. I have high regard for personal and individual rights and civil liberties, as long as their claims make no impact on my rights. Life is far too short and painful to spend any part of it in condemning another persons' lifestyle. I get comments about my long hair all the time, and some can be quite hateful. I don't like it, so why say something negative about anyone else? Note please, this does not include criminal behavior.

Jacquie, I read a portion of your posts on femininity, you've done quite well at articulating a traditional marriage into words, not an easy feat! It never ceases to amaze me how 'women need men like a fish needs a bicycle' yet those same women are the ones asking where all good men went...


The Navy Corpsman

Spacetraveller said...

@ JV and Bell,

"I love your comment, by the way. It takes one who has lived it to describe it properly. While I still see it "through a glass darkly," you have seen it "face to face." Thanks for that beautiful description!"

+1.
What a beautiful description of what marriage (or a partnership of any sort) should be, JV!
Thanks for that image...

@ NC,

"I know Spacetraveler is now quivering with righteous indignation, so I'll add that I will also point out the disadvantages a single parent has to deal with."

:-)

Bellita said...

@NC
Now see? That wasn't so difficult. (ha!)

It was never difficult. :)

I'm also going to point out to the boys the technological aspects of surrogacy and so on. I know Spacetraveler is now quivering with righteous indignation, so I'll add that I will also point out the disadvantages a single parent has to deal with.

Not to mention the deprivation of a child with a single parent. I know the politically correct line is that any loving family is as good as another, whether there are "two mommies," or "two daddies," or a husband and wife, or a polygamous union, or a single parent household, but that's just another feminist-enabled attempt to level a playing field just because you don't like the way it looks. Even if you're a man who opposes feminism.

Then there is the biggest ethical problem with surrogacy: the idea that because you can afford to pay for certain technology and to buy sperm or to hire a womb, you are entitled to have a child. It's selfish when women do it and it's selfish when men do it. (To be honest, I don't even think married couples should do it. Too many ethical lines are blurred.)

When I mentioned children as a reason to get married, I wasn't referring just to the conception of children but also to the raising of children. If a couple that was "playing house" already had children, I'd hope they were also committed to "going the distance" together, whether a civil contract or religious ceremony is ever involved or not. And if someone had a child through artificial insemination or surrogacy, then I'd also hope they were planning on getting that child another parent someday . . . although, since they've taken that other route, they've either given up on marriage altogether or shot themselves in the foot.

Grasshopper said...

@JV… “…There's no better feeling in the world than being in love and the two of you being on the same page…”

I have been in love a few times – but never has my beloved been on the same page as me. I was even engaged once and seriously planning a wedding before it got through my thick skull she wasn’t on the same page and wasn’t even in love with me for that matter.

I think that is what has always been missing and what would convince me as a man to marry. That same page thing you’re talking about here.

Grasshopper

just visiting said...

@ ST

Thanks!

@ Grasshopper

The fact that you have pondered what I've said and could be convinced to marry means a lot to me. But finding that special person who is on the same page, yes, that's tough. Even tougher if you're a bit unconventional.

I once commented at Bellita's that I didn't feel so bad about being a "niche" market. Sigfried and Roy had given me some hope. (How niche can you be? 2 gay white tiger trainers/performers?)If they could find each other and be on the same page, it holds out hope for everyone else.

Bob Wallace said...

"Could one theory be that they didn't had a father and they're somehow angry?"

I've met women who aren't married because all the men they meet aren't as good as their fathers.

Sometimes, men look for women like their mothers, and women look for men like their mothers.

I sometimes get women young enough to be my daughter giving me that double-look (the word "recognize" means "to look twice").

I know I remind them of their fathers. I've also gone out with women who I've found I bear a strong resemblance to their fathers.

Spacetraveller said...

@ Bob,

"Sometimes, men look for women like their mothers, and women look for men like their mothers."

I heard about this too, that both genders look for partners like their mothers!

Hm, I see how this can be true... although I always believed that some women 'seek out' their father in a potential husband.


Bellita said...

@Bob
I've met women who aren't married because all the men they meet aren't as good as their fathers.

I know a woman whose marriage failed partly because her husband wasn't--in her eyes--as good as her father. :(

Spacetraveller said...

@ Bob,

"I've met women who aren't married because all the men they meet aren't as good as their fathers."

Counterproductive!
One of the 'blessings in disguise' of modern times is that fewer and fewer women will have this problem...most won't even have had a father to begin with.
Sadly, ths of course brings with it a whole host of other problems. From the frying pan into the fire indeed!

RedPillSetMeFree said...

Any woman, every woman wants to be wanted. And dominated and conquered by a man stronger than her. And you get really b*tchy when that doesn't happen.
What modern women don't realize is that you have priced yourselves out of the market. You are no longer worth the pursuit.