Hitting the wall

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

Hahahahahahahahahaha!

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



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

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




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

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

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



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

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

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

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



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

Please be kind, gentlemen :-)

Shall we categorise these into 3 groups?

a. Physical

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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


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



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

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

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

Another one is this woman:

Dame Helen Mirren

 

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

 

 

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

Other than 'get knighted by the Queen'?

 

:-)

 

 

 



Film Review: Guess who's coming to dinner?

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

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

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

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

I put that right, finally.

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



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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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


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

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

But my perspective is thus:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Classic :-)



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



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

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

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

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

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

Moving on...


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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

:-)



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

Pity? Or mercy?

Assumptions can be costly, I am finding out.

If I hadn't made a certain assumption, my 'eureka' moment would have come a lot earlier than this, and this post would have been written perhaps 6 months ago.

What was my 'fatal' assumption?

That I knew the difference between the above two words.

Sadly, I did not.
But knowledge of this (important) difference could have saved me a tear or two :-)

I hate to look up English words in a dictionary. Because it is an admission that I don't know my own language well enough. Ridiculous, I know.
But, (and I am sure the multilingual among us will confirm this bizarre belief system) this is in fact a great coping mechanism for me. Having the 'assurance' (even if it is false) that I am 'done' with one language 'frees' me up to tackle the next. I have had to do this all my life. So my hamster has had an awful lot of practice dismissing words in English that I actually don't yet understand, in favour of foreign words I am actually yet to encounter at all...

But how paradoxical that foreign words improve my English :-)
It's a kind of linguistic equivalent of the Red Pill, so to speak.

My city's cathedral has different language Masses. I usually stick to French, of course, it being the local language where I am. But last Sunday, I got flummoxed by an unexpected (at least by me) event.
The Bishop was in town. No-one told me he was coming.

So when I rolled in for my usual Mass, it was quite the surprise to find the church full (um, it appears there are people who will only go to Mass when the Bishop is around, lol) and the old Mass still going on at the time when my Mass should have begun.

Due to logistic issues I ended up having to go to an Italian Mass. Which is fine.

During the Mass, I was suddenly interested in the word 'pietà'.
As in:
Signore pietà (Lord have mercy).
Cristo pietà (Christ have mercy).
Signore pietà (Lord have mercy).

I wondered if in Italian, the word 'pietà' which I assumed meant 'pity' was the correct translation for the word 'mercy' in English, in the way 'intimité' translates into 'privacy' in French.
(Um, OK, I should have been paying attention to proceedings at Mass rather than having an intellectual debate with myself as to the etymology of the word 'mercy', but we all know that I am not normal :-)

So I looked up 'pietà' when I got home.

It means both 'pity' and 'mercy' in Italian.

Hm. This made me think about something.
Then PVW sealed it for me by commenting thus, in response to my previous post about Sandra Fluke (bold type mine):

"On the other hand, I was bothered by Limbaugh's handling of this, especially as you said, he has some bones in his closet as well. In his attempts to fuel support for his side, he garnered a whole lot of support for hers. He could have done the same, but in a different manner."


I hear all the time from certain women that 'men are cruel'.
I don't disagree, because to female ears, men can be incredibly harsh. As harsh as....us :-)


One need only peruse Manosphere blogs to find evidence of 'harshness'.
At least to female sensitivities.

I am beginning to work out why it is that I lose converts to 'Manospheristianity' when I encounter Blue Pill women who I feel could learn a trick or two courtesy of The Manosphere.

I have learned that I am rather tactless in dealing with such women.
One thing about The Red Pill is that it needs to be ingested and digested... slowly. I forget that sometimes.
I ram it down someone's throat and then I am surprised if I am not invited to their next party:-)

So now I try to be more gentle, at least towards women.
There is a reason women like validation. It softens the rough edges of life for us.

One cannot and should not treat a woman as one would a man.
I think this might be where Limbaugh made a mistake.
He 'attacked' Fluke with the worst word possible when dealing with a woman.
Slut!

Hell hath no fury like a woman labelled a slut...

Even if 'technically' her behaviour may be construed as that of one.

She will unleash all kinds of unpleasantness on the utterer of that word, aided and abeted by her hamster.

Now, I am not saying that shaming is a bad tactic per se.
But public shaming combined with humiliation combined with choice words that make women see red, is perhaps a failing strategy when it comes to 'correcting' women.
I think I 'get' this now.

Limbaugh showed neither pity nor mercy.
And it is increasingly dawning on me that most men don't do mercy, but if pushed, they might show pity.
Che?

I looked both these words up in English:

Pity:

n. pl. pit·ies

1. Sympathy and sorrow aroused by the misfortune or suffering of another.

2. A matter of regret: It's a pity she can't attend the reception.

Mercy:

n. pl. mer·cies

1. Compassionate treatment, especially of those under one's power; clemency.

2. A disposition to be kind and forgiving: a heart full of mercy.

3. Something for which to be thankful; a blessing: It was a mercy that no one was hurt.

4. Alleviation of distress; relief: Taking in the refugees was an act of mercy.

Mercy is so much more than pity. Pity is just more or less an acknowledgment of another's pain. No more than that.
Mercy involves going an extra mile after you have felt the pity. Definition number 4 is particularly apt. Removing the pain of the pitied from him or her is consistent with showing mercy.

Pity is well within the range of emotions of a man. Given that men's emotions are usually short and 'strategic' as in celebrating a victory (triumph), delving into the depths of despair (sadness), expressing displeasure (anger) and experiencing ecstasy (um...) pity from a man is also necessarily short and sweet.

NB: Allevaiting pain of course comes naturally to a man as well. I am not suggesting otherwise. But perhaps it is not immediately preceded by the emotion of 'being moved to pity' in a way that women can be 'moved', emotionally. A man could do untold acts of kindness, but this could be compartmentalised and distinct from emotion, for instance, as an act of duty or honour?



Women on the other hand are quite capable of both pity and mercy, as we are endowed with a wider range of emotions. (Some choose not to explore both ends of this spectrum but most can :-)

But!
When men accuse women of being 'cruel' or 'harsh', it is, I think, because a woman has dished out 'pity' where 'mercy' was required.

Pity from a woman must be incredibly startling for a man. That's what he dispenses.
He does not expect that from a woman. Especially not one he loves and who he expects to love him back.


I am quite sure that women know the difference between pity and mercy, instinctively. Even if we cannot verbalise it.
Therefore, (and perhaps men believe this erroneously - I am not quite sure, please correct me here) 'pity' from a woman where 'mercy' would have been more appropriate feels like contempt to the man. And he might therefore feel insulted, his masculinity 'tainted' in some way.

I am also sure, by the way, that some women deliberately show contemptuous pity when they are upset with a man. Because they are reacting emotionally, and all gloves are off...

Perhaps a man expects mercy from women. All women. But he knows he can only get pity from another man.


One of the best ever posts I have come across was when Bellita said 'Our Lady implores all women to be like her - a face of mercy.' I think that's a great motto for all women, Catholic or not. I won't forget this post of hers.

Notice Bellita did not say 'a face of pity'.
I don't really know what that would look like, but I am sure I wouldn't like it if I saw it on a woman. And I daresay, most men wouldn't,  either.

I know of women called 'Mercy'.
I never heard of a woman called 'Pity'.

And at least in English, when we say at Mass 'Lord have mercy' or 'Lord have pity on us', we mean, in both instances, have mercy. I am pretty sure of that.
Because although God is 'male', (if we must describe Him in human terms), He is capable of even typically 'female' emotions or sentiments.


The following statement is hard to make. But I think it is necessary as part of so called Red Pill wisdom.

Women should not expect mercy from a man. That is a woman's emotion. It's like asking for a man to 'nurture'. Not going to happen.
Sometimes, even pity may be lacking. Just ask Sandra Fluke.
It is not because the man is a bad man per se. It is because he is a man. Full stop.
His function does not include 'mercy'.

This is the nature of men. It just is, no?
Would we want them any other way??

The only ones who would answer 'yes' to this question are those who want the fearless protection a man offers, as well as 'mercy'. Yes. Santa Claus really does exist :-)



Elisabeth Laurier, in this scene from 'Firelight' is getting 'hives' from Charles Godwin's overindulgence of his daughter Louisa.

When she says "feel for her Mr.Godwin, but don't pity her", she has made the classic mistake I made, by confusing pity with mercy, as per the dictionary definitions above, and she actually means, "pity her but don't show her mercy".

In other words, "accept that she is going to hurt because you are going off to work, but do walk away from her nonetheless. Acknowledge and go. Don't try to take away her pain. She doesn't need that right now. She's a spoiled brat who needs a different parenting style from now on."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7RiF-v0JvM&feature=relmfu

From 08:00 onwards...


I think women want and need mercy from men, because women have it in them to dispense this when needed and they know of its value.
But unfortunately, men can only do pity at best, and even so, the receiving woman has to be a blood relative or 'the chosen one' :-)

Some women have realised this, and know that the only 'man' who can do 'mercy' is God.
Hence the whole 'I am a daughter of God' phenomenon so fiercely characteristic of a certain brand of 'Churchianity'.

Men see 'mercy' as a crucial part of femininity. 'Mercy' includes forgiveness and compassion.
Enter the male locker room...complete with locker room parlance:
If I mess up, will she show some compassion?
If I f*** up, will she forgive me?

They don't know what shape this takes, because it doesn't come naturally to them.
But they delight in it when they see it in a woman.

It just is...

Misandry? Not half!

When Danny asked me to write a post on 'misandry in the media', I said to him 'you don't half give a girl a herculean task, do you, mate!'

I tbelieved it would be very difficult.
Turns out I was right.
But not for the usual reasons.



There are millions of examples of what I have now come to accept as 'misandry' everywhere around me. You all and I know the score.
It is really quite astonishing that it has come to this.


Life in general has taken on this seemingly 'female-friendly' allure.
Unfortunately, it is actually far from female-friendly. It is just pseudo-female-friendly. But some of us apparently don't know the difference...


We all (um, the Royal 'we' that is!) boarded this shiny new train so eagerly, the old ladies were being elbowed out the way.
But now that the train is at its final destination, we've turned all shy about getting out and going sightseeing in the pretty new city...

How did it come to this?



Anyhow, Danny himself knows more than me about misandry.
As do you all.
It won't be even remotely interesting for me to rehash all the examples we all know of.
TV, schools, films from Hollywood (but strangely not Bollywood or Nollywood), even the workplace and certainly the SMP.
Misandry everywhere if we open our eyes and see.


This article helps me make my point though.
The author of the article is however not the one who is displaying misandry.
She is merely reporting what she sees.
And she has clearly seen a lot.
And it sounds like she has had enough of it all...

And I shall behave myself and not go off on one regarding poor little William...



And I won't even allow myself to be distracted by a singer's use of the term 'idiot blokes' when referring to men...



I shall save my coolheadedness for a woman I have been thinking about for quite a while now.
Ever since she entered into my conscious zone a few months ago.


For a long, long time I couldn't really work out why I was always a little more than perturbed by the following video.
Then I realised it wasn't actually Sandra Fluke herself who bothers me. It was all that she represents that freaks me out.
Although I use her as an illustration, this post is not really about Sandra Fluke. It is the rise of womanhood of this shade (one of fifty, I presume) that is the problem.

This speech is dripping with covert misandry.

And the really clever part is that it is disguised as an attempt to overcome misogyny.
If it weren't so manipulative, (and therefore destructive to any woman who subscribes to it), it would be cool.

Ms. Fluke first came to prominence when she demanded that contraceptive costs be covered by health insurance providers.
Not a negligible coincidence that she underwent 'feminist, gender and sexuality studies'.


Unfortunately for us all, she emerged smelling of roses after Rush Limbaugh used some choice words to describe her... erm... social life.
He fanned the flame was to become the forest fire.

He should not have been so imprudent as to go off on one like he did, that's for sure.
Especially as he is not an angel either.

But now Ms. Fluke's war against the 'big bad boys who won't give her free Pills' has gone global.
And a sympathetic president is being used as a weapon in her little war.
How fortuitous that President Obama happens to be a father of daughters! Sandra Fluke is milking this little fact for all it's worth. And the president finds himself...trapped by his own goodwill.


I don't think this is about free contraceptives...at least not anymore.

It is now about...
How men are oppressing women.
How women's bodies are no longer their own.
How women are not allowed to speak up about injustices done to them.
How it is so unfair that the prevention of pregnancy, which should be a concern for women, is in the hands of men.
How women are being taken back in time, like a hundred years, back to grandma's days.
How our foremothers are being made to turn in their graves as their daughters are being made to fight the same old battles they had fought a 100+ years ago.

How...

This is a battle with Rush Limbaugh.
It is an emotional tirade against a man who was a little bit too harsh in his critique of her.
He was the little light breeze that flicked on her switch of misandry which had been building up for years thanks to her choice of academic pursuits, without the backup of natural or even learned restraint against the tornado of feminism.

Sandra Fluke is a normal woman. Her actions are well within the Gaussian distribution.
But she hasn't connected the dots yet.

No woman likes to be called a word rhyming with 'rut'.
Even those who ask for free contraceptives in public.

And when she is, in such a public manner, the dam falls apart and the backlash is relentless.
This train won't stop until it crashes into Limbaughville. Literally.


It might seem like it didn't take much for Sandra Fluke to unveil her disdain for men and the resentment she feels at not being allowed the 'feedom' and the 'liberation' (at least of the sexual variety) the latter are accorded in this life.

But it did.
The curious reality is that every woman wants to be respected in one very important way. Otherwise we don't really give two hoots about respect - that's a man's headache.

And yet, some women just don't know, or just don't care to garner that respect.
And when it is not forthcoming, the demands and the rants start.
And then the slowly boiling-over contempt and rage gushes forth.

What happens if a Sandra Fluke-a-like is an advertising executive?
You guessed right.
What happens if  a Sandra Fluke-a-like is a teacher in a school?
You guessed it.
A film director?
A lawyer?

Sandra Fluke is a lawyer.
And heaven help you if you meet her in a family court...


Sandra Fluke is not blameless in her obvious dislike of the perceived power of men over women, but what is apparent is that this did not develop in a vacuum.
The fertile soil was there in her case for sure.
And so was the catalyst in the form of overly critical men, at least in her eyes.

Somewhere along the line, someone should have applied the brakes.
The best person to do this would have been... Sandra Fluke.

But it is clear she won't.
And the nth wave feminism train continues its journey into miserable oblivion. It is well past Misandryville now...


The best solution, according to what I am hearing from men is that women drop the whole misandry thing first, before they would let up on the harsh critique.

The problem is, I am not even sure if women like Ms. Fluke would drop the misandry poison if all men were to be 'gentle' in a manner typical of...women.

Perhaps the 'return to femininity' would have to be executed with some of our sisters 'missing in action'.
Anyone whose torso is more than halfway in (head first) down the rabbit hole is perhaps not going to feature in the comeback campaign to normality.

There will always probably be a background level of misandry around, I guess, even if things do look up in the near future.
It will probably stay at the same level as 'background misogyny'...

How's that for 'equality'...

What's a woman for?

This may sound like a very simple question.
Like, one that a child might ask. A slow one at that.
But as I am finding out, nothing in this world is simple. At least not anymore.

I ask again: what is a woman for?
Perhaps the ladies who have been married may be best placed to answer this question for me.
Of course, I would be pleased to hear the opinions of any men who wish to help me out with my 'explain it like I am a 6 year old' type question.
:-)

I ask this in all seriousness.
I want to clear something up in my mind once and for all...


The inspiration for this post came from...work.

At work, things break down once in a while. Nothing to do with me :-)
We have to call in engineers to fix the problem.
It is always a hilarious occasion for me for several reasons.
(Another of my guilty pleasures).

The first is that for some bizarre reason, their presence always reminds me of this ad:

Which is odd, because our engineers look nothing like this hunk.
Rotten luck :-)

The other reason is that when they arrive, my male colleagues ask the guys relevant intelligent questions.
The women pick up random tools from their boxes and ask, 'what's this for'?
OK, I speak for myself here.

Occasionally, my question turns out to be a good question.
Although my function is not in a technical capacity, it helps me to understand what I do better if I understand a little bit of the engineering side.
More often than not though, the tool I thought was unfamiliar and really 'high tech' just turns out to be a spanner or something.
Um.
Yes.
*facepalm X2*


But the point is, everything has a use.

I have never felt the need to ask this question: 'What's a man for?'
Ever.

Because it is pretty clear to me what men do.

I do not think anything's changed for centuries.
Men have built civilisation and continue to do so. No doubt on that one.

But, now I am not so sure what women are for.
Its a bit confusing, actually.
Because according to what I see around, and also what I read on Manosphere blogs, it is not clear ...
Now, I include myself here of course.



I am going to forget everything society tells us about what a woman is for, just for a minute whilst I listen to what our little community has to say on this matter.

And I am thinking aloud here. These thoughts are mostly unedited and may appear 'sexist' at first glance. But I don't believe they should be, at least at second glance.

A man who comments here (you know who you are!) recently said this to me:
And I paraphrase:

A man only needs 4 things from a woman (in no particular order):

(And I am guessing by this he meant, if he is to commit and therefore give up his freedom to one woman):
Food, Faithfulness (i.e. loyalty and respect all rolled into one), Family (this means children) and ...there was fourth 'F' too...

Do the men here concur?

If so, why are women being systematically trained to reject these attributes?
Whilst men are still expected to be...men?
There may be a gross mismatch here...



Food
In a recent conversation with a male friend, I was informed that it is no longer expected in society that a woman cook for her family.
He had an eerily neutral (and therefore scary) facial expression as he said this to me.
It was scary to me because I thought it was something that ought to be a joke.
But unfortunately it wasn't.
This particular man had come to accept this situation as a status quo in his country.
And his lack of reaction to this made my hair stand on end for some inexplicable reason.

But is this situation even feasible longterm?
Can a family live on microwave dinners or restarant food for years on end with no adverse consequences?
Where did childhood obesity come from?
Whose responsibility is it to ensure that everyone eats a nutrional home-cooked meal?



In some communities, if a girl cannot cook a meal independently past the age of 12, she is considered a failure whatever her future career aspirations might be.
Fact.

In some communities, a new bride can be returned to her family of origin if it is discovered she cannot cook.
Fact.

Sure, both of these examples are not from 'Western' society. These communities are considered 'backward' in many ways.

But...do they have a point?

Who is best placed to cater to the gastronomic needs of a growing family?
It's a woman, no?

I think there are many reasons for this.

I am sure the married women here will chime in here, but cooking for a family is not a simple matter of putting ingredients together in a pot, on a fire.
It is an act which has other unseen consequences.

They do say that the family that eats together stays together (or was it prays together? I forget :-)
Family eating time is about 'family time'. In the hustle and bustle of daily life, even if both parties work, someone has to coordinate 'eating time'.
Maybe this is heresy, but I think as a married woman, I would feel some level of shame if this were not me.
There is a biological drive in women to do this sort of thing.
Feminism tries to drive this out of us, but it is nonetheless there.

It is like the female drive to create things of beauty. A man's bachelor pad may be 'minimalist' until a woman moves in...
Cake decoration is another example. We are not content just to have an edible cake. It should look nice too.

Women are supposed to be decorative too, no?
In settings where men are men and women are women, men wear suits, usually all of one colour.
:-)
And ladies wear a variety of colours and fabrics. Like at weddings.
This is  normal.


Faithfulness

I understand now when men go on and on about high 'N' and how it translates into a diminished ability to bond with subsequent men in their lives.
I think I see this play out quite a lot in the modern hook-up culture.

But I also think that a woman can be faithful even with a high 'N'. Many women from previous generations were. And they weren't all virgins at marriage, I am pretty sure.
But I guess it is one of those things that would be hard to demonstrate to a man.
He either has to believe in her, or go for a long 'trial period'. I think more and more, the latter option is becoming the strategy of choice. So commitment is delayed...
Is this good or bad?


Family

If I am not mistaken, an important reason why a man might choose not to GHOW would be if he wanted children...

The best person to carry children is a young, fertile woman.

But what if the young fertile woman doesn't want to carry children even when she is in a positon to, i.e. is in a committed relationship, and all things being equal, has no other biological impediments?


But, in fact, there are usually bioloical impediments.
It takes a while for a woman who has been on The Pill to become fertile again once she stops taking The Pill. Like years, in some cases.
Some women never recover their fertility.
The Pill is also potentially fatal. This is rare, but not negligible.

And if it is true that 90% of Catholic women are on The Pill, then I would expect a higher percentage of non-Catholic women to be on it.
That's a lot of women who are preventing what their bodies are designed for...

Then there are the social constraints:
Work, hobbies, financial matters...

Yes, some of these are male-driven or at least jointly driven by both parties.

A man who says to his wife: 'We are not having children for five years after we marry until I have X job, or X amount of money coming in every month...'
This same man, if his wish to have children is not fulfilled by his wife, if her acquiescing to his will leads to problems later, will have no problem finding another who could give him children.

But it is usually a woman's choice. It is her body, afterall. And this is not a bad thing...
But...as with everything in life, there should be limits. Everyone has their 'place' where they draw their own line...



The last F is self-explanatory.

But why do so many fail at this....er... marital obligation? Including all that comes before - such as simply being attractive to the one who matters?
There has to be a universal reason.
I don't think 'life got in the way' is an acceptable answer.
There has to be a better answer than that.
I would love to hear it.

Now, I ask this particular question specifically with the woman who had no problem complying before commitment, in mind.
What happened?
Why is this scenario so common?


If a woman cannot provide each of, at least some of the above, is a man to be blamed if he doesn't take her on?
Manosphere men are trained to think, on encountering a woman: 'What does she bring to the table?'

That is the same question as 'What is a woman for', no?


My thoughts:
If there is anything interfering with 'what a woman is for', it should be sought out and eliminated by that woman, such that the woman can function as a woman.
You know, like the 'if your eye causes you to sin, take it out' bible verse.
But this may be a bit drastic, I admit :-)

Perhaps my thoughts here could induce seizures in people who are used to hearing things like this:

It's about me and my life. (Nevermind the needs of the family).

I didn't spend ten years in college and post grad to become a housewife.

Barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen was for my grandma's time. I am way better than that.

He and I should be equals...in everything...

What did my grandma and her friends fight for when they burned their bras? So that I could end up as some man's slave?


Why are we so hell-bent on defeminising ourselves?
Who told us that men wanted men as wives and girlfriends?
Why do we take every opportunity to take a pill or put on a gadget that will enable our advancement in masculine ways and matters?

Why are we trained to see men as oppressors and adversaries?
Why are we constantly being bombarded with the message that to be what a woman was intended for is demeaning in some way?
Does it help any?

If ever there were rhetorical questions...