Tuesday, October 2, 2012

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...


38 comments:

just visiting said...

Your commenter's list is pretty reasonable.

From the rumblings in the sphere, a laundry list would include that she be a 22 year old virginal kindergarden teacher with the body of a lingerie model. Throw in long hair, sundresses and heels, submissiveness, and a willingness to sign a prenup and give up the kids upon divorce. Funny how these lists don't include love.

The feminist mindset has distanced itself from womanly things because they disdain them. It's a form of contempt. The biggest misogynists are feminists. But it speaks to their motivations. They want to be respected. Or at the very least, not viewed with contempt. Perhaps misguided, but I think that the first wave actually thought that they were going to gain the respect of men.(No doubt there were man haters, but I'm talking about women who were formally feminine.)

At least that is the impression that I get speaking with my mother and her friends. My mother would be in the category of women who were very feminine and submissive only to become militant feminist after divorce. I don't think that it's any coincidence that when it became obvious in the culture that men were trading in their feminine wives for sexually forward younger versions, feminism gained a huge foothold. It also cemented (self)loathing for the feminine, loathing of being dependant on a man, and sexy and promiscuous was seen as empowerment.(Afterall, second wives were not scrubbing floors, scrimping and making do. They were sexual, selfish,young and sporting huge diamond rings.)


Women were reluctant to raise their daughters in the manner that they were raised. Lambs to the slaughter. I liken this to how men are reluctant to raise their son's in a blue pill manner.

Now, it's women who are divorcing. Sad. And men's liberation has it's own recruits growing in numbers.

Divorce has been very destructive to society.

What is a woman for? Love, support, the 4 F's, inspiration and helpmeet. But that is best done from a submissive (not supplicating) position.

(Even though this is comedy, growing up in the 70's and eighties, I can vouch that this was the prevailing thought where first wives and second wives were concerned. And we wonder why we have a generation or more of entitlement princess mentality. Check out 3:42)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=mDHgAtFUaXE





Anonymous said...

Hi, ST, I think Just Visiting makes some important points about what a woman is for:

"Women were reluctant to raise their daughters in the manner that they were raised. Lambs to the slaughter. I liken this to how men are reluctant to raise their son's in a blue pill manner."

My mother would be in the category of women who were very feminine and submissive only to become militant feminist after divorce. I don't think that it's any coincidence that when it became obvious in the culture that men were trading in their feminine wives for sexually forward younger versions, feminism gained a huge foothold. It also cemented (self)loathing for the feminine, loathing of being dependant on a man, and sexy and promiscuous was seen as empowerment.(Afterall, second wives were not scrubbing floors, scrimping and making do. They were sexual, selfish,young and sporting huge diamond rings.)

Me (PVW): I knew older women with similar attitudes. They weren't traded in for younger models, and they would have never called themselves feminists, but they knew the important lessons of economic independence that feminists spoke of.

These were women whose husbands were fiancially irresponsible and who had emotional, if not physical affairs, with other women. Others liked to spend their money on girlfriends, not on their wives, and not on the children.

One of them got divorced in her 50s when the children were adults; he married a woman he first met when she was a teenager and he was a married man in his 30s. He married her; she had children by him in her 30s and he was in his 50s with grandchildren of similar ages to these younger children. No surprise, but he is divorced from her too and is now married for a third time. The first wife is the one who is living with the comfort of the children and grandchildren. He is cut off from them all.

Women who grew up around that saw their mothers doing the traditional thing but not being respected, ie., submit, submit, respect, but where was the corresponding love and care from husband to wife?

She was taking care of things on the domestic front, but was she being appreciated or was it just expected, as a matter of men's entitlement? If her looks faded, what support was he giving her to still feel appreciated or to at least work with her?

Think of the song Lisa Stansfield did, "All Woman," http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMt3o-I2ltY. Note this song was from the 80s if not the 90s.

So for me living as a married woman today, in different environments, I'm seen differently.

At home, I'm valued and respected for the feminine energy I cultivate there--a warm and supportive home environment. At the same time, my financial contribution is important and appreciated.

But here is the thing, I'm not living the experience of those pre-feminist days. If anything, some of the benefits of the early feminists' mindset has followed through, that the husband and I actually have a language to think and talk about mutual submission and respect.

We work together, and if it means that we call each other out on stuff, we do so and we negotiate. That early model didn't encourage that--the man must be submitted to, and that was it--suffer in silence if he didn't agree with you on his behavior, or get a divorce.

At work, I started off as a person with value in what I promised to offer as a person in my field. It was an plus that I fit a checked box. I also provide a different teaching experience than many of the male colleagues do, a different feminine energy? I definitely sense it in dealing with the students.

Bob Wallace said...

The purpose of a women is to fix me something to eat and rub my feet.

Then they make me walk though mall with them while they window-shop.

Leap of a Beta said...

The purpose of a woman is to bring a softness into the world to share woth a man.

What women forget is that us men folk are fine without that softness. We benefit from it, but without it we can keep being ourselves, harden our cores a bit more, and keep on keeping on.

It's harder, if not impossible, for a woman to retain her soft, feminine core without a man to give her an environment she can thrive in.

Senior Beta said...

ST, I think most men would settle for two of the four. And food is not one.

dannyfrom504 said...

gee ST. who is this mysterious blogger? DO TELL.

Jacquie said...

Growing up I watched my mother disrespect and use men for what she could get. I was taught about being independent, that women were superior to men and that we could do anything we wanted to do.

When I married I tended to the home and our children. I enjoyed being a wife and mother fulltime, but my mother made me feel that this was unsatisfactory. She would always ask when I was going to do something for me, telling me that I needed to be something other than my husband’s wife or the children’s mother.

The things I learned growing up along with the push from my mother during first half of my marriage conflicted with what I wanted to be as a woman. I wanted to be feminine, I felt pride in a warm welcoming home, good food on the table and how our children were raised being schooled at home.

I did however fail quite a bit in the fourth category you mentioned and I didn’t keep myself as well as I should have. I had my problems and this is where the teachings as a girl were set in. My husband should accept me for who I am. He should deal with it, he knew what he was getting when he married me and he got everything else so he should be happy. (hamster on full throttle)

I know better now and I have gained a lot of understanding and wisdom reading the blogs of the Manosphere. I am sad at the state of what women think they are. You ask rhetorical questions but they are valid. What are women good for? Comfort? Companionship? Support? Keeping the home fires burning? How many women do this today?

JV mentioned the disdain and distance women have toward feminine things. It has been learned that feminine means weak, that taking care of a home and children full time is being second class and deferring to a man means subservient. So why would a woman want to give herself to being these things.

I agree with PVW in that the life I live is with the benefits of post-feminism in such that even though I submit to my husband’s authority in our home, my words and thoughts hold much more weight than would have pre-feminist days. I would not have many of the privileges I do and it would have been frowned upon for me to put time into learning what I am, using my intelligence to study and seek answers to questions I would not have been allowed to ask at one time. I can go out to work if I wish and contribute to the household income, have a career.

But what uniquely is a woman for? She used to feed a man’s masculine with her feminine, have babies and raise them. Today women don’t display feminine. Women are not home to raise babies through to adulthood; most are at work while the daycares and schools raise children. And if an artificial womb is manufactured will she be needed to bring the next generation into the world.

ST, you ask the most difficult questions. Your posts often prompt me to think the most. You bring up many good points and many good questions. And posts like this one make me wonder that even though I may figure it out, that a few of us get it, is it enough to make a change? Is it enough to reverse at least part of what has happened in our society? We will never go back to a previous era, we will move forward, but will there be a day when we could find equality among the genders in a complementary way. One in which we can embrace the differences we bring to the table as strengths and that neither gender feels weak in who they are or taken advantage of. Men and women alike are amazing in their natural and possess so many wonderful and unique attributes and contributions which they can make to life overall. I wish that the differences could be embraced, seen as equivalent, counterparts functioning harmoniously. I wish someone had a good answer.

Spacetraveller said...

@ JV,

"Your commenter's list is pretty reasonable."

He is a reasonable kind of guy...

"From the rumblings in the sphere, a laundry list would include that she be a 22 year old virginal kindergarden teacher with the body of a lingerie model."

Yes I know what you mean JV! But I am sure that bit is a parody borne out of frustration at constantly being bombarded by 'used up old hags' asking them to 'man up!'.
To be ignored, I suspect.

"The feminist mindset has distanced itself from womanly things because they disdain them. It's a form of contempt. The biggest misogynists are feminists."

This is true indeed, JV. The contempt appears to be directed at men, but somewhere along the lines, it is coming from a place of self-loathing, I suspect. (And I am talking here about the nth wave feminists, not the pioneers who just wanted a better life for women).

As to the video, thanks for that :-) I do love Joan Rivers. I find her hilarious and actually very likeable as a person.

Is she herself divorced?
The whole second wife thing, although funny, needs further assessment.

JV and PVW,

I hear both of you. I am obviously coming at this from rose-tinted viewpoints having never been married.
But I found this interesting article.
This woman could easily have become an ex-wife. I applaud her for taking her time before 'resigning from her mariage' as she puts it. Everyone has the right to be displeased at this that and the other from time to time. But does it have to be permanent???
People don't give themselves that 'cool-off' period I speak about in some of my earlier posts. But it is so necessary, I find. This woman gave herself enough time to regain her composure. And then she realised she actually had it better than most: a man who never cheated, never hit her, always provided and protected her...OK he wasn't very exciting, but his aloofness was what attracted her to him in the first place! She would have been a fool to drop him. So glad for her that she didn't. And he too did well to 'show his emotions a bit' :-)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2212024/The-day-I-resigned-marriage-Kate-gilded-lifestyle-beautiful-children-banker-husband-cold-distant-So-wrote-ultimatum-language-d-understand.html

PVW specifically,

"Women who grew up around that saw their mothers doing the traditional thing but not being respected, ie., submit, submit, respect, but where was the corresponding love and care from husband to wife?"

I find it hard to believe that a man who knows his wife loves him will disrespect her if he is a good man too. Are you absolutely sure that an important part of this equation is not being overlooked? I know now that women are very good at spinning things to make it look like it's not their fault. (Hey, I am a world champion at that myself :-)
So to the outside world she may look like the dutiful, docile wife, but who knows what the man is enduring?
Be wary of Greeks bearing gifts indeed!
I am not saying that every case you mention is like this, but I have learned to be more circumspect about stories like these now...knowing what I know now.

@ Bob,

"The purpose of a women is to fix me something to eat and rub my feet."

Hahahahaha!
Stop it, Bob! This is a serious discussion here...
;)


@ Leap,

"The purpose of a woman is to bring a softness into the world to share woth a man."

"It's harder, if not impossible, for a woman to retain her soft, feminine core without a man to give her an environment she can thrive in."


Leap, after years of 'people watching', I have come to the same conclusion.

Feminists will have us believe that it is a sin or something, to be 'soft' to a man. And yet, most women REQUIRE this to be truly feminine...

Spacetraveller said...


Senior Beta,

I think I know which one won't be missed off any man's list :-)

@ Danny,

Um, sworn to secrecy, your Maj...
But for a small fee, I could be persuaded to give you a tiny hint. Deal?
:-)

Jacquie,
Thanks for your comment!

"ST, you ask the most difficult questions."

:-)
This is what happens when years of 'why?' go unanswered...then all of a sudden all the unanswered questions show up on a blog somewhere...
Hahahahaha!
I am getting more and more curious about certain things as I get older, not less. Is this normal?

"I agree with PVW in that the life I live is with the benefits of post-feminism in such that even though I submit to my husband’s authority in our home, my words and thoughts hold much more weight than would have pre-feminist days."

I also agree with PVW that first wave feminism has helped many women, including you and I.
But here's the thing: you mention 'going forward, not backward'.
Why don't we use our education and our 'rights' for the good of society instead of for selfish ends?
A woman with a good education should not be thinking 'I am STRONG and INDEPENDENT' and head for the EPL exit out of her marriage, but she should be using her education in ways that help her and her family.
In the UK, many women of Indian origin do this very well. They typically get into high powered jobs and work for a few years, then it's off to get maried and have a family (their education is a 'plus' in the mate selection process and not a negative, as it indicates intelligence and a willingness to work hard, and no man wants a stupid or lazy child (intelligence is usually inherited from the mother, or so I heard). One day, if the need arises, these women are in a very good position to chip in financially. But otherwise, all their energies are put into developing their household as best they can, without 'competing' with their husbands, which is what 'Western' women are becoming so famous for...

Anonymous said...

ST:

I find it hard to believe that a man who knows his wife loves him will disrespect her if he is a good man too. Are you absolutely sure that an important part of this equation is not being overlooked? I know now that women are very good at spinning things to make it look like it's not their fault

Me: I know that the red pill tendency is to be skeptical. I have alluded to this type of story before, and I can provide a bit more detail, in that I have spoken to both spouses (at different times) about some of the matters that set a pattern for the marriage.

So, an example. Early in the marriage, he had an emotional, if not a physical affair with another woman. She wanted to buy a car, so he "lent" her the money. Mind you, he had never imagined using the money to buy a car for himself and his family to use, but in totally unbiblical fashion, he cleaved to someone outside of his marriage to fulfill her needs, on the basis that this was his friend, and that he could spend his money as he wished, since the wife earned more money. Now, was this woman fulfilling some emotional need he thought was not being met at home? I would not know, but it makes no sense. Forget about the family's needs, you don't even have a car for yourself, but you can lend someone money to buy one? Crazy.

ST: They typically get into high powered jobs and work for a few years, then it's off to get maried and have a family (their education is a 'plus' in the mate selection process and not a negative, as it indicates intelligence and a willingness to work hard

Me: This happens among a fair number of professional American women nowadays. The professional degree has become the new "MRS." But here is the thing, I don't automatically assume that just because a working mother has a high powered job that she is being selfish in pursuing her own needs. Again, if her money is needed for the family, it is pretty unselfish to me, that she is doing what she as to take care of her family.

That determination, though, should take place in the context within a family discussion. Who has the more secure job, the potential for earning a higher salary? Under those circumstances, does her leaving work make sense, in light of the money they need to spend and the money they need to save and invest?

Spacetraveller said...

@ PVW,

"This happens among a fair number of professional American women nowadays. The professional degree has become the new "MRS." "

I think you misunderstand me. What you describe as happening in America is a totally different scenario from what I am talking about.

I use the Indian women as an example because they happen to be a large group in the UK. There are other communities who do this, of course, but because they are in much smaller numbers, they are not so 'visible'. If it looks like I am 'bigging up' the Indian community unfairly, this is the reason for it :-)

These Indian women are not in college to find husbands, I notice. They focus on their studies and complete them in record time. Then they are 'matched' up to the highest ranking man their family can find, based on a lot of factors, including their earning power, even if that might remain theoretical, because they won't be expected to work when they start having children. But everyone knows that they could earn a lot should they wish to work.
The one MAJOR difference between these women and the American women you describe is that they still live in very traditional communities, albeit in The West. They have no time for hook up culture while they are in college, because they know they have a tight schedule, especially those in long courses like law and medicine. By age 28, they know they HAVE to have been married already. And it has also been drummed into them from birth, the importance of virginity anyway, so they wouldn't dream of even looking at fellow (male) students in college, or male colleagues at work, unless they find someone (preferably also Indian) who the family might think suitable as husband material.

You will notice this was actually the expected conduct from American/British/any other woman who got an education in times past. But in communities where feminism got a foothold, women forgot the blueprint and thus going to college became a euphemism for 'let's get our hair down and have some fun' hence the new MRS degree thing, which almost always include an advanced degree in 'extracurricular activities'. Different mentality, and I daresay, different result.
In the latter case, women 'forgot' what women are for, and paid the price, which in some cases is a very high price indeed.
Now you might say (or you won't!) that some American women are highly educated and still they are virgins into their 20s and 30s as with the Indian women I describe above.
Yes.
But have you noticed how contemptuous these women can be towards men? Bellita's 'Manhaters' post was a truly revealing post inasmuch as it shed a lot of light on this type of thing...
So being all the above and still missing the respect for men that Indian women seem to be born with, is not enough. In times past, a woman could still get away with it. But not anymore, it seems. And perhaps it is high time?

Spacetraveller said...

The reason I keep stating that à la base, men haven't changed that much in centuries, is this: they have always maintained 'what they are for'. Most men are natural leaders (even despite feminism). Most men have a job that they do for life.

You and I both know that we can't say that most women are 'taking care of their menfolk' in a way that it was designed to be done.

If they/we were, there wouldn't be a growing army of 'dissatisfied customers'.
The ones we know about are ranting and raving on The Manosphere.
The others we don't know about are silent and slowly either dying inside or turning their backs on women. Silently.
While they continue to do what God put them on this Earth for.

You might say, (or perhaps you won't!): 'But women have complaints too!'

Yes.
But how many of these women are doing what God put them on this Earth to do?
Have you noticed something as I have?
The women who are getting on with what is expected of them are NOT the ones complaining.
It is those who are doing it all wrong who are complaining - the loudest. Funny that, no?

Even those first wives that you and JV mention who have 'done their bit' for their husbands and still have been abandoned must know that there must have been something missing in their marriages. Only they know the truth. Some have real arguments, I don't deny that. But there is a large majority, I am sure, who know that the truth is anything but what they project out to the world. (But hey, I am not going to blame a woman for eliciting as much sympathy as she can get from her entourage, lol. Where I have a problem is if she is doing this by foul means).

Yes, I know that society expects an awful lot from its women, especially unmarried ones. As one in this category, trust me when I say that I am feeling the pain too.

But when women fail to do the minimum, society simply ups the requirements. And now, we are required to do the maximum. Doing the minimum just won't cut it anymore, as we women are finding out.
(Hm, and now in a fit of biblical inspiration I am suddenly reminded of the parable of the talents...).

But no matter...
Some of us will relish the challenge and meet it head-on.
Others will complain and whine till their dying day.
It's become a choice as stark as that...

Grasshopper said...

@ST… “…The others we don't know about are silent and slowly either dying inside or turning their backs on women. Silently. While they continue to do what God put them on this Earth for…”

What a remarkable insight. Thank you.

Grasshopper

Anonymous said...

ST:

Now you might say (or you won't!) that some American women are highly educated and still they are virgins into their 20s and 30s as with the Indian women I describe above.
Yes.
But have you noticed how contemptuous these women can be towards men? Bellita's 'Manhaters' post was a truly revealing post inasmuch as it shed a lot of light on this type of thing...
So being all the above and still missing the respect for men that Indian women seem to be born with, is not enough.

Me (PVW): Thanks for clarifying. I read the contempt such women have for men in light of them believing they should/would find the supportive environment that women in earlier years found in college (and thereafter), but it doesn't follow, so they become bitter.

So yes, the South Asian women have the community support, so they can afford to take care of business and get the advanced degrees. They don't have to worry about dating or what their counterparts are doing, because the familial culture will take care of finding a partner for them when the time comes.

But their American counterparts go to college without the support to find the MRS they expected to get, when that is what earlier generations of women did. They see men who should be their partners pursuing dating in a way that excludes them, ie., men pursuing casual sex or men not dating for marriage.

They see men living lives that don't approximate what they know their religious traditions tell them they should be doing and which they pursue as women, as a matter of course. But they are not getting the desired results. Conservative feminist entitlement, solipsism, perhaps?

So I can understand their bitterness. Do I agree with it, no (When I was a younger woman of color in a SWPL type world, it was quite clear that I could never get a way with any type of feminine entitlement--it gives you a strong dose of reality), but I understand.

Anonymous said...

ST: You and I both know that we can't say that most women are 'taking care of their menfolk' in a way that it was designed to be done.

If they/we were, there wouldn't be a growing army of 'dissatisfied customers'

Me (PVW): Nowadays, I can't say I see the suffering in real life. Neither am I hearing about women's complaints, again, in real life. The internet is the only place I'm seeing this.

The most significant complaints I hear of are among a much older generation, as I mentioned, those who married in the pre-feminist era. And as I said, in some instances, I was getting both sides of the story. As for the others, who knows where the truth lay?

I can't do anything more than just do what has to be done in my marriage, which I knew as a matter of course, through my upbringing.

I was raised according to the f's you spoke of: food, family (ie., I have had opportunities which would take me away from the family, I have not taken them), faithfulness (but of course, on both ends), and the other f, of course, as a part of being married, it was something I definititely wanted!

Yes, my mom would have been embarrassed if her daughter didn't know how to cook, and I was learning at the age of 12, just as you spoke of.

Anonymous said...

PVW here--oops--feel free to delete the duplicates!

dannyfrom504 said...

ST-
small fee huh. how about i QUIT sending you pics of your bf. lol.

just visiting said...

I think that we'll see the pendulum swing back to femininity. Though I think that we'll see this with religious families, homes schoolers and adult secular women first.

Within that frame work, we'll see an emphasis on the 4 f's among other traits.

As to Indian women making better lives and using their educations to be better people....extended family and strong community ties. Seriously. The fracturing of the nucular and extended family as well as the fracturing of community ties has led to a loss of stability,foundation and network. It's overwhelming. It has also led to government trying to take the place of that and failing. Governments are not family or community. It's easy to feel disconnected, and the impersonal nature of government services allows a certain lack of personal duty,commitment or charity that would have to be developed in extended family/community co operation.

Spacetraveller said...

PVW,

"I read the contempt such women have for men in light of them believing they should/would find the supportive environment that women in earlier years found in college (and thereafter), but it doesn't follow, so they become bitter."

Exactly. Some or most of these bitter womn are NOT like women in earlier years, and therefore should not expect the same kind of treatment frome men, perhaps...
Men are reactive to women's behaviour. This is why 'as women go, so goes society'.
TPM and other men keep making this point: 'If women behave better, so will I'. I think that's typical of men's reaction to women...
Is this fair or right? I don't believe so. But that's what we've got...

"So yes, the South Asian women have the community support, so they can afford to take care of business and get the advanced degrees. They don't have to worry about dating or what their counterparts are doing, because the familial culture will take care of finding a partner for them when the time comes."

I do know an awful lot of these women, I have to say. When they were younger, they thought it was terrible that their lives were being orchestrated by their (extended) families in this way. As did I. But as they got older, they looked back with gratitude that their community took charge the way it did. (Only a few regret their arranged marriages).
And now I too wish I had been born Indian :-) I'd probably be on my fifth baby by now :P

"I was raised according to the f's you spoke of: food, family (ie., I have had opportunities which would take me away from the family, I have not taken them), faithfulness (but of course, on both ends), and the other f, of course, as a part of being married, it was something I definititely wanted!"

Good for you PVW!
I quite like the four Fs too.
Um. Yes, maybe 3 out of the 4...
:-)

Just kidding!!

Danny,

You wouldn't...
Woodja?
You can't do that! Brody and I...we're special!


@ JV,

"I think that we'll see the pendulum swing back to femininity."

I think so too. But many male commenters have had trouble believing this! They scoff at this notion!
But I can't see any other way...we either improve things or we burn.

"Governments are not family or community."

So true. Anyone who tries to use government as a substitute in this way soon learns it is not fun. Women more than men are prone to this, and it's killing the real family.

Spacetraveller said...

@ Grasshopper,

"What a remarkable insight. Thank you."

Why thank you Grasshopper!

I think The Manosphere is bigger than we think.
Many Blue Pill men are actually thinking the same as Manosphere men. They just don't bother join the online rants...

Perhaps because they think it is too late? Or not worth the bother?

I feel bad for these ones, because they are truly alone. They don't even have the benefit of bouncing ideas off anonymous random blokes off the internet.
Next you know, suicide, severe depression or Sodini. Not so much the four Fs as the three Ss...

Not nice...

Anonymous said...

@ST (from PVW):

As for these bitter women, I think of the adage having to do with "catching flies with honey rather than vinegar...." Rather weird, they think they can shame/harangue relative strangers into behaving the way they want, men included...?

Oh, so these were arranged marriages. Well, for me, it would depend how it was arranged. Was it a matter of being told I had to marry a specific person without having the chance to get to know him, or was it a matter of the aunties and so forth pre-screening suitable men whom I might get to know? That would work!

Spacetraveller said...

@ PVW,

"Was it a matter of being told I had to marry a specific person without having the chance to get to know him, or was it a matter of the aunties and so forth pre-screening suitable men whom I might get to know?"

Indian arranged marriages got bad press because of its association with 'honour killings' where a man would kill his daughter for not marrying a man of his choice, but actually, the arranged marriages among the 'elite' of these societies are more like the latter...
Not quite 'Yenta' style matchmaking but close enough :-)

So if the 'chosen' don't like each other, each party can withdraw quietly without anyone having to die...

Quite a good deal if you ask me...if you trust the 'taste' of the 'aunties' who are doing the choosing on your behalf...
Hahahahaha!

Anonymous said...

Hi, ST, I (PVW) am glad to hear that! It is true, we do hear about the honor killing type of arranged marriage which Westerners find abhorrent. I don't think any right-minded person would object to the other example, how the practice is arranged "among the elites." Interesting, isn't, but not surprising, more elite, more sophistication?

The thing is, there are pro-active families where parents do something to approximate what you are describing; they just don't call it arranged marriages! The parents just make it their duty to find good partners for their children to date, however they do it, whenever they do it.

They make sure their children are in the right social environments to meet prospective dating partners. They chat among their friends about "fixing up" each other's children.

If parents think about this and are more pro-active, they can do this type of thing. Why isn't the doctor fixing up his daughter with young colleagues? Why isn't the accomplished engineer brother introducing his sister to suitable men?

I have heard of this happening a lot among Jewish families.

Good examples of these appeared in various news stories--Charles Schumer, an American politician, makes it his business to make sure all his young staff people get married. Or Wolf Blitzer and his wife, they had gotten to know another couple of their age group with unmarried children. As they got to know each other over time, they said, why not try fixing up their kids. That is how is daughter got married.

On another note, the bishop of our diocese had a high ranking lay woman on one of his committees whom he got to know. He knew she was interested in getting married; he arranged things in a totally neutral fashion, to have her work with one of the priests assigned to be summer camp chaplain.

Then once he knew they were getting to know each other and things were going well, he reminded them of the importance of what dating means in their context, that they are to get married. He presided at the service about a year later.

Bob Wallace said...


@ Spacetraveler,


"The purpose of a women is to fix me something to eat and rub my feet."

"Hahahahaha!
Stop it, Bob! This is a serious discussion here..."

I is serious! If she can't at least cook a little bit and have some domestic skills - yech.

And of course she should enjoy massaging my poor barking dogs.

I fix the car, kill spiders, and do all the other manly chores.

It's a division of labor.

Carnivore said...

@BW "It's a division of labor."

Sorta reminds me of that one panel cartoon of the husband responding to his wife's complaint:

"What do you mean we don't do anything together? You talk, I listen. You cook, I eat. I earn, you spend."

Anonymous said...

Did someone say soup?

The Navy Corpsman

just visiting said...

@ NC

Lol.

Ceer said...

@Spacetraveller

Your comment about respect for men is important. Respect is more important to many men than love. Also, a woman who doesn't respect men is setting herself up to be deselected by intelligent men who will pass her over as too high a risk.

Spacetraveller said...

@ PVW,

Yes, some arranged marriages work very well, don't they?
It's great when they do! Like the examples you give above :-)


@ Bob,

Hahaha! Fair enough...

"And of course she should enjoy massaging my poor barking dogs."
Erm, question: You want a woman who would massage your dogs?! Do you actually mean 'dogs' here or am I missing a euphemism for something else?
God, maybe I don't want to hear the answer to this one...
:-)

The division of labour argument is good. It is something that may be missing in modern life. Sometimes we want to do something that the other gender is more suited for. Learning to stick to what WE are designed for has become some sort of 'fancy new age thing' when in fact, it should be normal ...

@ Carnivore,

*Grin*
I like the last part best. Hahahaha!

NC,

I see you are taking over where Bob left off...
:-)
Whatever would Mrs. NC say?

@ Ceer,

You know what? I did NOT know about the respect thing before I started blogging. Because no-one told me.
I thought men wanted to be loved exactly like women do.
But now I know differently. I now know that I could love a man till the cows come home. If I don't respect him and show that I do, he won't even feel my love. And then I might get all confused and say something like, 'men are pigs! I loved him so much and still he left!'

Thanks for reiterating this important point.
The blogger from whom the quote in the OP about the 4Fs came was very specific about the respect thing.
And I now see that all the men I know are like this too...
Easy when you know, huh?

Ceer said...

This thread reminds me of dormitory life. When you first get to college, it's not very evident...but the best friends don't necessarily make the best room mates. When any 2 people live closely with one another, it's necessary for both of them to adjust their habits to not annoy the other person.

Feminism's value of moxie encourages women think that this normal method of adjustment is somehow wrong or weak.

Women who are able to live with men without such a fuss are of higher value (all else being equal) in an area VERY visible to men over time.

I'd call it a beta DHV.

Bob Wallace said...

@ Spacetraveler

"You want a woman who would massage your dogs?! Do you actually mean 'dogs' here or am I missing a euphemism for something else?"

"Barking dogs" means sore feet, and it originally came out of the American South.

Stingray said...

Spacetraveller,

I don't know where else to write this, so I apologize for the OT of this comment. I saw at Dalrock's that you mentioned that you didn't think you could homeschool. You absolutely could. There is a common theme that goes around homeschooling that one must be a trained teacher for it to work. That's very untrue. Many many parents do this who have a high school degree and they excel at it. As the children get older, they really begin teaching themselves and the parents job is to mostly supervise. Also, the parents learn right along with the kids.

However, am I right in that you are from Switzerland? If so, I am not sure homeschooling is legal there. My husband works in Switzerland fairly often and we briefly looked into moving there. We would not be allowed to homeschool in that country. What I am not sure of is if we would not be allow because we are not citizens or if no one is allowed to homeschool there.

Spacetraveller said...

@ Ceer,

The unmarried amongst us (mentioning no names, lol) have a real fear of living with someone else that they haven't already grown up with. It is part of the fear of so-called 'commitment phobia' but I think it is justified. The trick is simply to get over it and advance in life. If others manage to do it, why can't one?

I also know that men are less likely to be ...how shall I put this delicately without offending the male readers/commenters...'careful' in the domestic environment, hence women everywhere complaining about their man's disgusting habits.
It is as it is. So for an unmarried woman, yet another hurdle...

Again, get over it. But not so easy in practice...

@ Bob,

Ah, I see! I never heard that expression before!
:-)
Thanks for the explanation.

Stingray,

Don't worry! This is not OT at all! It is very much a part of 'what a woman is for' so I am glad you addressed this issue here.

The topic of homeschooling is one I have confronted many times, both here and also on Bellita's blog, where I have gone backwards and forwards a lot about what to do.

I WOULD like to try it one day, so thank you for the encouragement!

Yes I live in Switzerland.
Now the problem in Switzerland is that everything is 'cantonal'. Which means that all the cantons are self-governing. Very few issues are 'federal', i.e. apply to all of Switzerland. So it is quite possible that where homeschooling may be illegal in one canton, it could be legal in another. I have yet to find out. I shall let you know!

I am in a tricky position in that I am 'in transit'. I will move to another canton in a few months, so I am 'in between', so to speak.

I guess with everything, it takes imagination and creativity.
But what I dread is a niggling feeling that my homeschooling might be 'incomplete'. Afterall, it took several teachers with a wide range of skills to teach me. I would feel somehow that I shortchange my (future) children somewhat if I give them only the skills that I possess, which is a whole lot less than 20 different teachers with expertise in many different subjects.
That's my hang-up on this issue...

Teachers like Bell and PVW may be better qualified to do this than I ever could...
My own parents were both teachers, as I mentioned on Dalrock's blog. But still, they felt the need to send me to school. I think they would be horrified if they knew I wanted to homeschool one day!
:P

Stingray said...

But what I dread is a niggling feeling that my homeschooling might be 'incomplete'.

Yes, I am very familiar with that feeling. ;)

However, you really shouldn't be. There are so many programs out there to walk you step by step through what should be done. Here is the book we use. It's based on a classical education called the trinity. It would be impossible really, to miss anything if you follow a program like this. It also gives details on which books to buy and why and the lists are extensive. You just pick and choose which ones would go best with what you want.

Having said all that, if you can't homeschool there, Switzerland's school are quite good. At least compared to the US.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for all of your work on this web page. I am looking forward to reading more of your posts in the future.

Spacetraveller said...

@ Stingray,

Thanks for the link to the book!

It certainly is extensive :-)

Perhaps I shall overcome my fears if I just see homeschooling in action? I need to visit a family that homeschools one day...
Maybe that would help.

Yes I totally agree with you that Swiss schools seem of a high standard.
And certainly for girls...well, if I remember right, it was quite the fashion for British wealthy families to send their daughters to Swiss finishing schools hehe.

@ Anonymous,

Thank you. Nice of you to say. 'Preciate it.

Anonymous said...

"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."

To inspire the men to build a civilisation. It's why we strive to achieve, to create, to build.

Otherwise, men wouldn't bother with any of it.

A comedian (Dave Chappelle, I think) said men would live in a cardboard box if it were possible, the only reason we work for a house, car, is to get your attention.

cheshirecat

Spacetraveller said...

@ Cheshire Cat,

Welcome to The Sanctuary!
As I just explained to another commenter, I just saw your comment.
Apologies for late response.

Yes, I agree with you. I think a man is content to cater for his immediate needs. In the absence of a woman, he won't be inspired to build/create much.
I think this is unlike women, who even in the absence of a man will nurture anything else they see :-)
This is how I know that a woman's need to nurture (something! anything!) is overwhelming, and thus why women need men more than men need women.

Sad in a way, but true.

Most men of course want a woman (at least a good one!), but they can cope much better with the absence of one than the other way round.
Fact of life.

Yes, so true that a woman's 'job' is to inspire a man to do great things for her, and for society in general.
To do this, she must do great things herself. By 'great', I mean thankless things. Society nowadays simply does not 'reward' good women like it used to. So it is ever more important for the good woman to find her own 'reward' from internal sources...