Don't show 'em your vulnerable side!...and the cause-and-effect conundrum

I had cause to think about 'cause and effect' the other day (no pun intended :-).

As ever, I was forced to confront this issue as relates to the SMP in a rather precipitous manner.
It's almost as if each time I settle down and rest on my laurels, life pulls me off said laurels and hands me another new lesson on a plate.


I was discussing something of a personal (read 'relationship') nature with a female acquaintance during her visit to my home.
I was upset about something.

I didn't want to talk about it to her , but she has a way of persuading just about anyone to 'squeal'. So I did.

And in doing so, I unmasked my 'vulnerability' to her, it seems.

Amongst other behaviours that 'freaked her out' about me, I grabbed one of my 'cuddle bunnies' and gave it a big, juicy hug.
She was horrified.

Below is a summary of her case against me:

1. The very fact that I have a 'cuddle bunny' at all. According to her, past a woman's teens, 'comfort zone associates' such as 'cuddle bunnies' are illegal. Not permitted in polite society, it would appear :-)

2. The fact that I actually did hug my 'cuddle bunny' at a time of emotional stress suggested to her that I was still an adolescent.
Why does this have a familiar ring to it?
Is this a female accuser's version of 'woman up' in the manner of 'man up'?

3. And this was her advice: and hence the point of this post: When dealing with a man, never show him your vulnerable side.


This is effectively what many women are being advised to do.
By other women.



Now, points 1 and 2 are a question of taste/maturity, etc. Guilty as charged. I have a 'teddy bear equivalent', and I am in my 30s. Shameful, I know.

But, and this question is addressed primarily to the ladies...
Is this necessarily sad or twisted?
What is the alternative, if any?

Assuming I had a husband and children of say, age 6 and above: would it be reasonable to burden them with my emotional problems ala Princess Diana and Prince William?
Actually, I think not personally. My female friends and my 'cuddle bunnies' exist for that function :-)
But I welcome alternate views on this.

What disturbs me the most is point No. 3.
Am I courting controversy by addressing this?

I actually have mixed feelings about 'showing vulnerability'. I really do.
I like 'privacy' and emotional strength, aka 'stoicism'.
But I also know that 'privacy' precludes 'intimacy' as addressed in this post.
'Intimacy' can take many forms - I do not restrict myself to the more obvious forms - sexual/emotional.
Spiritual intimacy is just as important. As a Catholic, for example, you need this if you are to make a good Confession. You need spiritual intimacy with a priest to achieve this. (I really am not being 'sleazy here. This is nothing to do with my (separate) and slightly pathological problem of 'priestophilia' :-)


I do believe that even the most alpha of men has to show vulnerability at some point in his relationship with a woman.
But what about women?
Can a woman negotiate a relationship without showing some vulnerability?
I think not...

But why is it so hard to show vulnerability?
Fear of being belittled, betrayed, abandoned, exposed...
Understandable, yes.
But ...

Is there another reason behind this advice?
As ever, the 'why' is very important to me.

Why cannot I hug a teddy bear in front of a potential suitor?
Has a woman ever been dumped for this heinous crime?


Cause and effect...
Difficult topic.
Because of what is commonly known in the statistical world as confounding variables.
Peripheral issues that cloud the main issue.


If a 'nice girl' is dumped in favour of a 'rymes with rut' kind of girl, what's the most common reaction by said 'nice girl'?
Yes...
No more 'nice girl'!

Similarly for men...
No more Mr. Nice Guy!

But isn't that somehow wrong?
Isn't that 'treating the symptom' as opposed to 'treating the root cause' as someone pointed out to me recently (you know who you are: thank you for your insight into this).
Whatever happened to 'Outcome independence'?

But what is the 'root cause'?
Could there not be a 'confounding variable' that might have been confused with 'nice girl's' niceness?
For example, what if  'nice girl' is also unhygienic?
If she is dumped, is it ever helpful to blame her 'niceness'? Would it not be more appropriate to confront the real problem head-on, i.e. her body odour?
This is of course an extreme example, but I wonder if the reasons we give for 'staying in the mire' are actually problems that can easily be eradicated...

Reacting negatively to a negative situation does not a positive outcome produce.
That much is clear to me now.



In my Blue Pill days, I might have swallowed the above woman's advice piecemeal. But now, with a Red Pill attitude to life, I see that it is simply unforgivable to do this.
Unforgivable because I would be punishing my own self.


In slightly unrelated but nonetheless relevant news, a South African student recently invented a water-free bath product, similar to but not identical to sanitizers.

I admire his inventiveness and creativity (his work was inspired by a friend of his who was 'too lazy' to take a shower...um, I wonder if he was ever dumped for being a 'nice boy'?)
:-)

But water is water. Water is so much more than a cleansing agent. It is a holistic element. There is a healing quality to water that is simply missing from 'DryBath'.
My point is, if someone is too lazy to take a shower, DryBath may not in fact be the right solution for them.
If there is no water available, DryBath is nothing but a temporary solution.

Merely treating the symptom is not the answer. The root cause still exists.
Find a way to get water. Living beings need water. Not just for taking a bath.



'Don't show 'em your vulnerable side!' is an attempt to treat a symptom.
But it doesn't work, I think.
If the person giving me this advice was ever castigated for being 'vulnerable', could it just be possible that there was another hidden reason for her chastisement and not the vulnerability?
Am I being too naïve here?

For sure, her advice is wrong...at least for me.
A woman who is unable to show vulnerability (at an appropriate time of course!) is sometimes hard.

I believe it is advice like this that inspires comments like this from men:
This fom Bob Wallace:

 "They end up hostile, bitter spinsters, usually on psychiatric drugs, ending alone in apartments with a cat (cats), and blaming all their problems on men. They're hostile because of their envy of men and put men down - and they don't even know it. I've seen this several times, and it's got to the point when I run across these kind of women I tell them what their problem is."

It is a direct result of 'feminism programming'.
It is insiduous, but women absorb this 'Blue Pill advice' via a process of osmosis until this mentality is properly assimilated into their psyches. Then when the deeply ingrained dogma starts to play out, chaos ensues, or as Bob describes above, the manhate starts.


Men can help women they know and like/love who are being 'misinformed' by simply being aware that she is being 'misinformed'.
Attitudes can be changed.
For the better.
But it requires a (sometimes tedious) deprogramming of previous programming.
Remember, it is not always her fault...

"It just happened..."

I also used to believe this phrase, because I was previously not savvy enough to realise that 'nothing just happens' in this life. Good or evil, every action has a root cause.

I hope Kristin Stewart learns this one day... like I have.

Auditorial wiring?

This is by no means a scientific post. It is purely anecdotal, and based on a fairly small population sample :-)
But most of all, it is a 'fun' post. Too many 'serious' posts recently :-)



I have harped on enough about (some) women being 'auditory'. Chiefly referring to my own self, I believe this to be true for a fair number of other women I know.

I decided to look further into this, because I think it is interesting enough to talk about.

My own 'auditory' cue may be more 'literal' than I believe the general feminine auditory cue to be.
As a teen, I went through a short period of unexplained hearing impairment. Nothing was found to be wrong with my hearing, but for some reason I struggled for a while in social settings, especially outside of my immediate family.

Whilst I put it down to 'psychological' or perhaps even more apt 'psychosomatic', I really don't know why any psychological issue might even manifest itself this way, assuming that I had any psychological issue in the first place.

What is also interesting to me is that it was fairly 'selective' in that I never had this problem in the company of people I knew, i.e. my family.
And...being a budding musician at the time, I never had problems hearing music and certainly not when I was playing.
But I think I have an alternative explanation for that too, in that I (and again I think I have mentioned this before), I tend to see music rather than hear it anyway!
More on that later.

(I think) I ended up with a heightened sense of hearing as direct result of the above. So I am extra sensitive to what I hear than I would normally have been had it not been for this slight blip in my sensory development.

So whilst I remain 'visual' in a lot of ways, (for example, I am a 'visual' learner in the sense that I won't retain information unless I 'see' it - and I have since learned that this is the basis for the so-called photographic memory' and why I learn best when I see images and why I learn languages quicker by reading/writing rather than speaking/listening.
And of course, why when I was a pianist I learned my musical notation not by how notes sounded but by how they 'looked' to me.

But I am not at all visual when it comes to attraction. Like most women I really don't care what a man looks like, unless it provides a clue as to something else about his character/personality. So perhaps if I like a muscular build (I don't, particularly! - just an example), it would be more because the man in question takes care of himself than the muscles per se...
Or so my hamster argues it...
:-)

But the (speaking) voice is a big deal for me. And apparently it is for a number of women too.
And oddly enough, when I talk of attraction here, it is not restricted to the opposite gender. I make or don't make even female friends based on this too, in many ways.

And I was amused to watch a Youtube video made by a lovely woman (who was a beautician) about beauty tips including facial massage.
Several people (including many women) commented on her voice (she had one of the calmest voices I have ever heard!) and not the content of her video :-)


I also remarked that in the film 'Firelight', Elizabeth Laurier was keen to hear Charles Godwin's voice during her 'interview' with the go-between for the business arrangement she was about to undertake with him. I smiled at that, because I recognised why she needed to do that.

Why would women be auditory?
Is there a scientific basis to this? Is there an evolutionary advantage to this that I have missed?

I promised not to get all scientific on you :-)

But here is the 'evidence' I have unearthed.

Women are more sensitive to the spoken word than men. In many ways, language, and words are more a woman's 'currency' than these are for men.
Men communicate best by their actions. Women communicate best by words. Little girls learn to speak at an earlier age than boys, although boys walk at an earlier age than girls.

Women are also suckers for 'sweet nothings' in the romantic arena in a way that most men are not, or at least men are less susceptible to this!
To this end, women are more 'hypnotisable' than men.
It is a slightly 'dangerous' position for a woman to be in, of course. But there we are...

The quasi-scientific basis for all the above is that a woman's brain has more synapses or connections in it than a man's brain, and is also smaller than  a man's brain (in relation to body surface area/body mass).
So what all this means is that a woman's brain is primed for communication, which usually involves the use of language but not exclusively so.
So if she talks a lot (um, to you men it's called 'nagging' lol), she also has to listen a lot (principally to other women who are also exercising their right to speak :-)
So a woman is just as auditory as she is vocal.


For the life of me, I can't find any evolutionary reasons why a woman might be auditory though.
(And believe me I looked hard). Anyone know?

Or maybe I am just a bit odd? :-)



But it seems I am not alone...
I have long been a big fan of French pianist Hélène Grimaud ever since I happened on her performances (not in person) at The Proms (UK) and the Lucern Festival in Switzerland. She is actually now resident in Switzerland, so I might get my wish of seeing and hearing her play in future concerts here (heaven!).

One thing I find fascinating about her is that although she is was born in France (father is Jewish Algerian, mother is Italian), she lived in the USA for a long time, so she has a funny mix of French/American accent which strangely enough (aided by her manner of fast speaking as well) makes her sound (and  look, courtesy of her blonde hair)...German :-)
To me, that is quite a combination of accents.
(She did in fact live in Berlin for a short while, but she sounded 'German' long before she moved there).


She also happens to be a strikingly beautiful woman by the way. I would value the men's (especially) opinion on this.
She has very piercing blue eyes, and moreover her gaze is somewhat 'magnetic' (not my words - the french press coined this one about her) and maybe even 'hypnotic'.


Some might say, and actually they do, that Ms. Grimaud is a bit of a 'weirdo'.
She runs a centre for wolves where she raises wolves like some people raise horses or dogs. She is a bit of a 'wolf whisperer'.

And when I asked my French colleagues about her, every single one knew her because of her association with wolves and not because she is an international pianist ;)
And always with the comeback: 'Ah yes, she's a peculiar one'.
All of which made me worry about how I might be perceived by these same colleagues, since I do not find Hélène Grimaud peculiar in the least :-)


Anyhow she also has this ability to 'see' music, like I do. Synaesthesia, it is called.
Is this a piano thing I wonder? Or does this pertain to all musicians, professional or otherwise?

To her, the note 'F' is red, 'G' is green, for example. She goes into elaborate detail on what hues and colours she sees which she associates with this note or that.
This fascinates me because I have the same 'problem'.

I don't see colours though, when I hear people speak.
But I gain a lot more information about them when I hear them than when I see them, and I find it odd given that anything else I learn is based on the visual.

Anyone else have a tale of a similar nature to tell?
Or have I just freaked everyone out by my weirdness?

Please tell me I am normal.
Even if you have to lie to me :-)

At 6:44 in this video, she speaks about her 'synaesthesia' when she appears on a  Dutch TV programme.
The interview actually begins at 02:00 (in English).
Totally off-topic, but relevant in the context of the general theme of this blog...
Does anyone else feel what's going on with the man sitting next to the host of the show?
I wonder if Hélène twigged onto this? (I must say it is so much easier to notice these things as a bystander).
Eh Bell?
;)

Having it all...

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

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

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


A few people mentioned possible solutions to the manhate problem.


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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is this relevant?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

Having it all? Or having none of it?

Manhaters

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

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

Beginning with ourselves.

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

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

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

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

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



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



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

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



Bellita says:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Yes, they are," he agreed.

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

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

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

But there are some men who try to explain themselves. The post I linked above drew the following comment from "Jeff in Sacramento":

"I read a bunch of comments and none seemed to hit the nail on the head. Here it is and although this is common knowledge and talk amongst us men, I am sure it will make some women crazy with hate and a sense of injury and injustice. Sorry.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





Back to ST:

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

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

:-)

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

For quality attracts quality.

And guess what?
Manhaters attract womanhaters.

It only stands to reason, no?

Don't touch his manhood, or hers

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

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

And this was my reply:

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

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

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

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

Which is it?

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

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

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

The sequence of events is as follows:

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

Femininity is all but dead in western society now.

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

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

How did we get here?

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

I don't need a man.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

The sneer - sexy or sad?

Over the last 2 weeks, the tennis courts of Wimbledon have been alight with the fire of the quest for glory, as is the case every summer.
With its conclusion yesterday and my experiencing divided loyalties (country of nationality versus country of residence :-) I find a reason to pose to you all yet another question I didn't see coming...

Until Nadal got knocked out.

In the usual post-mortem by all the newspapers as to how this could ever happen, I came across this article in the Daliy Mail.
(I really do appreciate Boris Becker's attitude when it comes to sporting defeat, I must say. When at 19 years old, he lost in the first round at Wimbledon having won it at 17 and 18, he replied to the press at the press conference:
"Don't wory! No-one died. We didn't lose the war! It's only a tennis match!"
So true. How come one so young had so much sense?)

Anyhow, I digress.
The article above shows a picture (the fifth one) of the famous Nadal 'sneer'.
The first four pictures of course are of no interest whatsoever to me :-)

Now, apart from his bizarre 'rituals' (which actually I believe is common to all top athletes) the one thing we have all grown accustomd to is indeed the Nadal 'sneer'.

Somehow it is very much a part of who he is. Just as much as his muscles...which of course I barely ever noticed :-)

But...the 'sneer' is something I notice more and more as part of the standard 'pose' (for want of a better word) by celebrity women (mostly, but some men do this too) who want to appear 'sexy'.

Is this what we have to do to appear desirable to men?
Really?
Then I'm out :-)


Maybe it's a good thing I am not the audience of such women who 'sneer' (because it would be a failing strategy with me lol), but I wonder what their audience really think about this?

Is the 'sneer' ever attractive in a woman?
Or is it a masculine thing, which is why I am confused when I see it in a woman and laud it in Nadal?
Am I just a 'double standards hound', or is there something to this?

If it is designed to be a seductive thing, then why are women encouraged to smile more?
Would Helen Andelin approve of the 'sneer'? Is this ever a part of femininity that I just haven't quite uncovered yet? Believe me, I am trying very hard.


Now, I think I have mentioned before on this blog that in real life, I am not particularly the smiling type.
I do smile when it's necessary, but it's not my default facial expression :-)

It is partly because I am always thinking 'why' and I think that question in one's mind is incompatible with a smile.
:-)

But jokes apart, even with my non-smiling self, I do automatically smile when I need to make myself more attractive ;)
It's automatic.

And to me, that makes sense.
All the 'Girl Game' books advise this afterall.
And most women in fact do this, whether it comes 'naturally' or not.

A smile is an effective way of saying 'all is well with the world' - even when it is not.
And those with nice smiles and beautiful teeth have an unfair advantage here :-)

But somehow, the script got flipped whilst I was at the dentist :-)

Someone is telling women that a sneer and a cold stare are the ways to appear attractive to men.
Since when did this become true?

Will the men care to explain why this phenomenon is happening?
Is someone misrepresenting their wishes?


I sincerely hope so, because whilst I don't smile a lot (I am trying to do that more), I can't see myself 'sneering' either.

If men want a 'sneer' I shall be single for life :-(

There is also the 'pout'. Now, whilst I always thought that was an obligatory side effect of too much 'collagen fillers' injected in the lips, (i.e. the 'trout pout'), I see that this also features on the faces of women who swear they haven't had this procedure.
So it's another learned 'technique'.

As is the 'scowl'.

I don't get it.
I am missing a serious trick here.

But maybe I am supposed to.

Is the sexy sneer a secret code for something I wouldn't want to know about?
Am I about to enter a locker-room that is neither male nor female, but a combination of the two with a bold red sign that says 'keep out'?


Who is advising these women?
And what is the motive behind this advice?
Anyone know?



In case you wondered what I mean...
Some examples for your expert perusal...

Victoria Beckham had a smile before she got married.

Um, should it scare me that she has never smiled in public ever since?

(Gulp...)

 The trout pout...

Lauren Goodger and Jordan do it best.

But...is it worth it?

 This facial expression of Kate Bolick's is barely detectable to me as a 'sneer', but several men over at HUS thought it was there. That tells me I don't have a good enough 'radar' on this...but then again, should I? I am never going to be the target of such an expression. Unless I get on a different bus...

 I think this is the worst one of all...what is this? It's not a sneer, it's not a pout...

I guess Eva Longoria is trying to be 'sexy' here. But she still keeps her smile. Do the men think this takes anything away from her 'sexiness'?

(I think not...but as a woman, my opinion on this doesn't count, surely :-)

I notice that in all the examples above (except the last one), the 'sneer' comes later in the woman's life.
Is this what I can look forward to?
I really sincerely hope not!

How to avoid the 'sneer'?
Any useful tips would be most welcome :-)

Matchmaking - a lost art?

Matchmaking mishaps.
Matchmaking mayhem.
Matchmaking hell...

I take comfort in the concrete knowledge that I cannot be the only one who has been down this road :-)
In both directions in fact :-)
(Which makes it all the more tragic).

Why do we think matchmaking is such a good idea?
Is it the romantic in us?
Will I ever learn?

Around ten years ago I embarked on this futile journey when a friend bemoaned the fact that she was single and wanted a boyfriend. Around that time, I knew of a man roughly ten years older than her who was divorced and had grown children (I knew his oldest son). As my friend was open to an introduction, and didn't mind an older man, I introduced them to each other.
Disaster.
I put it down to inexperience on my part.

Roll along five years and I am at it again.
I introduce a male friend of mine to a female acquaintance. This time, things seemed to be going great.
For three weeks.
Then before I knew it, a bitter breakup ensued.
And now I am nervous around either party.

Will I ever learn?

I now think that the only people who should be matchmaking are the professionals...
Um, hm, perhaps even they get it wrong.

No, it should be the older woman in your family who is longtime married with children preferably your age or older...

Uh...wrong again!

One of my aunts just can't help herself, bless her :-)
I have been on the receiving end of not one but 2 of her matchmaking schemes. The first time, I walked into a minefield. That didn't go too well.
The second time I knew to run fast from her :-)

Luckily she still loves me, and I her... just.
:-)



But some attempts at matchmaking are not so cordial. In fact I have heard of some downright diabolical cases!

It struck me that 'do or die' matchmakers sometimes have an agenda, which may not be obvious to the couple who are being set up (sometimes against their will or even knowledge).
This is quite different from the well-meaning older woman (or man) like my aunt who is as hopelessly romantic as I was around ten years ago.
The problem is, how can one spot the true motive behind a matchmaking attempt?

Here are some scenarios:
Any suggestions as to what the underlying motive might be? No 'wrong' answers here. I just want to test out my degree of cynicism with the wider world's :-)



1. Mother of a young man who seems to be dating 'all the wrong women' approaches 'nice girl' to keep her son on the straight and narrow. No consideration for the possibility that these two may in fact be a very poor match for each other.

2. Young women in the 'service' and 'hospitality' industries such as waitresses, carers, nurses, approached by older women with sons with a view to matching these women up with their sons. Nurses have it particularly bad as said older woman can really use emotional blackmail to guilt trip the poor woman.
'Oh as you know, I am dying...(this might not even be true, and said nurse would know this of course)...one date with my son and I would gladly go in peace...'
:-)
I kid you not. This happened to a friend of mine.


3. The one or two young men (!) to be found in church these days aggressively pursued by mothers of daughters to date/marry their daughters. And then the next week, he doesn't come to church anymore...
Then the familiar chorus of 'Where are all the good men'?
:-)


4. Strategic 'matchmaking' by parents to keep the family property/money/assets 'in the right hands' completely ignoring daughter or son's choice of marriage partner. I guess this happens more in societies where arranged marriages are the norm.


5. Similar to 4., matchmaking performed purely to keep a third party happy. For example, where parents 'promise' their son or daughter to another family, eg. as some sort of debt clearance. Again, probably only applies to communities where arranged marriages are common.

6. 'Eliminatory matchmaking'. This is where a match is made with the express hope (or even better a certainty) that it will be rejected, but it is done as a smokescreen. I have only come across this in fiction, but I wonder if anyone has come across an example of this in real life?
Suppose Girl A was 'promised' to Boy A as a child, but Girl A is discovered to have an 'undesirable' trait when she reaches adulthood. In the fictional case I know of, the girl in question had to have a hysterectomy for medical reasons. The parents of Boy A then deliberately go ahead and match Boy A (who is unaware of the problem) with Girl A knowing that he rebels against all their decisions. Meanwhile they have changed their minds about Girl A anyway, because they want grandchildren and now have a Girl B in mind who they 'discourage' Boy A to pursue. So Boy A does exactly what his parents want and flees Girl A into the arms of Girl B who is in fact the (new) intended target of Boy A's parents after their rash mistake years earlier. The beauty is, Girl A's parents are none the wiser, because afterall a match was made with their daughter...
Sneaky...and sinister all at the same time.


Was the professional or the amateur matchmaker ever a good idea? Does matchmaking have any place in today's society?
Or is it a dead and buried art that died on the day of feminism's 'Bat Mitzvah'?

Would the return of the matchmaker be a real solution to today's SMP/MMP problems?
Or would it be like a zombie movie where the living dead are roaming the graveyard?

Are we just too 'modern' for matchmaking?
Is this the problem?
Why can't we just accept what we are given by Yente and her ilk?

I love the film 'Fiddler on the roof'.
But I have mixed feelings about Yente...
And I am suspicious of all matchmakers now...
Nevermind that I was (a bogus) one once...
But then again, my own attempt at it is the perfect warning that it shouldn't be done, no?
:-)

If I saw Yente coming, I would run a mile...
Especially as her idea of 'young' is 62 :-)

Are we all in this mess because we broke from 'tradition' as depicted here?
If ever there was a case for a return to Patriarchy, this is it, surely!

The question is, can we ever find our way back to this place?
Or did this village get tsunamied out of existence, never to rise again...

Tradition!
:-)

But... with 'tradition' comes the 'traditional woman'.
And she nags a bit :-)
"Send us the cure - we've got the sickness already".
Priceless!

Oh well, a man can at least have his private dreams, eh?

Um, I do love Topol's gravelly singing voice :-)

The harem - a niche view

Confession: I am was an involuntary member of a 'soft harem' in my online life.
Involuntary because I don't like harems on principle and I am therefore not exactly sure how I ended up belonging to one ('it just happened' :-), and especially as the male involved is not even human :-)

Note to all you MGTOW types: This is your fault. When you turn your backs on women they are forced to look into 'other' options...
:-)

 Just kidding...
This post is dedicated to my Top Spot Online guy, Brody from 504, aka Danny's dog who is not only my countryman but who is also undeniably alpha supreme :P
Welcome to The Sanctuary, Brody.



I recall a conversation I had with a former colleague from way back, when I was very young. She was much older than I and was in a relationship that was clearly going nowhere, but she was the only person who could not see that. Even I in my naivety knew this.
This woman was in a relationship with a man who was the local 'don juan'. You only had to have a pulse and breasts and he would be after you. It was embarrassing to say the least.
All her friends were beginning to avoid the pair of them, because you couldn't so much as step into their company as to have Mr. Randy make a pass at you - sometimes right in front of her.
I don't know if he was actually sleeping with all the women he was making passes at, but it was clear he was at high risk of doing so if presented with the opportunity. What's more, everyone around them knew what he was like. Everyone.

The conversation we had was round about end of february. She was clearly upset about something and was becoming a little impossible to work with. I asked what was the matter, and after a bit of coaxing, she came out with it: she was upset because Mr. Randy hadn't got her a Valentine's day gift.

My jaw hit the floor.
Huh? That was her problem?
Not the fact that he was busy chasing skirt all over town?

I am ashamed to say I did not exactly sympathise with her position.

That was then. Now I think I was perhaps rash in my astonishment at the reason behind her upset.
I guess  I was 'projecting' my own values/standards on her. I have since learned that this is perhaps immature.

Every woman has her own 'non-negotiables'. Hers was clearly getting a gift on Valentine's Day. She was ready to 'close her eyes' to his embarrassing flirting and possible infidelity.
There may have been a good reason for that, I don't know. Perhaps he was very good at something else that she liked, like making her feel special. Maybe he was the love of her life and she had chosen him as the No. 1 man, come what may.
I, like everyone else was only seeing things from the outside. I did not know what she herself was seeing from the inside, or indeed if she was seeing anything at all.


For many women, a harem of any kind is a 'non negotiable'.
It is for me personally, but could this be simply a cultural issue? I was quite amazed to realise that I am not anti-polygamy per se. If I had been brought up in a polygamous society, I would have had no problem conforming. Because if that were the tradition of the land and things worked out fairly well for everyone concerned, why rock the boat?
Even in some parts of America where you see communities in which there are polygamous families, like in religious sects, etc., there is a certain 'order' which is at best or at worst (depending on how you see it!) tolerable.
I would not wish to be part of that sort of arrangement, but each to his own. At least the women themselves in these sorts of communities do not seem to be complaining too much. So who am I to complain on their behalf?
Things seem to work out fairly well with this situation. Every woman is well catered for. No-one is left out in the cold. There are mutual benefits.

Throughout history, there have been harems. The Romans, Greeks and Turks were particularly erm, talented at this :-)
The women were often housed in a specified part of the man's house, with eunuchs to guard over them.
Harems were not always 'legitimate' of course.
During the various slave trades in history, the womenfolk among the enslaved were often used as involuntary harem members. This practice of course still continues today with human trafficking.

True polygamy was an established part of many old traditional societies, such as in Africa, the Middle East and North American 'Red Indian' cultures. Islam still encourages true polygamy to this day of course.
Does the practice of polygamy cater for a masculine biological need (to experience 'variety) or is this just a manifestation of the insatiable and uncontrollable 'need' of a privileged few?
I dunno.

But something else interests me on the topic of harems.
Specifically one which involves a married man who has mistresses.

See, it's one thing for a woman to belong to the 'soft harem' of an unattached man where she may not know about the other women and where none of the parties involved is married.
That's fair enough in many ways.

But what happens where a man is clearly married, and the peripheral women know he is married, ala Tiger Woods?
Why is this scenario so common?

We all know about the sins of men.
That's all we've heard - all our lives.
So much so that it fails to register anymore - it's simply not 'news' anymore.

Tiger Woods was heavily penalised for his sins.
Rightly so.

But what about the women who were in his harem?
Were they innocent victims of this man's out of control libido?

One of them got married shortly after the incident (yes, there was a man willing to wife up this woman) and recently had a baby.

This woman (neither her cronies, I would venture) did not 'love' Tiger Woods as she claimed.
If so, she wouldn't have found it so easy to disengage from Tiger and marry another man so quickly...

Sure, there is the money...
But apparently the Tiger was a bit tight-fisted with these women.

No. These women were out to hurt another woman.
They were out to hurt Tiger's wife.
And they succeeded.
Another marriage broken.


Tiger, like most men, may have had a 'roving eye'. Another victim of The Coolidge effect.
But he could never had achieved what he did without the cooperation of women.

An honourable woman never wants to break up another's marriage.
No matter how much she is under siege by her own ovulatory hormones.
A one-off mistake... sure, it happens.
A full-blown and utter disregard for the rights of another woman to her own husband however is crass and unacceptable.
Not the popular view, I am sure, but nonetheless true.

This makes me wonder why we don't hear so much about harems involving one woman and many (single) men.
Notice the phrase we don't hear so much about.
Of course these types of 'harems' occur all the time.

But there is nothing to be gained from them if all the men are unattached. No-one is hurt, afterall.

But I am willing to bet that we surely hear about them if one or more of the men is or becomes attached sometime in the future, where it becomes a case of 'look at me, I am so hot I was able to steal this man from his less attractive woman'!

Female competition of the lowest kind...
And dare I say it, these women do know that what they are doing is gravely wrong.
But they hide their shame with 'And I am not ashamed to say it!' knowing jolly well they are...
Because 'empowered feminism' eggs them on.
And they know only too well that they are hurting another woman, possibly several children, and a whole community who were witness to the union of a man and his wife.

But these same women when challenged will play the victim:

She was needy and he threw the bait at her. (In this, by the way, I do not include women who were duped into believing that the man was single. But even so... I think it is usually clear on some level if a man is married, but I am willing to stand corrected on this. And I believe any man who deceives a woman in this way is the worst kind of man there is).

She was lonely and someone gave her his company.

She was in need of validation and someone showed her some attention.

She was in some sort of trouble and someone bailed her out.

Note that in all these type of cases, the man is fulfilling what usually turns out to be a temporary need of such a flighty woman.
Once that need is fulfilled, she is gone.
And the unwitting man thinks the woman loves him: It's all about him. This woman cares about him.
Unlike his wife who doesn't understand him.


Wrong.
The truth is, she pictured his wife and she said to herself: 'I'll have what she has'.
And not only that, but 'I'll destroy what she has'.


Any woman who is willing to help a man break his marriage vows when she knows he is married is one with low impulse control at best and a highly dangerous one at worst.

In this sense, a woman like this is just using an unwitting man like this as a stepping stone on her 'hypergamous' journey.
Using the 'preselection' his wife provides as her artillery.
Once the wife is ditched, or she leaves, the man is now worthless to this type of woman.
For she is always on the hunt for an illusion. Not the real man behind said illusion.

This should not surprise any man in this position.
The signs were there all along...


Addendum:
Reading all the above to myself once more prior to publishing, I empathise with anyone who might conclude that even where the sin of a man is blatantly clear, I will still find a way to blame a woman.

Yes, valid point.
I don't disagree, actually.
But as ever with me, motive is everything.
And my intent here, is less about the culpabilisation of women and more about seeing the world with fresh eyes...to see what I may have missed in order to avoid making the mistakes I could easily make were I not looking for the pitfalls.
In other words, look for possible sins that no-one is willing to, or knowledgeable enough about, to point out to me, so that I don't make them one day.

Yes, this type of thinking does require a certain willingness on the part of women to fall on our collective swords.
But mea culpa is not a foreign concept to me :-)


I find that the best teacher is the one who won't teach you but will sit back and watch you teach yourself.