Friday, December 28, 2012

Bravery by any other name...

Sometimes we get lessons free on a plate.
Even when we least expect it.
And sometimes that lesson comes from a very sad place indeed.

The Sandy Hook massacre really touched the rest of the world. It doesn't matter who you are, where you are, what you are, when you hear a story like this one, you can't help but feel something.

Especially at a time like this.

Losing a child has been described as the worst thing that can happen to a human being.

One doesn't need to be a parent to 'get' this.

It was never going to be 'routine' to have to bury your own child.

The lesson I learned from this tragic event in our recent history is surprisingly nothing to do with the gun debate. As a Brit, I come from a country that is not as 'gun friendly' as America.
But I actually now live in a country with the same gun laws as America. Except there is nowhere near the litany of tragedies that America has, over in Switzerland. It may not be the about the guns per se...

No, the lesson I learned is that there are many more good people around than we think.

I am therefore really proud that I never forget the (minority) of good women still around, despite my dismay with the greater majority who are not up to scratch (which includes myself, of course).

When there are stories about brave men who protect women to the extent that they sometimes lose their lives in the process, we are awed and respectful of these men.
Stories circulate on Manosphere blogs about how courageous they are.
I agree wholeheartedly. These men show us all their glory and honour, even in death.

But one thing puzzles me with these stories.

Not by any means a universal phenomenon, but I notice some men use these stories as a way to chastise women in a sweeeping manner.

"See? We men protect you lasses. You are not worth protecting anymore. In any case, you wouldn't protect me in a similar situation..."

A woman was never meant to protect a man in a physical sense. There are many other ways a woman can be of use to a man. Yes, women are not being what they should be to men these days. I know that. But the accusation that women would not seek to protect a man in a physically dangerous situation is tantamount to a woman berating a man for not wanting to give birth.
It does not make sense.

The Sandy Hook teachers demonstrated to me the natural order of things.

Men protect women.
Women protect children.

Not to say that there are no exceptions to this rule. Occasionally, one hears of a woman saving a man's life, or a 5 year old boy saving his diabetic mother's life by calling an ambulance when she slips into a coma...

I am pretty sure that not all of those six brave teachers who died last week were mothers.
But they still did the maternal thing.

Those of them who were mothers did not stop to think about their own children, but those children who were under their care in the here and now. Those kids became their kids in that fateful moment of danger.
At least two of these teachers were found with their bodies shielding at least one child from the rain of bullets that hailed around them.

Those women were just as brave as the men who risk their lives for others in high profile as well as low profile cases.

In all humility, these people, irrespective of gender who perform these heroic acts deserve our utmost respect. Whether it is because they are 'doing their job' or just volunteering their services when it is called for without thinking twice, it is still bravery.

I would just hope that I would do the same if called upon to do so.
But of course, I will never know until I am in that situation...

There is no argument that men are the physical 'pillars of strength' that protect all of society. This is one good reason every man deserves respect. Just for being a man. (I mean this).

But let us not forget the women who are just as courageous and will not shirk from protecting those more vulnerable/weaker than them.

And let us not forget the good women who continue to inspire men to be men, without demanding anything or defining their masculinity for them. But simply by virtue of retaining their femininity.

The long hard climb out of the cesspit will not be possible without these women.

Saturday, December 22, 2012

Gangnam Style and a Manosphere wet dream

Gangnam Style...
It has plenty to answer for :-)

I just caught onto this phenomenon!
Told you I was slow...

Perhaps if I had heard about this sooner, I would have included it in my 'Humour' post.
It afterall epitomises the 'goofiness' that I find so endearing in men.

Gangnam Style on its own is funny enough:

But as one would expect, there are also some very good parodies out there...
I present to you a very British one :-)
These ladies sure know how to have a laugh. And... they make this video for a good cause - to raise money for charity.
Would any man here turn up his nose at any one of these lovely women?
Isn't this the ultimate man's dream?
A beautiful woman who is also feminine, not too fat, enjoys her work (both in and out of the home) and has a sense of humour to boot?
Sure, it may just be a comedy sketch, but of course there are many women like this out there...
Ah, these ones are obviously taken :-)
But nevermind, there are some who are not yet taken who aspire to this *wink, wink*.
More on the theme of humour, there is another Youtube sensation that has recently caught my attention. And again, it's British, hehe.
This man is of Pakistani origin, I believe. The story goes that he came to Britain to learn how to run a business.
He started selling fish in a market in East London, and (clever man!) knowing that over 90% of his customers would be women, he started singing to them to charm them into buying his fish:
His antics were filmed by one of his customers who uploaded it onto Youtube, and now, this song is heading for number one in the British charts!
(I like how the female dancers have fish-scale-like attire - very apt).
If I still lived in London, I would buy this man's fish for £5 :-)
Just for making me laugh. Seriously.
We ladies lap up this sort of thing. We just can't help ourselves.
One woman was so impressed with this man that she set the ball rolling propelling him into stardom.
Here he is on the British version of 'The X Factor' (from around 2:40).
Good on him. I hope his business and his career as a singer really take off.
Anyone else know of any inspirational and heartwarming stories such as these?
If you can somehow weave into them the man-woman interaction theme, even better!
It would be way too cheesy to say 'Have a Gangnam style Christmas', so I won't say it.

Thursday, December 20, 2012

Briffault's Law: A law on a fault of womanhood?

Someone* asked me to share my thoughts on the above law.

It is exactly the kind of topic Sensible Me would have steered clear of :-)
But Someone wanted to start this discussion going.

So in this season of goodwill, I thought I would oblige, leaving my sensible self somewhere far away from here :-)

It may not be quite the right time of year to discuss this issue.
 But when is it ever right to tackle such a contentious topic?

Robert Briffault (1876-1948) was a (French? - under speculation if he was actually French or British) surgeon who became more known for his anthropological observations than his career as a doctor.

His most famous observation from his literary work 'The Mothers' which became his eponymous law was this:

"The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place."

This quote of Briffault is highly familiar, in the sense that it highlights a 'fault' of womanhood that men don't like and is often discussed by Manosphere bloggers :-)

Now, bearing in mind that I am female (and therefore perhaps automatically excluded from rational or unbiased analysis of Briffault's Law), I offer my thoughts.

(NB: I have never read 'The Mothers', nor any others of Briffault's works. I do think it may have been useful to have read his works to get a 'feel' for his line of thinking and his worldview. But alas, I lack the time and the inclination. Apologies for that).

I think Briffault is both right and wrong with his law.

Why is he right?

Yes, it was always Nature's brutally unfair intent that a woman associate herself with a man who would be of most help to her in the business of offspring-raising.
That, in my opinion is what Briffault's Law is for.

So this law, in of itself is not wrong.
Au contraire, it is a useful law. For society in general, not just women.

If more women rejected men who were clearly and unequivocally unsuited to the role they were designed for, perhaps we would not be in the mess we are in today.

There would certainly be fewer feral childern about.
Because Father would be in the home, along with Mother.

A wise person I know has this rule:

'As women go, so goes society'.

I have quoted this saying ad nauseum on this blog. Whichever way I look at it, it seems to make sense to me.

Briffault's law implies both a right and a responsibility of women.
Every good father tells his daughter: Pick a responsible man to associate with. Vet his character, his values, make sure they are compatible with what you want. If not, reject him.

Briffault's law.

Every good mother tells her daughter: Keep your wits about you when meeting and dating men. Keep your ears and eyes open, but your legs crossed. If he is not to your taste, do not invest yourself in him.

Briffault's law.

A woman may not get a 'finished product' of a man, especially when he and she are young. But she needs to see some 'potential' in terms of how he sees life, his character and his values. For some women (especially those who wish to have children), earning power of a man is also very important. I make no judgment on that, except to say that as a woman, I understand this very well. Child raising is not cheap.
But alas, money is not everything. There are some women who will gladly marry the poorest man around, but whose character is golden. A character they would wish to pass on to their children.
This is still Briffault's law at play. The woman is still seeking something.

The woman who enters into an association with a man with zero expectations of something back from him is not a wise woman, especially if she wants a family. I am sure everyone would agree with this. Low expectations is reasonable in this context :-). Zero expectations is not.

Therefore, I think Briffault's law is an accurate observation and perhaps a good assessment of how a woman should be. It fits very nicely in fact with my own views on hypergamy.

But enough of the 'rights'. Note that it is also the responsibility of a woman to find a man with the best fit to what she believes is the ideal man for her.

Therefore, in the best interpretation of the perfect 'subtitle' to Briffault's law, a woman is not allowed to marry or otherwise enter into a committed relationship with a man and then rescind her initial 'promise'.
This is where things get messy.

Briffault's law contains the following 'subtexts':

1. Past benefit provided by the male does not provide for continued or future association.

2. Any agreement where the male provides a current benefit in return for a promise of future association is null and void as soon as the male has provided the benefit (see corollary 1).

3. A promise of future benefit has limited influence on current/future association, with the influence inversely proportionate to the length of time until the benefit will be given and directly proportionate to the degree to which the female trusts the male.

Certainly, in today's feminist-boosted, legally-encouraged, spiritually-bereft culture, the above scenarios are very, very common.
This is hypergamy according to Manosphere Law!
And I would agree that this is crass womanhood.
How Briffault worked this one out in 1960 I'll never know, but he seems to have had the same foreseer's glasses as George Orwell (1984) and Aldous Huxley (Brave New World).
He was absolutely right about his predictions (actuality?).

But Briffault was also wrong.

For one, wanting something in return is a human issue.
We were all born selfish.

The person who is the eternal doormat has something wrong with him or her. It is not normal.

So, a woman may wish for a provider  type. This is wired into her DNA.
A man may wish for a beautiful and young woman. This is also wired into his DNA.

Men and women want different things from each other. But each has his/her needs/wants. Therefore one might also interpret the second line of Briffault's law as applying to both men and women.

For two, it is not always true that women control everything. Clever men know how to 'lead' women, even in the domestic realm. But I won't be drawn into another long discussion about 'alpha' and 'beta' :-) It's Christmas!

Briffault's law has always existed. Kudos to Briffault for actually verbalising it for the rest of us.
In the Patriarchal society we had pre-feminism, this was 'controlled' and did not allow women to get all 'feral' with their desires.
It also incidentally enabled women to have a wider choice of 'suitable men'.

We are back to 'as women go...'.
For as women on the one hand went 'over the top' with Briffault's law, and killed the goose that was laying the golden eggs (awful pun, sorry) by being too critical of men, and then on the other hand dropping Briffault's law entirely by not vetting men they rewarded with... um... 'favours', the possibility to exercise Briffault's law at all disappeared. Almost overnight.

Women do and should control the animal family. It is the way it has always been, and was designed to be. The only difference between before and now is that, now, it is done at the expense of men rather than for the good of society as a whole.

With this important role comes some very serious responsibilties.
Ignore the responsibilities at our peril.

Umm, too late... already there....

Merry Christmas everyone!

 *Thank you, Someone.

Tuesday, December 11, 2012

Laughter the best medicine


Or yuma, as my french colleagues would say :-)

Don't you just love it :-)
It is what keeps us all sane.

Here is my little ode to humour, the saviour of mankind.

I take this opportunity also to apologise for depressing everyone with my run of misery-inducing posts lately. Separation and divorce are not the easiest topics to deal with at the best of times, and certainly not in the run up to Christmas.

I hope this present post lightens up the atmosphere a bit round here, in this supposedly joyful Advent-tide.

Without further ado, let's have a laugh....British style!

Yes, the Brits are well-known for their sense of humour :-)
This is what I love most about being British.
We are known to laugh, even in the face of adversity. Sometimes, our humour is unacceptably irreverent. But it is usually innocent fun.

Speaking of innocent fun, I think we have all learned this week that sometimes even 'innocent' fun can be very unfunny.
When it is done at the expense of others.
In the case I refer to, the intended target turned out  not to be the eventual victim.
Funny is only truly funny if no-one gets hurt.

When I was very young (under ten), I used to read Readers Digest a lot. Both my parents were avid fans, and I kind of inherited this 'fandom'. There was a section, 'Laughter the best medicine', which I thoroughly enjoyed reading, and it rapidly became the only section I would read :-)

Not to get all scientific on you, but laughter is indeed a booster of health and well-being, due to its ability to induce the release of various hormones and neurotransmitters, which contribute to general health, much like exercise produces endorphine (pain-relieving and general 'feel-good') substances.

I believe that a permanent loss of humour is a dangerous thing. It could be a one-way ticket to the abyss.

Here are a few things that make me laugh.
What are yours?
Let's share! And have a jolly good laugh in the process :-)

1. Anyone with a french accent

This has to be my number one, given where I live!
Now, some say I have developed a french accent too, but since I don't perceive it myself, it doesn't count :-)
There are many different accents in Switzerland, since it is a multi-lingual country.
But none makes me laugh more than the french one.

Know what I mean? That heavy, difficult to understand french accent that Agatha Christie's Poirot (Belgian) is known for and which is parodied in the popular British comedy 'Allo allo'. Where you wish they would speak French rather than English because you know you will understand them better :-)

Sometimes it could be described as 'sexy' depending on who is speaking (cough Thierry Henry, cough!) but it is still funny.

It is not just the accent either. Sometines it is just the idioms involved.
One of my bosses has a heavy french accent.
And for some reason he refuses to use the word 'very' when he speaks English. So when I am being chastised (erm, which is often, lol), I often hear 'bad bad bad' rather than 'very bad'.
Strangely enough, when I am being chastised in french, he uses the word très. I don't get it.

2. Offended cats
Now, let's be clear. To you Manosphere chaps, let it be known that I don't own a cat :-)
At least not yet :-)

How did this come to happen anyway, that a woman with multiple cats in old age became such a symbol of derision in The Manosphere?
May I digress for a minute here?

I was reading with great interest the life story of Patrick Moore who died recently at age 89. As an astronomer, he was my childhood hero (my handle is 'Spacetraveller' for a reason!).
I was surprised and saddened by the reason for his lifelong bacherlorhood. His one and only love was brutally taken away from him during the war.
And (unusually for a man, I think), he had cats...I always associate men with dogs for some reason...

Anyhow, has anyone come across a cat who is offended?
I have offended more than one cat in my lifetime, it seems. Friends' and relatives' cats.
Let me tell you that a cat who is offended by something you have done can be very...belligerent.
They give you a look which is almost like this. but not quite:

And then you get the head flick. And the turning away and walking off from you, sulking.
It's absolutely hilarious!
And cats can hold a grudge for days.
It's like they have PMT or something :-)
I can relate, lol.

3. Men!
Men do make me laugh. In a good way.
There is a reason I adore our resident funnyman, Metak.
And I think it is the same reason Danny our Maestro Game coach is such a success when it comes to the ladeeez.
It boils down to their humour.

I think it is fair to say that women like to laugh. Hence many women state that they like a man who can make them laugh.
Of course men like to laugh too. But I think they like it better if they provide a laugh. Gentlemen, am I right here, or off the mark?

To this end, I think, in general, men make better comedians than women. (Wait, do I only think this because I am a woman?)
However, there are many exceptions to this rule. Some very funny comedians are women, of course. I think Dawn French, Joanna Lumley and Jo Brand are three good (British) examples. I am sure others could name a few more. I find Joan Rivers quite funny myself. Anyone agree?

On Stingray' blog somewhere I once replied to a Bulgarian woman who stated that she found the young PUAs in her town highly amusing. I indicated to her that I found all (or at least most) men to be amusing.
A man replied to me that he found women amusing too!
I thought that was so nice to hear :-)

Is this a general sentiment among men?
Now, perhaps to a lot of Manosphere men, this may be far from the truth in our current clime. But what about the other (shall we'Manosphere-neutral') men here?
Do women make you laugh? In a good way or not?

4. Very old ladies
This is a peculiar one for me, and I am not sure how to explain it.

Wizened old ladies really amuse me. Again in a good way. I am not sure if it is the way they seem to dismiss or ignore social norms and etiquette, or if it is the fact that they look almost like 'little girls' again because they are reduced in size in their old age...I really don't know. I only report their effect on me.

I once popped into a church for Mass in a town I happened to be passing through and in which I knew no-one.
The church was by no means full.
And yet, an old lady (she was at least 80) came and sat so close to me that had she sat any closer, it would have been illegal. There was plenty of space on the pew! Any other person would have given me my due of at least 10 cm of 'space'. Not this lady.
The whole episode cracked me up, and I couldn't concentrate on the Mass.
Furthermore, everyone around us noticed this breech of personal space too, and I could hear the ensuing sniggers.

Why oh why do I always attract such people at Mass?

5. Little boys

The film 'Jerry Maguire' was a 'chick magnet'. Yes, true.
But don't you ever believe it was because of Tom Cruise or his 'You complete me' line.

This is the reason women all over the world were falling over themselves to get to a cinema:


Is it the relatively large head or the spiky hair?

 And this is him today by the way :-)

I find little boys very entertaining indeed.
All children I know, or even don't know, irrespective of gender, somehow seem to Game me, which is a slight source of worry for me, because I feel I may not succeed in establishing the right kind of authority as a parent one day. But some people on that thread reassured me that I have nothing to worry about - thank you for that assurance! :-)

For now though, I am mercilessly gamed by little boys in this age-group. But they also make me laugh with their antics.
Whether it is showing me their, um 'friends' as these two brothers did, or teaching me how to work an i-phone, these little chaps are certainly a law unto themselves, aren't they?
JV, I am sure you may have one or two stories to share on this front!

The son of a friend of mine, when he was around 3 or 4, suddenly grasped the concept of money and 'value', and promptly exerted his new-found knowledge on Auntie Spacetraveller in a way only little boys can.
Out of the blue one day, as I leaned in for my customary peck on the cheek, I was denied access.

Little rascal had worked out that it could get quite lucrative offering kisses to his Mum's female friends :-)
So now, Auntie Spacetraveller had to cough up some dough before she could get a kiss...

Well I never.
2 years ago, I was changing his nappy (diaper).
And now I had to pay up to pucker up :)
Can you believe this?! Or in Cockney rhyme, can you Adam and Eve this?!
Blimey! It's bad enough with the whole MGTOW thing. Now, it's LBGTOW too!
Well now he is almost a teenager. And dear old Auntie Spacetraveller will never again get a kiss out of him.
Even if she offers to pay :-)

What makes you laugh?
Tell us your amusing story!

Wednesday, December 5, 2012

Shut Up and Cry me a River!

I have been chastised :-(

In a good way!

I agree with the chastisement, which boils down to: 'don't look at the negative aspect of life - for it may come back and bite you in the _________'.

But I have a slightly morbid fascination with separations once again.
Only this time, I hope to be more lighthearted about it.

Let's just say, this post is designed as a 'coolly detached' look at breakups.
Let's just say it is purely for the purposes of 'intellectual curiosity'.

And to this end, I apologise in advance to anyone who is currently going through a breakup, or is hurled back into the unpleasant memory of a breakup.

I think most adults have been through at least one breakup.

Some might even consider it a badge of honour of sorts, in the same way little boys consider a scar or a bruise as a sign that they are now MEN :-)

A priest I know of won't marry a couple unless they have broken up at least once.
This directly led a couple I know straight into hot water.

They had never broken up before their engagement. So to comply with the priest's known stance on this (and because they really really wanted to get married in this particular parish), they decided to fake a breakup (silly, I know! Hey, I thought it was funny too at the time - turns out I was just as immature as them, lol).

They told everyone they had broken up, including me (who happened to be in on the secret). Unfortunately, an old flame of the groom-to-be (who of course wasn't in the loop) thought the path was now clear for her to rekindle things with him...
The long and the short was that it turned out to be very embarrassing for all concerned, and the couple actually did break up for real, as a result of a series of unfortunate events.

Thankfully, things righted themselves, and they are now a very happy couple many years after their eventual marriage.

But I am sure their (bizarre) breakup helped in some way...

Breakups are of course mostly painful.
This is why I shall never understand the (mostly North American! - I never heard of this happening in Europe) trend of having a 'divorce party'.

1. I have only seen this on TV. I never heard of anyone doing this in real life. (Does this actually happen in real life?)

2. It seems to be a uniquely female thing. I never heard of a man having a 'divorce party'. I think I get why.

3. It seems to be a modern trend. Which makes me suspect it is yet another feminist denial phenomenon like the 'I am so happy to be single' bandwagon.

4. It seems so inappropriate. Especially where there are children involved who are clearly distressed about the disintegration of their family, and are suffering as a result, eg. as evidenced by school fighting, poor grades, attempted suicide. So it seems so unbelievably cruel for someone to be 'celebrating' the divorce.

5. Even if the divorce seems 'liberating' as in the case of physical abuse, it still seems a bit sad to be celebrating said divorce.
It is like any death: even if the dead person is Hitler, it is still a death. Dancing on anyone's grave is still somehow bad. Better not to go to the funeral at all.
Is this a fair point?
Or are there instances where a party should be held when someone dies?
Consider this: Saddam Hussein's/Colonel Ghaddafi's deaths were not exactly a tragedy for many in their respective countries.
And yet, the scenes of glee after these men died seemed somehow equivalent to the same scenes of glee in some Arabic countries when 9/11 took place.
Is this a fair comparison?
Or is my assertion that a death is still a death, no matter whose, a travesty which will take me on a  road to hell, which is, you know, paved with good intentions and all...

Tell me what you think. Hugely off-topic, but I am suddenly interested in this.

Anyhow, moving on, I credit commenter Bill for the inspiration for this post.
This is a hat trick from Bill, who also inspired the posts The Madonna-Whore-conundrum  and The gourmet meal...of red pills!!!.
Thank you Bill :-)

A hat tip to Bill for this gem from Julie London:

'Cry me a river' from the 1956 film 'The girl can't help it'.

The film plot does not interest me so much as the song itself.
If ever there was a breakup song, this is it :-)

But what is interesting about this song is what some would call 'projection', the ultimate 'cardinal sin' of a woman.
Julie London claims to have 'cried a river' for Tom Ewell's character, and so she demands the same from him.
She wants a man to cry a river for her?
We all know that would never happen, don't we? :-)

Which reminds me of another breakup song with the same name.

Justin Timberlake's 'Cry me a river' was at the same time vicious and compelling because of its brutal honesty in revealing for all to see, how a man views a woman he believes has been unfaithful to him.
Scary viewing indeed. A window into a man's soul at the darkest moment of his life.

It is my genuine belief that most men do not like to see a woman cry.
They will tease her, mock her, even upset her, but the objective is not to make her cry.
Correct me gentlemen, if I have got this wrong!

But in this video, Justin makes it crystal clear that all gloves are off. He really wants to see this woman cry.
The problem is, unlike in Julie London's case, this woman will cry. Because he will ensure that she does. This is what makes this video truly dark.
And yet, one feels for him, and not the girl who hurt him.

I am not sure if my reaction to this video is normal or not. (Um, feel free to analyse this - I won't object!)
The video is at least ten years old. But it remins my reference point for 'feeeling' male pain when it comes to a painful breakup.

A less 'dark' picture of a breakup is presented by my old favourites, the Black eyed peas.
This is more of an 'anatomy of a deteriorating relationship' more than a 'breakup', but it illustrates quite poignantly the ways in which men and women react to a failing relationship.
I find it fascinating.

The only thing the man seems to be saying to the woman is...'shut up! Stop the talking, baby, or I start walking, baby!'
Hmmm. Where have I heard this before?
Men really are allergic to women's constant nuttering. Alles klar!

And the woman signs off her lament with 'is that all there is?'
But I can't help but feel for her when she exclaims 'I just want to be your lady!'
This is sad. She admits to going almost insane because of this man.
But...she still wants to be his lady.
Gentlemen, you have no idea how some women feel about you :-)

I think the Black eyed peas are very good observers of human interaction.
This is why I find this video absolutely insightful.
And of course, the odd mix of 'faux classical' with 'urban-style' music is a source of interest all on its own for me anyway.

What does everyone think?
Are they right in their portrayal of man-woman interaction?

What esle is interesting about how men and women react to romantic separation?
Without making it too sombre, are there lessons to be learned from breakups?

PS: I have had to reintroduce the captcha due to excess spam. Hope this does not cause problems. If so, just let me know and I shall try to fix it.