Give her a positive what?
Image!
Picture!
Context!
Template!
What on Earth am I on about?
Before I explain, I would like to say that I really like Stingray's blog (in addition to other ladies' blogs that I frequently read).
What I particularly like about Stingray' blog is that a practical, idiot-proof guide to how a woman should be, is effortlessly presented. This is great. I like that.
More of Stingray's blog later.
But first, I get back to the title of this post.
It is incredibly difficult to win Wimbledon without first imagining yourself to be holding the Wimbledon trophy on a Sunday or Saturday afternoon in July, on Centre Court in SW19, London...
The one thing that all super-athletes have in common is that they all imagined themselves capable of winning the big prize of their sport at some point in their lives, usually in childhood.
Often, in their winner's speech they would say something like 'When I was a little boy/girl I dreamed of winning X...'.
All of them have a positive image in their minds. And then they strive to get closer and closer to that image until one day, they wake up, and boom! they are there.
I remember that at last year's Wimbledon, poor old Andy Murray was defeated in yet another Grand Slam final. In tears, almost unable to speak, the British public empathising with their yet-again -defeated-hero, the first words he was able to muster were, "Getting closer..."!
A few short months later he won the US Open, his first Gland Slam win ever. :-)
How does all this relate to the SMP?
It used to be the case that most women (the few that don't are irrelevant to this discussion) had an image of marriage in their heads from toddlerhood.
This was by a process of osmosis...most little girls were surrounded by Mother, Aunts, Grandmother, maybe Big Sister, all of whom were married. So it was not hard for her to imagine herself married at some point too.
What has happened since sometime in the 60's is that the image that a girl has in her mind has been reduced to a wedding (if that). That's it.
Nothing beyond the fog post-wedding. I think we covered that in this post.
Often, the only picture available to her is a fractured family. Fractured families beget fractured families - unless someone makes a concerted effort to break the vicious cycle.
But can young women be blamed for this lack of marital ambition?
I believe not.
If you are not given a picture of what to expect by someone who is older than you, then you stumble through life until you find that picture accidentally/deliberately with great effort/not at all.
If you are never given a glimpse of something, how could you possibly live it?
In this regard, I feel incredibly sorry for the 'Millennials' an alarmingly large proportion of whom (if the statistics are to be believed) do not have a positive perception of what is meant by 'family life'.
If you have never lived it, you simply don't know it. It is a true 'unknown' à la Donald Rumsfeld*.
This is where Stingray's blog comes in.
She gives flashes of good family life, she regularly recommends films that depict family life, or show what men are supposed to be (masculine) and what women are supposed to be (feminine), good examples being films by John Wayne.
A positive picture to which one is exposed (the younger the better) goes a much longer way than a thousand words, as the saying goes.
A child from a broken home need not be a slave to his marital destiny.
It may be too simple to suggest that watching reruns of 'The Waltons' or 'Little House on the Prairie' will solve this person's problems, but I believe that one mustn't be too fussy with where one gets one's 'positive picture' from.
A holiday spent in Uncle Freddie's house where Uncle Freddie is a good husband to Auntie Sarah and a good Daddy to your cousins...
A sleep-over at your friend Joyce's home where Joyce's parents are happily married so you don't hear furniture being thrown about or angry voices coming from downstairs, for a whole night...
The brain is a funny organ.
Stored images convert to memories.
We are a product of our collective memories.
So a good database of good memories is ideal.
It helps...
If this post appears to be female-biased, this is fully intended.
If the MGTOW movement is an unintended consequence of women turning their backs on marriage and the men are just reacting accordingly, then it is women who need to turn once more towards marriage (and I really do mean marriage here, not weddings).
Men may or may not follow suit, but it remains to be seen.
Given that men do not need marriage, and women generally do, it is indeed women who need to form a healthy and positive view of marriage in their minds.
And then it is up to us to persuade the men :-), or at least those men who do want marriage, but still need a little ...um...encouragement :-).
Well at least we can make a start.
And Stingray is certainly doing her part.
Brava, Stingray :-)
Ahhhh, them good ol' days!
:-)
*Known knowns
Known unknowns
Unknown knowns
Unknown unknowns
:-)
26 comments:
Wow, Spacetravellar. From the bottom of my heart, thank you.
Mais non, Stingray, it is I who say 'thanks' for your good work.
LOVE your blog!
Darn it, sorry about misspelling your handle.
And I'm very glad you like the blog. It's nice to hear. I'll try to keep it up!
To turn back MGTOW... wow... that would be quite the list of legal laws that would ultimately have to change in order to even start winning back the trust of men. All the below change would be required to make marriage seem viable once more because as is... its totally not worth it.
1). domestic violence laws would need to be modified in such a way so the man is not always guilty and arrested on sight.
2). alimony. In this day and age of independent women... this should not exist, or should be extremely limited in time (two years max).
3). Child support. This shouldn't exist in the current form. Default 50/50 custody.
4). Common law abolished unless you have kids.
5). Women stop being perpetual victims and blaming everything on men.
...
and probably a whole lot more that's simply not coming to me right now.
I do like your blog and your hopeful enthusiasm.
Rorak
Stingray,
What's a misspelled name among friends...
:-)
Rorak,
Welcome to The Sanctuary!
All excellent suggestions...
But alas, no policy-maker will take this on because it is not 'sexy' enough in the current political climate which is steeped in feminist ideals.
So, it is up to individuals, especially women, to make that tiny shift in attitude towards the opposite sex.
I can bet that a greedy woman 'frivorcing' her husband and demanding unreasonable chunks of his income (over and above what is needed for her and the kids) KNOWS she is doing wrong - to the very person she stood before a large crowd and vowed to love, honour and obey.
All it takes is a mindset change. That's it. Everything else falls into place quite nicely after that.
And it all starts with that healthy, positive perception of marriage.
If young women are 'hungry' for true marriage again in large numbers, we wouldn't need your legislative changes that you propose.
Until this happens, we shall continue to need what you suggest, and paradoxically (there's that word agan!) we wouldn't get it, for reasons I mention above.
I appreciate your assertion that I have hope. Actually, I think 'hope' is a necessary female virtue.
When it is abused it is sad, eg. 50 year old ex-carousel riders still 'hoping' for Prince William to propose...
But in general, it is a good thing.
But in this case (i.e. the subject of this post), I don't think my 'hope' exceeds its capacity, ie. that it is too much of a tall order to believe that it is possible for large numbers of women to 'do the right thing' or 'woman up'.
Especially if they are given the right tools to work with.
All we see on TV is shack-up and hook-up. So teenaged girls only see this.
If we 'change the decor' a bit for them, maybe, just maybe, we will start to see a different breed of teenager.
Blogs like Stingray's are an asset. Stingray herself has daughters, (2?) so she is in a good position to advise girls, (as indeed is a man as we previously discussed on another post).
The media in general, can also help in providing this positive picture to girls.
Then hopefully, we can bypass the politicians en route to a brighter future :-)
See? Not THAT hard...
A woman writing a post for women... oh the horrors of you dastardly creatures
Ton.
Oh I read Stingray's as well. Thought it was about corvette when I found it...
Ton,
Welcome to The Sanctuary!
"A woman writing a post for women..."
Ton, it's dirty work, but someone's gotta do it :-)
And Stingray does it particularly well...
Stingray is a car? I thought it was a dangerous fish or something :-0
Dangerous Fish:
http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/fish/stingray/
Dangerous Car:
http://www.chevrolet.com/new-2014-corvette/#!/gallery
The fish is actually not particularly dangerous, people play with them in the sea, though the Crocodile Hunter (Steve Irwin) died after being stung in the chest by one in a freak accident
@ TOM,
Thank you!
Yes it was the case of Steve Irwin that alerted me to the idea that Stingrays were dangerous fish. I really liked Irwin and I was shocked when he had that freak accident.
He and other 'adventure' type guys like Bear Grylls are very interesting characters. I spent my entire 20s watching their shows!
(Told you I was a nerd :-)
@ Anonymous,
Ahhh,
I do sympathise. This woman is clearly morally wrong (as well as legally?) Rejecting applications of people because they are white men is indeed evil - I wholeheartedly agree.
But this particular post is about a POSITIVE image for young women (which translates into a positive outlook for men who want a good woman for a wife).
So your comment is a little out of place on this particular post, but I will let it stand, as it serves as a reminder of what will happen if young women do not have a positive outlook on male-female relations: you get women who hate men (in this case, white men).
This woman is clearly not a good candidate for marriage - at least not to a man, for she has a deep contempt for men...
The way to handle her is NOT to threaten her.
Just show her the right way...
Then it is up to her to do the right thing or continue on her destructive path until it is too late...
Even better, why don't we start with the really young ones so they don't end up like this in the first place?
Worthy effort but you are going to be needing spirit to achieve your aims my dear. Read this
http://www.care2.com/causes/5-ways-to-make-your-wedding-more-feminist.html
Good Luck, I wish you well, for every man that reads that will soon be gone having gone his own way already. I have never dated. I cannot, I have read too much, seen too much, heard too much already.
I like your spirit, I do, but the water is poisoned, and men must move on. What that will be is up to women like you perhaps, but there can be no turning back. No matter what the beauty says when she urges me to sip from the chalice, young men already know the water is poison.
Dear Anonymous,
I hear ya.
I KNOW the water is poisoned. I really do.
But that's no reason to give up.
There are pockets of sanity in this insane world.
The problem is, it is quite difficult for members of these little 'pockets' to find each other, because they are spread out rather thinly.
But in many ways, the task ahead is EASY.
You know why? Because most women now know that feminism is a failing strategy. The only ones who are holding tightly to that ideology are the stupid ones who will never 'get' it.
So the rest of womanhood is up for grabs :-) Open to alternative ideas.
Starting with the young girls, it could be quite easy to create a better generation of women than the last two or three.
But you, are you young? If so, you could benefit in ten years or so from this turnaround in your SMP fortune.
Watch this space.
Seriously, I am hearing more and more of women willing to 'woman up' having watched the trainwreck that is their mothers' and aunts' lives.
An even better incentive is to have the positive reinforcement of the good life of a female relative BECAUSE SHE LIVED LIFE THE RIGHT WAY.
That, I think would be ideal.
It is harder to come from this place: Well, I don't want to be HER.
So much nicer to come from this place: Wow, what a great woman - I want to be HER.
I personally prefer the latter. I know women who fit this profile...
I'm young. I used the term, " my dear" to give a kind hearted tone ( whereas a feminist would find it condescending) because I respect your opinion. A man would have to be crazy to disrespect women, wonderful beings that you are, but I am somewhat tired, GYOW takes a lot out of you.
Being a woman's provider and protector would make my heart sing. I have plenty of opportunity to do that. So you can imagine how hard it is to be celibate by force of your own will.
"but that's no reason to give up"
You are a woman, that's why you can say that. Think about it from a man's POV. You are asking us to enter a black hole where 99.99999% of the time we will be utterly destroyed and our life ruined without us having any say in it at all.
My guilt; being male, but I refuse to be anything else, because it's my duty to be so for women. So I am damned.
Men have to GTOW until womanhood snaps, but that is where you come in. Men cannot lead women into womanhood, but you, you can, and we will support you I am sure. But not my generation. We will have to live our lives in isolation, the collateral damage of the war of the sexes. I might find a good woman but it doesn't matter. I have to make a stand. All men who are men have to. I must refuse to enter into any social contract of any kind with any and all women. And so far I have done that to the end of my ability. Even though I love you.
Anonymous,
We love you too!
I think it's reassuring that you entertain the idea that there MIGHT be good women around. I don't really know how to explain why this is reassuring - it just is.
I understand also when you say that I say what I do because I am a woman.
This is very true.
As I said to someone else on a previous thtread, I believe that women have more inbuilt hope than men. Sometimes, unfortunately, this leads us to dead-end places (the bitter end, lol) but more often than not, the hope can be a good thing, if coupled with good faith, and of course, good intentions.
I accept that GTOW will be more of a reality until womenhood snaps. Perhaps, this is in itself a good thing in the long run?
We all hold dear what is scarce... and women in general do want marriage, so when it becomes scarce, (as it already is becoming) then women collectively will find a new way to entice men back to the marriage market. I am sure somewhere in history this cycle has already played out!
I was having trouble 'calling out' individual women on their bad behaviour, until I realised that I was going about it the wrong way.
Now I think the best approach may well be 'Don't mention the unmentionables, just give her a positive', which I think is the better strategy. We'll see if it works...
It is interesting that you have not lost the longing to be some woman's protector and provider. I actually do hear that a lot from men.
In this regard, I think you men are more honest.
All those women who are proclaiming not to need men are either relly good liars or some sort of mutant.
Women actually need men MORE than the other way round.
So bottoms up, feminism.
Oh the lies we tell ourselves...
Anyhow, Anonymous, good luck. Do report back if you find someone interesting (wink).
:-)
Wow...Been a while, but this topic brings me back. I must say those were some profound comments by the anonymous young user who posted on the 6th and 8th of May.
"If the MGTOW movement is an unintended consequence of women turning their backs on marriage and the men are just reacting accordingly, then it is women who need to turn once more towards marriage (and I really do mean marriage here, not weddings).
Men may or may not follow suit, but it remains to be seen."
The thought, while sounding good in intentions, once again tells me that the MGTOW lifestyle is seen essentially as a temporary reaction to things. I remember we had this discussion on your original blog "MGTOW-good or bad for women?" where you had described GYOW as an initiation phase. I, and quite a few others IIRC, had expressed our disagreements on that point.
First things first, there are a LOT more factors that play in the social dynamics of MGTOW than women not marrying. Women NOT marrying is not the problem; often women that DO MARRY are the biggest deterrents :-) Everything I needed to learn about marriage and female psychology (outside of books, that is), I learnt by observing heterosexual couples around me. Many of them were traditional, religious Hindu couples wedded under Marriage 1.0 laws in the "culturally deep-rooted" Indian nation. It was all like a never-ending play where I saw Briffault's law, Weininger's thoughts, Schopenhauer's opinions, Manu's teachings (Hinduism), Menckenian philosophy and Esther Vilar's book being played out several times before I actually even encountered those literary works.
Secondly,there is never an effect without a cause. MGTOW is indeed a reaction, but (in my belief as an evolutionist), so is the formation of the planet we dwell in. Like a lot of natural processes, there are biological, physical, chemical and other causes (and catalysts) which produce different reactions. Not all reactions are short-lived either. The more important and pragmatic question, in my own opinion, is to ask how satisfying is the MGTOW lifestyle to the practising male? My personal answer is - extremely!
If the incentives to keep the MGTOW lifestyle (scenario A) outweigh the (dis)incentives of entering a conventional dating/family life (scenario B), then one would find that the cream of the prospective male dating pool - the intelligent, honest and independent-thinking men - would gravitate strongly towards scenario A in the coming years. It's a simple tug-of-war for any thinking male who comes to realise that playing "happy" host in a socially parasitic institution is not his only destiny. On equal terms, even with the biological impulse thrown in, scenario A is a more promising option than scenario B. If nothing else, I mean purely from a survivalistic point of view.
In my objective evaluation, more men would see the pitfalls of association with a female and opt out of the game. The game has to completely fall apart for a new relational paradigm to emerge. The (ideological) village has to burn down completely. Unfortunately, most of our generation (mid 20s man here) are caught in the cross-hairs and that's just the way the dice rolls.
Genuinely good women like you, SpaceTraveller, I feel, deserve to have been born in a friendlier clime. You could have made a fine wife to some traditional Catholic bloke, still could :-) But this is war and collateral damage cuts across gender lines! This generation is most likely "damaged" beyond repair.
I realise you had made a distinction between marriage and wedding, which I think is important. Still, some of these points needed to be laid out.
If Marriage 1.0 was indeed based on strong foundations, then why did women (by and large) seek to abandon ship as soon as such an opportunity arose? (reference/courtesy: Barbarossaaa's video)
I wonder was it a farce all this while. The million € question is, something for all of us to mull over, how much of this is NATURE and how much is NURTURE? To what extent are biology and sociology individually responsible for women giving up on traditionalism?
@ Lonely Himalayan Bear,
You and Anonymous do make some excellent points, for sure!
About MGTOW, I think this is a diverse group. There are some, for whom the 'woman-free' lifestyle was always going to be the way to go, (and I wonder if these men would have still chosen this lifestyle in the absence of today's problems - and also, I wonder if these men are the pool from which future priests or monks are drawn??...).
But there is no doubt that there is a large proportion for whom today's battered society (read fractured womanhood) has led them to take a decision that they otherwise would not have, had society been more 'normal'.
'Anonymous' definitely sounds like one of these guys - there is nothing more he would like than to be the provider and protector of one special deserving lady. It is so sad that he can't seem to find such a woman.
LHB, it is not that I am 'good'. My motives for starting this blog were initially intellectual (I like to think aloud) and then more recently somewhat selfish.
Let me explain:
If you have ever been involved in scientific research, you will know that one has to always declare the limitations of one's study or research, even if there exist none, or very few.
It is like that with me.
There will always be the 'limitation' that I am female and therefore the idea of coupledom or 'togetherness' just for the sake of it appeals to me.
I cannot shake off that bit of my biology, and in fact, since it is not a bad thing, I am not trying to shake it off at all. Au contraire, I encourage it :-)
Whilst I agree intellectually with the MGTOW movement for those men for whom it will be the best choice for them, (perhaps you come into this category yourself - and I am OK with their decision not to marry - not that my being OK with it is of any importance, lol)I can see that there are many men for whom this is nothing more than a self-preservation 'knee-jerk' type reaction that they themselves wish they didn't have to take, but are forced to under the current conditions.
These men are 'persuadable', and this is where my selfishness comes in, because I have 'sisters' (talking here about the wider 'sisterhood' here) and one day, God willing, I will have daughters who could make great wives for these men.
Now, of course I would require high standards of the sisterhood first (myself included), and I agree that the current standard is not up to scratch. If a woman is not of a high enough standard I won't lament that she never gets a husband. Because some lucky man would have dodged a potentially fatal bullet in avoiding her. This ties in with what you say that sometimes it is not that a woman doesn't marry, but that she does :-) I concur!
It is about getting conditions ideal for as many potential couples as possible. I understand that this is a feminine goal, and you are probably shaking your head right now :-)
But my attitude makes sense. If it is not women who desire the bringing together of people into couple or family units, who would? We cannot leave that to men, because you guys have a different role in life. You have a civilsation to build. We women have a society to create.
You build us a nice civilisation, we create harmonious relationships. These are our God-given roles.
So I am not being 'good', I am just following some sort of innate script that I cannot shake off :-)
And the funny thing is, when I am in this role, I am happiest.
And I bet you are happiest when you are doing some 'civilsation-building'. Just a guess :-)
You ask why things changed when Marriage 1.0 was the order of the day.
Well I think Eve listened to a serpent :-)
There is no doubt that there were women who were truly oppressed under Marriage 1.0. But for most women, it was just fine, I think. At least, finer than things are NOW, under Marriage 2.0.
A few troublemakers got through the barrier, and because women are herd creatures they soon got a large following. Et voilà, we are where we are now...
I am sure others will have alternative explanations to your question though...
Hello St, I posted her anonymously of recent, and after spending some time investigating the tortuous path of the rape culture meme (Jezebel etc.) I came back her for some rest and recreation to read more of what turns out to be your wise, welcoming words.
I have decided that you are truly a beautiful woman.
Thank you so much for that
@ ILikeSt,
Thank you :-)
I like you back!
If you are a man, no flirting.
If you are a woman, no homo.
:-)
Well I happen to agree with you on the ideal of giving her a positive when credit is due. In terms of credit, that would start with you. You are probably unaware, from our (male) side of the fence, just how unique your blog and your mindset is on the web. A truly beautiful thing, no flirting, just a sincere thank you for restoring a little faith in womankind; and I do so mean that. But it is more than that. I think many of us here in the manosphere have become convinced that women like you no longer exist, and I am not being facetious in that it colours their world and reflects in their behaviour, AND seriously affects the way they behave with the women in their immediate environment, i.e the ones that truly matter, if you, and I, are going to have any success in this world. So I am going to start directing men here because I think you have a far greater effect than you can probably realise - and I am thinking about your effect on men here.
I understand their anger, and for once a woman, you, does too.That alone brings the spark back to a glow, no matter how small.
I just think you deserve applause, 'my dear'. Your efforts are magnificent, both in their content and their importance. I'm thinking you might end up rescuing more men than women.That's why I am thanking you.
"and also, I wonder if these men are the pool from which future priests or monks are drawn??"
I wouldn't necessarily say so. A man being uninterested in romantically pursuing women does not indicate a religious bent of mind or even sexual absistence, in many cases.
For instance, a genuine Neo-Darwinist (or Spencerist) and a staunch believer in eugenics would perhaps be opposed to the idea of marriage. So would a missionary Buddhist monk be, albeit for entirely different reasons. One wants to relinquish the samsara (material/secular world) while the other wishes to dominate it and adopts an apt socio-biological stategy to serve those interests.
"But there is no doubt that there is a large proportion for whom today's battered society (read fractured womanhood) has led them to take a decision that they otherwise would not have, had society been more 'normal'."
I see that point. However, this is where your take - as a religious, traditionalist, well-intentioned woman (and I don't mean that tongue-in-cheek) who believes in marriage - would differ from someone like myself. I am what you'd perhaps call a sceptic/rationalist who tries to understand human mating psychology as shaped by evolutionary drives. Essentially, I try to arrive at an objective interpretation of facts, in as much is epistemically possible.
As I mentioned previously, it is a nature v.s nurture debate. I cannot conceive of a notion of "womanhood" (or "manhood" for that matter) that is independant of a social framework. What you identify as the 'normal', I see as a setup which served society well in a different time frame. I have no personal angst against traditionalism a.k.a the joint family/tribe model succeeded by the nuclear family/extended tribe model. Both had their periods of relevance, in my modest opinion, and they have both outlived their importance in the post-industrial world. Since the species and our progress are dynamic in nature, any institution must be gauged on its importance to the current scheme of things. The way I see it, men had a job - to be the protector/provider in an ambience which was not sufficiently developed to expose women to all facets of life.
I'm paraphrasing a YouTuber here (girlwriteswhat), but it boils down to pure sexual commodification. Uterus was and remains fundamentally more valuable than sperm and therefore, the holders of the more coveted commodity were placed on a protective pedestal. Not because men were inherently altruistic, but because they were selfish enough to realise that their (and the species') best interests lay in women's safety and provision.
Fast forward: modern world, almost seven decades after the WWII. With the world becoming a much safer place and a centralised governance/finance/army structure in place, men have essentially worked themselves out of their job. I feel neither sadness nor joy when I make this observation; it's just the way the dice rolls. When female protection/provision is centralised, the traditionalist paradigm ceases to be socially relevant.
Are you familiar with the Harlow's five monkeys' experiment, SpaceTraveller?
http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/6828/was-the-experiment-with-five-monkeys-a-ladder-a-banana-and-a-water-spray-condu
IMHO, this sums up a lot about social primate behaviour and I often think, a lot of human societies/traditions/past 'hangovers' are spookily similar to this basic primate psychology. We, as social apes, seek solace in conformity and group identities and therefore, any attempts to change an existing paradigm is strongly resisted by masses in general. More importantly, if there exists a poor understanding of social institutions, one can no longer intelligently judge when a context ceases to be relavant (paraphrasing Barbarossaaa from YouTube here).
I feel that marriage V 1.0 and traditional chivalry in the "classical" nuclear family/tribe paradigm (at least in Europe) have far passed their days of relevance.
I'd continue further in the next post. Maybe later tonight, I'd gather my thoughts on a few more things.
@ ILikeSt,
Thank you!
That's so nice to hear, I can't tell you :-)
By the way, I don't think I am unique at all! Until people make their thoughts known (as I am doing on this blog), no-one really knows what they are thinking.
I am sure there are many women out there who think the way I do, but they are not particularly vocal. The only voices one hears are those of the women who are not 'man-friendly' because it is 'cool' these days to be like that.
I felt brave enough to start my own blog when I encountered blogs of women I respect, examples being Bellita (sadly she no longer blogs), Stingray, Jackie, Aunt Haley and BB.
I am no good on my own - I need a herd, see?
LOL.
May I ask - what do you mean by I 'might end up rescuing more men than women'?
Perhaps it is my inner nerd coming out, but I would really like to know!
Is it that you think more men will gain hope (I notice that hope is not a particularly popular virtue on Planet Man - am I wrong about this?) or do you mean that if women get their act together then men will get the right kind of women they need and not the aggressive bulldogs we seem to have collectively become?
You see, I find it interesting that you see more men than women benefitting from a change in society for the better.
I think the opposite! :-)
Is this our respective male and female brains talking?
Try as I might to see things from a male perspective, I really can only go so far. Then at a certain point, I can only see things from a woman's point of view.
And it seems to me that you do the same. That's interesting, I am not knocking this. I am sure God designed it this way for a reason...
@ LHB,
You make great points!
For sure, I see the world in a much more 'emotional' way than you. I cannot attain your degree of logic and looking at 'cold hard facts'.
:-)
But I accept that sometimes, 'cold hard facts' are indeed necessary. But I will always find a way to 'warm up and soften' the facts to suit my argument :-)
If we consider the family/tribe model, I actually don't see any conflict with the nuclear family at all!
I think both can work at the same time in the same (greater) model.
So, for example, when Hilary Clinton said something about 'it takes a village to raise a child', (sorry, I am not exctly sure what context she meant) but I notice it was interpreted in the feminist framework of Big Daddy government paying for unsupported (by their natural fathers) kids.
For me, I DO belive that 'it takes a village to raise a child' but in a different schema which involves the child being part of an already established nuclear family which is itself part of 'the village'. So both systems work in conjunction with each other to help raise a well-balanced kid.
As far as I know, there is no context where this combined model is outdated.
Sure, we fail to see the relevance of this neat system when the majority of people won't follow it, but in many ways, this is succumbing to the thought processes of the five monkeys, no?
We can continue with a proven system that works, or we can blindly accept a system which is consitently known to fail, in the case of the child, a single parent family where solid commitment to anyone, including the child is NOT the order of the day.
Also, about women not needing men, we all know that this is a myth. Curent men's provision for women has only been 'repackaged' and 'rebranded' so that it looks different from men's provision for women of old.
So men have not really worked themselves out of a job. They are only being made to feel as though they have, but they are still doing the same work as before, which is disingenuous of society, I might add.
Of course many men have figured this out and are rightfully angry.
The only difference between what MRM activists and I are saying is that the former want men to stop working so hard for little recognition, and I say continue working as before, but by all means you should get adequate recognition for what you do, aka women should get over themselves (ourselves) and appreciate men in the way our grandmothers appreciated their men.
I wouldn't have thought this should be so difficult. It is a well-known fact that women who enjoy looking after their men-folk are happier women. That's not surprising - things were designed this way!
So we now have a situation where women are saying they don't need or want men (aka I ain't cooking for that beta loser) and yet report lower happiness levels than ever before!
Um, is it just me who sees the missing link??
Why are we so hellbent on self-minimalisation? As women, we never reach our full potential unless we are fussing over some guy. Fact.
The femininists don't like this fact, but I am afraid it's true.
And perhaps they know it.
SpaceTraveller,
Before, I get further, I wanted to give a thumbs up for ILikeSt's comment: "I think many of us here in the manosphere have become convinced that women like you no longer exist.."
I do feel that you are a bit too idealistic, but the intentions have my respect. It's perhaps good for the average man that women like you exist. But for his own sake, he must wisen up and not rely on someone else's inherent goodness. As a MGHOW, one of my main goals is to help other men see the light and smarten up for their own sakes.
What I am trying to get across is YOUR goodness as a woman is a non-factor in a man conditioning his natural survival system. I can appreciate the goodness within you, woman, but honestly, there's not a man on the planet whose life, health, safety and sanity I'd want to be risked based on a woman's (an outside agent's) nature and conduct. If there is a benefit of doubt to be given, I'd give it to my preservation and that of my brothers who share my anatomy. If that's perceived as distrustful and cynical, I'd live with those charges rather than hazard all I have.
"Sure, we fail to see the relevance of this neat system when the majority of people won't follow it, but in many ways, this is succumbing to the thought processes of the five monkeys, no?"
Very good point, truth be told. I owe you a cause-effect clarification here:-
Cause: Majority of people do not follow traditionalism
Effect: We fail to appreciate what a neat scheme it is
What I just wrote down should not be the way to interpret things. I agree with you that anyone following such a specious line of reasoning can be labelled Harlow's sixth monkey :-)
The (de)merits of traditional family/tribe structure must be analysed in an absolutely objective sense. It is crucial not to overlook the role of industrialisation and its effect in rendering traditional 'maleness' fairly redundant when investigating the dynamics of our species. Remember, that it is a time-domain function and a dynamic that existed in 1100 A.D. cannot possibly be translated without modification in a different time frame, say 2050 A.D.
To sum-up my point, I agree with you that "Curent men's provision for women has only been 'repackaged' and 'rebranded' so that it looks different from men's provision for women of old." But you seem to argue that the way back is the right path, which I respectfully disagree with. I'd even venture that the definition of "right" is driven by self-interest; yours as well as mine :-)
My proposal is to look at this issue from a detached, amoral standpoint. Purely trying to predict how this trend would continue leads me to the conclusion that the equation is, in thermodynamic terms, an irreversible, path function. Two conclusions can be arrived at:
1) The whole trajectory of evolution is shaped by ambient pressures (not just discreet, intermediate points); the best survival and procreation strategy in that day/age rule the roost. A caveman's club, chivalry & courtship, PUA game or synthetic sperm - take your pick - based on what age you are in.
2) Like any chemical process that is not quasi-static, the nature of evolution is essentially irreversible. There is not one dynamic process in nature, that I am familiar with, that can be perfectly reversible. Why must such a complex time-domain function of bio-chemical changes be deemed reversible? And if it is not reversible, how can you expect a station long passed (i.e. traditional tribe/family structure) to re-occur at some further point in this long and dwindling path function?
I rest my case for now, my dear curious British lady :-) If this post doesn't give you a headache (yet!), I'd await a response one of these days.
LHB,
I was thinking about what you wrote above. Just as I thought I had an answer for you, I went off at a tangent :-)
But I shall adjust my answer to you 'in light of new evidence' :-)
What I would say is that
1. Yes, I do think sometimes that I am too idealistic, and this frustrates me.
But then when my idealism leads me to a success or a quasi-success, I think, wow, maybe idealism does pay off afterall. I recently encountered such a situation.
2. Oh absolutely correct that a man's decision to do ANYTHING must be independent of his surroundings. I think this applies to both men and women actually (but in all honesty women are more slaves to their environment than men. Hm, I wonder if this Nature's way to keep women less 'selfish' than men - with the interests of children in mind? If women were identical to men in this respect, I think infants would be in trouble :-)
I think that you perhaps 'big up' my attempts to be a 'good' girl too much :-)
I derive much more pleasure in pleasing those around me than you might believe. Your primary motivation in life as a man is to achieve something concrete. Mine is to nurture, however I may choose to execute this.
Part of this nurturing instinct is to look after my nearest and dearest, of which a significant majority are men.
It is easier and nicer to get on with the nurturing thing than to try to suppress it.
I have tried both strategies :-) so I speak with authority when I declare that the latter doesn't work.
I have also observed women who really hate men or who have no nurturing instinct or who have lost it. Beleieve me they are quite miserable, and I know for sure I never want to be like that.
Sometimes it is easier to just 'go with the flow'.
And this is another area I will touch on when I answer you in full in a post or two to come shortly.
Post a Comment