The new breed explained

NC asks (in response to my declaration that the system needs changing):
"How should the system change?"


That is not a hard question at all, NC!
It is shockingly simple from where I am standing :-)


We can't stay as we are...that is clear enough.
We can't go back to 1950s model either. That model belonged to an age of innocence which we no longer have. Although in general, it was quite a good deal for women, it was largely rejected by women themselves.
Either women got it really wrong (should have stuck to what works, dear) or there were too many flaws in that system anyway, so it had to go.


Either way, a NEW system is required.
My recommendation is that since we have the benefit of hindsight and can see which bits worked and which bits didn't, we are in the rather privileged position of picking and choosing the traits we would like to project forth, and the ones we would like to drop.

Much like agricultural breeders. Animal breeders weed out unfavourable characteristics in favour of good ones.

Yes, I am venturing into the ugly territory of 'social eugenics' so to speak.


You gentlemen, I am sure will confirm that there are some attractive traits to the modern woman.
Let's be fair.

Many of you would soon grow tired of the perpetual child who cannot do anything for herself unless there is a man holding her hand.

That, gentlemen, was the woman from the 1950s, in general.
Vulnerable is one thing. I am sure you chaps dig that, in a woman :-)
I get that.

But helplessness is another. And I am sure knowing that the little lady wouldn't be able to handle anything unless you were there to guide her is quite the burden!

Many modern women don't have this problem. That has got to be quite a relief to you men.
The problem however, is that women are now so 'empowered' that they are hardly recognisable as 'women' anymore.
This is a question of degree, though.
It can be corrected once women take on more of the mantle of vulnerability that we were keen to shed in the days of 'bra burning'.



Another issue is that of 'the full package'.

Um...how shall I put this delicately, Lord help us, lol.

I think women have never really unleashed 'the full package' ever, in history.
We could be the first era to achieve this.

Bellita once mentioned the notion of women having 3 phases of life (in direct comparison to those of men, namely the page, the knave and the prince) i.e. the maiden, the mother and the crone.

In all previous ages, men had to live with the biological fact that a woman could not possibly be all three at once. If you were lucky, she could be two at once.

This is one aspect where Mother Nature would not allow multi-tasking', lol.

Once a woman was past the 'maiden' stage, that was it. In many non-Western societies, the difference between a 'mother' and a 'maiden' is sometimes alarmingly stark.
She is totally unrecognisable - physicaly, psychologically, mentally...

But these societies remain stable because men are given free reign to replace the 'lost maiden' with a new one, whilst retaining the services of the mother and the crone.
Polygamy for the win, I hear you guys say...
:-)

But in the West, there is at least an attempt of women to retain wifely allure, which is not totally blighted by maternal (matronly?) demeanour and appearance.

But I hear you scream: But this is exactly what is missing! As soon as she pops out her 2.2 kids, it's goodbye sexy!

Well, one of the by-products of 'wayward womanhood' if I may coin a potentially unpopular phrase, is that more and more women are revealing themselves to be capable of a 'crone' stage mimicking the maiden stage quite well...at least better than previous generations of women managed it.

Of course, the results are not always totally successful or indeed desirable, but this is because these women are trying too hard, and in the wrong 'frame'.

I would hazard a guess that a woman is much more attractive to the man she has been yoked to for years, rather than a new man who is himself perhaps unimpressed with women in general.

Here is a suggestion: wouldn't it be great if thse cougars who were trying to catch the toyboys reserved their cougardom for the men they have vowed to honour, love and obey forever?
See where I am going?

The 1950s woman had no such extensive experience of observing cougar wildlife at play, as much as we do today's SMP.
Yes, we can learn from the cougars.
Some of us are not too fussy where our education comes from :-)

The cougar of today could teach the frumpy wife of the 50s a lesson or two in 'sexiness'.
Whilst the latter was probably more of a 'lady' than the former, the two combined would be quite a formidable 'package' of femininity, no?


What about the young 'uns?
What could change about them?



One of you gentlemen complained recently here that all women bring to the table is sex and kids, and 'no, thanks Ma'am, I don't need neither'.

I responded dismissively that sex and kids were already quite the gift, why can't you see this, Sir.

But I missed an important starting point for a whole new debate :-)

Women are providing one or the other at any given time, ain't it the problem :-)

Before commitment, you men get all sex and no kids.
After commitment you get all kids and no sex :-)

Would you prefer neither pre-Commitment and both post-Commitment, maybe?
Your call.

I think it would be nice (but is it pie in the sky?) if you blokes got 'the full package', but that requires a degree of defying Nature, by women.
In any case, it takes a great deal of hard work on the part of women, who naturally, have a lot of demand on their bodies in ways that you gentlemen will never experience :-)




And there is a third aspect to this 'full package' thing. I ain't finished yet :-)

Studies upon studies say women are not having enough babies...
Nonsense.
Women are having lots of babies alright. They are just not legitimate babies, half the time, um... literally.
Hence the dissatisfaction.

The evidence is that um, sex is in short supply, at least for married men.
And yet, the hook-up culture is ubiquitous.
The point is that legitimate sex is in short supply.




It is not enough to simply provide a commodity.
The commodity must be 'kosher'.
If not, its value is nil.

It must be the 'full package', otherwise it might as well be an empty package.

A right 'jack-in-the-box'.

So that's how the system should change, NC.

We should look at the evidence before us and act accordingly, weeding out the highlighted unwanted traits and inserting new and desirable traits into the female collective DNA.

The result would be a womanhood that for once in history, delivers the 'full package'.
The means are there, but is the spirit?
That is the question...

The Servant King

What an oxymoron this is!
It's got me thinking all day.



At Mass this morning, I was struck by the words of this hymn.
The lyrics kept playing themselves in my mind all day.
Flicking through channels in the hope of an update about a certain royal baby :-) I came across a church service where the congregation were singing a hymn.

You wouldn't believe which hymn...


I promised to pray for a young lady.
She is on the cusp of womanhood.
That means she will soon enter into the SMP.
Her father is educating her well. But he is quite rightly worried about her romantic future.

Cadders, this one is for your young daughter.
May she be the kind of woman that one day you would be immensely proud of.

The Servant King.
A servant who is also a king, or a king who serves?

This reminds me of a french phrase that a close family member uses a lot:

Noblesse oblige.
With nobility comes a lot of responsibility.

Kind of puts paid to the modern 'princess' who has all the rights and no responsibility, doesn't it?




The last verse of this hymn is the one that got most of my attention.

"So let us learn now to serve,
And in our lives enthrone Him
Each other's needs to prefer
For it is Christ we're serving."


I am not versed in Scripture. I can't quote Bible passages at will. Google is my friend when I need to find something in a hurry :-)
So for me it is nice to get a little titbit of wisdom handed to me on a plate, for free.
This hymn was one such gift for which I am grateful.

The last post about 'a new breed of woman' is a way to elevate my own ideals. But I realise it won't be possible without a supreme being's help.

In my world, I call this being 'God'.
Others may have a different word for Him.
It doesn't matter what we call Him.

If we learn how to serve, like Him, if we prefer each other's needs like Him, we would be well on the way to be what He designed for our eternal happiness, I am sure.

There are people who serve everyday, without even thinking about it. Kudos to these people. They are selfless and self-sacrificing, and they are a great example to follow.

This servant King, he has a number one fan.
She is his mother, the Servant Queen.
And she is like me, female.
But there endeth the similarity :-)


She is a cool role model to have, for every young woman.
If one has a difficult choice to make, one could try asking, 'would she do that?'
If the answer is yes, cool.
If it is no...



For sure, we would all never quite be like her.
For she was born without sin, and we were.

But our lives can be lived trying to imitate her, and other women like her.

Cadders, may your daughter strive to be like the mother of the Servant King all the days of her life.

At this point in her life when she is about to enter into an important phase, may she get all the good guidance that you (and her mother) have to offer.




The rest of us will support her with our good wishes, positive thoughts and prayers.

Behold a new breed of Woman

Lonely Himalayan Bear made a brilliant point in several guises.
I am afraid I missed the point many times, which is why he had to present the same point to me in several takes before I finally caught on.

LHB, I never said I was a bright spark ;-)

The point he makes is essentially this: that MGTOW is not necessarily a reaction to women's bad behaviour. Men have reached a state of play where it is rational - a choice (Hey, what's good for feminism is also good for 'masculinism') to GTOW which is absolutely nothing to do with women.

I guess my first reaction to this notion is, 'Hm, this is one almighty coincidence, isn't it, that when woman go AWOL, men decide to GTOW. Interesting'.

Well that's a simplistic view of a very pertinent point, I know.

I missed what LHB was really trying to say, but he was patient enough to try, try, try again until I could see his point finally :-)

The following helped my understanding of where he was coming from:

"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."

Well, this made me sit up, because I was under the impression that the current state of play (women hooking up with the bad boys instead of rewarding the good boys) was enough to derail an already failing system.

But oh no. As LHB points out, there is more that is undermining the good name of marriage.

I think I see what he means. Let's try and smoke out this new monster (actually, a very old monster).

And now I am reminded of a phrase I used to use a lot months ago. I used to say a lot of this:

"Virginity is not enough."

How true.

LHB is describing a phenomenon which is being played out by women who would have been the archetypal perfect brides. Tarditional Hindu women? There are no better women than traditional Hindu women!
(Hey, not even traditional Catholic women, lol).

So what's the problem?

And it is important to say, this problem predates feminism, but certainly has been updated, upgraded and rebooted big time by feminism.


Here is my take on the problem:

First of all, this problem seems to be distinct from the ills of the contemporary SMP because as LHB points out ad nauseum until I 'got it', it involves women who should have been perfect wives, from a bygone age.

Who are these women... who should have made for excellent wives, but who caused generations of men to want to curl up and die whilst simultaneously sucking it up and manning up because they felt compelled to?

Who are these women who rode on the coat-tails of other women of their generation and hopped onto the 1950s 'kept woman' bus but who didn't deserve to be on that bus?

You see, there were lovely, beautiful (in every way) honourable women of that era. So for LHB to pinpoint this errant minority (um, I hope this was indeed a minority but I have no way of knowing for certain) sounds rather like heresy.

But it is not heresy.

On the surface of things, these women possessed at least two of the following positive characteristics: they were virgin brides, good-looking, demure, charming women with some but not excessive education who were sought after by many men but settled for the men of her choice, men who satisfied their 'lists'.

Anything wrong with this picture?

Absolutely not. So far so good. Things should be exactly like this.


But these woman were hell to live with.
I think this is what LHB was getting at.

Why?

I have two theories on this.

The first is that I think there is a natural tendency for women's 'tolerance' levels for men to drop as they get older. This is not a criticism of women as such. It is but an observation.
I described this phenomenon here (link - hourglass device). Whilst I think there are many factors that cause a rapid decline in the sand within this 'hourglass devce', I think perhaps it is prudent to accept that there will be some decline, unless the woman in question is making a concerted effort to be a saint. Many men notice this decline in the form of denial of certain privileges :-), getting roughed up by law enforcement on the whim of 'er indoors, or getting downright kicked out of the home when she is well and truly done with him.

Deplorable and regrettable, yes.


My second theory is that women evolve much faster than men on an emotional level. Men largely stay the same emotionally. Women swing a lot from day to day, month to month, year to year.
Maybe it is the hormonal changes associated with lunar phases :-) childbirth, etc.

The point is that a woman who seems to have 'changed a lot' may appear to have 'tricked' a man because he 'didn't see it coming'. This is a common response amongst stunned and shocked recently divorced men.

I make no excuses - I am just trying to understand what may be going on.


How can this problem be solved?

The first thing to say is that for sure, feminism is not helping the situation, because the woman (even if she is not the type) is egged on by laws which enable her to do as she pleases to the detriment of everyone else. These laws are the woman's enemy in the long run, but at the time she is busy taking advantage of them, she is blinded to this possibility.

We need a new breed of 'super woman'.

Bellita and I made (independently of each other!) the point that at this stage of the game in the current SMP, a woman needs to really show that she is the bees' knees before she will be taken seriously by any man as a good prospect for marriage, whoever she is.
She needs to be far better than what a 1950s woman had to be, to be 'wifed up'. This is the price ALL women have to pay now.
Voilà, we are where we are now.

And the tragedy is that many men won't just say, 'well I am MGTOW because there are skanky young women about'.

No, they are also saying 'well, my mother was seemingly the perfect wife and mother, but my father still wants to kill himself every three months'...



There is one thing that feminism has gifted women: the proximity to men at the workplace for large numbers of women may be seen as a bad thing in general, but I say, why don't we put it to good use?

The 1950s housewife had no way of knowing what it would be like for a man to be out all day 'slaying dragons'.
The modern woman does, by default. She has had to slay a few dragons herself.
When she empathises with a man who has just gotten grief from his boss, her words of empathy carry far more weight than those of her grandmother.

A modern woman may lack the understanding of men that the 1950s woman naturally got from her own mother, but the modern woman has the proximity that the 1950s woman was simply not allowed for fear of adverse consequences for her :-)

If only the modern woman can still avoid those 'adverse consequences', she can take full advantage of this proximity to really study men 'in the wild' as it were, with little need for top-up 'second-hand information from third parties:-)


 All the other rules of femininity apply. The modern woman can only add to the repertoire. There is potential for a fulfilling life as a woman, with all the strides made to provide women with 'choices'. The key is to know that choices are not endless, and that each choice has a consequence down the line.

What we need is a new breed of woman who has the ability to use the quirks of modern life to her actual advantage rather than capitulate under all these 'choices' that Mama Feminism brought her.
Modern woman needs to be the Cinderella whose feet fit whatever shoe modern life throws at her.

It begins with a certain empathy and understanding of men and a refusal to succumb to the 'all men are bastards' chorus.

This, I think is what was lacking in those pretty, slim, virginal 1950s women who somehow despite all their apparent gifts still managed to wreak havoc for their unsuspecting entourage.

They somehow managed to give marriage a bad name in an era when this should have been impossible.

But they managed it, because there was a critical mass of excellent women around, so much like all children benefit from the herd immunity that immunised children provide (if theay are the majority), these unfit women were carried along on the tidal wave of the goodwill of their good sisters, much to the eventual pain of the 1950s man who could not tell the difference between a 'good one' and a 'bad one' because 'well, they all look the same to me'.

But now, modern woman stands very much alone, as she is judged not with the positive reflection of her critical mass of good sisters ('cos there ain't a critical mass of good sisters no more :-) she is judged as a stand-alone entity (if she is lucky).

Worst case scenario - she is judged with the negative reflection of the increasingly critical mass of her not-so-great sisters.
This is the unintended consequence of the legacy of our errant female ancestors, yes.
We are where we are now...


Modern man has much more than the unlucky 1950s man: he has the ability to study modern woman. This same proximity thing works both ways :-)



So, LHB, the problem you describe should never be the modern man's prolem in this current era.
For you guys have a tool your fathers did not have.


Whilst modern woman is more than capable of restoring the good name of marriage,

1. It would take a great deal of personal effort, prayer, guidance, divine intervention :-)

2. It may not make any difference to the atrtitude of men, because the die has already been cast.

3. But she really does need to do something. Because she needs marriage. Even if she doesn't know she does.








Wouldn't it be fun to beat the 1950s woman at something... just so we could say we could...
:-)

About 'All but one'...

I had an answer for Lonely Himalayan Bear that I was going to post up today.

And then someone else pitched up and blew my mind :-)
Ezriel says something that I have heard before. But not quite like this :-)



Ezriel is a MGHOW and a storyteller. And I like this story he tells:



"The others will not come back.

Women only want heroes on their parade.

The women rejoice at their returning heroes. A great celebration is held for the new members of the village. They feel the love, admiration and respect of everyone around them.

All but one.

Quietly a father searches the perimeter for his son. “He’ll make it”, he says to himself. But as the hours pass, he is forced to return home and comfort his mate over what is increasingly obvious even if he won’t admit it to himself. His mate is sad, but resolute. “It had to be done”, she remarks. “Only the strong have the right to survive.” As the night falls and his mate drifts off to sleep the father cries for his son.

When the morning comes, the father’s mate rolls over and finds a cold, empty bed. Sure that he is hunting she busies herself with her daily tasks. As the day goes by, more and more of the hunters return to smiling families, marveling at bounty they provide. A niggling doubt creeps into her thoughts, her mate has yet to return and night has fallen. She asks the other hunters if they had seen her mate to no avail. No one has seen him since the celebration.

Deep in the jungle, a father hunts not for food but for his son. He uses every trick his father taught him but it fails him. No blood, no body, no trace whatsoever. Sure that his son survived after all he rushes to the village expecting to find his smiling son, now a man!

Nothing but emptiness greets him. He knew then that it will never be the same.

Time passes: days become months, months become years but the father never forgot. Couldn’t, no matter how hard he tried. Everyone’s life continued as nothing has happened. Sick of it all, he drifts off to the jungle never to be heard of again.

Even without one of their hunters, the village prospered and grew. Their time honored tradition has served them well. The strong live, the weak are culled. The women prepare for that night’s celebration and as the boys, now men, return. The celebration is held and the men can feel the love, admiration and respect of everyone around them.

All but one…

***

I hope you don’t mind Spacetraveller, I took your narrative and made one of my own. It’s shorter than I wanted it to be but I’ve a limited space. I apologize in advance as English is not my primary language. What I’m trying to illustrate here is that, at least for me, the system becomes unsustainable. It works for a while but it will implode at some point. More and more men are drifting away from the village, if they make it back to begin with.

I turned 30 last month and it has turned my sight inward. I look back at the roads I’ve traveled; that my father traveled and his father before him. The beaten path is familiar to me, but no longer fulfilling. Somewhere along the line, something fell off and broke. Whatever it was, I couldn’t fix it. I had to make something new to replace it with but that something, that elusive thing, is now tugging at me towards a new path. One away from what is expected of me. But I don’t see it as a loss, more and more I see what awaits me at the end. It is not without its peril, to walk this path I must discard everything that has led me this far and remake myself anew. But what awaits me at the end is more precious than diamonds, more beautiful than your child’s first word, sweeter than a woman’s first kiss.

What awaits me at the end is freedom, and I like it."


Ezriel's story is easily recognisable to any man, I am sure.
I know this is every man's story.
I also know that many modern women do not know this story.
I know this story because I was fortunate enough to find it 'by accident'.

I post all of Ezriel's comment here in the hope that women will find it and read it. Again and again.




All but one.


If I didn't know this before, I can categorically say this now:

As a woman, I have never feared being that 'one'.

The one who never comes back.
The one who is 'missing in action'.
The one who is 'lost at sea'.
The one who is just 'lost'.
The one who is no more.

This is not a woman's reality. It just isn't.
Sure, there are women who are truly heroic, but this characteristic is not intrinsic to womanhood. If it happens to a woman, it does add extra depth to her character, to her fortitude and to her sense of self, yes.

But it is not what makes her a woman.

The 'All but one' phenomenon is unique to men, as well you know, Ezriel.
So I cannot pretend to know all about it. But what I can say about it is what it looks like from the other side of the fence. Which is all I can offer on this subject. And I hope it is of some value to you.

Yes, women want heroes. I agree, Ezriel.
It is an essential part of our make-up.
And what's more, we cannot lose this aspect of our wiring.
Because the minute we do, we are no longer women.

You already know the score: nothing new here.
You don't want the 'Strong and Independent' types who don't need men.


So we agree that men actually want women who want men. And to an individal woman, that man has to be something more than a man, to be special. He has to be somewhere between a man and a god. (No exaggeration :-)

And what's more, you do want to be a hero - not necessarily for a woman, but for yourself.

We women do not need to be heroes. Of course we can be, if the situation calls for it. But no-one expects it of us. So we don't seek to be anyone's hero.

But you, you need to be. Because your sense of manhood depends on this. In an outcome-independent kind of way.
But hey, you wouldn't complain if erm, you get some 'perks' along the way :-)

Unfortunately, not everyone can be a hero.
Indeed in chasing 'herodom' as you are wired to do - and society eggs you on to do it if your own Nature doesn't - you run the risk of losing life or limb, yes.

This is not woman's fault. But woman is designed to take advantage of this need of yours.

So if you come back from your sojourn, life and limb intact, you should be a hero to some woman, somewhere.
If you don't come back, you are the 'All but one'.

It is sad, and I lament this fact of life.
Which is why I think women should be more aware of the natural plight of men and not add to their troubles with unpleasantness, deceit, divorce rape and cuckoldry.

But no-one can help the 'All but one' phenomenon. Not men (who must compete fair and square to avoid being the 'one' and certainly not women who must definitely not meddle in the business of man-ness :-)

So I receive your heartfelt lament in the spirit of shared friendship ("good on you for revealing your inner pain - I sympathise with you, my friend") as opposed to a wistful attempt to circumnavigate an essential pillar of male upbringing.

There must be a reason why all successful societies put their young males through brutal rigorous rituals such as that which you describe.

Once again, it is not women's fault that these harsh sojourns of mind and body are in place for young men like you.

But I agree that at some point, you ought to be rewarded for not being the 'one who didn't come back'.

That is what is missing in today's world for the men who did 'make it back'.
They are not getting any sort of recompense for their fear, their pain, their sweat, their toil.
In fact, very often they are punished for coming back!

This is wrong. This is unfair. This will and is coming back to haunt womanhood...




In my view, before you are 'tested', you shouldn't be asking any woman, 'Will you cry if I don't come back?'
The answer will be 'no'. You already know that.

:-)


But once you are back, you shouldn't have to ask too many women if they will watch your back until the day you die.
The answer to that rhetorical question should be 'yes'.

In fact, it should be a given that you are shown the basic respect and possible affection reserved for someone who is 'back'.

But this part is missing in today's SMP.
I understand that...




Thank you for your story.

But I think your lament should be less about your fears about someone not coming back, and more about what should be your rightful bounty for actually coming back.

Which you do. Over and over again. Day in day out.

In your mind at least, you are a hero. Which means you made it back.
To your close family and friends, you are a hero too, perhaps.
But not so much to the wider society.

And yet, the wider society expects much of you.

This is where I see a disconnect.
And this is where I rejoice with you that you see freedom somewhere in this awful mix.
And I admire you for this, because I find it very difficult to see anything good in this sort of situation, as it currently stands for men.

But in all honesty, Ezriel, I cannot do anything for the man who didn't make it back.

But I think society can definitely do more for those who did.
That is where I focus my energies.

That is what this whole blog is about.



And now I feel compelled to ask you men:

What do you make of the man who didn't come back?

Do you share Ezriel's compassion for him?
Do you have the loyalty of Snoopy?

Or do you see him as a fallen rival, and therefore 'good riddance'?
Or do you, like socety in general, feel that his Worth is in his making it back?

Is this locker-room stuff that I should keep away from?
I shall understand if the answer to this not-so-rhetorical question is a firm 'yes'.