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...
:-)
31 comments:
I wonder why women like to imitate men. Only after it has been adopted by men or invented by men. It is then repurposed by women for their own uses.
Hence the superwoman picture. Or am I wrong?
The image of 'Supergirl' is less an imitation, and more an example of the classic 'apex fallacy' concept which is quite a popular theme in the manosphere. It describes the feminist
movement as mistaking that ALL women will eventually enjoy the privileges and perks of the TOP tier of socio-economic status males.
Side note: I believe DC comics brought out Supergirl in the 1950s or 1960s as a way of targeting girls as potential readers of comic books. It never really worked.
Spacetraveller: You mention 'critical mass' which is a term I use myself, to define a certain population within the female population at large. Specifically, that given an unknown,
but reasonably large, local population of single marriageable women, there will be within that population, a certain number of women that I (or other reasonable men) would never even
date, much less marry. This then, is the critical mass of women. The reasons for not marrying are many and varied, and do not necessarily involve any sort of feminism mistakes.
Sometimes, they're just bat-shit crazy.
Joining this with your definition of critical mass, we get a critical mass of women who ARE marriageable in the 50s, with a critical mass of women unmarriageable in the 2000s and
beyond. In other words, enough women in the 50s were 'good' enough to marry, that men actively sought to do so. Conversely, enough women today are 'not good', and therefore many
men simply opt out of trying.
And, as you have been told, and you acknowledged, changing divorce and family court rules back to something approaching true equality is still not going to change the males' minds.
Changing rules and laws do not change the females themselves, only the rules and laws.
"We need a new breed of 'super woman'."
Nope. Nor do we need a return to 1955-age women. Certainly I will agree that virginity is not all of it, especially since most men born 1965 or later are ok with marrying non-
virgins, as long as they haven't slept with every man they dated.
What we (men) want and need is a single, individual woman who fits us individual men. BUT, men also need some sort of assurance that the critical mass for loser women has dropped to
an acceptable level. Again, in other words, what are the chances this individual woman is going to turn out to be bat-shit crazy psycho divorce-ready court-abusing nutjob? Let me
assure you, there WERE these kinds of nutjobs in the 1960s, because I saw them. I can find several men to verify that they also existed in the 20s to the 60s. Point is, men do not
need a 'superwoman' to get them to commit, just someone that fits them AND some sort of assurance that they aren't going to destroy their lives.
And herein lies the rub. I cannot think of a single method that would work to convince any man who has already swallowed the red pill, that the critical mass of 'empowered entitled
and emancipated' women has dropped to an acceptable level. Let me add that I view MGTOW as actually and accidentally fulfilling a basic tenent of feminism: to wit, treat women like men.
(Continued below)
The Navy Corpsman
Think about it... feminists want to be the same as men, at least that is what I read from the majority of blogs and manifestos available online. Men, in their basic form of 18 year
old high school graduate, understand the basics of contract law. You sign, you limit your options of your own free will, and you pay the price if you violate the terms of the
contract. So does the other contractee, EXCEPT when the contract is a marriage license. Given the current divorce numbers, given that women initiate some 75% of divorces for ANY
reason, given that men are routinely destroyed in family court, the rewards do not justify the risk. No man, or woman for that matter, would willingly enter into a business contract
when the other party can void that contract at will, without near the price paid by the first party. And, throw in the false allegations resulting in various court actions
(violence, rape, child abuse), the picture is complete. MGTOW then do EXACTLY what feminists want them to do... treat women like men, and refuse to enter into such a contract.
Let us go even further, however. Let us say, the divorce numbers all stay the same, the initiator is still women in the vast majority of cases, and also that less than 5% of
divorces turn really ugly for the male. No alimony, child support is non-existent because custody is evenly split between the parents. No false allegations of violence, rape or
other court actions. Lastly, the chances of things turning really bad is minuscule, less than 5%. All that is left is the simple understanding of emotional devastation, and
feelings of personal failure.
I'll bet you dollars to donuts that the number of MGTOW stays almost exactly the same. Emotions are precious things, to a male, Miss Spacetraveller. We do not spend them lightly,
and we commit to them with all our heart. Not all men are like that, I grant you (NAMenALT ?). I suspect, however, that practically all MGTOW are like that. I won't even pretend
to know how women view this but in general, I believe that 'good' men, once they actually commit, are by nature committed for life. And they're damned tired of being lumped in with
the cads and PUAs and other types that women have complained about for centuries.
A new breed of superwomen? Prove she is the 'bees knees' ? Neither is going to help much. Men also do something that women seem to have forgotten to do, and that is, judge an
individual person alone, not as an entire gender. MGTOW may gripe about women as a gender, but it's almost always in the context of "the women I meet" or something similar. What do
I read on feminist blogs?
"All men are bastards, cheaters, assholes... " etc.
You mention judging as a stand-alone... well exactly so. But the cumulative effect of "X" number of unacceptable 'bad' women will turn a male into MGTOW, regardless of any perceived
number of 'good' women. And "X" is different for every man. Critical mass (good or bad) is still only one factor among many.
"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. "
How's that going for you (as a gender)?
(Continued again, below)
The Navy Corpsman
Do yourself a favor, and Google "is feminism dead". You'll get lots of third-wave blogs saying that the original reasons for women's rights
are no longer a problem, but that there are plenty of new or recently discovered problems that remain. Men read that and say, "It's no longer about equality, but superiority".
You'll also see references to equal pay for equal work still being a problem, yet there several studies (including one done by women!) that show, when adjusted for overtime and
dangerous working conditions, pay is within 3-5% of parity.
I cannot think of any man who believes that feminists will allow an actual parity in ANYTHING to be good enough. Moreover, I cannot think of any HUMAN that believes that feminists
will roll back divorce laws, family court rulings or any other aspect of society to where men and women are actually equal before the law. No human has ever given up their rights,
once acquired, without a fight, and sometimes a war.
Lastly:
"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."
"My second theory is that women evolve much faster than men on an every level. Men largely stay the same. Women swing a lot from day to day, month to month, year to year, in every
aspect of their lives. Maybe it is the hormonal changes associated with lunar phases childbirth, etc. Maybe it is the additional X chromosome, but one thing is absolutely certain:
Women change, men don't."
There, fixed that for you. Now it's entirely sexist, not just partly.
Human beings are flexible, it is the only way to survive in any given culture. The only way this whole mess will ever resolve, is when people treat each other as individuals instead
of lumping an entire gender together as one entity. When the rules and laws do NOT intrude into our personal lives that are no part of a government's business.
When humans can be humane to each other, instead of society behaving as an adversarial legal contest to see who wins. As you yourself and many others now know, no one wins.
The Navy Corpsman
I am beginning to seriously dislike blogspot.com commentary posting. Please excuse the bad formatting of the previous three posts, it's clear that blogspot inserts end-of-line or spaces where I did not.
The Navy Corpsman
The problem women now face is that in giving women 'freedom', choices and proximity to men, feminism has revealed women's true feril nature. Men in the past rarely got to see that but men today do - it's hard to ignore it when it's in your face daily.
Men are simply doing what they have always done - survey their environment, understand it and react accordingly. The rise of PUA, MGTOW and the decline of marriage and commitment are straight forward rational responses. Changing laws or a new breed of super woman are unlikely to change men's views. Women's true nature is now in plain sight and it is up to each man individually to decide how he deals with it.
@ Standingagainsttheworld,
Hello and welcome to The Sanctuary!
I like NC's answer to your ponderings :-)
In the case of this particular post, I use the Superwoman picture as a play on the words 'super woman' - my idealised antidote to the current, undesired (by men) modern woman.
But I think yours is an important point.
As NC says, feminism was borne (in part) as an envy of the presumed privileges of men.
Yes it is an apex fallacy, because indeed only a selection of men have these so-called privileges anyway.
The sad thing is that as women, we have been systematically programmed to want masculine things, in the mistaken belief that those would fulfill us. They won't. They haven't. Some women have discovered this too late.
Please don't take this to mean that I don't think women should work. I happen to be one of those people that believe that a woman who is not otherwise engaged with the responsibility of looking after small children should work in any way that fulfils her, and which is useful, and that often includes paid work (how else would she eat?)
If she can avoid long periods away from her small children, then it would be ideal, which is why SAHM is such a nice thing for a mother.
Having said this, in this economic crisis, many women simply cannot stop earning as they did before, even though now things have changed, i.e. they now have an infant who demands their full attention. Indeed, many husbands demand that their wife work...against her will (and better judgment).
Many women now realise that feminine pursuits are fulfilling indeed - for a woman at least :-)
Now I wonder if there is a section of manhood that has this problem, and want to be like women...
Let's keep this question rhetorical for now, shall we :-)
NC,
Thank you for your very detailed summary of what men think on this subject.
I understand what you are saying.
Looking back at my post, I think I used 'critical mass' in both 'critical mass of good women' and 'critical mass of bad women' senses.
I totally agree that despite all the changes women as a whole may make, it still might not make an iota of difference to men. Men may still not want to commit to women.
But...
1. This is a risk women will have to take. In any case, we know that the current way is not working. So continuing with that model will be classed as 'insanity' if Einstein's words are to be taken into consideration here.
2. This is a classic opportunity for us to demonstrate a bit of 'outcome independence', something I really admire when I see it in men.
We should ne magnanimous in our dealings with men whether or not it would lead to our desires being fulfilled.
That is a hard ask, I know. But I think men are doing it all the time. Men are keeping civilisation going despite society (ruled by women) crumbling all around them.
Here is our chance to make society better. Here is our chance to 'woman up', whether it means a particular man commits to us or not. We really need a man to commit. But if he doesn't, we shouldn't lose all motivation to do the right thing. It is a humongous ask of any woman, because the 'go-to' emotion for any woman who doesn't get what she wants is bitterness towards ALL men.
So I fear this would be difficult, unless there is a way for women to understand that men are not the perpetrators of all their personal woes.
But do you notice how the serpent of feminism encourages the blame game for women? Feeding the tendency to be a perpetual victim?
So the first task is to divert women away from the snake...
"Women change, men don't."
Oh how I agree. I don't think women's 'changing' should necessarily be viewed as a negative. Afterall, it is possible to keep changing in positive ways!
In any case, this continuous changing is an essential part of femininity. This 'variability' adds spice to life. In this sense, (aherm, viewed from my side of the fence!) women are more 'interesting' than men, but viewed from the 'other side', it also makes women appear more 'bat shit crazy' :-)
Hahahahaha, it depends how you look at it, for sure.
But the bottom line is, these differences between us should NOT be hurting either party in the way it is at present.
Once someone gets hurt, the system needs to change.
So here's hoping (and praying!) that it DOES change, for the better.
Cadders,
Yes, the 'proximity' thing is a new development in human history, isn't it?
Never before have men and women rubbed shoulders so closely than in the modern workplace.
There are still some more traditional societies where men and women are routinely segregated, for the same reasons that they would have been in our historic past.
Heck, this must be the reason I was at an all-girl school until I was 18 :-)
Whilst I do believe that it benefitted me to be away from boys at a time my judgment would have been at an all-time low, I think that girls who were in close proximity to boys during this period in their lives were perhaps more 'savvy' about boys in a way I wouldn't be for another ten years or so.
Anyway, I think my analogy here could be the wrong one for this context...
I think men are also in a position to benefit from this proximity because yes, they get to study women in a way their fathers and grandfathers just did not, at least pre-marriage.
Interesting that this is resulting in modern men foregoing marriage altogether!
I am suddenly led to conclude that men were marrying in greater numbers when women were a 'mystery', and now that women are no longer a 'mystery', men are saying 'no thanks'.
Hm, interesting.
Is it that the nature of women (deveiled by this lack of mystery) is somehow reprehensible to men (whoa, I find this hard to stomach and hope this cannot be so, lol) or is it that mystery in itself is an essential part of the attrraction mechanism for men?
I know that women dig a 'mysterious' man.
Do men need a 'mysterious' woman per se?
Or am I getting sidetracked by a confounding variable which is hidden in all this 'mystery'?
How does it work? Am I mixing up causation with correlation with association?
Where is LHB when you need him...
:-)
You re-iterate NC's point that a 'super woman' is unlikely to change a man's mind if he is determined enough to avoid women.
OK. Point taken :-)
But for the man who is still on the hunt for the 'unicorn' - a woman who understands men and who is also good wife and mother material, according to HIS standards, such a woman (who would be HIS super woman) would, by her actions, persuade such a man to um...take the train into Commitment City, no?
In theory, it sounds logical (at least to me). Help me work out where I have gone wrong in my thinking.
One thing's for sure. Doing the right thing and living by such a code of good general behaviour should NOT be about getting a certain result. It should be done for its own sake. Which paradoxically often leads to good things...
But not always.
It's alive! It's alive! :)
From what I can see LHB believes (like so many men) that marriage and heterosexual relationships are inherently "f*cked up" and they haven't just become this way recently. If you want to have a 'stable' society you have to convince men to marry, have kids and work till they drop... etc. servitude.
"I have two theories on this."
First: the tolerance level can drop because there's a ring and legal document involved... power corrupts... + Briffault's law kicks in...
Second: chemical imbalance that's causing someone to behave irrationally for no apparent useful reason is not a sign of faster evol. lol :)
Women can afford to use all kinds of excuses for everything and get away with it. There's no need for woman to go along with it anymore since she already got that 'legal commitment' that she wanted. Men also change. Women of course use another shaming tactic and call it 'mid-life crisis' or 'peter pan syndrome' etc.
"For you guys have a tool your fathers did not have."
Today's "tool" is internet. :) Or to be more specific, all this material about red pills, women's psychology, men sharing their experiences and thoughts on women and marriage... this alone is in my opinion the biggest marriage deterrent.
For some time now ST it seems that it's not a question about marriage anymore. For most men 'marriage = bad deal', and the debate ends here. They've already moved on to next logical question "Are women obsolete?".
http://www.avoiceformen.com/sexual-politics/marriage/marriage-is-an-obsolete-technology-and-so-are-women/
Metak,
"It's alive! It's alive!"
By jove, ST's hamster is alive!
Monsieur Metak,
Allow me to take off my 'woman goggles' and consider your comment in a purely neutral manner. I think this manœuvre is absolutely necessary :-)
"From what I can see LHB believes (like so many men) that marriage and heterosexual relationships are inherently "f*cked up" and they haven't just become this way recently."
The word that is however slightly upsetting for me is 'inherently'.
I have always believed that relationships between men and women are nherently a good thing - you know, designed by God and all. That it is flawed is the fault of our respective flawed natures. But the coming together of men and women in itself is a good thing.
I disagree that you are echoing what LHB said. Perhaps he could clarify if he swings by another time?
I thought what LHB was saying is that even when the system was supposedly working well, there were still problems with some of the women involved. I don't think he was knocking marriage at all. At least as far as I understand it.
To a woman, what you say is mind-boggling. The whole reason for our existence is building relationships! I swear, it is :-) I say it again, it is the raison d'être for women. If relationships (between men and women) are not an inherently beautiful thing, we are indeed obsolete. That is a humbling thought. Forgive me if I don't dwell on it too much...
(Ah, you can tell my 'woman goggles are right back in place again, can't you, lol).
But I shall tell you something - the fact that you say what you say makes me understand better where you are coming from.
The MGTOW movement, as I understood it, was a result of a mixture of the following:
1. Men don't like the village anymore so are turning away from it.
2. Men feel the need to have a woman-free life - nothing to do with women, it's just a preference that came from nowhere.
3. Men like the idea of keeping women at a distance because it is easier to truly love someone if they are physically and emotionally distanced from you :-)
4. Men are giving women a warning: Shape up or get lost.
5. Men just have too much in the way of stress in their lives to be dealing with - a woman is just too much of an 'extra' hassle. No thanks, no offence.
6. Men want to live life with their own décisions and options. Women may or may not be part of this picture.
It definitely never occurred to me that (some) men saw relationships as 'inherently' flawed.
That's a new one on me.
Oh God, this one is quite depressing.
It is quite the indictment on God himself, the Creator of all things, no?
Unless you simply mean that it is flawed due to how men have been 'ripped' off through the ages. But if you say that, then consider that the contribution to men by women through the ages has just been reduced to nothing, by you.
Which would be quite surprising.
When women in general held up their end of the bargain, the system was truly functionally stable.
Yes, men lost their freedom, but women lost their autonomy too, for the greater good of the family.
So, inherently, the system worked well if everyone did their part.
This is why your comment (although it is a brilliant and insightful one) makes me bristle a bit :-)
I agree that marriage is a bad deal for men, Metak. But there are many forms of marriage. Individuals can make their marriage what they would like it to be, without the intervention of the evil State.
I did read a bit from women who reported that they were forced to take more from their ex-husbands than they themselves wanted.
But as a woman, my first response was, why are you divorcing in the first place?
I don't know the full story of course, but the point here is that we can all make marriage better so that divorce becomes the ugly word the Catholic Church sees it to be.
I am having trouble seeing that the highest order of communal life can be inherently flawed.
Metak, you have some explaining to do, mate! :-)
Spacetraveller,
I hope society changes, too. But, I don't see any woman, including yourself, willing to give up anything to make the change possible.
Imagine this: No more 'grrl power' in the schools. No more redefining rape til it includes any sexual act, consensual or not. No more favoritism in university admissions. No more special courts used to destroy men for arbitrary revenge.
In short, attempting to return the pendulum to somewhere in the middle is going to lose support on each of those points I stated, plus MANY MANY more. In the end, change will never happen.
Maybe close proximity DID cause a significant number of men to GTOW. Or maybe they're just refusing to participate in a society which has reduced them to the status of sperm donor and ATM machine. In any case, such men HAVE committed... to themselves. Dr. Helen Smith recently published a book on the marriage strike, and in her interviews about the subject, she related a perfect representation of the state of our society, sexual marketplace and more...
It seems a woman asked her, during a booksigning, why her boyfriend would not commit to marriage. Apparently he was quite a catch, the young lady mentioned a stock portfolio, several real estate properties, and a six figure salary. Apparently, he was unwilling to risk all that he had worked for, on a marriage.
Then, the inevitable happened. The young lady said something to the effect of, "I just think he is terribly greedy for not wanting to marry me."
For giggles, let us explore this, hypothetically speaking. Let's say she is young, attractive, smart, fertile and willing to be the perfect wife. Let us say, she even signs a prenup that limits her 'payout' in the event of a divorce. Let's say there are no red flags, talk about being greedy with money, nothing to indicate she is only looking for a meal ticket.
Given your assertion that women change, and men do not, please list the reasons why this man should 'nut up or shut up'. Explain to me, and by proxy all men, why a man should not assume that the perfect woman will not change into something more resembling Myotis feces. You pointed out that all marriage is a risk, and certainly I and all men would agree with that assessment, but when the risk is almost completely borne by only one party in the marriage, that party would himself need to resemble guano-insanity to enter into such an agreement. Make no mistake, I know plenty of men that have. I'm one of them, in fact... and despite the happy state of my marriage, if you think I am not aware of the sword of Damocles hanging over my head, you are most sadly mistaken.
It is my assertion that women do not actually change much at all. In fact, a woman who divorces, then screws her ex-husband over in the courts, was almost certainly a stool-of-the-flying-mammal-psycho when he married her. She was simply successful at hiding it.
"So the first task is to divert women away from the snake..."
Good luck. Be sure to blog the results of your first attempt to remove the hypnotic reptile. Hope you have a thick skin, because NOTHING is more infuriating to a feminist than a woman who disagrees with them. Be prepared to be called a traitor, and worse.
"Once someone gets hurt, the system needs to change."
At last count, more than 56 million abortions in the USA, about 1.3 billion worldwide, since 1973. I admire your idealism, but I'm an old cynical man:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/414320/Shock-number-of-women-going-for-repeat-abortions
33 women have had nine abortions, and that's only known because they happened to get one last year. Care to offer a medical opinion on their future health?
The Navy Corpsman
ST thanks for your response. You had a couple of questions;
Firstly - I believe your proposition that men need an air of mystery in a woman is heavily loaded with projection. As you mention, women find such mystery attractive in a man. Men? Well, mostly we just want to figure shit out, and that includes women. In the past this simply wasn't possible for most men; their exposure to women was limited and, with no evidence to the contrary, they tended to believe what the cultural narrative taught them about women. Only after marriage did some men learn that what they had been taught was very, very, wrong.
But that was then. Now men are exposed to women all the time, they can see with their own eyes how they behave; they question the cultural narrative, and turn to other men either in person, or increasingly via the internet to figure this out.
And it's all there. The answers to their questions, the explanations to women's behaviors, the true nature of the female and (biologically sound) reasons why they exist and the (decided unsound) license society now gives women to act in the most feral way they want.
The true nature of women is just as ugly as the true nature of men. Accepting this is what makes the red pill taste so bitter to many men. Because all their lives the cultural narrative has done everything it can to disguise, deny and obscure that ugliness (and I understand that women have been lied to as well).
Which leads on to your second question - when a man understands all this, when he understands that female nature is inherently fickle and female emotion is inherently transitory and when society gives women the power to destroy him on a whim.....even the unicorn women is going to be viewed with suspicion.
And ultimately, many men just aren't going to bothered - they are not so much refusing to get on the commitment train - they're not even going to the station.
I see this amongst my son and his friends (19 - 21 yrs old). Having grown up around girls they have a very realistic view of women, pretty much the red pill by default. Women are simply not seen as special or valued by them as much as they were by me and my peers at that age. Women are just one more thing they could be spending their time on rather than the focus of their attention. Many men now seem to have low expectations of women and many women appear to be working hard to fulfill them.
I have a daughter on the cusp of entering the SMP and I will try to advise her to be that unicorn women. But in all honesty I wouldn't count on it being enough to get her on the commitment train.
And you should know I have successfully depressed myself. Brilliant.
NC,
"I hope society changes, too. But, I don't see any woman, including yourself, willing to give up anything to make the change possible."
Ah, but you are mistaken on this point, NC.
Why?
(Um much of what follows is a display of 'solipsism' because I see this as a question aimed directly at me, and for all of womanhood by proxy. I answer for myself and where appropriate answer for women who I think have the same thoughts as me. Here's hoping other women will chip in with their own experiences).
"No more 'grrl power' in the schools."
When I was at school myself, there was no such thing as 'grrl power', Sir.
Try 'girrl power' on a nun who already wants to whip you for no apparent reason and you will soon be on the receiving end of her own 'grrl power' :-)
The only grrl power we got was this:
Work hard, pray hard, be a daughter Our Lady would be proud of.
I am still working on that, as are many other similarly trained women of all religions.
We cannot vouch for our errant sisters except to say they listened to someone else other than people with the right voices, what can I say...
"No more redefining rape til it includes any sexual act, consensual or not."
I think I know what rape is. And I think I knwo what rape is not. I suspect my thoughts are similar to yours, but I shall stop here.
"No more favoritism in university admissions."
I don't know if I was a beneficiary of such a policy personally. Sadly, there is no way of looking into this retrospectively, but I can see that it is happening more and more. Yes it is deplorable. A university education should be granted on merit. This applies to race, sex, religion, etc. I have no problem with this. I wouldn't consider this 'giving up' anything.
"No more special courts used to destroy men for arbitrary revenge."
Well, you know how I feel about this one. You know how I feel about divorce. In this sense, I am with you men on this one.
Yes, there are women taking advantage of the system as it is while it lasts, not aware that the system will soon break down because it is not sustainable, not to talk of immoral.
So for women who think the system is not fair to men, it is not that they fear having to 'give up anything'. That decision is already made, NC. They just don't participate in the feral fest.
The terrifying thing is when they are FORCED to participate. This is why I brought up the stories I hear from women who are actively encouraged to divorce-rape their husbands when they themselves do not wish to do such a thing, in my comment to Metak. This is the bit that scares me. That the State can do this to a woman who wishes to remain honourable.
Remember that these women face penalties if they don't comply. THAT is a big worry. What if these sort of tactics are used even when a woman is NOT seeking to divorce her husband? What if these sorts of tactics are used in a perfectly harmonious situation just for the State to exercise its power over the masses? In this sense, my fears do not come from within, but from without...where one has no control.
Scary.
"Given your assertion that women change, and men do not, please list the reasons why this man should 'nut up or shut up'.
think this woman will change...for the worse, as time goes on.
I would not recommend that her bf marry her (for his sake) although I am sorry that I think this (for her sake). I think her choice of word (greedy) is very telling. She is a plain old gold digger and perhaps the man in question has figured it out. I hope Dr. Helen pointed it out to her as well, for it seems to me that she is blind to her own betrayal by her own words.
I am not trying to defend the indefensible here, NC. If this woman were all the positive things you mention, she wouldn't use the word 'greedy' to explain why she thinks her bf would not marry her.
For a start, she would not even be asking strangers why her bf is not marrying her. She would simply work it out for herself and either correct the problem, or walk. Afterall, if she were as you describe, she should have 'options'!
But suppose she felt the need to ask strangers, as presumably Dr. Helen is to her, why 'greedy'? She is projecting her own greediness, no?
Such a woman is high risk for a man to marry, yes, because he would not be 100% sure she cares for him, and not his material wealth. But he needs to be absolutely sure, in this current world.
"Explain to me, and by proxy all men, why a man should not assume that the perfect woman will not change into something more resembling Myotis feces."
Nothing is risk-free, NC.
But the point is, if you live life suspecting the worst, you (by this, I mean, anyone) will have a miserable life.
In the same way that there are no guarantees that a man will remain faithful, loving and strong for his wife until his dying day, a woman comes with no guarantees either.
But, there are clues as to her personality along the way. This is what 'courting' is for. You watch the other person and make your assesment.
Yes people hide their faults. Yes there are women who are excellent at hiding serious faults, a talent which is largely absent in men, I notice (except for a very small 'skilled' minority).
Yes, it is a combination of one's own intuition, experience, luck, collateral evidence from others, patience and a willingness to accommodate certain faults up to a point that sees two people who are non-perfect live out years of relative harmony.
If people want to opt out of this uncertain pathway, I say fine.
All of life is uncertain and rocky, to some extent.
There is a skill to negotiating life with a woman. You men are innately adept at that. Women are endowed with relationship skills too. If each side does what they were born to do, there could be some semblance of peace along the way :-)
YOU have achieved this, NC. Well done. Now teach the rest of us how to do it :-)
Abortions?
Talk about indefensible!
And yes, the psychological and physical problems of abortions are well-documented. I have mentioned before trhat I have encountered women who have done this.
They are in a private hell every day of their lives.
I don't condone abortion. Neither do these women who have had one. I think the case is an 'open and shut' one, NC.
Yes, the system needs to change alright.
You are helping me to make my point!
Thank you :-)
Cadders,
"Firstly - I believe your proposition that men need an air of mystery in a woman is heavily loaded with projection."
Thanks for confirming this. I have heard conflicting opinions about this and I was therefore confused about it.
"Men? Well, mostly we just want to figure shit out, and that includes women."
But Cadders, not to be petulant, but just because a man wants to figure stuff out does not mean a woman of interest to him need be an open book, surely!
Must she not pose a challenge to him at least at the beginning?
Instinct tell me this is how it should be.
But of course, I also agree that a woman need not be a perpetual challenge :-)
"And ultimately, many men just aren't going to bothered - they are not so much refusing to get on the commitment train - they're not even going to the station."
I am not sure why this makes me want to laugh out loud. It is not supposed to be funny!
"Women are simply not seen as special or valued by them as much as they were by me and my peers at that age."
We have failed. Klar, as the Germans would say.
"I have a daughter on the cusp of entering the SMP and I will try to advise her to be that unicorn women."
I will pray for your daughter, beginning now. That she would have the kind of life that would be full of love and meaning. She is already a very lucky girl. She has a father like you.
I have a little gift, specially for her - in the post coming up right now :-)
"And you should know I have successfully depressed myself. Brilliant."
Hahahahahahahahahahaha!
Join the club :-)
I blame Metak for my depression today. Who's to blame for yours?
Let's have a whine fest and get it off our chests :-)
"Yes, the system needs to change alright.
You are helping me to make my point!
Thank you :-)"
That was my intention. However, being this blog, being you, being an outlier, being all of this, I knew this is what you intended... now the hard part.
How?
"YOU have achieved this, NC. Well done. Now teach the rest of us how to do it :-)"
Napoleon famously said, "I would rather have a general who was lucky than one who was good."
I, Miss Spacetraveler, am lucky, not good. I found a woman who values family, hearth and home as much as I do. I found a woman who values me for being me, not what I could be, or might have been. I found a woman who loves me when I get protective and macho to defend her, and a woman who loves me when I watch and laugh as she verbally destroys some drunken fool trying to chat her up. I found a woman who compliments me and contradicts me at the same time, but does both with respect, devotion and love. I found a woman who gives me advice when I ask for it, and blissfully ignores my own unsolicited advice to her.
I don't need to 'figure out' my wife. She has figured out me.
And just to let you know, she is looking over my shoulder right, blushing just like the pretty schoolgirl I married 25 years ago. She is also reminding me to tell you, and all your readers, that if you change all the "I" to "She" and "woman" to "man", in the previous paragraph, all those statements apply to her. Except the part about drunken fools trying to chat ME up. It has been a family joke for decades, that I am not very good at being hit on by women. I can be extremely sarcastic, but I do not do it with much class. It is a very firm belief of mine that a woman who tries hitting on a married man is pond scum. Out of respect for your sensitivities, I won't describe my opinion of men hitting on married women.
I am your 'simple man' Miss Spacetraveller. No, both my sons are married, sorry, but yes, they're 'simple men' as well. Apparently, both my daughters-in-truth and my wife all three, disagree with that statement. Before my wife retired from her teaching position, her graduate students used to call me "Mr Dichotomy", I guess in reference to my professed love of peace and non-violence, yet the truth of me breaking the arm of a man trying to assault my wife belies a different nature.
Mess with me, shame on you. Mess with my wife or children, make your peace with your God, cuz you're about to meet Him in person.
As for your willingness to give up some rights you claim to never have had in the first place... good on you! Extremely good on you, but think now...
By proxy I did indeed include all women. Think your 'sisters' will follow your excellent example? (Sisters in quotes because I am pretty sure you're not claiming relations in any cases) In short, I am very glad to hear a woman is willing to stand up for true equality.
Just 3.6 billion more women to go!
The Navy Corpsman
"Nothing is risk-free, NC.
But the point is, if you live life suspecting the worst, you (by this, I mean, anyone) will have a miserable life."
Yup! But remember, BOTH parties in a divorce experience feelings of personal failure and emotional devastation, regardless of gender. Only the wealthier party will also experience financial ruin and potentially be jailed at the whim of the other party. In some 95% of marriages (or more), that wealthier party is the male. Hence MGTOW... and those men going that way, avoid that misery completely.
Oh and I chose abortion precisely because I knew your religious beliefs. I was taught by nuns too, the last Indian Assimilation school that existed in the USA. (Disclosure: I am not a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, Wiccan, Shintoist, Jainist, Bahaist, Sikh, or Feminist.)
Did you also notice that I did not even mention the lost children, only the females whose internal organs must look like a frog in a blender? People get hurt all the time, by stupid laws. No elected politician cares, not for, not against.
The Navy Corpsman
@ ST
Holy shish kebab on a stick, what have I done? :-)
Metak, don't poke the hamster! ;-)
You wrote a post about new breed of woman that would be more 'appealing' to men... ...and I just wanted to show you that some men (like Cadders said) are not even on the train station. For them there's no marriage strike because that would imply that they somehow ponder the possibility of getting married.
I've tried to remove myself from that comment and to just give an opinion on what I believe is very 'dark' path that potentially lies ahead.
I'll try to explain better, what I meant in previous comment...
Isn't this a logical conclusion (the f*cked up part...) you get when you put together all these Manosphere theories (hypergamy, Briffault's law, E. Vilar, etc.)? These 'theories' might be new, but what they're describing is not. Most of them just describe how women use men for their resources and move on... how wouldn't that be f*cked up? No? There are men that view relationships as 'inherently' flawed, but I'm not one of them. :-) I don't subscribe to these theories and I just use them to have a laugh... :-)
I admit that using 'inherently' wasn't the best choice... blame my hamster! :-)
"But I shall tell you something - the fact that you say what you say makes me understand better where you are coming from.
I've said it and I also posted link to an article to show you what I believe is a growing trend, not because I believe it to be true.
"The MGTOW movement, as I understood it,...
1.
2. ..mi hamster doesn't care about mgtow anymore... :-)
3.
..."
"I agree that marriage is a bad deal for men, Metak. But there are many forms of marriage. Individuals can make their marriage what they would like it to be, without the intervention of the evil State."
Again, I was just trying to show you, by using that article as an example, how for some men it's already over when it comes to marriage. I wasn't talking about myself. :-) My point was: it wouldn't make a difference when it comes to marriage for them... 'new breed of women' wouldn't change their minds.
"Metak, you have some explaining to do, mate! :-)"
Yep, I choose one word poorly... and now I fell bad that you're depressed. :-)
If this is any indication of my 'choosing' skills, then it looks like I'll end up married to Satan himself! :-)
"We need a new breed of 'super woman'."
There's no need for new breed of women. Forget about "Virginity is not enough." etc.. Changes that are necessary go much deeper and are on the level of humanity, not just women or men. Best way to choose a wife is simply to choose one that makes your life so much better just with her presence.
We need a new breed of humans with emphasis on humanity. :-)
@ Spacetraveller and Metak
I see MGTOW as being based on a number of traits, but the primary overriding one seems to be the cost/benefit analysis of intersex relationships. To put it more plainly, I think men (even men of today) WOULD put up with women if women would either divorce at a far lower rate or contributed more to their marriages.
From the perspective of a man who was raised in an intact home, I can say that I'd rather not hang out with women. Let me relate a story that illustrates the point. In a certain club, we tend to focus on physical activity. Girl N comes by, sits on the side, and loves to talk. Late last year, she decided it would be a good idea to make sure we all knew how men were rapists and a woman would be lucky to make it out of college without being raped. I hear all this while I'm busy doing my physical activity while a number of female participants are sitting around this girl nodding along.
A few months later, Girl A comes by, dragging her male friend along the first few times. She saw our activity, and figured it looked fun. She spends more of her time actually doing said physical activity. More importantly, she carries a positive demeanor, makes herself visibly excited when she becomes useful, and is always polite and inquisitive.
In talking to the leader of my group, I pitched a fit about one of them being allowed to remain a part of the group. The other, I view as an asset to our group, and would be willing to do many favors to help her out if she needed. Perhaps you can guess which is which.
If anything, Girl A is more feminine, so this isn't a case of MGTOW.
@ Ceer
"I see MGTOW as being based on a number of traits, but the primary overriding one seems to be the cost/benefit analysis of intersex relationships."
You're spot on, on this one. cost/benefit and not benefit/cost
I've read so much on the subject of MGTOW and there's this underlying belief in many MGTOWs that leads them in certain direction. They approach the whole thing from a very bad position. They sabotage themselves in advance. They start with "What can I loose? How much is this going to cost me? How is this woman trying to use me? etc.". Nothing good can come out of this since they already have a belief that women can't offer them much of value. If you can't look for the benefits first like Navy Corpsman and Cadders obviously did and it paid off for them, then GYOW is next best thing to do.
I'm young, stupid and naive... what could possibly go wrong? Right? :-)
That Girl A is in my opinion just a better human being. That's why she's a good company.
@ Metak
There is a saying among the rich. Never think "I can't afford something". Instead, think "Do I want to afford this thing?" and "How can I afford this thing?". Perhaps this is a similar idea to what you are saying.
NC,
I answered your first question in a new post.
But you say that it is your wife who has figured you out, not the other way round.
Thank you for confirming what I firmly believe, that the strength of a relationship lies with the WOMAN more often than not.
It is something women are endowed with. It is very much our business to build the social bridges whilst you men build the things that go over the river :-)
You guys are civil engineers, we are social engineers.
Joking aside, when I have previously stated that men are 'simple', I really did mean it in a polite sense, as you might expect.
It is easier for a woman to figure out a man of interest to her than it is the other way round. Like you, I stick to this statement.
I would love to hear words of advice directly from your wife! Could you persuade her to comment? :-)
I get what you say about divorce. Both parties get hurt, but ain't it funny that the poorer party who are better supported by the law have a greater incentive to detonate that bomb...
Yes, I see the point, and I agree that morals aside, it is a heavily biased system.
And the ones who get hurt the most are a third party - children.
Metak,
I understand what you say about 'humanity'. I don't disagree at all. But in the context of the SMP, using a general blanket term such as 'humanity' is not going to work, because of the heavily polarised way that femininity and masculinity manifest themselves. Yes we are all human first, then man or woman second.
But a genderless debate would not take us forward, I suspect.
Men need to identify strongly with the masculine, and women need to identify strongly with the feminine. That way, we express best our collective humanity :-)
I like your take on the cost-benefit analysis issue.
Once one starts to analyse human relationships in purely financial terms, it becomes problematic. This applies to post-divorce men as well as to gold-diggers who both for one reason or another have money foremost on their minds (for very different reasons).
Ceer,
Me no understand...
Your story only proves that there are diferent categories of women, no? That each woman should be judged from a stand-alone point of view.
I too would prefer Girl A to Girl N if I had to choose a friend from between them.
The fact that there are many more Girl Ns than Girl As is immaterial to me (but perhaps that is only because I don't have to date either, lol).
There comes a point where scarcity is a good thing, but in the current SMP, scarcity is a problem. But should it necessarily deter those looking for their own diamond in the rough? (Rhetorical question).
Spacetraveller said:
"But you say that it is your wife who has figured you out, not the other way round.
Thank you for confirming what I firmly believe, that the strength of a relationship lies with the WOMAN more often than not.
It is something women are endowed with. It is very much our business to build the social bridges whilst you men build the things that go over the river
You guys are civil engineers, we are social engineers.
Joking aside, when I have previously stated that men are 'simple', I really did mean it in a polite sense, as you might expect.
It is easier for a woman to figure out a man of interest to her than it is the other way round. Like you, I stick to this statement.
I would love to hear words of advice directly from your wife! Could you persuade her to comment?"
She says no. No to the assumption that she has figured out me, and no to the request for a comment.
Another lesson for you, and your readers: A successful marriage also entails both partners understanding that they are wrong 99% of the time about their spouse. You can keep your opinions all you want, but know that she or he will disagree in some way, with nearly everything. Getting to that point, and accepting it as not personal, is crucial.
It's like I said months ago, on another of your posts... ALL parents fail, somehow, their children. Accept that and do your best. Eventually, you will realize that failure is a part of success.
In the immortal words of Yoda the Jedi master:
"Do.... or do not. There is no try."
Hello ST, this is your friend from Indonesia! :D
You said:
"..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 is a great statement, and a good strategy too.
Another good article from you, thank you for writing.
Hello John Lord B3!
A very special welcome to The Sanctuary to you!
Thank you :-)
Yes, absolutely. It has come to a point in our history (of civilisation) where every woman needs to understand where men are coming from, I feel. I am not saying that every wrongdoing by an individual man should be excused away 'because men are some kind of victim'. No.
But I think it helps to understand what is happening in the world today. Like a friend of mine calls it, we need a 'third eye'. It is immensely useful when it comes to forging solid relationships with men in general, and one man in particular.
I suspect Indonesian women have this art perfected :-)
We in the West could definitely learn something from our Indonesian sisters.
Spacetraveller,
I was on a break from discussing gender/social/political issues on the internet for about 5-6 months.. A man needs to keep his sanity as well :-)
Only came back today to see this post of yours. I appreciate the efforts you've taken to understand a MGHOW perspective on marriage; foreign though it may seem.
For the benefit of readers of this post, here is some context: http://thesanctuary-spacetraveller.blogspot.nl/2013/04/give-her-positive.html
This is where ST and I got debating this subject of traditional marriage. The focus of my attention was on how much of this institution is biological v/s how much of it is a society-ordained mating game. In principle, that would translate into the mating strategies women and men employ to achieve their goals.
I hear what Bellita and you describe as the "new breed of woman" who should offer more than the 1950s woman. To an extent, I even see the logic of it. The fundamental question, however, still remains if the traditional model - Marriage V1.0 - holds any relevance. I can give you my opinion on the matter. Marriage V1.0 relied on staunchly defined gender roles that were forged into necessity by the times of scarcity and a lack of scientifically/technologically advanced societies.
With the advent of science-based nations and technological gadgets, the traditional model began to become obsolete. In it's stead, thanks to unchecked feminism, a new Marriage V2.0 took form. This was the vile system of no-fault divorces facilitated by an overly gynocentric legal system. A lot of people that you call "baby-boomers" in the English-speaking first world got caught in this transition. Meaning men who THOUGHT they married under Marriage V1.0 stipulations, but were taken to the cleaners under the V2.0 laws.
"I never saw it coming" or "How could she??" were often the phrases these men uttered in bewilderment at their family court sessions. The reason? These men had painted, in their own heads, anachronistic notions of femininity and marriage, in light of the present context.
A lot of these angry men turned their attention to feminism (the big, evil bogeyman) when actually they should have focused on these two factors:
1) Traditional matrimony
2) Female biology as a (partially) function of (1)
Meaning that female biology - which is partly natural and partly "socialised" through years of selection pressures - should have been placed under the microscope and diligently studied. Especially so, when we, as men, are at the receiving end of its oestrogen-fuelled bile :-)
"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."
Exactly; that tool is the internet, as Metak puts it. Simply stated, a lot of the younger MGTOW/MOO (men opting out) have devoted this time and energy to the study of female biologies that rightfully our grandads, fathers and uncles should have.
And once you understand it, the whole picture becomes clearer. Essentially, a man opting out is a statement that he values knowledge more than primal biological instincts. MRA activist Paul Elam calls such an evolved male a "zeta male"; a term that can be used in this discussion here. Basically, he is a male who defines his terms of masculinity on his own without pandering to this male-hating society's whims and fancies. A human male who values freedom, learning and self-respect and refuses to demean himself to cater to his primitive urges of mating/reproducing with a female. A male who also fully respects the female's autonomy and uses neither physical force to bully his wife/gf, nor tries to suppress her growth and learning.
The superwoman should be able to do the same. Essentially, evolve into a "zeta female", transcending her innate hypergamous and solipsistic tendencies to be in true position to cherish a man as an equal and a partner. Not a meal ticket, not a baby-daddy or not as a dispensable protector-provider workhorse. But as a fully-functional human being being whose agency is in no way inferior to hers.
If companionship/marriage is what such a zeta-male and zeta-female desire, then, IMHO, such a relationship has the best shot for survival in these tumultuous times. I say this as a relationship-cynic who'd personally NEVER tread the path. However, if there are other red-pill men who desire relationships with women, I can only hope they land a female close to what I just described. This can be a MARRIAGE V3.0 (with a couple of bug-fixers could lead to V3.1 or V3.2) arrangement that is free of misogyny as well as misandry. Sounds good for a new Bollywood movie :-)
LHB,
Good to have you back!
Especially nice to hear you have held onto your sanity :-)
Can't necessarily say the same of myself, LOL!
Beautiful comment.
I 100% concur.
Thank you for helping me to see the light.
I really appreciate it.
This sort of thing is vitally important if one is to understand current life on Planet Earth :-)
I for one am grateful for this opportunity to share ideas with the likes of you and so many similar people who regularly pass by on this blog. Heartwarming stuff!
Post a Comment