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...
14 comments:
@ Spacetraveller
Good post. I'll help you tackle this issue and help NC out.
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
Perhaps it's more a case of easy to think out the solution, hard to put it into practice. Women have a cultural BS detector that is suspicious of anything a man has to say that's critical of women. To get around this, women themselves will have to help be the driving force.
Although in general, it was quite a good deal for women, it was largely rejected by women themselves.
The main criticism of it has women being cooped up at home unable to go out and do anything, which is an oversimplification indicative of today's women's concerns. Work plays an essential part of a person's identity, keeping us actively engaged. That said, a more accurate term may be activity. From what I've seen, money plays little importance in regard to how most women choose their occupation.
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.
Here, I have to disagree somewhat. Women of the 1950's had something many women of today lack, a wise grandmother capable and willing to dispense advise. My own grandmother had her first child during the mid 50's, was an army wife, and knew how to stretch a budget. She was so frugal and competent that she did the family's budget. Savings, children's needs, home expenditures, even my grandfather's discretionary spending were allocated and tracked to keep the family within its budget. Here's the kicker. She did it for their shared benefit. That marriage lasted until death. My grandfather died a happy man because he knew that his wife would be able to take things from there. Not for her own benefit, but for her family's. Does that at all describe today's woman?
From my experience, women are taught that what is good for them is what is good period. They aren't taught the difference between wants and needs. They are taught hardly anything by grandma.
Your grandmother sounds like an amazing woman.
But I would have to disagree that money plays little importance in how most women choose their occupation. Considering earning potential seems like a huge factor when making this decision.
"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!"
Balderdash.
In the early 1800's,women in America fought off indian raids by themselves. They had to. Men were out working in the mines or driving cattle.
I think the problem is that women today just won't throw off this "independence" thing.It seems you are incapable of fully trusting your men. Which is a bad thing, because if you are not placing your trust in your men, you are still placing your trust in some group of men because all of the power-players will always be men.
The ones who sustain the culture you will live in will be men. The price you pay for that may be a higher number of rapes and violent assaults, depending on which men you trust.
Your men will have more invested in you and less of a reason to harm you or allow you to come to harm.
Far from the tepid fare you're offering us here, women in western first-world nations should use their franchise to help the bare majority of men in these nations who would like to end immigration, that's a good starting point for improvement (preserve western civilization) then they should renounce the vote altogether and place their trust in their men to select the women that our society needs.
Women are familiar with,and mostly supportive of, the concept that a man picks the woman and the woman says yes or no. That's what we should do. Men should be in a position to say "This is the kind of woman we need in our new society,and she needs these skills and this kind of education" and women can then say "Ok, that's acceptable." or "No,that is asking too much".
"But I would have to disagree that money plays little importance in how most women choose their occupation."
The number one occupation for women is as a secretary. They also dominate as nurses, teachers, aides in nursing homes...in other words, taking care of kids. Only they do it not for their own but for others.
As for the higher-paying professions, they often give them up to be wives and mothers. This is why in the past it was legal to keep them out of them.
To act like my father, some people that money and jobs grows on trees.
Ceer,
Thank you.
For sure, it is indeed women who have to slove the problem for themselves, yes.
Your description of your grandmother fits that of mine too.
Whilst I know that there were these types of stoic women through the ages (and of course I admire them), the problem is that I wonder if these women were the majority? I doubt it, because if they were, there would have been no need to change the system at all.
I think the problem is that the majority of women were really dependent on men for almost everything, and the dissatisfaction that came about (the apex fallacy) was as a result of this dependence (which to my own mind was not necessarily a bad thing because it was an essential part of how the social contract between men and women worked at that time).
You notice that I make a distinction between vulnerability (= good) and helplessness (= tedious).
I think your and my grandmother were vulnerable. Perhaps the majority of women were helpless, or felt helpless and therefore resented it.
I think that the modern woman has the opportunity to not feel helpless, but can still remain vulnerable. It is all about taking the positives where one can get them and using the opportunities available.
Personally, I would favour the 1950s way, but I acknowledge that it would be futile to hanker after an age that was rife with problems. A modification is necessary.
"Work plays an essential part of a person's identity, keeping us actively engaged."
This is something that I have come to realise as well, which is why I strongly disagree with the majority Manosphere view that women should not work or be educated.
I think 'work' can take many forms for a woman. Before children she should do whatever she wants or is capable of. After children, the focus should be 'whatever is best for the family' (clearly your grandma practised this) and could mean the same as before children, but more often than not it requires a slight modification, eg. part-time, or a different work which ensures that she is an effective SAHM. I think it is quite disingenuous of anyone to stipulate that women deliberately reduce their opportunities for education and work when at the same time it is not cast in stone that men would cater for this class action.
Note I am not saying that women don't need men. I am saying that at all times, she needs to be doing something useful. Being a nurse is useful. Being an engineer is useful. Being a "full-time mother" (this sounds odd to me, as it implies there is such a thing as 'part-time mother'!) with zero paid work is indeed also 'something useful' as I am sure we all agree.
Anonymous,
"I think the problem is that women today just won't throw off this "independence" thing."
Agreed. I acknowledge that it is too much swinging the other way. There is a difference between being able to sustain your own life in the absence of a man and feeling that you don't 'need a man'.
The former scenario incorporates the humble position that not all needs are met. The latter is an affront to the unmet need which starts off a chain reaction that ensures that the unmet need remains unmet.
Again, we are not in conflict here. I know that women are very capable of 'stepping up to the plate' when required. During World War 2 there were examples of women picking up the slack where men left off.
The problem arose when women saw that they COULD do what men do (under pressure) and decided that therefore men were no longer necessary.
I am suggesting that modern woman already know they are largely capable (much more than the majority of women in earlier ages).
But she should still know that there is a reason men exist.
Yes there will be times when men are absent. She should be ready to take over the reins of the family without capitulating under the strain. And more importantly, have the ability to still see the man (on his return) as a welcome sight.
The issue is proportion...
The majority of women did not fare well when their men were absent in ages past.
But nowadys the majority of women are in a position to hold the fort in the absence of men.
If she considers this 'experience' for when it is needed rather than 'this is it', her mindset and therefore attitude towards men would be noticeably different.
I expect this to be an unpopular view among women.
"Far from the tepid fare you're offering us here..."
I am effectively asking women to bend over backwards to 'keep the peace' and you see this as 'tepid fare'?
Interesting.
"women in western first-world nations should use their franchise to help the bare majority of men in these nations who would like to end immigration.."
How would ending immigration help Western man or Western woman?
Immigration is a necessary part of the life of any country.
I am not sure the ills of any one country can be blamed on immigraton alone.
Can you explain this further?
In my view, exposure to other cultures is actually a vital part of the strategy of 'the new breed'. If the plan is to take the best of everything we have, then I would have thought that having a muslim woman (for example) living next door would open a Western woman's eyes to an aspect of femininity (eg. modest attire) that is now routinely lacking in the West. Why not take that as a positive and run with it?
Eastern European women have a reputation for being more feminine (in general) than Western women (by many men's standards). Again we in the West are lucky to have astern European women in close proximity in larger numbers than ever before. Why not take advantage of their presence and copy their behaviour?
Do you see? It's all about taking advantage of the positives thrown in our direction.
I fail to see the negative aspect of immigration where this particular topic is concerned.
The broader picture of immigration is a political issue that I care not to go into.
But that's because I am not particularly politically-orientated. Are you surprised? :-)
Personally, I happen to share your view that women should not bother vote, but I shall be taken out into the village square and hanged for this view (by my sisters), so keep this quiet :-)
Perhaps it is an unfair view because there are of course women who hold strong political views. I just happen not to be such a woman. So in many ways I can afford to be glib about the vote for women because I don't care very much for politics...
I guess to be fair my opinion on politics therefore shouldn't count...
"Women are familiar with,and mostly supportive of, the concept that a man picks the woman and the woman says yes or no. That's what we should do. Men should be in a position to say "This is the kind of woman we need in our new society,and she needs these skills and this kind of education" and women can then say "Ok, that's acceptable." or "No,that is asking too much"."
This is fair enough. I see nothing wrong with this plan!
:-)
Bob,
These 'female' professions like nursing, midwifery, etc. are actually vital.
Same as men will build bridges, and sort your car out when you break down on the motorway, we shouldn't forget that it is a mostly female nurse (yes I know there are more and more male nurses too) who will give you a bed bath when you are strapped up to orthopaedic contraptions when you have broken a few bones.
The secretary's job of typing up the letter that goes from your hospital doctor to your family doctor is just as important as the doctor's work, in my opinion, because vital information about you is being dissipated to someone who needs to know, in order that your care is maintained.
The young woman who is yet to have her family and the older woman who has completed her family are not contravening my own personal laws on work if they are 'working for other people'. Remember that they are contributing to the family budget and there are no small children getting emotionally hurt by Mummy's absence.
I see nothing wrong here.
There is an issue where a mother of infants insists of spending long periods of time away from them if there are better alternatives.
Val,
Welcome to The Sanctuary!
Well, here is the way I see it. Perhaps 8-10% of adult males have either decided to go their own way, or simply not to get married. You can argue the numbers, but not the basic idea that SOME men are not going to buy into 'modern' society.
You also have perhaps 5-10% of women who are 'outliers' on that modern society, who value traditional roles for men and women, who are at least somewhat upset that these men have decided to drop out, so to speak.
Ideally, it would be quite a good idea to get these two groups together, but just self-identifying as MGTOW or outlier female is not going to actually convince any potential mate that you're the right kind of man/woman for them. In this manner, nothing has changed in the modern society vs the society of 1950s Earth. The only thing that has changed, is the percentage of possible mates to absolute 'not a chance' non-possible mates. Clearly, this is reasonably decent idea for some matchmaker website to exploit for financial gain, but I seriously doubt many men or women would want to participate.
The reality is, Miss Spacetraveller, that you and your outlier women are quite outnumbered by other women who have a vested interest in keeping the privileges that have accrued over the past 50 years. By simple numbers, one cannot expect anything to change. Now, this may not be a good reason to never try, but it is reality.
What you've done is give me reasons WHY things need to change, but very little of the HOW. One thing feminism has done very effectively for all women, is to show just exactly how few humans actually benefit from enormous privilege. I don't see many women of color getting to the executive management level of major corporations, and I don't see many women born into poverty getting OUT of poverty, by which I include the welfare recipients. In short, not only was the apex fallacy a problem, it also became reality for your entire gender. A few women have benefited mightily, and one could argue that they were more man than woman to begin with.
Yet articles keep appearing in magazines and other media, about how some women with serious careers simply drop out to take care of children or just stop working for a paycheck. Sure, articles also show up for women who start their own businesses, become CEOs of large corporations, but again, I'm not interested in the apex beneficiaries. I want to know how you plan to convince the average high school or university graduate to give up some of her current privileges in society, just to make a level field with men in ALL aspects of society.
Never happen. You're railing against a system which has become entrenched as deeply as the fabled and mighty patriarchy once was. Imagine the screams of 'traitor!' you and your outlier women would be subjected to... imagine the jeers you would get from jaded men.
Perhaps I sound cynical... it is a symptom of the middle-aged man. As I told Danny on his blog, at some point, usually around 40, men become far less willing to put up with any crap for the sole purpose of female companionship of any kind. Being a ways past that particular milestone only makes the cynicism worse.
Maybe you CAN do something about all this, and I do agree something has to change, but all I see is a bunch of politicians (mostly male) trying to squelch male behavior into meek little robots who all pay for the system to continue destroying traditional male behavior. Without a huge upwelling of grass roots support, no politician is going to abandon their power over the ordinary citizen. Left or right wing does not matter, both, or rather ALL political rhetoric is about demonizing the other side... all while doing the exact same thing, keeping AND extending the government's power and rights over the rights of the individuals who are the actual Nation.
This is how revolutions are begun. And with that, now the NSA in the USA is watching your blog.
The Navy Corpsman
@ Val
Considering earning potential seems like a huge factor when making this decision.
You'd THINK so. It's logical after all. However what Bob said is confirmed in my experience. Few women have the aptitude and desire to go for science, technology, engineering, and math fields. Those that do, for example female doctors tend to make choices that limit their income such as becoming pediatricians or going into group practice instead of working at a hospital or solo practice.
@ Spacetraveller
Anon is using the immigration issue as an example. It's a current hot button issue in the USA. Unrestricted immigration (which is illegal in the US, unless sponsored by a citizen) causes a severe lack of manpower in country sending people and a work shortage in the country receiving. This papers over systemic problems in both countries. The 3rd world countries have terrible economies and living conditions and are either unable or unwilling to raise their own standard of living. The USA has the problem of training people for jobs that are not offered, inflexible corporate structures that aren't allowed to collapse on their own, and below replacement birth rates.
I don't think your and my grandmothers were quite as rare as you might expect because they lived in an era very different from ours. An era where received wisdom from the ages wasn't cast aside so brazenly. Older women had leaned how to deal with men through generations of personal experience. This led to a certain interdependence with men. A quality I find different from what you seem to be describing. I understand that you may be trying to create a niche and reason men are needed, but since this is essentially a policy discussion, perhaps we should look at what really happened and go from there.
Sorry, I was distracted and lost my train of thought.
The fact is that marriage isn't contradictory to having a thoroughly well lived and accomplished life.
@ Navy Corpsman
What you've done is give me reasons WHY things need to change, but very little of the HOW.
Step one of how you convince someone to change is convince them WHY they should change. Feminism's version of this was the problem with no name. Our version of this is the very real suffering of women who can't find the relationships they claim to want. To start, exploit that.
Now that you've 'explained' the previous post, I understand it even less... :-)
Like The Navy Corpsman said there is no HOW? Some WHY and a cougar. Dear Deity in the sky where did you found that one ST? :-)
"Women are having lots of babies alright. They are just not legitimate babies, half the time, um... literally."
Oh no, they're legitimate alright. No wonder why were French feminists against the law that would make paternity tests at birth mandatory. If I'm not mistaken in France somewhere around 30% of husbands/fathers are raising someone else's child. :-)
"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'."
There's your first problem... stop right there. :-) This 'full package' sounds more like a 'hell' to me. :-) Any woman that would try this, would sooner or later (sooner :-) just break down or drive any man completely crazy. I hear ya ST, too bad you can't just edit the source code to modify certain behavior... :-)
I don't 'get' all this fuss... systems come and go, when they no longer serve their purpose they're replaced with new ones. If anything we should all be thrilled, happy and excited that what we're witnessing is the end of old system and new one is already replacing it. So, relax and enjoy the ride! :-)
Ceer said:
"Step one of how you convince someone to change is convince them WHY they should change. Feminism's version of this was the problem with no name. Our version of this is the very real suffering of women who can't find the relationships they claim to want. To start, exploit that."
Sure, step one is to admit that you have a problem. But in today's victimhood society, you're already swimming against the current.
Remember, "It's not my fault." I don't want to be too much of a downer, but half of what I read on the manosphere and the feminist blogs is "Evil Ancestor Blame".
Over and over, everyone wants to blame someone else for whatever ills society has, about which they're currently griping. With all due respect to you, exploiting the "lack of good men" whining did not do much for past generations of women, either.
To me, change needs to happen, but there is the old saying, "You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink." You can show women how certain aspects of society are destroying men, laws are stripping men of their rights as husbands and fathers, and if those women you are trying to educate refuse the red pill ?
Waste of time. Now, imagine 20-25% of single, eligible men refusing to have anything to do with women, except free sex without any commitment. Imagine the shitstorm THAT would start if this became the norm.
"Men refuse to leave Patriarchy!"
So let us sum up.
Marriage is men's fault.
Divorce is men's fault.
Bachelorhood is men's fault.
Fuck it.
The Navy Corpsman
Great Post
A Man of means would have no problem with being chivalrous if a Woman would be like in the 50`s where she would be a homemaker and earn our affection without sex-this day and age things have changed. And Women are on a different level “The Independent Movement” “The Feminist Movement” “The fast paced hustle and bustle lifestyle” and the list is truly endless. With that in mind Men and Women would have to come on a meaningful agreement to brake that cycle.
As I have traveled internationally I noticed there are a lot of Women in other countries like Asia and Latin America –where they don`t mind playing the submissive role for example.
As you say “Is the spirit there?”
@MackDamage,
Absolutely!
There really ought not to be any 'shame' in a woman submitting to a man she loves. But feminism seeks to shame women who do this.
The problem is, this trait is actually intrinsic to womanhood, so a woman who 'loses' it, risks going against her own nature and living with the cognitive dossonance which ensues. Which is hard work! It is much easier simply to go with Nature on this one :-)
Post a Comment