Life is a journey. The destination is death. This blog is all about the musings of a sojourner in her thirties, curious about the stops, the fellow passengers, the driver(s), the conditions of travel and the highlights and lowlights. All the while in a place of tranquility: the sanctuary.
Ah, don't you just love consumerism :-)
With Christmas coming up, this beast rears its ugly head once again :-)
From the first day I saw the following advert, an unfortunate association occurred...
Now I cannot hear this musical…
or a documentary like this...
without thinking about...chocolate!
Ticked off as I am that I have encumbered myself with a Pavlovian response that I cannot seem to stave off other than to not book an African safari anytime soon, it begs the question: just how do they do it? (The 'programming', I mean).
Or is this something that one does to oneself, aided and abetted by the materialistic society we live in?
How does one wean oneself off from such unwholesome 'conditioning' whilst simultaneously living in the West?
Weird associations aside, the silver lining is that it is from this same advert that I acquired a favourite catchphrase of mine.
Whenever something pleases me immensely, I express this with the phrase 'it makes my heart sing'.
I found a reason for my heart to sing recently.
A reason to have hope in the current SMP.
All is not lost.
At least not yet.
I have mentioned before that I do find gems in unusual places. This is no exception.
I came across a new blog recently. It is not the blog per se which interests me (although it is interesting for sure!) but a particular video I saw on that blog.
The blog is called 'Goldmund Unleashed', and is run by an American man who practises Game - a lot.
Goldmund is a man who is clearly confident in himself and is successful in the SMP.
I am happy for Goldmund, of course.
But it is not Goldmund I am interested in, for this post. In his latest post, he interviews a woman who used to be his room-mate. He and this woman clearly have a beautiful friendship and he describes her as 'family' in the post.
The warmth between them does come across very well in the interview (which spans two short videos - here).
Why would this woman 'make my heart sing'?
Several reasons:
1) She is clearly a very smart woman. By this, I mean that she is a sensible woman. This woman is the very embodiment of what every young woman should be, in my humble opinion. She thinks deeply, and has a very clear insight into a lot of issues which matter. Frighteningly for Goldmund (and I think this is - paradoxically - one of the reasons he may be fond of her), she has a great deal of insight into him.
2) She is a pleasant woman. Sweet, but not soppily so. It occurs to me now watching the video how rare this feature is becoming, so it really warms the cockles of my heart whe I see this in action.
Even though she is (unsurprisingly!) 'disgusted' with his private life, she is still pleasant about it, because a) she recognises that it is his life and not hers, and he is free to live his life as he so chooses, and b) I think she also accept that men are wired differently, so she refuses to judge him even though his lifestyle is not what she would choose for herself. I really like this 'live and let live' attitude she adopts towards him. She is not a prude, but that does not mean that she 'high-fives' him about his lifestyle, falsely. She is refreshingly honest, but within boundaries that respect his autonomy for his own life. I like that very much, and I can see that he respects her for it.
3) I already touched on this. But it should be repeated.
Whilst she is 'nice' she is also 'not too nice'.
'Niceness' is a bit of a two-edged sword, for both men and women. It is a good thing, until it is not. I think you all know what I mean. This woman is nice, which is why Goldmund likes her. But she is (brutally) honest as well. She is not a supplicating, 'pleaser'. Very important quality in a woman.
One might argue that she does not need to be nice to Goldmund, because she is not romantically linked to Goldmund.
Fair point.
But traits are traits. In the end, we treat everyone the same whether or not we are trying to impress them, because old habits die hard, as they say. It is therefore almost certain that she is just as honest with her boyfriend (or husband?) as she is being with Goldmund here.
4) Her mannerisms are very feminine. She is a naturally pretty woman (if she is wearing make-up, it is light and not 'heavy' in a way that I see all too commonly) and her 'inner beauty' shines through to the outside. She smiles a lot, and she engages well with Goldmund to whom she is speaking. She may not be necessarily a 'people person' (is this shorthand for 'extrovert?) but she has this je ne sais quoi quality which makes people feel welcome in her presence. I know that introverts seek this quality in anyone they approach, and extroverts thrive on it :-)
She could talk to anyone, this woman. I wonder if she is a teacher? Teachers often has this quality in abundance...
5) I like how this woman is free of what I have now come to recognise as 'low-level misandry'. Bellita and I discuss this 'man-hate' a lot, particularly in this post.
This woman cares about Goldmund in a way that is unusual for non-siblings/non-romantically-involved. This point is perhaps related to point 2 above, but only marginally, I think. She is genuinely happy for him that he seems to have 'found himself' in the time-period that she has known him.
This is gold - for Goldmund (excuse the pun, lol).
So many women are poisoned with 'man-hate' from the crib onwards that this genuine type of friendship - let alone love - is really not possible between the sexes anymore. Tragic.
So Goldmund's ex-room-mate makes my heart sing for her genuine love for another human being, who happens to be male.
This reminds me of a phrase in italian. 'Ti voglio bene' which literally means 'I wish you well' is one way to say 'I love you'. Isn't that beautiful? This takes me back to a previous post on this blog, about love, in particular the 'caritas' kind. Love, or caritas, requires a certain generosity of spirit, which I can see this woman possesses in abundance.
By implication, I can bet with certainty that she has a genuine love for women too. The clue for this, I pick up when she mentions that she feels sorry for one of the women Goldmund had a fling with (?one night stand?).
And here I take a short diversion and vent my frustration at those people (aherm, looking squarely at feminists, cough cough) who fling the word 'misogyny' about like a frisbee.
Misogyny is a word that has come to mean anything and everything these days.
But what it is not, is denying women their 'empowerment'.
It is not taking away their 'freedom'.
It is most certainly not thwarting their desire for 'adventure'.
If all of the above desires leads to her (self-) destruction, and someone has enough love for a woman to divert her from said path to doom, let us not call this 'pulled back from the brink manoeuvre' - misogyny.
There is such a thing as misogyny. Oh yes. But it is presented as a 'friend' of womanhood, until it becomes all too clear it is not.
I do not want to detract too much from the positive tone of this post, but I have definite ideas about what misogyny is and isn't.
Perhaps a post for another day?
Our mystery woman, in feeling sorry for women who don't know what's in their own best interests, is showing compassion. That is philogyny right there.
6) She is clearly not American. There is a hint of 'foreign' in her diction. The relevance of this point is that I hear so many men lament the 'fall from Grace' of the American woman. This is a shame, of course. And a double-shame for me because I would love nothing better than to debunk this ubiquitous observation. But alas, not with this example.
So my search continues...
:-)
Is this woman a 'unicorn' of sorts?
I would argue...not.
I think there are many women like this who are normal, feminine women. But they live normal, quiet lives. They are not all in a video on a blog. They are not 'out there', so it seems like they do not exist.
How lovely when they are recognised for who they are by friends (like Goldmund), spouses, family members.
I think we should 'name and praise' these exemplary women when we see them (as in, opposite to 'naming and shaming' the bad ones, lol) for 2 important reasons:
1) That these lovely ladies are encouraged to continue their exemplary behaviour for which they are being commended.
2) That other ladies take note (we ladies are 'herd' creatures, lol).
3) That observers are reminded that these women still exist. Keeps hope alive, you see.
:-)
Whoever this lovely lady is, can I just say to you - well done for your wonderful demeanour. Props to you, more grease to your elbow and long may you continue!
A series of events have got me thinking a lot about Game lately.
I mean, more than usual.
:-)
I have never made a secret of liking the concept of Game. Rightly or wrongly, I instinctively understand that there needs to be a redress of the imbalance between the sexes.
What exactly do I mean?
You can be sure that even the stupidest female is well-educated about how to 'get' a man. It is not hard, as biology dictates :-).
At the most basic level, a woman is more equipped than a man, to 'get what she wants'.
But here lies the first problem: 'getting what she wants' may not be in her best interests, but let's stick with this argument for now, because it is an important part of the point I am trying to make.
That many women in this day and age severely lack a certain wisdom that came easily to our grandmothers is self-evident, yes. But there is still a general (in my opinion) level of 'education' that ensures that men are forever at the mercy of women.
This current era is showing the degree to which this can be achieved, without a doubt.
And sadly, men in general are really none the wiser, (except for those who have 'taken the Red Pill' as it were), until it is way too late.
This thought reminds me of a medical analogy. There are some unfortunate individuals whose underlying medical problem (usually heart disease) is only diagnosed at their death. These people, carriers of genes that cause sudden death have no idea what lies ahead. They literally present to their doctor (in this case, a pathologist, of course), with sudden death. This is exactly what should not happen: that one's first symptom of a disease is death.
But (and sorry to be so morbid), this is exactly what is happening to many men who get the shock of their lives when they are hit with an (unexpected) divorce, complete with loss of their children, loss of their earnings, and a rapid decline from the lifestyle to which they were accustomed, to a life they would hardly recognise as theirs in years to come.
This is why I like the concept of Game. Not particularly the ugly 'revenge' type of PUA activity that sees an otherwise good girl get into the kind of trouble that ensures her life is ruined forever, but the type of Inner Game that an older, wiser man can pass on to a younger man (whether it is his son or not, no matter) to ensure that his life is not only more enjoyable, but is congruent with masculine principles that he needs for a more satisfactory life, with or without women in it.
I really respect the latter, and hope more young men get this type of education.
And I daresay, St. Jerome is right with his 'don't marry, until you are ready!' message.
The difference between growing girls and growing boys is that whilst both get educated in the ways of the world equally well, girls get an education about the nature of boys much more than boys get an education about the nature of girls (other than boys finding out that 'they are hot!' lol), the education of boys being more focussed on getting them safely into manhood - and responsibility and the burden of keeping civilisation running smoothly. Girls are not burdened with this type of responsibility, so have all the time to study men in a way that men simply cannot compete with.
So the education is skewed somewhat.
There are several reasons for this, I think:
1) It is cultural - girls really need the education on boys because this is vital to prevent her making a horrible mistake at the every beginning of her life (and these 'mistakes' are usually irreversible and permanent, if you see what I mean).
(This of course does not eliminate the problem because we hear everyday (nowadays) of horrible life choices by young women. However, the principle remains that vital information for a girl is crucial to her life). This equivalent need in boys is only now becoming apparent. But it has taken a generation or two of misery at the hands of divorcing women for this to become evident.
2) Again - cultural - femininity is shrouded in a certain 'protective veil of mystery' which is present in almost all cultures. This 'privilege' is steadily being worn away by feminism.
One of the (many) reasons feminism has not done women any favours is that this shroud of the perceived 'inherent goodness' of women has been pulled away, for the naked truth to be exposed (warts and all) to men.
:-(
This is a real shame, because although this 'inherent goodness' is not strictly speaking accurate, it was necessary for it to be in place as an 'aesthetic' quality (highlighting femininity in even the least feminine of women) and also as a protection for men who are the 'buyers' of femininity and some of them just don't do well when confronted with shocks :-)
3) Nature: in the absence of corrupting influences, girls do have certain inherent self-preservation traits that biology endows them with. I have noticed this in young girls pre-puberty. They really are more modest (i.e. shy/coy about their bodies, for example), than boys of the same age. They are risk averse (a good thing in a woman, can be unfortunate in a man - within reason).
If a girl is lacking in information, Nature itself will push her to get this information. Exceptions exist, of course, but there are usually grave reasons for these exceptions.
4) Boys are just too busy figuring out the burdens of how to be a man, and are also (unfortunately in this case) too misled by testosterone to fully understand women when young. This is why many advise young men to wait until older before making a commitment to a woman.
Some say it is not wise for a man to be married before the age of 30-35.
I see the sense in this.
But, if he burns with passion as St. Paul says, what to do? (Assuming he is a principled, moral, religious - eg. Christian - person).
Anyway, I digress.
In this and the next few posts about Game, I explore the origins of some Game principles.
One of the stalwarts of Game is the notion of 'mystery'.
Where does it come from?
In fact, where does ALL of Game come from?
Historically, of course, no amount of 'Game' would have worked on the majority of young women pre-marriage. Save for a few who 'fell prey' to 'Don Juans', every woman was 'off limits' to all but one man, who would marry her, if not presently, then eventually.
So any 'Game' a man needed was ....to ensure he was 'marriage material'.
Which in simple terms meant having a sustainable source of income, and a roughly masculine appearance. That's it.
For it was women who were the buyers in the marriage market. It was up to women to attract men for marriage. And they generally did, with great success. Until now.
So to recap, there was no 'action' in the SMP :-)
And in the MMP, only women needed to 'woman up'.
So no need for the type of 'Game' we have today in times past, for most men.
So, it makes sense that the principles of 'Game' as we know it, necessarily had to come from 'Girl Game', because the girls had perfected this skill for decades and centuries...because they needed to!
:-)
Let's take a look at 'mystery'.
In number 2) of my list above, it is clear that 'mystery' was not really something that women 'claimed' for themselves. This was a feature that was accorded women by society at large.
It came with the territory (of being a woman).
This is not to say that it was a right.
Not really.
It came with a great deal of responsibility.
Afterall, it was up to individual women to keep it going, to work hard to maintain this illusion.
Like I allude to above, feminism has caused this illusion to come crashing down - hard.
What a shame. It was good for women, this illusion. But like all good things, we only miss it once it is gone forever.
'Mystery' allowed women to become 'interesting' in the eyes of men. A good thing, if he was to sign his life away for her :-)
'Mystery' allowed women to become alluring to men. A good thing if he was to venture forth to 'get to know her better'.
'Mystery' is something that all old-fashioned dating books speak highly of. From experience (of the authors).
From Helen Andelin's 'The Fascinating Girl' to 'The Rules' - they all mention 'mystery' in one form or another. This is no accident.
So now that the tables have been turned, it is not surprising that men have 'borrowed' this concept.
Even in the 'olden' days, the Casanovas and the Don Juans used this to good effect :-)
Now, paradoxically, whilst women needed to be taught to become 'mysterious' in the dating dance, this trait is actually not a feature of womanhood. I think women, by their feminine, inclusive, bonding, nurturing natures, are prone to 'share' of themselves sooner than men would. Just look at today's 'selfie' culture dominated by women!
Interestingly, 'mystery' is actually a more common feature of masculinity, for men are the ones who by dint of their masculinity 'make themselves scarce' and 'disappear for long periods' whilst they (quite legitimately) get on with the business of being men. And it is we women who lament this feature in men (whilst strangely enough also cannot help but be attracted by it!
(Oh the cruelty of life, lol).
So whilst 'mystery' is a priciple of Game, it strikes me as a little odd that men need to be taught it, my logic being that it should already be an inherent feature of manhood anyway (which takes me right back to the argument that Game is nothing but a tool for men to be ....men!).
Which circular thinking brings me right back to another recent thought of mine.
Which is....even when men and women appear to be diametrically opposite to each other, we are in many ways very similar, which is why 'Boy Game' and 'Girl Game' can so easily 'borrow' principles from each other.
This is the biggest paradox of all - the paradox that refutes the existence of a paradox!
:-)
Having lived in a Jewish quarter of London for many years (but I am not Jewish myself), I got to learn a few of the Jewish customs.
I got used to being 'waylaid', for example, on Friday evenings by a Jewish man or woman standing on the porch of their home and asking me to come in and turn on or off a light because it is not allowed for them to do any 'work' on the Sabbath (which begins on Friday evening).
I also got to know that if a non-Jew wants to convert to Judaism, they must be turned away three times by the Rabbi before they are finally allowed to start the process of conversion.
It seems we have our own version of this in Christianity :-)
As mentioned in the previous post, exciting times have hit the Swiss mountains!
We had a big event.
An ordination, or 'Priesterweihe' in German.
This one was special, because we hadn't had one in this parish for over a decade.
We the choir have been working on putting on a spectacular show for our brand new Father A_______ at his 'prima messa' or 'Primiz', his inaugural Mass, the day after his ordination.
But we weren't going to stop at just belting out high notes (or low notes as the case may be :-) for Father A_______ at his Primiz.
Heavens no.
We were all going to take the trip to the Big City to watch him take the (big) step from mere Deacon to esteemed Priest. (Hm, my hypergamy is showing, lol).
Why am I blogging about a priestly ordination on a website dedicated to the SMP?
Well, there are several reasons. The most important reason is that, an ordination is actually awfully similar to a wedding. It really is! In the former case, a man makes a commitment directly to God. In the latter, a man and a woman make a commitment to each other, with God as the chief witness, and they are actually also making a commitment to Him.
Come with me on a journey through an ordination....
I have been to an ordination or two before. When I was a child, it was customary in my parish for catechism to be taught by trainee priests. I went to their ordinations. One of these priests is now a Bishop.
As an adult, I have also been to at least one ordination before. I have also witnessed the profession of vows by nuns.
But all pale in comparison to the event I witnessed on Saturday.
It was a 2 hour bus-ride on a rainy/snowy morning to the Big City. Friends and family of A_________ dressed in our finest attire :-)
The cathedral in the Big City seemed grander than our little church in the mountains, of course. The ceremony itself was a very grand affair.
Other than our Father A__________, there were 2 other young men to be ordained. Here lies the first similarity with a wedding: at the apéro (light aperitif) afterwards, as all the guests mingled, a common question was, 'who are you here for'? invoking memories of wedding guests asking each other, 'are you here for the bride or groom'?
Second, I notice these three young men were aged 31-35. Our Father A_________ is 32.
I wondered, on hearing their life-stories read out by their chief 'trainers', is the age at ordination rising in much the same way as the age at marriage?
These guys had had careers before turning to the priesthood. Our regular priest, for example, had been a banker for many years before becoming a priest...
When I was a child, it was normal to see priests in their early twenties...
The entrance procession alone lasted about twenty minutes. With 70 priests and 3 Bishops in attendance (I counted them), we certainly weren't short of celebrants at that Mass, lol.
And the organist was suitably trigger-happy, to say the least. His (aherm) enthusiastic organ-playing certainly made this old Catholic Church joke spring sharply to mind:
From one bewildered church-goer to another: "Church is a dangerous place to be, you know...there was a canon in the pulpit, the choir murdered the hymns and the organist drowned the choir!"
LOL.
I had met the Bishop once before. Two years ago he had officiated at the confirmation of my then 12 year old future niece-in-law, but in Italian.
Now, the same Bishop was celebrating the ordination Mass in German.
Switzerland is a funny old country, lol.
His speech to the 3 soon-to-be priests before him was very moving. He spoke to them like a father would speak to his sons. He looked at them with pride, as though to say, 'my boys done good'.
I kind of liken it to a father who has been training his child to ride a bike for weeks, and it is finally time to take off the 'training wheels' and the child can now 'two-wheel' with confidence for the first time, similar to this:
(I am sure we can all imagine just how proud 'Goose's' father feels in this moment).
In this case, this Bishop had good reason to be proud of 'his boys': (I was told later by a guest of one of the other two priests), there were originally ten men who registered at the seminary 7 years ago, and only 3 of them emerged as priests.
So the pre-ceremony failure rate is high.
But the post-ceremony failure rate?
What is this percentage? How many priests (and nuns and monks) 'drop out' after taking their vows?
Is it anywhere near 50%?
I doubt it, but I don't know for sure. Anyone know?
The Bishop laid his fatherly hands on the 3 young men shortly after they were instructed, no, commanded, military style! to 'step before the Bishop!' (I suppose it sounded like a command because it was said in German, lol).
These men knelt down as they were 'taken through their paces'. Kneeling, heads bowed, eyes closed, they were read a sort of litany, and at regular intervals, were asked, 'Are you ready?' several times. I counted six, but it could have been more times.
To each of these questions, they would reply out loud, 'Ich bin bereit!' ('I am ready!')
I thought long and hard about this.
At a (Catholic) wedding, you also say 'I do' six times, if proper protocol is followed. Every Easter, we also 'profess our faith' and say 'I do' six times.
God gives us free will when we are born. It seems that whatever path we choose in life, He really wants to make sure we mean it. Are we as committed as we say we are?
At one point in the Bible, Jesus asks Peter 'do you love me?' three times before he accepts that he does.
Is this aspect of God a sign of His beta neediness or is this a sign of His supreme Alphaness where he wants to establish that we mean what we say and say what we mean?
What do you all think?
All 70 priests and the other 2 Bishops in attendance laid their hands on the deacons one by one, each praying silently over them, as they knelt, eyes remaining closed. It was very moving to watch.
Once the deed was done, and these men had become priests, their clothes were instantly changed. They were brought 'priest clothes', by their trainers, and were dressed in their new clothes right there and then, whilst we all clapped proudly.
And then all 70 priests and the other 2 Bishops, again, one by one all came to the new priests to greet them in a manner I have now come to recognise as a 'priestly greeting'. I alluded to it in this post where I was greeted in this fashion by a priest, and I just thought it was because I was a woman which is why he avoided hugging me (because even though I see him as my 'brother', I am still a woman, and not his sister - and I understand his need to literally keep his distance from me and all other women, except his actual mother and sisters).
But it seems this is how priests greet each other too! I was wrong to perceive it as a kind of 'b*tch shield' for priests. Turns out I was projecting :-)
Fascinating to see this greeting done 72 times by each new priest.
They touch the sides of each other's heads with each other's heads or cheeks, starting on each other's right side. Sometimes they simply touch the other's shoulder with their forehead.
It kind of reminded me of this other way men greet each other, lol.
Not quite the same solemnity as one would expect in an ordination associated with this way of greeting, but still.... it's the 'brotherliness' of it all that counts...
:-)
In this case below, it went awry, but you get the picture...
Some of the priests ignored 'protocol' and went for a full-on hug and pat on the back when it was their turn to congratulate the new priests. I guess this is true 'brotherly' and 'fatherly' love being expressed right here. Quite emotional when one of the priests hugged one of the new priests so long, the next priest in line started looking at his watch and the audience burst out laughing.
:-)
As a sign that these men were now accepted into the 'club', they were transferred from the front row of the pews onto the altar to be with the other priests as the rest of the Mass was celebrated by the Bishop
At one point, ALL the Bishops and priests left the altar, leaving the 3 to say the final blessing. I thought that was lovely. It was as if they were saying: 'Now you are priests. We entrust the salvation of the flock to you. Go on and bless them. You will be doing this everyday for the rest of your lives so you might as well start now.' :-)
At the apéro, I bumped into the mother of our current regular priest. She is British :-) so let's just say she and I have a certain bond.
I asked her: 'So how did you feel watching the ordination?'
I could tell it would have been an emotional experience for her. Fifteen years ago, she had watched her own son take this step.
She told me that as she had 15 years ago, she had felt (with a pang of guilt) that it was 'such a waste' to see these handsome, wonderful young men take this step.
As she had felt about her own son, she was somewhat saddened by the realisation that their mothers and fathers would never get grandchildren from these sons (in her case, she had other children, so she does have grandchildren :-), that they would never know what it is like to have a wife, have a (secular) home, live a 'normal' life.
Interestingly, I had had those thoughts pass through my own mind, and I am not even related to any of these guys. I asked the father if he had had similar thoughts.
'Nope' was his reply :-)
Is this a woman thing?
Interestingly, I feel the same way when I see a nun take her vows. She will never be the wife of some man, bear his children, keep his home. I am at least fair to both sexes on this issue.
But am I wrong to think this way? Afterall, if a handsome young man or a beautiful young woman has been 'taken' by God, should I lament that an earthly woman or man is missing out? Is it not good that God takes the best of humanity for himself, so to speak?
I asked the mother if it was wrong of us to think this way. She said 'no, we are only human', but maybe that's just her hamster talking :-)
Each of the new priests had his 'Primiz' lined up for the next day (Sunday).
I discovered that 14 of those 70 priests had accompanied Father A_________ to the mountains in order to be at his Primiz. Again, very touching. Throughout this whole process, I got this strong impression of 'brotherhood' among these priests.
It is a truly mesmerising process for a woman to experience.
Are you men aware of this 'feature' or 'bug' of womanhood, I wonder?
Needless to say, Father A__________'s Primiz was the celestial highlight it was billed to be. Let's just say we the choir exceeded our own expectations and gave him the concert of his life. Hey, these are not my words, that's what he himself said in his 'thank you' speech at the end. No we didn't pay him to say that, lol.
We are so very proud of him and wish him immense success and all the Graces of our Heavenly Father in his life and mission as priest.
I would like to leave you with some of the music we sang for him at this very special of occasions.
Just to mention, we may be a Swiss mountain parish choir, but our choirmaster has a bit of a penchant for British composers, I have to say :-) Nothing to do with me :P
We had previously performed Karl Jenkins' 'Mass for Peace'.
This time, he picked Karl Jenkins' 'Te Deum' as our introduction for the very first Mass of Father A_____________.
I only vaguely knew of John Rutter prior to this choral preparation. But I had certainly never heard of his so very beautiful 'Für die Schönheit dieser Welt' before we started practising it.
It is simply stunning.
Here I have it in English and German: (We, of course, sang it in German).
At the very end, we sang the 'Hallelujah Chorus' from Handel:
We brought the roof down, if I may say so myself :-) !!!
It's been a long time...
But nothing really changes here at The Sanctuary.
One day it is 'a chat with a saint', another day, it is 'reflections with a Pope'.
:-)
This is perhaps one of the hardest posts I have come up with so far on this blog.
Mac, thank you for this 'mission impossible' :-)
I always learn something from your 'missions impossibles'...
Full disclosure: I am an avid fan of marriage. (No surprise there, as I am a woman and women are more wont to indulge in this sort of nonsense than men :-)
But... just so that my position is clear, no, I don't mean what is commonly known as 'Marriage 2.0' or even 'Marriage 3.0'.
I am a fan of marriage as God intended it. This means, the coming together of a man and woman, each sccessfully weaned from Mother's breast and Father's shelter, to form a new union...permanently...with the intention of being open to new life, and striving together to not just coexist with said new life, but to actively shape this/these new life(ves) into the image of God.
It sounds like a mouthful, doesn't it, this biblical marriage lark?
But the principles behind what makes a marriage good are what makes us truly human, I have decided. Married or not, we all have the starter blocks within us to make good marriage partners, to other human beings, or to God himself.
As part of the local choir, my vocal cords are worn out practising for one of the biggest Masses in our parish calendar. The Deacon in our parish is getting ordained in 2 weeks, and we are going to sing our hearts out for him when he returns from the Big City to celebrate his First Mass here and we can all finally call him Father A_______.
We respect that he is going to say 'I do' to God. What a commitment!
Like Matrimony, 'Holy Orders' is a sacrament. A channel of Grace.
Just a thought: why isn't the 'divorce' rate of priests and nuns anything like the divorce rate of marriage? Anyone know what this rate is? I am pretty sure it is not 50%. More like 0.5%.
Why is this?
Is God a better marriage-partner than us mere mortals?
If so, why don't we just all marry God instead of another human being?
Silly thoughts aside, I remember hearing the following statement sometime in my teens, and it has stayed with me all my life:
"All mothers will go to Heaven."
On the surface of it, it seems like a very noble statement, doesn't it?
It wasn't until my adulthood that I realised how dangerous a saying this is...
For a start, can you guess that it was coined by a feminist? I am guessing you already did :-)
Forgive me: at 17, I didn't know what a feminist was.
Now I know.
This person didn't claim that all parents would go to Heaven.
Oh no.
In addition, (and here comes the dangerous part if you are a young, impressionable woman): no need for marriage prior to becoming a mother.
Motherhood is noble by virtue of its very being.
Not so, fatherhood, by the way, chaps. So sorry...
I remember having a niggling feeling over the years that something didn't quite add up.
Then one day, it came to me, clear as day.
If the above statement were correct, Motherhood would be one of the Catholic Church's seven sacraments. Motherhood would be a specific channel of Grace.
Um...let's see...
Holy Orders. Check.
Holy Matrimony. Check.
Baptism. Check.
The Eucharist. Check.
Confirmation. Check.
Penance. Check.
Anointing of the sick. Check.
Well...
Then I figured it out.
Feminist single mother making herself feel good about what she had done, and as Dalrock would put it, 'reframing' things to appease the hamster.
This was all it was.
Another rationalisation successfully debunked.
More to follow in the course of this blogging journey.
Why is all this important to me?
As the natural end-point of 'The Dating Game', or if one prefers, 'The SMP', marriage must be an important destination for most people (fair enough, not all people are called to marriage, I accept this), in order for the cohesive forces of society to function correctly. Not the watered-down version we have today. Real marriage.
I think we all have some idea what that looks like. We see glimpses of it from time to time.
Sometimes in familiar circumstances. Our parents...grandparents, a cousin, an uncle, the neighbours.
Sometimes we find it in a feel-good film from 1976. :-)
Sometimes we find it in unexpected places.
But it exists. And it used to be commonplace.
*
When Mac asked me to read Pope Pius XI's Casti Connubii, I didn't know anything about this Papa Pius or his works.
But now that I do, I think I can feel another papal crush coming on :-)
By all accounts, Papa Pius lived up to his name alright.
He was apparently a 'no-nonsense' kind of man. After my own heart, it seems.
See, I think this quality is actually necessary in a Pope. The Pope must be the most fatherly man on Earth. he represents God the Father.
Reading through the lengthy Casti Connubii, Pope Pius certainly doesn't disappoint.
You can feel the patriach in him coming out in every word.
Which somehow leaves me with a sense of ....security.
Is this a feminine response to a Pope crush?
Am I idisyncratic in this regard?
Dunno...
Anyway, about Pope Pius, one fact about him stands out for me. It was he, who established the feast of Christ The King. In related news, his papal motto was "Pax Christi in Regno Christi" meaning"The Peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ."
This Pope is into the idea of Christ as King.
For some reason known only to my subconscious, I like this very much.
Perhaps a kind psychologist amongst you would like to elucidate as to why this appeals to me so much. :-) Or maybe I shall work it out for myself later on in my life.
Back on topic, Mac's wish was that I have a conversation with Pope Pius, much like I did with St. Jerome.
Your wish is my command, Mac :-)
Unlike my tête-à-tête with St. Jérôme, though, my reflection with Pope Pius is far easier. Pope Pius I already am in tune with. His encyclical's concepts I am already familiar with, even though I was never able to attribute them to him, until now, thanks to Mac.
I can already relate to Pope Pius as a friendly, approachable, grandfatherly figure. I already know he likes to be patriarchal. Which fits in nicely with me because I like patriarchal (older) men, and in little boys and young men, I already see 'patriachs in the making'.
So this one will be pleasant. :-)
Considering that where I am, it is snowing heavily now and it is starting to get dark, I am in appropriately sombre mood. Solemn enough for a conversation with the Venerable Pope Pius.
ST: Good evening, Pope Pius! Il Signore sia con te. (Hey, he was Italian. Doesn't hurt to address him in his native tongue).
PP: E con il tuo spirito. (I was a bit cheeky, but The Patriarch doesn't seem to mind my informal form of address. I think I'm in). :-)
ST: Papa Pius, I am about 84 years too late to discuss your Casti Connubii with you. Neither of my parents was born when you wrote it. Indeed all my grandparents were children at that time.
PP: Better late than never, my child. How can I help you?
ST: May I take this opportunity to say that having read it in full, it is packed full of wisdom that I wish I had been aware of earlier.
PP: Good to know. I was entrusted by Our Lord, as successor to his right-hand man, St. Peter of Rome, to instruct His flock. I hope all of my writings were successful in this task, as guided by the Holy Spirit.
ST: Yes, Your Holiness. And I hope I understand its meaning correctly. I pray that the Holy Spirit will also guide me in deepening my understanding of your words.
(Pause)
ST: I see that you had good reason to write Casti Connubii at the time you did.
PP: I would say it was timely, yes.
ST: Interesting that it was my home country that caused all the bother.
PP: (Sigh). The Seventh Lambeth conference in 1930, in which the Archbishop of Canterbury along with the other Anglican bishops approved the use of contraception did indeed give me a headache, which was only relieved when I had finished the Casti Connubii. It was my duty to show the world, and in particular, my Christian brethren, indeed my Catholic protégés, a better alternative to what my Anglican friends were proposing. I had to show them 'of chaste wedlock'.
ST: Casti Connubii, 'of chaste wedlock'. Do you believe, Papa Pius, that 'chaste wedlock' is the answer to our modern problems?
PP: That is not the right question to ask me. I shall answer the right question: We are all called to do what the Lord asks of us...
ST: And the rest takes care of itself...
PP: Exactly.
ST: I see. Casti Connubii is divided into four main sections: Sanctity of marriage, eugenics opposition, birth control and the purpose of sexuality and the evils of abortion.
PP: True.
ST: All of these topics are linked, of course. For example, 'failure' of birth control may lead to abortion, and one of the strategies of eugenics is abortion.
(Pause)
ST: May I ask you a specific question?
PP: Proceed, my child.
ST: You say in paragraph 3:
"Yet not only do We, looking with paternal eye on the universal world from this Apostolic See as from a watch-tower, but you, also, Venerable Brethren, see, and seeing deeply grieve with Us that a great number of men, forgetful of that divine work of redemption, either entirely ignore or shamelessly deny the great sanctity of Christian wedlock, or relying on the false principles of a new and utterly perverse morality, too often trample it under foot. And since these most pernicious errors and depraved morals have begun to spread even amongst the faithful and are gradually gaining ground, in Our office as Christ's Vicar upon earth and Supreme Shepherd and Teacher We consider it Our duty to raise Our voice to keep the flock committed to Our care from poisoned pastures and, as far as in Us lies, to preserve it from harm."
This is so true, that we the flock are confused, and The Church sometimes seems confused too. Heartening and depressing at the same time to realise that this was the case in 1930 too, not just in 2014.
PP: Every age has its unique problems. No era is free of bother. What was your question?
ST: My question relates to paragraphs 6 and 7 where you talk of the indissoluble bond of marriage:
"6. Yet although matrimony is of its very nature of divine institution, the human will, too, enters into it and performs a most noble part. For each individual marriage, inasmuch as it is a conjugal union of a particular man and woman, arises only from the free consent of each of the spouses; and this free act of the will, by which each party hands over and accepts those rights proper to the state of marriage,[4] is so necessary to constitute true marriage that it cannot be supplied by any human power.[5] This freedom, however, regards only the question whether the contracting parties really wish to enter upon matrimony or to marry this particular person; but the nature of matrimony is entirely independent of the free will of man, so that if one has once contracted matrimony he is thereby subject to its divinely made laws and its essential properties. For the Angelic Doctor, writing on conjugal honor and on the offspring which is the fruit of marriage, says: "These things are so contained in matrimony by the marriage pact itself that, if anything to the contrary were expressed in the consent which makes the marriage, it would not be a true marriage.
7. By matrimony, therefore, the souls of the contracting parties are joined and knit together more directly and more intimately than are their bodies, and that not by any passing affection of sense of spirit, but by a deliberate and firm act of the will; and from this union of souls by God's decree, a sacred and inviolable bond arises. Hence the nature of this contract, which is proper and peculiar to it alone, makes it entirely different both from the union of animals entered into by the blind instinct of nature alone in which neither reason nor free will plays a part, and also from the haphazard unions of men, which are far removed from all true and honorable unions of will and enjoy none of the rights of family life."
But the door is left open for 'but the marriage was not valid because of issues with consent!' by this one line:
"These things are so contained in matrimony by the marriage pact itself that, if anything to the contrary were expressed in the consent which makes the marriage, it would not be a true marriage."
This very week, Papa Francesco considered reducing charges for annulments. This is confusing for the rest of us trying to understand the importance of the indissolubility of marriage. I know annulments are not the same as divorce, but should they be easy or hard?
PP: The Lord makes his laws very clear. Everything else is 'but for the hardness of their hearts'.
(Pause)
ST: Paragraphs 26-28 interest me, a woman, greatly. I feel like you are talking directly to my heart here:
"26. Domestic society being confirmed, therefore, by this bond of love, there should flourish in it that "order of love," as St. Augustine calls it. This order includes both the primacy of the husband with regard to the wife and children, the ready subjection of the wife and her willing obedience, which the Apostle commends in these words: "Let women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ is the head of the Church."[29]
27. This subjection, however, does not deny or take away the liberty which fully belongs to the woman both in view of her dignity as a human person, and in view of her most noble office as wife and mother and companion; nor does it bid her obey her husband's every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to wife; nor, in fine, does it imply that the wife should be put on a level with those persons who in law are called minors, to whom it is not customary to allow free exercise of their rights on account of their lack of mature judgment, or of their ignorance of human affairs. But it forbids that exaggerated liberty which cares not for the good of the family; it forbids that in this body which is the family, the heart be separated from the head to the great detriment of the whole body and the proximate danger of ruin. For if the man is the head, the woman is the heart, and as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to claim for herself the chief place in love.
28. Again, this subjection of wife to husband in its degree and manner may vary according to the different conditions of persons, place and time. In fact, if the husband neglect his duty, it falls to the wife to take his place in directing the family. But the structure of the family and its fundamental law, established and confirmed by God, must always and everywhere be maintained intact .
I like these paragraphs.
Paragraph 29 is a nice summary. I think the reason it is difficult to live out is that modern women have a sense of self-importance never-before-seen. We pray for humility to live out this instruction:
With great wisdom Our predecessor Leo XIII, of happy memory, in the Encyclical on Christian marriage which We have already mentioned, speaking of this order to be maintained between man and wife, teaches: "The man is the ruler of the family, and the head of the woman; but because she is flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone, let her be subject and obedient to the man, not as a servant but as a companion, so that nothing be lacking of honor or of dignity in the obedience which she pays. Let divine charity be the constant guide of their mutual relations, both in him who rules and in her who obeys, since each bears the image, the one of Christ, the other of the Church."
ST: Papa Pius, I note that you call liken divorce to 'a contagious disease or a river bursting its banks and flooding the land.'
PP: What analogy would you use for divorce?
(Pause)
ST: You stress the importance of selecting the right Partner for marriage, Papa Pius. Would you advocate Game for men looking for a wife?
PP: What kind of game do you mean?
ST (smile): Nevermind, Your Holiness.
To follow on from paragraphs 26-29, I once again note your specific instructions to women as to how we may conduct ourselves in marriage, in paragraphs 74 and 75. The bolded sentence is fundamentally striking to me, in both its directness and its simplicity.In many ways, I find it tragic that it is striking. But bear with me, Papa Pius, for I was born in the century after yours. Nothing you find 'normal' is 'normal' to me. I have to disengage from my reality to find 'normality'.
"74. The same false teachers who try to dim the luster of conjugal faith and purity do not scruple to do away with the honorable and trusting obedience which the woman owes to the man. Many of them even go further and assert that such a subjection of one party to the other is unworthy of human dignity, that the rights of husband and wife are equal; wherefore, they boldly proclaim the emancipation of women has been or ought to be effected. This emancipation in their ideas must be threefold, in the ruling of the domestic society, in the administration of family affairs and in the rearing of the children. It must be social, economic, physiological: - physiological, that is to say, the woman is to be freed at her own good pleasure from the burdensome duties properly belonging to a wife as companion and mother (We have already said that this is not an emancipation but a crime); social, inasmuch as the wife being freed from the cares of children and family, should, to the neglect of these, be able to follow her own bent and devote herself to business and even public affairs; finally economic, whereby the woman even without the knowledge and against the wish of her husband may be at liberty to conduct and administer her own affairs, giving her attention chiefly to these rather than to children, husband and family.
75. This, however, is not the true emancipation of woman, nor that rational and exalted liberty which belongs to the noble office of a Christian woman and wife; it is rather the debasing of the womanly character and the dignity of motherhood, and indeed of the whole family, as a result of which the husband suffers the loss of his wife, the children of their mother, and the home and the whole family of an ever watchful guardian. More than this, this false liberty and unnatural equality with the husband is to the detriment of the woman herself, for if the woman descends from her truly regal throne to which she has been raised within the walls of the home by means of the Gospel, she will soon be reduced to the old state of slavery (if not in appearance, certainly in reality) and become as amongst the pagans the mere instrument of man."
PP: I sympathise with you, my daughter. You are right, the words in bold are simple. Ask yourself this, and ask your fellow sisters to ask themselves this simple question:
Would you rather be a Servant Queen to your husband (as Christ was a Servant King to his Church), or would you rather be a Mistress Slave to everyone else?
Would you rather inherit a throne or buy a footstool?
The choice is yours. Free will is an intentional gift from God. Use it wisely, with discernment.
Read and internalise paragraphs 74 ad 75 again and again until you have memorised them. They are the building stones of your palace.
I bid you Farewell and the Peace of Christ The King.
ST: Goodnight, Papa Pius.
I had a lot more questions for Papa Pius. But I must do as he instructed. So whilst I focus on what is relevant to me, you may wish to find what is relevant to you, in this a most instructive encyclical.
Again, thank you Mac.
In case anyone is interested, more on Pope Pius XI here:
And he said it with a straight face :-)
Like he really believed it :-)
Cheeky bugger! as they say 'up norf' in England.
:P
I don't think I have done 'back to back' film reviews before, so this is a first for The Sanctuary.
I first saw the film 'Two mules for Sister Sara' when I was a child, so of course all the lessons a-plenty within it were lost on me. I loved the music - not sure what instrument it is that keeps recurring, especially in the scenes involving the mules, but it is certainly comedic, at least it was, to 10 year old me.
Then I saw it again recently, and I was amazed at how much 'Natural Law' troof' it holds.
I mean, Clint Eastwood ain't bad looking :-)
He's got that whole John Wayne-ish thing going on, which would make any lady happy :-)
And, as we all know by now, 'happy-ness is the troof', don'tcha know!
Pharrell Williams knows... and he is right!
Erm, getting sidetracked....
The ultimate 'tension' of a specific nature (mentioning no names) is to be had when two 'unavailable' people of different sexes are thrown together in a vacuum with no means of escape.
This is a script for
1) disaster
2) hilarity
We kind of get both in this film.
Here we have the ultimate MGHOW (bar Jesus Christ) versus the ultimate Alpha Widow.
Yes, a nun is the ultimate alpha widow :-)
In a good way.
Except, in this film (spoiler alert!!!) this nun is not exactly as she seems :-)
But for the first half of the film, at least, we are led to believe she is of the 'pure and driven snow' variety. Which makes Mr. Hogan's attempts to test her boundaries all the more hilarious.
But it's not his fault. Alcohol is the third party in this 'love' triangle :-)
Throughout this film, one gets the impression that poor old Mr. Hogan is being 'sent up', meaning that there is a conspiracy against him of sorts.
All engineered by the innocent-looking Sister Sara.
This in itself is a poignant point: I get the impression, looking around me, that modern men are indeed being 'sent up' by the not-so-funny joke that is feminism. And the more resourceful of them react with exactly the same kind of 'Red Pill-ness' that Mr. Hogan displays.
And what a fountain of Red Pill-ness Mr Hogan is! :-)
This guy is a walking Manosphere blog :-)
Like most actors whose on-screen personas mimic 'alphadom' very well (off the top of my head - Jack Nicholson, John Wayne being very good examples), Clint Eastwood's natural personality oozes confidence.
The slow (never rushed) movements, the thoughtful facial expression (usually minus a smile), the willingness to take on dangerous tasks, the ease with which he seems to execute said tasks, the even-toned voice, the logic of his words...
The list is indeed endless, but you get the picture...
I often wonder what's going through the casting director's mind when he/she picks these actors for these roles. I wonder if they already have a certain personality in mind, or are they stunned into selecting these guys when they show up at the audition? How does this process work? Any casting directors out there?
The film begins when Hogan happens upon what seems to be a rape scene about to unfold. Three drunken men are circling a semi-naked woman, taunting her.
Hogan intervenes, and ends up shooting all three men dead.
To his surprise, the female victim turns out to be a ..... nun.
At first he is simply shocked. They are afterall in the middle of a desert in Mexico.
What's a nun doing here of all places? he asks.
But Hogan doesn't get all 'white-knighty' on her. He is chivalrous but not supplicating, even with her 'nun' status. He protects her, but tells her off when she does something silly, like using their precious drinking water to bless the bodies of her dead assailants. He also refuses to do certain things for her, for example, burying the bodies of her assailants.
'Sister, I don't mind shooting 'em for ya, but I'll be damned if I'm gonna sweat over 'em for ya'.
Hahahahahahahahahaha!
Sister Sara is determined to give the men a Christian burial. So she gets busy with the shovel that Hogan provides.
He teases her by suggesting that if she ever got tired of being a nun, there was always gravedigging in her future.
Hey, is it not a sin to neg a nun?
LOL.
And when she accuses him of being 'as stubborn as her mule', his reply? 'Of course!'
Poor old Hogan can't seem to shake off Sister Sara. Each time he wants to go his own way (heh) something happens and she needs his help/protection.
See what I mean by my conspiration theory?
Hogan is attracted to her. But he is a little annoyed that she is married to God :-) And that she is as pretty as she is (distracting, you see).
Sister Sara seems to take his lust in her stride. She understands his lustful nature. She will pray for his soul.
She humours him by sharing some of her own struggles against temptation. Hogan is unimpressed. She must be lying about her chastity. Hence the title of this post.
:-)
Some of his funniest quotes listed here:
Can nuns cook?
Everybody's got the right to be a sucker once.
Oh that was no miracle, just an accident, life is full of 'em (in response to her thanking him for coming just in time to save her from her assailants).
Oh I don't know, never spent the night with one before (in response to 'you think nuns don't laugh?')
I ride from sun-up to sun-down. You either keep up or you don't.
What for? (in response to the question: 'don't you want a woman of your own?')
And what about you Ma'am? Haven't you wanted to be a whole woman, have a man make love to you, have children?
What do you do about those feelings that God gave every woman, including you?
In your case, Sister, just how much praying does that take? (in response to her assertion that when she gets 'those feelings', she prays, and they pass).
All the women I ever met were natural born liars, but I never knew about nuns till now.
I'll say one thing, Sister. I sure would have liked to have met up with you before you took to them clothes and them vows (looking her up and down in a salacious manner).
Look I told you not to 'brother' me!
Alright, it's a small shrine, let's make it a small prayer.
Hogan and Sister Sara embark on a mission together.
At the end of the mission he discovers something about her that surprised even him :-)
To say anymore about this film would be to spoil it for you.
I promised Glissando a review of a film which I imagine is as idyllic as his life on a beach down under.
And, being a Swiss resident, it was only a matter of time before I turned my attention to this film...
But, you ask...since when was 'Robinson' a Swiss name?
And you would be right - it's not.
I read the book when I was a child, long before my links with Switzerland.
I always thought it was a factual story.
But now I learn I was wrong all those years ago.
This book was indeed written by a Swiss man, Johann David Wyss. A Swiss pastor, no less.
But it was by no means autobiographical.
The 'Robinson' is a tribute to the adventures of Robinson Crusoe.
Pastor Wyss wrote the book to teach his four sons about what it means to be a man.
Yes, this book was meant to be a blueprint for the journey from boy to man.
In other words, a precursor to The Manosphere :-)
These days, I see 'SMP' in everything.
But this book, really is SMP. It is definitely not my imagination!
The book has spawned a myriad of films, TV-series and spin-offs. The one I am familiar with, (and the version I review) is the 1960 film starring John Mills and Dorothy McGuire.
I cannot find a complete version of this film on Youtube, but Disney have it free here.
In this version of the book, there are only three sons.
The film begins with a shipwreck. The family are on their way to New Guinea when a storm hits. They survive the storm only to find that they have been abandoned by the captain and the crew. They are on their own at sea.
Luckily for them though, they are not too far from land. They make it to dry land, and little by little, they manage to salvage what they can from the ship, making quite a nice life for themselves on the island.
The first striking SMP lesson for me is...this:
Whilst Father and the two eldest sons Fritz and Ernst are doing their best to protect themselves and Francis (the youngest boy) and Mother, these latter two are insistent that the dogs on board be rescued as well, even though to admit the dogs on board would mean endangering the lives of everyone else on board.
:-)
Yes, women and children can get in the way. I get that.
In this particular case, the dogs saved themselves anyway, and swam to safety, so they passed the survival test anyway. Good on them.
But the tendency of the (sometimes) unwarranted caring that women insist on displaying even though should their actions cause a threat to their own safety, it would be men who would be called upon to come to their aid (the same man who opposed said unwarranted 'caring' in the first place!) does not go unnoticed.
Yes, it can be annoying. And it gets in the way of men whose natural instinct is to protect women and children.
The Robinsons do a fine job of creating a paradise for themselves on the island. They build a tree-house with all the mod cons (with items salvaged from the ship) that would be the envy of many a housewife in Bern :-)
But Mother was at first unimpressed, when the building work was still in progress. But she was more than satisfied with the end-result, to the delight of her boys, Father included :-)
If you are starting to get the impression that Mother was a fastidious person, then mea culpa, I have given you the wrong impression.
Mother was actually a very good woman. She is 'fastidious' when it comes to the needs of her precious boys. This is, I suppose, just her natural 'mother's instinct' kicking in, but she is also a very good wife. An exemplary one. She looks after her boys very well, and they look after her.
Everyone is happy.
Except...
Whilst Father is waxing lyrical about how island life is the ideal life, and 'how life was intended to be lived', Mother keeps reminding him that something's missing.
It was alright for him (Father) and her: they had already lived their life. But what about their sons? How tragic that they might live their whole life without experiencing love with a woman, or having a family, or having a social life outside of the family!
To their knowledge to date, they were the only inhabitants of the island.
Now, the MGTOWs would say Amen! to that of course.
:-)
But remember, I don't think teenage boys who had yet to experience the company of girls would be too hot on this idea :-) Just a guess :-)
Father agreed that yes, it would be nice if they could find girls for their boys :-)
He sort of agreed to this idea rather grudgingly, I felt :-)
What is it with older men that they forget how nice the flush of romantic love can be once they have been married for decades? Women never forget :-)
This scene reminds me of the scene in 'Guess who is coming to dinner?' where the mother of John is desperately trying to remind her husband and the father of Joanna that their time might be past, but the two young lovebirds deserved a chance at building their own life together. She finishes by asking them, 'don't you remember what it was like at their age?' Neither man had an answer for her...
To increase their chances of finding girls, the parents finally allow Fritz and Ernst to sail around the island and take their chances with Nature...and pirates. Mother is scared stiff to let her precious boys go, and yet she is the one who wants them romantically sorted :-)
Ah, the cognitive dissonance of womanhood :-)
At this point in the film one gets the impression that it is indeed time to let Fritz and Ernst go on this trip. It turns out to be some sort of funny 'initiation' for them.
'Initiation' is a term that I gather is a bit of a 'red rag to a bull'. At least this is what I learned that in the MGTOW thread.
This is why I use inverted commas.
But indeed I am guessing that this is the whole point of the book, and therefore of the film. David Wyss really wants his audience (young boys) to get this message: to survive with your bare hands and intellect in Savage Nature. To learn to be a man under the most uncivilised circmstances...
Sure, this skill is largely lost, except in some families where the father has kept the tradition going, and despite 'civilisation', makes sure all the sons know how to hunt, fish, etc. But it is difficult if you live in a big city and you are not that wild about Nature.
In which case, it is much, much easier to raise girls than boys, as you just need the interior of a home to teach a girl to be a useful wife and mother in the way olden day girls were.
On this trip, it is clear that both Fritz and Ernst are well beyond puberty. According to Wikipedia, Fritz is about fifteen, and therefore Ernst must be a year or two younger by inference.
They reminisce about life in Bern before the big trip. Fritz talks about his memories of 'girl-watching' on a street in Bern. They wonder if they will find girls their age when they sail around the island. Fritz jokes that by the time they get to their destination, they would be so (insert your own crude word here), that they wouldn't care what age the girls were.
Poor boys.
Fritz is muscular and brawny. He is also very ambitious. He wants to be his own boss someday soon. For the moment though, he is happy to be in the shadow of Father, but not for much longer.
Ernst, by contrast is an intellectual. He plans to go to University. He plans to conquer the island not by his pysical might, but with his brains. His mother encourages him to 'use his head' because she recognises that this is his strong point, his Uniqe Selling Point.
Father has already come to rely quite heavily on his bright ideas.
And it looks like Francis, the youngest boy is going the way of Ernst. He has wild, but interesting ideas. Bless him, he is about nine or ten, but he certainly knows how to hold his own. But he gets to stay at home with Mother and Father whilst Fritz and Ernst get to experience the big, wide world.
Not fair :P
A funny thing happens to Fritz and Ernst on their travels. They happen upon a British man who has been captured by the dreaded pirates, along with his 14 year old grandson.
They try to save both captives, but unfortunately only have time to free the boy before the pirates come back.
It's a dash for the exit with 'Bertie' in tow as the angry pirates come after them...
Finally having shaken off the pirates, Fritz and Ernst soon realise that all is not well with 'Bertie'. They start to question his masculinity.
This boy cannot run fast, he acts all sissyish, and is just not what a boy ought to be.
In other words...
Gay.
:-)
Ernst wonders the untinkable: were we like this before we toughened up a bit on this island? Fritz reassures him that they were never quite as bad as this Bertie...
This speculation about Bertie's masculnity comes to an abrupt end as Fritz accidentally discovers that 'Bertie' is actually a girl.
Fritz and Ernst, meet Roberta.
And from that moment on, the war between the brothers begin. This turns out to be a game-changing moment :-)
Women, eh. Nothing but trouble :-)
Now here begin the most important SMP lessons.
Fritz, who is more 'alpha' than Ernst, by virtue of his older age, more masculine appearance and slightly aloof personality around Roberta (at least as compared to Ernst's approach to her) really displays how it should be done.
Whilst Ernst is busy doing his best to impress Roberta in the way that clueless young men sometimes go about these things (for example, falling for the bait when she lets drop that she misses the debutante dances in London with the men in the tall hats - and he proceeds to make himself a tall hat out of straw to impress her - no! no! no! Ernst!), Fritz acts all unimpressed when she tells him that her grandfather would offer him a job in his company (what, me, work for another man? No thanks!) and when she invites him to come see her in London once their stint on the island was finished, he politely declined, stating that he wanted to go on to new Guniea and build a life for himself.
All that Ernst was doing was leading to the 'friend zone'. Roberta seemed to like his intellectualism at the beginning, but the alpha boy attracted her more, in the end. Soon, she was finding ever more inventive ways to get closer to Fritz (could you teach me to shoot a gun, Fritz? Pretty please? - flutter of eyelashes, lol). When Ernst offers to teach her to shoot, she is actually repulsed by his offer. She proceeds to shoot an object a million miles away, demonstrating how she actually needed shooting lessons like a fish needs a bicycle :-)
The important difference between these two boys is that one was following his own path in life, and a woman was allowed to enter said path if she wished, and with his consent, of course. The other was ready to abandon his path and follow the woman.
No woman wants to be 'the leader'. No matter how much she protests to the contrary.
Ernst did not know this.
This proved to be the fatal flaw in his quest for Roberta.
In the end, he had to admit defeat. It was clear that Fritz was Roberta's choice.
Mother was delighted to have a 'daughter' at last.
Someone she could discuss 'girl stuff' with :-)
Someone she could dress up in her old dresses :-)
Someone who would (darn it!) marry her son :-)
Satisfied, Mother?
Um, no. Not yet.
She had three sons, remember? As she reminded Father :-)
Nope, not completely happy until 2 more girls came their way :-)
Fritz was now sorted.
Ernst next, and then Francis...
The film finishes with Ernst going off to Civilisation with Roberta's Grandfather, whilst Mother and Father, and Fritz and Roberta decide to stay and build a new life on their island.
The film is indeed worth watching.
If for nothing, for the idyllic scenery it offers.
But the SMP lessons are also worth the effort, I would say.
Well worth the effort.
This post will be very long.
And verbose.
And full of flowery feminine language.
That's because I am talking to a fellow woman here.
You gentlemen, take a hike for a few hours :-)
(In the nicest possible way).
Oh how I miss Danny with his 'ITLR' posts! We ladies don't really have a 'locker room' as such. We talk anywhere, anytime, whenever the need arises.
Indeed a need has just arisen.
This post is nothing other than an emergency open letter to Glissando's M.
I had promised Glissando a post about a film which mirrors his own idyllic world on an island.
I was working on that.
After a few unavoidable days of 'no internet access', I plugged in to The Sanctuary to find this comment by Metak to Glissando:
"Meh, don't worry about "The Sanctuary"... it was built by an ancient super-dupper-secret order of initiated Hamsters... this 'sisterhood of hamsters' operates in highest secrecy and has managed to infiltrate highest ranks of governments round the world... to this very day, the order is bound by one goal and one goal only! To protect "The Sanctuary" and their queen "Spacetraveller"..."
Lovely Sanctuarites, don't listen to The Metak! There is no secret society! No infiltration! No protection money!
:-)
No, the above is not what's got my hamsters in unadulterated and unified uproar.
No, no.
It was this comment by Glissando to Metak (bold emphasis mine):
"At the time you posted (July 31, 2014 at 7:23 PM) she was telling me FWB is definitely available, as long as I understand, she wants to have my children. Contraception would be entirely over to me. She said she will spend the rest of her life trying to prove I can trust her word, but hopes I will come to trust her before she's too old (she's in her early 20's at this time). Also, if I want to emigrate to any country that remains uninfected with the feminism virus, she would love to come with me as the happiest woman in the world."
The following video reflects my immediate thought:
My two existing hamsters had to be sedated because their reactions would have been akin to a nuclear reactor, well, reacting.
And lo and behold, a third hamster popped up in my being, just for you. M :-)
Thank you kindly, M. As if I didn't have enough hamsters on board :-)
This one is Indian, to boot. She is middle-aged, has no scruples or decorum, and is a thousand times worse than Dalrock's Yiayia.
As I write, this hamster is in a state of catatonia following the shock of seeing Glissando's comment.
Forget sedation, this hamster will have to be sectioned and put under general anaesthetic for its own safety as soon as we can get it to the nearest secure unit.
After the 'are you joking me?' followed by the famous Indian head shake (you know the one I mean, M! see video below), this hamster was ready to take you apart.
But...I shan't let it. This dirty job is one I have to do myself.
:-)
All hamsters silenced, M, let me calmly explain to you what all the fuss is about.
Get Glissando out. Fix him a beer or something, and let him get out of your hair for a bit.
Pull up a chair. Sit by me.
We need to talk.
Glissando was waxing lyrical about you a few posts back. I was led to believe he had found a gem amongst women.
Beautiful (check).
Young - at least younger than him (check).
Renounces feminism (double check).
Seems to be into him (check).
I was thinking, well, what is wrong with this man? Why won't he lock down this exceptional woman?? Why does he 'remain MGHOW' when he has a woman at hand who would be the envy of men everywhere?
And then he hit me with the above comment.
And then I realised, M, you are not being exceptional, Pet.
I say this with all the love for you that someone who doesn't actually know you can muster.
By the way, if Glissando was joking, or downright lying when he said to me that you offered him sex and babies, despite his (blatantly) telling you that he won't offer you his commitment, then you should give him a friendly slap (in a non-dangerous part of his body, i.e. not his head or erm, the other place, lol), saying these words, 'you big old lying beast' with a half-smile.
The ferocity with which you deliver this bit of mock-violence may be directly proportional to your level of mock 'anger' at him. I just hope for Glissando's sake that you are not wearing a 'red dress' today, if you catch my drift.
:-)
If Glissando was telling me the truth (and the rest of this post is based on this assumption), then....
a few words for you...
1) You are very much into feminism. More than you realise. You are 'talking the talk' of 'renouncing feminism', but in reality, you are not really 'walking the walk'.
Pre-feminism, no woman offered a man (unmarried) sex because the implication of this would be that she was putting herself and her unborn child at risk. Without the commitment of a man in both a husbandly and fatherly role, woman and child are at the mercy of others - her own parents (but why should they continue to be responsible for you long after they have done their duty raising you and your siblings?), friends (why should they be burdened with you when they have their own lives to lead?, strangers (need I even go there?)
Feminism offers the 'empowered woman' an alternative to the dedicated role a man takes on when he marries a woman, by offering lesser alternatives.
Your career is no longer an additional source of income should you need it if your husband is incapacitated in some way, but a 'I kill my own snakes' lifeline for you and your fatherless child.
The state will give you money in the form of 'social securty', therefore reducing the amount it could give to people who really need it because they have come up against a temporary financial crisis and need a hand for a while until they can get back on their feet.
These lesser alternatives, whilst being less desirable for you personally, are also robbing others of their due. Feminism is training you to be a thief.
Question for you: do you want to be a thief?
2) You are being gravely dishonest. This kind of dishonesty will make you merciless one day. This is the reason I called you Glissando's 'belle dame sans merci'. It is habitual dishonesty like this that leads to pain for men.
Why?
You know you don't want to just offer the 'free gift' of yourself to someone who won't stay with you forever. He has already told you he is MGHOW. That means he doesn't feel the need to make you his Queen. This is painful, of course, my dear. He is rejecting you. I get it.
But what should be the correct response from you in the face of such utter rejection from Glissando?
I can tell you what it should NOT be, M.
It should NOT be: "You don't want to commit to me? Alright, then, no problem, I shall give you free, unlimited sex! I shall have your babies!"
No! No! No!
Any woman can offer a man this.
This ain't special.
This won't make a man feel 'cherished'.
It's as common as muck, this. Especially nowadays. Ten a penny. Literally.
And moreover, you will hate yourself for this one day. Supposing under the circumstances of such a bad start, you two do end up together...
One day, you will look at this man and say to yourself: I gave him so much of myself just to earn his commitment. How could I have cheapened myself so much? You will (unfairly) transfer your self-hate to him. You will do this automatically. You will not realise you are doing it. You will show genuine surprise if someone points this out to you.
The next words you will say to Glissando will be 'it's not you, it's me...' or 'I love you but I am not in love with you..'
Or if you are married, it will be 'I want a divorce...'
And boy, will you punish him for the 'hurt' he caused you that he didn't know he had (inadvertently) done all those years ago when you offered him sex on a platter and he thought he had won the jackpot...
M, men don't see this coming because they are not really trained to. But you and I know how your little charade will end, don't we? We are women. This is our area of expertise. We understand each other. We speak the same language. We know what's going on in each other's heads.
Don't use this wicked manipulative manouevre to 'hook' a man. It's not a nice thing to do.
It is exactly what a feminist would do!
You don't fool me. And stop lying to yourself and Glissando.
I am actually quite proud of Glissando, because, by the looks of things, he ain't fooled either. Which is why he 'remains MGHOW' despite your 'generous' offer.
You failed his fitness test (as I shall explain below) but he passed yours.
M, listen to me.
As an unmarried woman, sex is not even yours to offer.
Did you know this absolute truth?
For those of us brought up under feminism, this is a truism that was either never passed on to us, or if it was, we forgot it in our attempt to 'empower' ourselves. In effect, you would have to be twice your age, at least, to have grown up with this notion or principle as 'standard'.
But it doesn't have to be this way.
As a beautiful, single woman, YOU hold the key to society. Did you never figure this out?
Why not?
What's gone wrong?
Your sexuality, as a single, unattached woman, belongs to God/Allah/Yahweh/insert Deity of your choice.
When you and a man worthy of you, pledge to come together as a unit before man and said Deity, your gift of self in its wholeness becomes unlocked, and you are free to offer that man (and him only!) everything you have, including your sexuality. Until then, you must guard it as if your life literally depends on it. Because it does.
Glissando doesn't trust you - yet. And I think he is right not to.
Because you are not being an effective gatekeeper.
Where is your b*tch shield, sister? This is what it was designed for!
Why is your weaponry deserting you at a time you need it the most?
In Glissando's decision-making as to whether he takes you on as 'Partner for Life', he should never be put into a situation where he begins to question your suitability as a wife. No!
He should know that you are a worthy woman right off the bat. That puts you into the starter position. Without this, you are not even in the running, my dear.
And even so, there will be 'resistance' to marriage. Outside The Sanctuary, it is called 'commitment phobia'. You know how I feel about this falsehood if you have read some of what I write here. :-)
But his 'resistance' should only be about exorcising his own demons from his own soul, i.e. it should be about making himself worthy of you. This is a process which he won't of course confide to you, but it is a process that will happen internally within him nonetheless.
But you are making it easy for him to simply walk away and never look back!
Here I am telling these guys who come to The Sanctuary that there are good women everywhere, and here you are trying your hardest to prove me wrong.
Stop stealing my thunder, M!
Game is all well and good. I fully endorse it, yes, as you would have read several times on this blog. Without it, many men would be 'dead in the water' when it comes to love/romance.
But you as a woman have to 'win' against Game to be worthy. As much as we 'fitness test' men all the time, I have news for you - men too have their own 'fitness tests' for us women. And it can be brutal. As it should be.
Can you see how you have badly failed Glissando's 'fitness test'?
He runs a little 'Dread Game' on you and you are ready to offer him all that you have?
Does this mean that any other man with as much Game as him can take you away from him at the drop of a hat in the future?
Can you really not see that by failing his little fitness test, the bad side effect of it is that he now sees you as a bad bet for wifehood?
Are you seeing what I am seeing now?
Can you now see that Glissando is being a better gatekeeper of his commitment than you are of sex?
He knows that to pick the wrong partner could literally end his life.
I say it again if you are feeling slow today: His life depends on it. Why, you ask...
Psk, you know why.
He has two dead friends...remember?
So he takes this sort of thing very seriously.
You should too.
And his hamster will help him in this vetting process. You don't think men have hamsters too? They sure do. And it is more logical and clinical than yours or mine. When Glissando is ready to dump you right after he has found a more worthy woman than you are being right now, this is what Glissando Junior will say to Glissando Senior:
"Dude, time to split. This chick was good while it lasted. Time for greener pastures. Remember she was never going to be 'The One' anyway, right? No tears. No lost sleep. Just give her 'the speech' pronto. There was always something 'missing' with her. Don't lose sleep over this one. See what the next one has to offer..."
Not nice, is it?
Your decision-making now, in your early twenties must be pristine, clear-headed, solid. Because this determines the direction of the rest of your life.
All those women in their late 30s, early 40s asking 'where are all the good men?' - do you honestly not know how they got to where they are?
I tell you.
They made horrible decisions just like you are making right now, back when they were supposedly at their most powerful, which is what you are now.
Don't mess it up.
Don't go soft in the head, at a time when you should be at your toughest.
Glissando won't die if you don't offer him sex.
He'll take it if it's on offer, sure!
:-)
But sadly, that doesn't mean he will like you any better, or love you for it.
Have you seen the film 'Friends with benefits?' It stars Mila Kunis, I think.
I don't usually recommend Hollywood films, but this one has a specific message for you, M.
In this film, a woman does exactly what you are doing now. She offers 'no strings' sex to a man when deep down she hopes for far more from him.
When her (inevitable, if you ask me!) meltdown occurs years down the road where she accuses him of just 'using her for sex', she looks surprised when he points out (logically) that she offered, and he took her up on her offer, thank you Ma'am.
This woman was being deceitful, and she knew it. But she thought she could wangle her way out of her own mess. In the end she found she couldn't.
I hope you can see now that neither can you, if you persist in your currently flawed thinking process.
Glissando certainly doesn't need babies with a woman he is not fully committed to.
Have you seen the film 'Friends with kids?'
Again, another Hollywood film packed full of lessons for you.
In this one, a woman wants a baby, but alas, with no husband, what is she to do?
Why not just have one with a platonic friend? What could possibly go wrong?
Do you see where I am heading with this?
Dishonesty to oneself leads to personal pain.
Bad enough.
Where that pain involves the next generation, you are doubly responsible.
Children need much more than just a mother.
This 'single by choice' movement that is sweeping the world - it is killing children in more ways than we thought possible.
I have a friend who is a child psychiatrist - I definitely know what I am talking about here!
When I talked about 'what is a woman for', the four Fs were features a woman brings to a committed table. I would have hoped that this was understood without me spelling it out.
OK, food might be an exception. You can cook for anyone. I think it is a good thing, because you get to practise, and your value as a cook doesn't go down the more you cook.
Faithfulness is also something you can 'practise' even when you are single, because you can stay faithful to God whilst you prepare to be faithful to an earthly man.
Family (meaning children) and definitely the fourth 'F' are strictly for marriage! I never endorsed otherwise.
And for sure, feminism is not one of the F's. LOL.
When I talk about 'walking the walk', I mean living, breathing, eating, drinking what you believe in. No half measures.
This was brought home to me in a big way last week when I met an extraordinary family. I learned so much from them. I would like to share this with you to show you what I mean by really 'walking the walk'.
This Spanish family were on holiday in England. Father, mother, son (?early thirties) and his girlfriend, and also daughter (late twenties but so severely disabled (due to a very rare congenital abnormality) that she looked like a five year old).
Daughter got sick, so they brought her to hospital.
Only son spoke English, so he was the only one we could communicate with.
The dedication which this man showed his little sister was unbelievable and great to behold. He would carry her in his arms when she needed moving. Mum and Dad were obviously devoted to her too.
This family were really 'walking the walk'. Before having this disabled child, I am sure the parents' wedding vows included the words 'we will accept without reservation whatever children God gives us'.
And they did. Almost thirty years later, here they are caring for the beautiful girl God gave them.
Even being in hospital, whenever the nurses offered to clean her or do some other task relating to her care, the family would politely decline, and to my amusement, would give the nurses a look that said, 'why would we let someone else care for our family member? You don't see that we have two hands each? What did God give us these for?
(OK, OK, I admit, these are words I imagine they must be saying to themselves, not words they actually verbalised, LOL). This is what I mean by 'walking the walk'.
There is another aspect to this story that I want to draw your attention to, M.
The girlfriend was identifiable as such by her (almost imperceptible) distance from the rest of the family, and that neither she nor son were wearing wedding rings.
She wasn't jumping in there and taking over the care of disabled girl.
Why am I applauding this woman, M?
She was 'taking her time'. She wasn't married to son, yet. She was free to walk from this undoubtedly potentially difficult situation at any time. Afterall, once married, the care of disabled daughter might fall to her as the 'helper' of son.
And, let's not forget, afterall, if this illlness were genetic (which I believe it is, having researched it), there was every chance that son was a potential carrier (it wasn't an X-linked' disease, which usually gurarantees that only women are carriers and sons are the affected) and therefore her potential children with son could also be affected...
She was clearly spending time (as she should) with this family, to see whether they were a 'fit' for her, as much as I am sure she was also being vetted by 'son' as a potential 'fit' for him.
But she wasn't overdoing the 'caring girlfriend' thing.
She wasn't 'trying too hard'.
She wasn't influencing his decision about her by latching onto his disabled sister as a 'crutch' to display to anyone watching what a great carer she would be. Believe me, many women would have done this.
Not her.
Classy woman.
She was there with them. That's enough.
At the right time, I have every faith that she will 'escalate' her duties accordingly, and stick with them.
This Spanish woman is doing things right.
She is nice, but not too nice, which should make a discerning man suspicious.
You see M?
Don't go overboard with 'proving your love' to Glissando.
In a sense, you are being like those so-called 'nice guys' who get nowhere with classy women because these women know that these guys are not really 'nice'. They are not genuine.
And then the false 'truism' that 'niceness' is bad, or 'nice guys finish last' happens.
It is not really about the 'niceness'. It is what is underneath the veneer of 'nice' that discerning women pick up.
Likewise, men know when a woman is being genuinely nice or not.
Glissando rumbled you.
You need to start being genuine, M.
You should be at an age now where you can see into the future. At least your future.
'Future time orientation' is a very important skill of womanhood, love.
You should be picturing at regular intervals what your future looks like, from now, if not already in your late teens.
What does it look like, your future?
And are you slowly but surely working towards it?
Or are you just 'leaving it to chance' like all the other silly girls?
There are things you have control over. Take control!
Make good, sound, choices. Not desperate 'Trojan horse' type choices that you think men don't see for what they are.
You now know that Glissando for one won't fall for it. You have been warned.
The thing about good, sound choices is that they become part of who you are. You will routinely make good choices if you start now.
And then there are things you have no control over. Leave them to Deity. He will look after you.
If you do what is right, He will help you when things get tough.
He is beta like that :-)
Here are a few scenarios of the future.
Be sure to tell me which one(s) best fit in with your own plans for your future.
Which one(s) are undesirable?
Which one(s) are more likely to happen to you, and why?
These are all questions which are designed to make you think harder about your own life. I hope they are not too harsh.
But then again, better harsh questions now than harsher questions you will ask yourself if you deviate from the straight and narrow path now.
I hope you agree with me on this point.
But still, I really really hope you won't see these as too harsh. Most women will balk at something they deem too harsh. I don't want that to happen here. These are important questions for you to ponder.
So just do it.
You don't need to answer them here. But be sure to have answers for them in your head. In your own time.
OK?
Easy does it...
Scenario 1:
This is an email I get from Glissando in seven years' time.
Read it carefully.
Hi Spacetraveller, how are ya? Hope life finds you well. I am still celebrating after the All Blacks won the Seven Nations. My son Reuben* is still doing the 'Haka'. Bless him, he is only three, but heck, I can see he will one day be a true kiwi warrior, hehe. Takes after his Dad, of course, LOL. Just wanted to see how you were. Sorry our boys thrashed England. Can't say I am shedding tears, but just to let you know I feel a little bad for you 'cos I know you are a Brit. Anyhow, must go now. M needs a lift to the hospital. Time for the six month scan. It's a girl this time! Reuben is looking forward to being a big brother. He is already wanting to call her 'princess'. Damn, I have to start teaching him Game, hehe. Catch up later, Glissando.
Scenario 2:
I get this postcard from Latvia in three years' time.
I am thinking, 'who do I know in Latvia?' as I read:
Hi ST, How ya doing? I know you won't like this, but what the heck, I'll tell ya. Still MGHOW, but I have decided to take a 'sabbatical' from my beautiful island and do a 'Roosh' from time to time, haha. So now I am in Latvia. It's G'day from Latvia, LOL. Currently seeing this blonde. 'Seeing' if you catch my drift. It's great. She's nice, but nothing longterm, I'm afraid. Oh well, enjoying the decline, as they say. I heard from M last week. Did I tell you? Right after I dumped her, she married some bloke from Christchurch pretty sharpish. Even I was taken by surprise. Anyway, she had a kid like within six months, I swear. Anyhow, she texted me to say she is divorcing the poor bloke. She wants to 'meet up for drinks'. Brrr, not sure I like this... Anyway, back to my blonde now. She just made a cake. Can't keep the nice lady waiting, hehe. See ya!
Of course, M, I realise that life is not black and white.
This is a third scenario which no woman wants.
But...
Every woman must face this possiblity head on, as opposed to jumping into bad decisions precisely because we don't want to face this harsh reality.
There is one (ex-)woman commenter on this blog who faced this reality head on, and I know she meant it when she said she was prepared to be alone for the rest of her life doing what God demands of her, even if it meant she was 'unattractive' to most men.
I know that this woman will become a marvellous wife one day.
She showed (and continues to show) great commitment to God.
God is kind. He won't let her down. He will honour her innermost desire one day, at a time of His choosing. This Wise woman is waiting for that time.
Can you do that?
Scenario 3 is an excerpt from an obituary, 80 ish years from now.
Don't let it depress you. Take the positives from it and work with it.
The family ________________ regret to announce the death of their beloved sister, cousin, aunt and great aunt M. She was a truly blessed human being, and her loss leaves a big hole in our lives. M leaves behind many friends, young and old, a treasured family and many acquaintances who will deeply miss her. Joyous and gracious wherever she meant, M was a ray of sunshine to all she met. Never having married nor had children of her own, M had a smile on her face every day of her long and happy life. This lady was 'Mother' to everyone in her little community on North Island. It was an honour to be related to such a beautiful human being who made all our lives a little sweeter for having known her. Rest in peace, Aunty M. Memories of your legendary chicken pie will keep us going for a while yet! Your loving great-nephew, Matt.
Of course there are other scenarios yet. I am not done with you, M!
This one, Scenario 4, is a letter from a man you don't know yet. He writes to his mum on Mother's Day. He sounds British and quite posh by the sounds of it :-):
Hello Mother, Happy Mother's Day! I am so sorry I cannot be with you on this special day. Hope Tom and Luke are good enough consolation prizes. Don't worry, everyone knows that *I* am your favourite son. No secret there, LOL. Anyway, how's life, Mother? How is Father enjoying his retirement so far? Is he itching to get back to work yet? Gosh, has it really been a year since I last saw you guys? Must fix that, promise! I have some news for you. Remember that kiwi girl I went to that concert with in London back in 2016? The pretty girl who thought 'Cockfosters' was a beer, rather than a tube station? Anyway, I am back in New Zealand with her and her family now. She is really sweet. I knew I was in love with her even when she was in London, but anyway... She seemed so sad then, do you remember? I pressed her on why she had those sad eyes, and she told me she had just broken up with some chap called Glissando back in NZ. Must be some Italian gigolo, if you ask me. Apparently he broke her heart. But she got over it pretty quickly. It was such a pleasure to see her come back to life as it were. It took me a long time to realise how much she meant to me. That fool Glissando will never know what he missed out on. This girl is one in a million! I would never have gotten to know her had she not dropped her phone on the table in that coffee shop in Highgate when I first met her and I ended up practising my pick-up lines on her (smile). To cut a long story short, I finally asked her to marry me and she said 'yes'! So yes, Mother, you can go buy a hat now, LOL. Will discuss the wedding details when I get back to London. For now, though, M is going to show me round the island. Looking forward to THAT! Cheerio, and enjoy Mother's Day! Your best son, Mark
Yet again, *sigh* is another scenario you might not like...
Scenario 5:
This is from your own blog in 2019...
February 13th...
Another year, another Valentine's Day fast approaching with no date in sight. I don't know what's wrong with men these days. Just because I have a child... Some guy on Date a Single Mom.com emailed me to say he would have gone for me, but for my daughter. Can you believe that? How horrible are these people? Why can't they see my daughter for the blessing that she is?
Come to think of it, why won't Glissando take my calls these days? It's not like he has a girlfriend or anything. He is still living on his island, all alone, like me. But he won't bother with me or Lisa*. It's really painful nowadays to look at her. She has his face, dammit. I wish we could have stuck together. You know, for Lisa's sake. She has been asking me lately why she doesn't have a Daddy like all the other kids at school. Breaks my heart. She seemed really happy for a while while I was dating Bob. She seemed to get on well with him. When he left she was devastated. I thought things would get back to normal for her when Joe arrived on the scene, but he moved on even quicker than Bob. What is it with these men? Why won't they commit? Where are all the good men?
M, you and I understand each other because we speak the same language. I can look into your soul as much as you could look into mine.
From my soul to yours, I implore you to Wise up and Wake up.
Feminism has many (ugly) faces. It is good that you renounce it.
But don't do it by words alone. Do it. Really do it.
Do the right thing, even if it seems hard.
Don't offer things you don't really deep down want to give away.
Not only will you respect yourself more, but the whole world would too.
Starting with....Glissando.
You should aim for higher things, M, and higher things will come to you.
Offering cheap thrills (which is what you are doing here, sorry to say) is not the right way to brighten your life.
You have so much more in you than you display to Glissando here.
Bring out the best M, and you will be much, much happier in life.
Peace, Young Lady.
*Names have been changed to protect the innocent unborn :-)
