Saturday, July 19, 2014

A woman's word

I think this post should have a different  title. But I am clinging to this one for dear life because I really want to highlight a particular thought. It is a specific concept that I don't want to lose sight of. Knowing myself, I am wont to go off on a tangent, but I musn't let myself do this in this post.


:-)


La Spacetraveller was just sitting here minding her own business when a commenter posted something which made her jump, metaphorically speaking...


Are there any German- or Italian-speaking people here at The Sanctuary?
I love the use of the definite article in both these languages.


It's never just 'Rainer'. It is der Rainer.
It's never just 'Little Giovanna'. It is La Giovannina.


LOL.


Anonymous said to me in this post:


"All I have is a "Woman's word." That's not good enough for me.  ..."


                              *



And then I immediately discovered that I had two hamsters rather than the usual furry lone ranger :-)

One of them is the one I was born with, and is distinctly female.
The other one I am not sure where it came from, but its gender is indeterminate, or perhaps more relevant to this post, may be a hybrid and can switch from male to female on a whim. It is perhaps a 'higher order' hamster or something, but I think I trust it more than my original hamster. Well, I don't know.
Judge for yourself, for I was able to record a conversation between these two hamsters once. No video, just audio :-)


Just so you know, the female hamster (which I shall call 'Hamster 1') has a french accent. The 'indeterminate sex' hamster ('Hamster 2') for some reason has a Cockney British accent and is distinctly a Londoner. It likes to play 'devil's advocate' and has definitely got trousers on today, so it is male today. It however has a definite feminine side on other occasions depending on what Hamster 1 says.
Hamster 2 never starts conversations. It leaves that to Hamster 1 :-)



Hamster 1: Mais, c'est pas vrai! Mais non, vat is ze veld coming to? C'est pas possible! (sigh). Quoi faire...Mon Dieu, c'est franchement une catastrophe!

Hamster 2: Oi, cupcake, keep yer hair on. What's happened that's getting yer knickers in a twist, love?

Hamster 1: Mais, mon ami, haven't you heard? Zese men are now vanting les femmes to give zem zeir verd, like zese vimen, zey are men! Mais, c'est quoi ça, ce truc! C'est vraiment incroyable!

Hamster 2: Eh? What? Yer having a strop because some bloke wants wimmin to be held to their word, just like blokes? Cor blimey! What are ya like? If you ask me, it's about time an' all!

Hamster 1: But zat is not ze point! It is not about making les femmes more accountable, it is more about making les femmes into les hommes! It is not naturel! C'est dingue! Eet ees crazy! Quite wrong!

Hamster 2: Calm down dear! Not the end of the world...

Hamster 1: Mais it is, mon ami! Vee take away the nature of les hommes et les femmes, and it vill be ze end of ze world! I don't vant to be forced to be giving people 'gentleman's agreement'. Je suis une femme! Je suis une femme! JE SUIS UNE FEMME!!!!!

Hamster 2: Jeez, get a grip, Darlin'! It ain't that bad! I bloody knew I shouldn' a' got out of bed this morning...I knew my day weren't gonna go like I dreamed, like. First ya get some hysterical bird getting up yer grill, then before ya know it, it's all gone dan sath from here. It's all gone Pete Tong on ya. Bang out of order, if yer ask me!








See what you started, Anonymous?


Bad enough for one hamster to spin out of control. Now you've gone and upset both of me hamsters and now we've got World War 3 in me hamster wheel.
Spare a thought for me :-)




Do you see Hamster 1's point of view, by the way?


I fully realise that you and I are actually on the same side of the table here, and this is quite confusing for me. (I feel I shouldn't be on the same side as you on this particular issue). You have spun me into a state of cognitive dissonance, and I am not sure how to get myself out of this rabbit-hole.
Make sense?
It doesn't make sense to me either, but I shall try to explain myself better below...

About 2 or 3 years ago, I remember walking down to the city centre of my city on a Saturday afternoon. It was crowded as I headed for the shops. I was walking behind two young men. They were probably in their late teens. One was animatedly showing a photo on his i-phone to the other. I was so close behind them that I could see the photo.


The one who was being shown the photo said, " That is so gay". I craned my neck to see what was so 'gay'. The photo on the i-phone was of a woman wearing a dress. That's it.


I was intrigued by the episode, and got curious about it, but there was no way I could make any sense of it until I understood the SMP better a year or two after that episode.


I have heard more than one person declare that the result of the shenanigans of the SMP/feminism/modernism, whatever we want to call it, is that in response to the masculinisation of women (cause or effect of thesexual revolution?), men have become more masculinised, not feminised.


Yes.


In response to feminism and masculine women, men have become hypermasculinised.


But, you say: women everywhere are declaring that they can't find masculine men anymore. Men remain 'little boys' well into their thirties now. They are all 'mama's boys' living in Mama's basement playing computer games, with no masculine skills, hence 'women need men like fish need bicycles', etc...


Cause or effect?


A well-known Manosphere blog (I shall leave it to you to guess which one :-) published a post a few months ago about the state of men and women today. The blogger correctly pointed out that women have taken on masculine values - for better or worse. I guess he meant it in the wider sense than just physical (i.e. in the realm of workforce, relationship roles, etc.) but the picture he posted to depict this picture was of a young physically fit woman with a 'six pack' abdomen.


This blogger was quite pleased with this development within the SMP. He noted that fifty years ago, it wasn't usual to find such toned, fine specimens of women. That men were happy with women as they were in the 50's sans 'six pack' was conveniently brushed aside :-)


But that's not the point I want to draw your attenttion to.


In describing 'modern man', this blogger posted a picture of a man suffering from a disease known as 'Klinefelter syndrome'.


For those who need a visual, this is what a Klinefelter patient looks like:




He is a man with an extra complement of female chromosome X. He looks like a woman (wide hips, breast tissue, female type body distribution of fat). He is learning disabled and is usually infertile.


Quite rightly, this blogger was challenged on his perception of his fellow men by his, well, fellow men.


I see everyday that the blogger is incorrect in his assertion that modern men are feminised. At least I sincerely believe that feminised men are a minority in the general male population.


Those that are indeed feminised in their physical appearance or their thinking, are quickly eliminated from the gene pool, sometimes in the most swift and brutal way possible, sometimes at their own hand.


I don't have to look too far or too far back to provide an example of this swift elimination. A young man who believed himself to be a victim of women's rejection of him despite his fabulousness (he used this very feminine word a lot in his manifesto) despite never approaching women like men usually have to do, and who gives the impression of being entitled to something he need not earn, recently brutally and tragically ended his own and others' lives.

Yes, he had serious problems stemming from a long way back in his life. But the result was an extremely feminised way of thinking which, as a woman he would have got away with, but as a man, it killed him. Literally.


I mention no names because I would not like to focus not on the man himself, but his story, which is relevant to what I am trying desperately to tease out of my confused brain.


It is confusing.


Many would say that this guy was acting like a man. Brutal murder and suicide? That's traditionally associated with (abnormal, of course) masculinity.
True.
But this chap got to where he got to by way of highly feminised thinking. Not necessarily feminine, but feminised, for sure.


But he is in the minority.


Most men, as an adaptation to the modern world, I think, have become more masculine in their dealings with women, not less.
I have no issue with this, because I can see that this is a logical approach, something that men are wired to do.
I merely make the observation.

Is this something akin to the internal monologue?? (Correct me if I am way off base, gentlemen!)

They want equality in the workplace?
Then they must work as hard and ss long as us to get equal pay to us.

They want sexual freedom?
Then they must be made to face the sexual realities of men, including rejection.

They want to kill their own snakes?
Why, let them!


And so on.


And now I get closer to my 'crux of the matter'.


They want men to be held accountable for everything?
Then they too should be held to their 'word'.


A gentleman's word is his bond. This is a well-established social convention, no?


A woman used to have her own (feminine) way of arriving at her 'destination' of honour and accountability. And men allowed that 'wriggle room' because women used to honour this flexibility accorded them by men. Like chivlary, it is a concept of men honouring (good) women because they know that said women will not kick them where it hurts.


Now that it is clear that women have waged a war on men where no man was actually prepared for such a  war, the sleeping giant has woken up and is now upset that Gulliver pinched his little finger.
:-)


'Anonymous' is such a giant.


Now he wants a woman's word to count like a man's does.


He wants a woman to be a man, and yet remain a woman.


Bellita once said that when women were real women, they did a good job of it. Now that women have exposed themselves not to be trustworthy, the ask of them has only grown.
Now you have to be both a woman in every sense, and a man to de deserving of a man's respect.


We spoke once of the 'masculine woman'.


I found a perfect visual of this concept...




I know this woman is a comedienne...
I know she is parodying women...and perhaps men too. (Is she Hamster 2-like? :-)
I know this is some kind of joke...
And I actually like this kind of woman (but does this say something about my own - perhaps flawed - brand of femininity, I wonder? :-)

And yet...
I keep thinking something's wrong when I look at this woman :-)

Anyone care to explain to me why I might be feeling this way? Why do I feel something akin to Catholic guilt if I admit I like her, as though I am colluding with some sort of gender enemy, betraying my oath to the gender police to uphold traditional gender roles? Why am I so bothered with this? As Hamster 2 would say, why am I getting my knickers in a twist about something that really might not be so important in the grand scheme of things?


More importantly, how do you (if you are a man) react to this all-feminine but also weirdly masculine woman? Perfect balance of the masculnie and feminine, or a gender experiment gone wrong?


Please share! I am genuinely intrigued by this.


I have two conflicting views on the hypermasculinisation of society.

On the one hand, I am pleased that guys like Anonymous expect more of women. I think it's great that for the first time in history, women as a group are called to 'show their mettle' in this way. I see this as an opportunity rather than a failing.
This is largely because I have never seen women as lacking 'moral' or any other kind of agency. It did surprise me somewhat to see that so many men in the Manosphere have this view. My humble opinion is that while men may (in general) have more capacity for moral aptitude than women (except sexual, perhaps, in the younger years where women are intrinsically biologically wired to have more capability in this regard) this does in no way indicate that women are not endowed with this capacity intrinsically.
That many women have demonstrated a rather alarming departure from expectation does not equate to a biological ineptitude. It has to be a social programming issue.

So I think women should be just as accountable as men. I am not one to shirk away from the accountability issue.

So I am cool with Anonymous' way of thinking.

But here's the problem...

Other than for Nadia G, and a few other women like her, forcing women into 'a man's world' could be painful for both men and women.

The rise in masculine-style 'dating' may have been started by women, yes. The 'let's hang out' lifestyle is never ideal for women, whether we know it or not. If men continue to perpetuate it, and punish femininity with insults like 'gay', a whole lot of otherwise feminine-inclined women will end up as confused as I am :-)


My issue with the unintended consequences of hypermasculinity is that the meandering, indirect, 'scenic route' that femininity has always entailed will be dealt one last fatal blow.

And then what?

Femininity has taken many near-fatal blows in the last few decades.
Anonymous' words are the equivalent of a chilling 'do not resuscitate' order to an already flagging casualty.
This is what made me jump.

It is what it is. A runaway train. We all helplessly watch it leave the railtracks.
It would be interesting to see where it ends up.
Nowhere good, I suspect.

But I wonder if we women can turn this around?

Will this convo be the internal talk of many a woman in the future?

They want us to shake their hands and give them our word?
No problem! A lady's word is her bonde!
And it is sacred.
We will wear our dresses and do what is correctly asked of us, with no fuss.
We are not gay! We are women!

Yo.

I look forward to the day when this thinking is commonplace.
Not least because I shall have to pick Anonymous' jaw off the floor :-)



I know this post is long enough already :-) but I am curious about something else!

Anonymous, who are these women who are promising you stuff?

Is this the new way in the SMP? I never heard of any woman giving their 'word' on their future behaviour within a relationship. Have I missed a trend?

I have always believed that you men are visual, not just with your attraction cues when 'assessing' a woman, but also when you 'judge' her as wife or girlfriend potential or not, as the case may be.

It is women who 'listen' out for promises. We are auditory!

You men just watch for clues, don't you? So why does a woman's word matter to you?

Do I need re-educating on this?
Perhaps I do!

Maybe you could help me with this...

In the film 'Out of Africa', Denis and Karen are having an argument.

Curiously he says to her mid-argument: "You have no idea of the effect language has on me..."

This around the 8.10 mark in this video:


I have never understood this... What does he mean?

Are you and Denis a different breed of man? Are you 'new age men' or is this a regular thing with men in general? In which case, why am I soo misinformed?
Why do words have such a powerful effect on you? Or are you very much in the middle of the Gaussian distribution on this, and poor old Spacetraveller just needs to go back to school on the subject of men...?
:-)

I am afraid my confusion reigns supreme. Perhaps I could use this post to clear the muddy waters...






















































































55 comments:

metak said...

Invasion of the Hamsters, part 436835325634636... ;-)

It's funny to watch how much 'trouble' putting labels everywhere in OCD style can cause. ;-)

So, honoring ones agreements is something that men do and if men expect the same from women then it's the end of the world.. etc. etc.??

"Now he wants a woman's word to count like a man's does."

HA-HA! It seems we have a freshly incarnated soul from god knows where... BTW, I welcome you to "this" planet Earth 'anonymous'... ;-)

I have a serious question for you ST, why is it so important to put feminine-masculine-lady-gentleman everywhere?? Why can't certain things just BE?

"I keep thinking something's wrong when I look at this woman :-)"

Creepy, creepy... and what's with the skulls and baby dolls in the background?
I see this Nadia G is from Canada and she's almost like Avril Lavigne's clone, also from Canada btw, coincidence? Emo crap everywhere!! There should be a law that makes exorcising demons out of them legal... ;-)

"I have never understood this... What does he mean?"

Too long to explain... not in the mood... headache... ;-)

Hypermasculinity? In what way exactly?

...and, based on how women take pictures I'm fairly convinced that those two men were talking about that woman's gay friend making out with his boyfriend in the background and when women operate the devil's invention that takes pictures, it usually ends up that said woman 'takes' on circa ~90% of the picture and those gay men making out are somewhere in those few pixels left... ;-) So, you're sure they were talking 'bout the dress? ;-)

"I look forward to the day when this thinking is commonplace."

Not gonna happen.

"Is this the new way in the SMP? I never heard of any woman giving their 'word' on their future behaviour within a relationship. Have I missed a trend?"

LoL it's a text book example from my book "Tao of being an a-hole". You gotta know your 'victim', in this case the remaining beta providers willing to sign on for life of slavery in a society where all the laws are against him and he's clinging to his last straw while praying to god because deep down he knows that "her" word will last only for so long... (hypergamy+Brif.Law+...) It's also what those "women against feminism" or whatever they call themselves, will pick up...

Damn, it feels good to be an a-hole... ;-)

Spacetraveller said...

Metak,

"Invasion of the Hamsters, part 436835325634636... ;-)"

Yes, the Space invaders!

I suspect your beef with Anonymous is slightly different from mine, Metak.

I am saying that women also have a kind of honour code, but it is not as direct and as straightforward as men's (which sounds incredibly like I am giving women 'wriggle room' even to my own ears, LOL - but this is not so, I promise you!).

And I think you are saying that women do not have an honourable bone in their bodies and Anonymous is therefore crazy to expect such a thing.

I can of course see why you conclude such...but I disagree with your conclusion on the grounds that I have evidence to the contrary...but I need time to build a case :-)

But I will!

"I have a serious question for you ST, why is it so important to put feminine-masculine-lady-gentleman everywhere?? Why can't certain things just BE?"

The problem with the SMP nowadays is that we have distanced ourselves from the male/female divide. We have reached the end goal of feminism where everyone is a hemaphrodite. This is not working out for us. So I feel honour-bound to fight for the old way :-)

This is why things just can't be...I get an electric shock each time I endorse 'genderlessness' or 'equality'. It's not my fault, don't judge me :-)

"Creepy, creepy... and what's with the skulls and baby dolls in the background?"

The curious thing about Nadia G is that she is both highly feminine and highly masculine at the same time! The dress, the fact that she is a young woman in a kitchen, actually cooking, all make her feminine. But the highly masculine speech pattern and the gestures make her seem strangely masculine.
I realise she is playing a role - perhaps this 'bitchin kitchen' show of hers is just an extension of her comedy act...
And I suspect she is not at all like this in real life. But she makes for an interesting case study in just how much 'feminine energy' and masculine energy' can coexist in any one individual, male or female to be deemed 'normal'.

I notice you use the word 'creepy' when referring to her. Interesting...

This is not a word men usually use to describe a woman. It is very much the other way round. I wonder if I can read something into this?

Would you rather shake her hand or kiss her?
Would you rather give her leeway to do as her feminine spirit leads her, or would you hold her to her word, gentleman style?
Does a woman's demeanour or appearance determine the way a man treats her?

I find this subject interesting because it is a major source of headache for women particularly. We (women) are generally more masculine than our grandmothers were. But which masculine traits are acceptable in a woman and which are not? I discover the lines are not so clear-cut!

Spacetraveller said...


"So, you're sure they were talking 'bout the dress? ;-)"

I am 100% sure they were talking about the dress. 'Hanging out' with this girl, they had failed to see her as a woman, so they were unsure what to make of her when she put on a dress. All of a sudden, they were confronted with her femininity and they sought to insult it with a word normally used to insult men. 'Gay' is an insult to men. But they used it on a woman. Because they were used to seeing her as 'one of the boys'. I have come across this phenomenon countless times since that first time. It is a strange phenomenon but I can see why it is developing. Naturally feminine women will be the casualties of this particular phenomenon. The girls with more 'masculine energy' will be able to handle it. The problem might be that the feminine ones may be induced to 'lose' some of their femininty to be able to fit in. But that might be a mistake, as these same teenage boys, as they mature, find that they do like feminine girls afterall, as opposed to the tomboys they are used to 'hanging out' with!

What a weird world we live in :-)

"Damn, it feels good to be an a-hole..."

Can I reframe? You are a nice boy with an edge...

How's that?

metak said...

LoL calm down ST... we're talking about respect, honesty, honoring ones agreements... etc. These things should be the norm, nothing to do with 'feminine' or 'masculine'. So, no, there's no way back to the old way. New way or walk away... ;-)

Her speech pattern and the gestures might make her seem strangely masculine to you, but not to me. To me, she's creepy.

"Would you rather shake her hand or kiss her?
Would you rather give her leeway to do as her feminine spirit leads her, or would you hold her to her word, gentleman style?"


I might be young and dumb, but even I know that ^this^ = me getting so so screwed... and not in the good way... ;-)
First option would lead towards traditionalism 2.0. I get an electric shock each time I hear 'traditionalism'. It's not my fault, don't judge me :-) And the other option would make me a fool. Your word must actually have some value, which means you have to know that person. Otherwise what's the point? Any thief can give you his word.
Since you're asking about this particular woman... seriously, I would be running the other way... I can sense when something is not right...

"Does a woman's demeanour or appearance determine the way a man treats her?"

This is basic human behavior. It's how our brains operate in default auto-pilot mode... Remember "alpha fux, beta bux"? Large part of PUA teachings is based on making this mostly fake 'alpha' outlook so that women would treat you differently and yadayada...

It's supposed to be a cooking show, right?? So, what's with all the extra creepy (baby dolls in weird positions, emo-crap and whatnot)? I have no idea what she's like in real life... who cares, what's the point in guessing? Run Forrest, run! ;-)

"I am 100% sure they were talking about the dress."

Ah, now I get it... it doesn't come as a surprise to me since it's a rare opportunity to see a woman wearing a dress nowadays. I remember when I was at University and girls would put on 'fancy' dresses for the exams we had at this one old+pervert professor. To see it so clearly with my own eyes... ;-) objectification? LoL not when it suits them... ;-) good times...

It comes down to what E. Vilar wrote about how men's clothes are almost like uniforms and are meant to be functional and simple. Now women are being transformed into drone workers and this also reflects in the way they dress and it's only going to get worse.
Gotta get out of this society and fast...

"Can I reframe? You are a nice boy with an edge..."

I think I've managed to erase most of those 'nice' bits... ;-)
Is there a sign "Don't feed the hamsters!"? If not, here's a cookie for your hamsters, ST. Take care.

Anonymous said...

Hi Spacetraveller,

Your hamsters are hilarious. Tom Wolfe wrote an essay on "The New Journalism." There's four pillars, one of which is realistic dialogue. It's dialogue that make us really picture a character in print. I so saw your cockney hamster and your francophone hamster!

I was at a traditional Latin Mass wedding a couple of weeks ago. Before the Mass itself, the couple exchanged their vows in English. I actually heard the husband say to his wife: "I plight my troth to thee"; and the wife said to her husband: "I plight my troth to thee."

Troth is such a rich word in English ... of course it's archaic :)

The Oxford English Dictionary probably has two pages on it. I just googled, and the first definition I got was:


troth
trôTH,trōTH/
noun
1.
archaicformal
faith or loyalty when pledged in a solemn agreement or undertaking.
"a token of troth"
2.
archaic
truth.

Which is a good start.

So Holy Mother Church, at least, thinks that a woman can pledge faith and loyalty, in holy matrimony, at least.

I know that you also think a woman can plight her troth. If I understood your post, you objected to how she is currently asked to do that. Is that right?

Please say more about that. And how it's different from the trothplight of a man.

I think trothplight is what modern women -- and men -- are taught to fear most! But I think there's some way in which women are more afraid than men.

It maybe that if you seriously expect human beings to plight their troth, you have to raise them that way from infancy. You prepare to plight your troth (and not just in marriage; there would be other lifelong things); you plight your troth; and then you live your troth (or your plight :) for the rest of your life.

And you need a society where that would be the greatest thing somebody could do. To us that would smack of feudalism. But I just finished rereading The Lord of the Rings, and trothplight is an essential theme. For example, Sam's pledge of loyal (and beyond) service to Frodo ... it saves Middle Earth.

Back in our earth, I remember a woman with whom I was in love who said, over and over and again, about marriage: It's for the rest of your life! She said that as if it were an evil doom, not a solemn and blessed undertaking.

I was in love so I would have married her; I guess she wasn't in love with me. Nobody can plight their troth without their love goggles on?

But I think it was more than that. As they're talking about over at Dalrock's, it's the _women_ who have a commitment-phobia. I was so relieved to see that. It so fits my experience. Men have a fear of commitment, everybody has a fear of commitment nowadays -- but not like woman.

Would you agree? Say more, ST, if you think so. What's going on?

Your loyal reader,

Mac

Spacetraveller said...

Metak,

I agree with you that in the end, honour, respect and goodwill are to be expected from both sexes. I am just saying that the WAY in which men and women arrive at this destination differs greatly.

Mac,

"So Holy Mother Church, at least, thinks that a woman can pledge faith and loyalty, in holy matrimony, at least."

Oh yes! The Catholic Church (and indeed all of Christendom) absolutely believes in the moral agency of women and this is one way in which we are indeed 'equal', i.e. before God. No-one ever claimed that 'judgment day' applies to men only. At least, I haven't heard that yet, and I have my ear pretty much to the ground on this topic :-)

That some saints were of the belief that women are 'weaker' spritually than men (eg. St Augustus, St. Jerome and co.) only serves to strengthen my argument, I think. These men are indeed allowing for that 'wriggle room' I speak of.

I thank you and Metak for pushing me on this topic, because I feel quite lost in my thoughts on this one, and I appreciate the chance to consolidate my thinking here.

It is hugely helpful that you mention Dalrock's post on commitment. It helps my argument a great deal!
Here's why...

So we as a society believe that men are 'commitment phobes'.

My response is...

(And Hamster 1 in her francophone temperament firmly agrees with this! She thanks you for your comment about her hilarity and is now considering a career as a stand-up comedienne...Mac, what have you done! LOL):

Mais ils faux!
But they should be!

They are being effective gatekeepers, no? If I wwere in charge of something that I was mandated to guard with my life, I would make sure it was not handed around like smarties. I would gaurd it well. Men, being the gatekeepers for commitment to marriage, the staple of society itself, are doing a great job if they are 'phobic' about entering into matrimony. Women, as the buyers of said 'commitment' actually do not have to work too hard for this. In ages gone by, most women easily got married. BECAUSE women were also effective gatekeepers to another commodity that men wanted :-)

But now that the commodity offered by women is at all all-time low-price, the value of commitment has only risen. It is not men's fault that this has happened...

But STILL, women can turn this around. In the words of a famous comedienne, we are doing it wrong!

And of course the other way we continue to push up the price of commitment, is by denying the married man the commodity which should be 'free' to him, whilst offering the commodity to UNmarried men for which this commodity should be expensive, so the unmarried men have no inentive to go from 'full to hungry' in 60 seconds...

It doesn't make sense to me, but then again, I ain't the brightest...

Spacetraveller said...

So, a man having made his commitment, takes the direct route. He stays loyal to his bride. He has no other 'distractions'. And no, his job doesn't count as a 'distraction' because to HIM, having a solid job is one way he can keep said bride. Workaholic men get an unfair bad press, because afterall, they are fulfilling a biosocial function.

A woman however, is 'distracted' from her marriage by many things. This has always been so, but I think women of old managed somehow to keep within the straight and narrow path in the end - just. They took the scenic route to true commitment to the man, but my point is that they got there in the end, not taking the direct route.

Weddings distract women from marriage. More so nowadays, but I suspect this has always been the case!

Children distract women from their marriage more than it does men. Bellita once said on this blog that there is only one woman in a man's life that he cannot really 'detach' from - and that is (apart from his own mother of course!), the mother of his children. I was intrigued by this comment for a long time, and I now conclude that it cannot be completely true, because otherwise, there would be a bond akin to marriage between baby mommas and baby daddies. And we all know that there is no such bond. A man's attachment to his children, I have observed, is very closely tied to the relationship he has with their mother. The same man who can walk away from his kids because their mother is just too unpleasant to deal with, could be inseparable from his children with another woman. This might be a 'dirty little secret' that many men would rather not accept as true, and of course I understand why, but this is what I observe.

A woman's ties to her children however are completely unrelated to the relationship with their father(s). The rise in single motherhood is partly a testament to this. (I say 'partly' because of course the other part of the equation is that there has to be a source of provision - in many cases herself or a third party other than the father of the child(ren) and this may play an important part of the equation...)

Anyway, another distraction comes in the form of the many associations women are wont to make throughout life. As the 'social' party, her attention is directed at so many other directions - away from husband. HE on the other hand is fixated on his wife, usually for life. Even he has a thousand affairs, his heart is fixed on his wife (usually). In his mind, he has committed. He is loyal. He is keeping his word. To him, the woman is 'flighty' for diverting attention away from him to the kids, his parents, his friends, the postman, everyone but HIM.
To the woman, she too is loyal, of course. She is bearing the kids FOR HIM. She tries to get along with his pesky mother and bitchy sister FOR HIM. She befriends his colleagues FOR HIM. But alas, HE sees it differently.

This is but one example of the different ways both sexes 'commit'.

They are both 'committing', but in totally different ways, designed by Nature.

Spacetraveller said...

Anonymous gave me the impression he expected 'her word' in the direct, 'let's shake hands on this' way. I might have misinterpreted his meaning, of course, but I am glad to have the opportunity to air this issue nonetheless.

The issue being that both men and women are now expected to do things the direct, MASCULINE way, because women became more masculine FIRST. But the tragedy is that this does not suit women so well. Women fare better doing things indirectly, I think. We have to, for many reasons...some good, some bad :-)

So you are absolutely right, it is not the accountability I am moaning about, it's the HOW that bothers me.

"I actually heard the husband say to his wife: "I plight my troth to thee"; and the wife said to her husband: "I plight my troth to thee.""

This is so beautiful, I can't tell you!

Latin masses are like 'chick magnet' to me. I have a comedy plaque in my room which lists '10 reasons to be Catholic'. Number 5 on the list is 'cos I get to go to Latin Mass'. LOL!

Combine Latin Mass with a wedding, and you got my attention :-)

I thought I had never heard the word 'troth' before - you are right, it's an exquisitely beautiful word - but of course now I realise I have! 'Betrothed' meaning 'engaged to be married' is still in usage to this day, at least in many versions of the bible. 'Troth' seems to be very closely associated with the loyalty of marriage, doesn't it? A special type of loyalty indeed. It's a wonderful word.
What a lovely way to exchange vows!


"Back in our earth, I remember a woman with whom I was in love who said, over and over and again, about marriage: It's for the rest of your life! She said that as if it were an evil doom, not a solemn and blessed undertaking.

I was in love so I would have married her; I guess she wasn't in love with me. Nobody can plight their troth without their love goggles on?"

I am sorry to hear this, Mac :-(

You are right, love goggles 'sweeten the deal' for those about to undertake what is a big commitment. This is God's trick to get humans to do it. Whilst it can be undertaken without 'love goggles', it sure helps the process along. Having said that, it also leads some people to be led down the wrong path unfortunately, mistaking the 'love' for true commitment...

Anonymous said...

ST,

Woman's Word is a relevant issue for me on an almost daily basis. It's the reason I arrived here at the Sanctuary in the first place.

Years ago I told all my non-family women acquaintances that I wont tolerate them unless they renounce feminism (my initial reason for this was a terrible double tragedy in my life, caused by feminists and feminism). A number of women tried to remain in touch with me. The number has dwindled to 5. They don't know each other.

Three of these women now swear that they have renounced feminism. They each say (separately) they are devotees of GirlWritesWhat, Erin Bizzey etc etc, that they followed a recent mens rights conference in the US, and they can quote a lot of detail as to why they detest feminism. Some of the detail is impressive, and new to me.

They want to be back in my life. A non-MGTOW friend tells me I'm mad, that any of these women is a real catch and I should snatch hold of one of them while they're still there. He says one woman in particular ("M") truly does love me with a "story book love". Many times he and other guys tried to put the moves on her but she always said she was keeping herself for her only love, and there would never be another.

M knows there are 4 other women who try to visit me here. M lies at an end of my secluded beach, far enough to be out of my way but where I can't help but see her. When we catch each others eye she gives me a dainty wave then goes back to her book. I can't call her a stalker. She's gentle and respectful and to all appearances just a lovely person.

She handed me something the other day. It was a small book she had put together with coloured wool. It was full of deep little comments and could see myself in some of them. It was charming.

When we speak, we laugh and smile and I'm reminded of the huge amount of fun and humour we got out of each other in my pre-MGHOW days. And the sight of that body, those legs on my beach, her face slightly flushed... mrrrh-UH! I could tear out my hair in frustration.

And yet... I remain MGHOW. How many women have pledged undying love for a man, only to become one of the majority who initiate divorce when she feels she's worrth it? How many women absolutely meant it when they told him they love him, but a few years later are accusing him of DV to force him out of his home and the lives of his children?

How can I trust the word? I see only MGTOW, or a potentially ruinous blind trust.

Glissando Down Under

metak said...

"I agree with you that in the end, honor, respect and goodwill are to be expected from both sexes. I am just saying that the WAY in which men and women arrive at this destination differs greatly."

There's a difference. What I believe 'anonymous' was referring to was that almost innate 'trust' that exists among many men. Sort of gentleman's agreement or whatever... and it exists among men, but 'anonymous' thinks he can expect the same from women towards men and I believe he drank all of my moonshine supply when he wrote that. ;-) Correct me if I'm wrong, but I just can't see this happening, not even among women themselves let alone from women towards men. Sure there's the "Borg consensus" type of behavior in women that Stardusk talked about, but there's nothing honorable in that and it sure won't improve ones reputation.

When applied to 'SMP' and 'marriage'... you get precisely what Glissandro wrote, a death trap for men.
Marriage becomes a 'Stockholm syndrome', you know how the laws are stacked against you, police state is getting out of control pretty much everywhere, you know you can't really 'trust' your wife (damn Briffault, hypergamy, etc.), good old "it's cheaper to keep her..." kicks in and whatnot. ;-)

I hope I was clearer this time round, ST... ;-)

Glissandro, brother down under, stay strong! ;-)

Anonymous said...

Brother metak, I am staying strong, but my god it's tough.
I've tried prostitutes, but it doesn't work for me - just an expensive way of beating the monkey.

I don't often get down like this. Actually, I'm not depressed so much as sexually frustrated almost to point of sheer lunacy. She's there on my beach, and the only other person for miles around is me. And when she gets up to go for a swim MY GOD! a divinely beautiful woman. In paradise. My paradise. On her own. My mates think I'm mad, and there are times when I begin to wonder if they are absolutely right.

Dammit, I'm gunna throw a party tonight and get pissed with my MGTOW mates (I'll wait until she's gone first, in her cute little runabout boat).
Bonfire on the beach. Sausage sizzle. Skinny dip... maybe hire a stripper or two? No. No. Just kidding.

Thanks for your support, brother. I needed it today.

Glissando Down Under

Anonymous said...

@glissando down under,
Where is this beach, dude? Sounds like I would be tempted to go but hahah, I would be in the same predicament as you! There is the answer to ST's question about a woman's word - what difference does it make when you will not be taking her hand - therefore the predicament is returned to the woman - alone on a beach and "where have all the good men gone" - well they, like you, like me, are MGTOW and it is a lock that shuts but once and thereafter cannot be opened. 

But the fault really lies with women like Ronda Roisey(?) who has just been in the Expendables 3. Now there is yet another movie I will no longer watch. That list is being added to at an alarming rate. It was a boys club (yeah) now it is a place for women to prove their masculinity. Invading men's spaces is the real fatal blow for femininity. I would hope that women hate her. I will not hold my breath, not now that the God of Thunder (yes I said God not Goddess) is a woman called Thor (just threw up)....

There is some hope. Over at YouTube I saw a woman making a parody of putting on makeup like a feminist, and later saw her again posting on a tumblr called women against feminism. I thought how nice for her to have something of her own to enjoy as she blindly kept referring to everything as female.

I am sure every male has noticed however that women are not about to share their women's spaces with the male gender. She constantly referred to body parts like lips or facial skin as feminine, so makeup was a nice women's space for her with no men in it. Apparently men don't have these parts, yet if I were to argue with a woman about boxing gloves (knuckles) or working out (abs) being for men, just guess what she would say. Even to apply the feminist argument of replacing the word women with people (don't get me started) doesn't enter into it when it comes to the women's space of makeup. "when PEOPLE apply lipstick" etc. Never gonna happen.... and so likewise I am never gonna give women like Roisey any credit. 

Nope never. You heard me n.e.ve.r. 

I do think it is high time women called her out on it. It is time women realised that the animosity to women in general being displayed by men now is generated by 'creeps' like Ronda Roisey. So long as the boys club is for girls but the girls club is not for boys then this problem is never going to go away. Men are wired to ensure this never happens. 

Do I wanna wear makeup - no - but I sure as hell want women to either get out of my space or share theirs. Since they can't I will continue to feel like Denis (hint here's your answer ST) 

Karen insults Denis when she speaks to him like a man-speaks over him confronts him without feminine courtesy -  it angers Denis because as a man he cannot continue without braking his resolve to deal with a woman genteelly forcing him to be ungentlemanly and as he won't, he won't continue (he would soon be too angry) thus the conversation has come to an end unresolved and in a manner that enables Denis to see he must go his own way - good pick ST!

And a very good post by you.

metak said...

@ Glissandro

Enjoy the view my brother! ;-) You can always check if there's a possibility of becoming FWB or something... just forget about signing a contract and selling your soul... ;-) you're living the dream on that beach of yours my brother! ;-)

Yeah, prostitutes don't work for me neither, waste of money really...

@ Anonymous July 25, 2014 at 4:40 AM

I just watched the Expendables 3 last night and it's the usual Hollywood BS propaganda... oh, and there's the omnipresent crap repeated ad nauseam, US = 'good' guys killing everyone else around the world... lol ;-) I lol-ed again when I heard the 'bad' guys in the movie talking in what appears to be our Bosnian (serbo-croatian) tongue, I mean c'mon??? ;-) These stupid Hollywood movies can't get any dumber, but I'm sure they'll prove me wrong! ;-)

Anonymous said...

Anon at July 25, 2014 at 4:40 AM :

The beach is in New zealand. I guess that's not telling much, since NZ has a longer coastline than that of the USA! It's winter here at the moment, temp dropped down to 4 degrees C last night, but the days are bright and sunny.

I have no neighbours. The only way to reach my beach is by boat. My cottage is on a rock cliff above the beach. No cars, no roads.. I can throw a stone into the sea from my front lawn. There are acres of lawn out back, all the way into the native forest. Plenty of space for my mates to pitch tents. My power comes from solar panels and wind turbine at the top of the hill, although I also have lines connecting to the national grid and broadband.

I really do live the dream, as brother metak would say. Would it sound boastful to call myself the ultimate MGHOW? Hell yes it would, but I think it could be true. I only take on contracts when I feel like it (I'm an MEng) and I've made a lot of money from my (estwhile) favourite pastime, extreme sports for the camera.

I no longer do that stuff, I'll turn 30 this year, and anyway there's too much else to do, hunting, gathering, scuba, fishing, growing fruit and vege (I got the gardening idea from little huts in the countryside I saw in brother metak's part of the world). AND most of all, I have a powerful boat with a range that can take me to the Pacific Islands or Australia (I could even do smuggling if I want - just kidding of course!). I keep a berth at a marina in the closest town and a Bugatti bike there. That's about it. Not much more baggage than that. A few sticks of furniture, diving gear, computer + big TV + stereo, sheep to crop the lawn, horse and dog. Ha!

Who would be crazy enough to risk all this with a woman? Not even THIS woman. Hot damn, she's lovely..

If only there were some way to (unfoolishly) trust the word, I could have it all with this one. A paradise complete with an Eve. But I aint got no crystal ball. It's a shame. I'm going to have to tell her there's no possibility of ltr. Man o man I'm going to hate doing this. It's very obvious that she loves me as deeply as a woman could ever love, and I'm terrified I might destroy her.

Damn damn damn damn DAMN. THINK OF ME BROTHERS AS I DO THIS.

We must go for the dream and hang onto it, brothers all!

Glissando Down Under

Anonymous said...

With you all the way glissando. Inspire others with your resolve.Yes you are being noticed, that is what we who go our own way do. More power to you brother.

Anonymous said...

(from the musical "South Pacific")

We've got sunlight on the sand
We've got moonlight on the sea
We've got mangoes and bananas we can pick right off a tree
We've got volleyball and ping-pong and a lot of dandy games
What ain't we got?
We ain't got dames!

We get packages from home
We get movies, we get shows
We get speeches from our skipper
And advice from Tokyo Rose
We get letters doused with perfume,
We get dizzy from the smell
What don't we get?
You know damn well!



I'm laughing out loud. I must have been there myself. lol.

Even if a man doesn't have a woman, he must find some unselfish, constructive action he can do for fellow creatures. Human, preferably :) . Otherwise, he will become very, very ill, spiritually.

I know -- I been there too!


-- Mac

Anonymous said...

Are you sure it doesn't have to be a dame?

Spacetraveller said...

@ Metak,

I liked your comeback at me with your 'don't judge me...!'

You definitely deserve the post I wrote about you - 'Metak got Game'.

I was only parodying women who use this phrase when they have done something naughty and don't want to face it, but I am glad you took the bait and returned it in kind.

The reason I like this is not really that you seem all of a sudden a 'bad boy' for doing this, but I think it is a gentle (yes, it wasn't harsh, aggressive, crushing, which I appreciate) way of reminding me that whilst there are many things a man must 'forgive' a woman for, because it is 'feminine nature', there are also things that men must be forgiven by women for, because it is 'masculine nature' hence the mutual 'don't judge me'. It is a 2-way street. The problem is, women are encouraged to 'own' this sort of 'defence' and I think it is detrimental to personal development.
So thank you for yet another (gentle) way that men can 'civilise' women!

I hear what you say with regard to your response to 'Anonymous'.

Actually, this lack of expectation that young men must have towards women, like Anonymous', I wonder, could it be a good thing?

I almost wonder if I could find a way to 'bat for the other side' and come up with a post entitled 'Women going on the wild side (WGOTWS) - good or bad for men?' in a similar vein to the MGTOW post.

But somehow, I think I already know the answer to THAT question! :-)

Low expectations may be a good thing indeed, because it means you never get disappointed, but I wonder how enjoyable a life with no disappointments really is??

Hm...I guess only marginally better than a life full of disappointments? :-(

Spacetraveller said...

Glissando,

Thanks for the tip on glissando! My fingertips hurt whenever I try it, but perhaps my technique is wrong :-( So practise, practise, practise for me...

'M' indeed sounds lovely. You ARE crazy for turning your back on her. But of course, you know her, and the rest of us don't. You are doing what's best for yourself. I am sure you are not MGHOW just because of a weird allegiance to the 'brotherhood', but you are watching for signs of true loyalty to you, even in a woman who swears blind she doesn't like feminism. Fair play to you. It is only prudent.
I don't complain.
I however feel 'M's pain if you 'let her go'. Hey, je suis une femme! Don't judge me! (Erm, that was my francophone hamster speaking there, lol...)

By the way, I notice a typo when she spake to Mac - 'Ils faux' should read 'il faut'.

If 'M' renounces feminism because she really dislikes this ideology (and not just to get into your good books), then she is not really 'promising' you anything. She is bettering her own life, with or without you in it. If you don't take her up, she will be a better wife for someone else, better than if she embraced feminism with abandon.
And even then, she will get dangerously close to the boundaries of 'non-committance' and the job of her husband would be to steer her back to the path he wants, from time to time. It isn't as exhausting as you think, you know...because essentially she would have the correct package to begin with, because she would have been vetted sufficiently prior to commitment.

Why do you torture yourself so, when you have a beautiful woman on your island? :-)

And we women are the illogical ones?
:P

Your situation reminds me of a film I shall review shortly. Stay tuned!
:-)

Spacetraveller said...

Mac,

'Even if a man doesn't have a woman, he must find some unselfish, constructive action he can do for fellow creatures. Human, preferably :) . Otherwise, he will become very, very ill, spiritually.'

So true!

I suspect the man I referenced who had been MGHOW a few posts back was happy in himself because he had taken on a father role to his great nephew, his sister's grandson.

He had focussed on something other than his own self. In the end, he was giving of himself to someone else. And that was the source of his redemption, so to speak. I never saw a non-biological father speak so warmly of a son...
His eyes literally lit up whenever he mentioned that young man's name.

@ Anonymous at July 25th, 4.40 AM,

Thank you for your answer re Denis' response to Karen. I see what you mean about her lack of courtesy to Denis. Throughout the film, one gets the impression that Karen is indeed not at all feminine - she seems a bit of a 'go-getter'. For instance, she propsed to Bro, not the other way round, and as Denis always teased her, she kinda felt she 'owned' the Africans who worked for her...

I was interested in his use of the word 'language' in his reproach to her. Are you saying that it is not the 'language' per say which is important here, but the fact that he was confronted by her in a disrespectful manner? If she had been visually aggressive, perhaps he would have said 'you have no idea of the effect of imagery on me', or some such phrase?

Just this morning, a man I work with mentioned how much the *tone* of a woman's voice affects him. He joked that he can successfully block out the content (if the woman is upsetting him verbally) but what he can't deal with is the *tone*.

I find that interesting - perhaps Denis found the *tone* of Karen's whinging unbearable?

If this is the case, then men and women are absolutely identical on this issue, because when women communicate, we go on what we can deduce from the *tone* rather than content, as well. Which is why what we *feel* about something said is more important to us than what was actually said, objectively.

Interesting!

Thanks!


Anonymous said...

I explained to M why a relationship between us is impossible. We knew each other in my pre-MGHOW days, so she already knew why I loath feminism. She knew the background - the people involved, and how it panned out.

The feminism juggernaut destroyed two very close friends of mine. Their wives, having been happy and loving towards their husbands, suddenly found feminism at the same time, then set about wrecking their men. The establishment helped them and motivated them in every possible way. The female herd mentality - the law, the police, welfare, the media, all offered sympathy and support and free assistance to those two women while they took their men apart. Every aspect of it was a tax-funded assault against the men, who lost their homes, their children, their livelihood, their liberty, and eventually their lives.


Back when those women were blushing brides, their vows were sincere, and they both loved their husbands for many years. They were close relatives of mine. I stayed in their homes many times, and knew them well. I know what happened. The men didn't change. The wives changed, together. They decided they deserved to get whatever they wanted "because yer worth it". The patriarchy (heterosexual white men) had always prevented everyone else from leading fulfilled lives. "Fulfilled lives", for these women, involved cuckolding their husbands in the matrimonial bed, accusing them of DV (which meant the men had to leave home and avoid their children while the cases against them were being rigged), and the usual rape of assets and income.

The two husbands were fine men, NOT losers. Their wives and children wanted for nothing. Sure the men worked hard, but they were loving and attentive to their wives and were both great fathers.

The thing I dislike more than anything about this tragedy is the way those men died, abandoned in hopeless despair. The system ground them down until at the end there was nothing left. It was deliberate, efficient destruction. A job. The ultimate solution. I vowed that I'd never let it happen to me - or to other men if I could prevent it.

There's more than just a pretty face at stake here. Okay, I let rip a lot of emotion in a previous post. It came from my frustration at the blatantly ephemeral nature of "the word" today. Heartfelt, genuine, tender, loving, committed and giving one day; cold, indifferent, dismissive, hateful the next.

I didn't arrive here out of brotherhood, or singing silly songs on a beach.

Glissando Down Under

Spacetraveller said...

Glissando,

Oh, I am very sorry to hear of the tragic and painful deaths of your friends.

I literally winced when I saw the 'because yer worth it' bit.

Your friends' stories show in full technocolour why this phrase is so dangerous.

You may have seen the story of the British woman who wants to go to America to shack up with a prisoner, doing the rounds lately. That woman has THREE little children, who she is quite happy to put to one side whilst she 'follows her dream' because 'deserve'.

Her kids apparently need a happy mother. NOT to be happy themselves (which presumably having Mother around would ensure). No, it's Mother who needs to be happy, over and above the needs of the children. This line of thinking is so pervasive these days that I can't help wondering, who is spreading this rubbish around? And WHY?

About 'the brotherhood', don't get me wrong. There is nothing wrong with an allegiance to 'the brotherhood', actually. It is only natural. I get it. But as Mark Minter shows, the brotherhood, if it stands in the way of personal happiness...

I am all for 'the sisterhood' too (notice my pleas for 'M', whom I don't even know :-).... until a man I care about is hurt. Then I have to make a choice as to which is more important - blind faith in 'the sisterhood' or sticking to what's right and just...

But...to punish the *wrong* person for someone else's crimes is not the aim, as you well know.

If you are certain 'M' will turn out to be just like those women who hurt your friends, then of course have nothing to do with her!

I was only going by your own high praise of her - and I was a bit confused as to why you would turn away a perfectly good 'prize', so to speak. From how you described her, I was under the impression you were probably the envy of many a man!
But as you explain, there are other factors in play.
I respect that.
And I wish you the best of luck in clearing the air with her.

You must do what is right for yourself. You already are, it seems.
Ignore my hamsters - they are biased :-)

The involvement of the government, the law, 'the establishment' is a rather frequent factor in the cases you describe.

Yes, there are many theories as to why these institutions are so heavily invested in the slow destruction of the family.

But it all seems so pointless to me. Is there something else we are missing? I have a feeling there must be.

What could be the missing link?

I wonder if it can be found before total Armageddon ensues...

Anonymous said...

The experience was enough for me to describe them for a thousand years. Not anecdotal.

Anonymous said...

"Ignore my hamsters - they are biased :-)"

No. I don't think so.

Seriously, ST, I am rather trollied. My sister would say "I am totally trollied". I like your site. You're not biased. Why do you think you buggers are still here?

Anonymous said...

Hell, I meant to say Why do you think US buggers are still here?

Glissando Down Under

Anonymous said...

I confess I approached my keyboard with some trepidation this morning, and anxiously glanced at what I'd left in the Sanctuary last night. I'm sure I'm not the only man who has similar concerns in the site such as this. We want to be direct, without wrecking the place. (I have a sneaking suspicion that I might already have torched some other portals here. What happened to the Jerr?)

Over the last few weeks I have strayed from my teetotaller habits. This change in behaviour shall cease, I promise. Take the word of a man!
(To be honest, I think quasi-teetotallism was the best I ever achieved.)

I have brought down gloom upon the Sanctuary. My apologies, ST, and thank you for trying to keep it light.

Now here's a challenge for you: how about introducing your hamsters to 'la belle dame sans merci'? Anyone who could put a positive spin on that one would lift the gloom from my piteous soul.

"I saw pale kings and princes too,
Pale warriors, death-pale were they all;
They cried—“LA BELLE DAME SANS MERCI
HATH THEE IN THRALL!"

Wow

I'll understand if you put it in the "too hard" basket. It's sure too hard for me!

Yes, keep practising the glissando. Ignore the dreadful racket and be positive! Be bold! Approach it with passion and zeal! You'll build up calluses, then it will be OK. Need any more tips, you let me know.

Glissando Down Under

metak said...

@ Brother 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"... ;-)

Cheer up, brother! (now, the order has you on their watch list muahahahaha ;-)

What keeps me smiling and happy for the most part is:
- the fact that I'm an a-hole... obviously.. ;-)
- learning more about the nature of reality, our species, etc. etc.
- living like there's no tomorrow... you never know...
- ... (can't say more, I'm afraid for my own safety... "the order" is already watching me... ;-)

What happened to Jerr? Yoda used the force on him... he's toast! ;-)
Lesson is, don't mess with a little green ET that's 900 years old and has the force on its side, and a powerful ally this force is... ;-)

Anonymous said...

Hey, guess what!

M asked me to sit beside her, then she kissed me on the forehead and said "if I told you I love you more than ever I'd be lying because you already had me as much as I can be had, brother Glissando!"

M has been visiting this site - she has read all my posts ab initio! So I thought, okay, that's me donald ducked. However, she was fine with it, and it turns out the positives (of her seeing my posts) outweigh the negatives.

She looked at the expression on my face and burst out laughing. I had to laugh too, and we rolled around on the sand laughing our heads off. I invited her up here to show her my latest post, asked if she'd like to enter a post of her own, but she laughed again and said "Let's not overdo it completely!"

She wrote this down and asked me to add it:
Hi ST, I love ya site (chuckles)
The Man finally invited me into his den ;) I aim to stick around for like, half an hour? He's not likely to kick me out after he types this... invitation!
Just so you know, he can put whatever he likes about me or us, I hope the bombshell I dropped on him deosn't put him off!
Love M :)

And it's goodbye from me and goodbye from her

Glissando Down Under

metak said...

You two lovebirds ain't fooling anyone! You hear me brother Glissando?! ;-)

I had one my "visions" yesterday (ST knows about my "visions"...), but I kept my mouth shut 'cos you were kinda down and negative...

...but now, you've invited M into your house? ;-)

So, let me tell you more about my "vision" even if you're gone... I "saw" 'you', running round the house, chasing little buggers... ;-)
...and M was laughing her arse off...

I wish you two all the best... TAKE CARE!

LOL ;-)

Anonymous said...

@Brother metak,

Message received and understood.

Glissando Down Under

Anonymous said...

@Brother metak,

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.

She's as sincere as the word can be in this day and time. I'm too old to love a woman for singing a song (Who wrote that or similar? Was it Shakespeare? Marlow? Webster?)

Meantime, what, Yoda zapped the Jerr? Pity, I was getting to quite like the old coot. BUT... if there's a choice to be had, give me Yoda any day. Let's agree on that one, brother!

Ditto the things that keep you smiling.

These lofty portals must indeed be made of strong stuff, else they could never have contained the likes of you - and now me. And yet I'm wondering, will the long-suffering stalwart who bolsters this place, ST, share our confidence in its durability? Here's hoping...
ST, are you there?

Go in peace, brother, and keep right on smiling. You too, ST.

Glissando Down Under

Anonymous said...

I overlooked mentioning, I remain MGHOW

Glissando Down Under

metak said...

@ Brother Glissando

I'm really happy you've decided to listen to your heart and let go of the fear and what happened to your friends, my brother. Seriously, I was rooting for you since your first comment... I can 'sense' a whole lot about other people and it seems that I was right about you all along... life's too short, and if I may take off my a-hole mask for a moment... spend it on love... be a good man/father and M will know how to appreciate that. Mark my words... ;-)

Yup, Jerr got zapped... Yoda rocks! ;-)

Now I feel all 'fluffy' inside... lol ;-) Will keep on smiling...

Anonymous said...

Thanks, brother metak. Actually, M and I are not an item. I remain a MHGHOW ;)
She respects and, I think, even expects this. She once jokingly said she wishes she were a man and I were a gay MGHOW and she'd be as camp as a row of tents.

Things that make me smile:

1. Me. I derive much amusement from the utter absurdity of me.

2. The company of my friends.

3. Troubled young men. The son of one of those broken marriages I mentioned is now in a home for troubled young men. Once a week the young men from this home (late teens through early 20s) cruise out to see me. Most of them
had NEVER SPOKEN TO A MAN before they met me! Hard to believe. When I introduced myself they just looked back at me with dull eyes. They had no idea how to interact with a man.

Their manager told me "just do whatever you want, mate" before sitting down to do bookwork. She's a good manager, though, as I soon found out.

Man, those young blokes were hard going at first! It was like trying to get a response from the dead. I divided them into teams and we played rugby on the beach. They were wimps at first but I set a rough example and we ended up
playing a rough and tumble game. I broke up the fist fights and made them shake hands. Slowly the smiles started to appear.

In a later visit, I asked the manager if I could take them hunting. She held her finger to her lips and nodded her head. So off we went, taking turns on the horse. I showed them how to track and stay in contact with the dog. We caught a boar and they watched in amazement (and horror too, I think) as I killed it.

A week later we had a pork bbq, and it was hard to believe these were the same young guys I'd met a few months before. They were mates now, with all the joking and japing that camaraderie requires.

They will visit me again today. It has got to the stage where I find myself grinning like the cheshire cat whenever I see their launch in the bay. The guys crowd me these days, and follow me around like I'm the Pied Piper. It's a humbling experience. Today we will start building a Pa (Maori fort) out back. As an engineer, I prepare the design and organise the labour. Teamwork, pal.

Leg-pulling is an essential part of being a kiwi man. We rib each other mercilessly. We must learn self-ridicule, and when another man forces us to laugh at ourselves, it's a form of respect so profound that we rib him straight back, in gratitude. We get rid of a lot of aggression that way, and we learn things about ourselves and others - things that would never be
discussed openly. I taught these young guys to love being ribbed. There will be much horse-play and leg-pulling today.

M likes leg-pulling too, like when she got me to type that "message" to ST. I loved it. M got me good and proper! Now it is my duty to "pay her back". It's not easy to play a practical joke on a Kiwi because it happens so much, we
are in constant suspicion of each other in a fun sort of way.

Getting back to "A Woman's Word", any woman who can't laugh at herself is probably a princess.

When joking, men push the envelope more than women do. Men's comments get more and more outrageous until she finally snaps. The higher the snap-threshold, the better we know her.

A snapping point should exist, though, otherwise she will lack the female boundaries that a man expects. We like to know where and what those boundaries are, and whether they are worth respecting. We can quickly expose self-righteousness, or gender-supremacy, or "attitude" toward men, or the herd mentality.

Especially, we can expose a princess. There's a plague of princesses these days.


Glissando Down Under

Anonymous said...

ST,

Please ignore my suggestion re 'la belle dame sans merci'. It was a crazy suggestion.

Glissando Down Under

metak said...

@ Brother Glissando

Meh, I was just sitting and contemplating about life and what's going on round the world... you know, genocide in Gaza, Al-Qaida repackaged as ISIS, Ebola, etc. etc. basically world going insane, and it really gets you thinking 'bout what truly matters in life... and why you have to go for it! Since M is also reading this blog how 'bout you two have a nice quiet dinner or something, just enjoy each-others company and make our Creator proud and happy for a change? I'm sure he wouldn't mind resting his hand from all those face-palms... ;-)

WOW!!! It's awesome what you're doing with those young men!

You see my brother, this is exactly why I believe that those men inside the 'manopshere' or whatever who believe that surrogacy is actually a good thing, are bat shit crazy. So many children nowadays are suffering because of the stupidity of their parents...

No level of mgtow can compete with this thoughˇˇ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfY-SlC2XHc

Thank you for sharing that story with me, you made my day, and please keep on helping them as much as you can. ;-)

LoL ST knows better than to take me seriously... and 'princesses' are for 'princes', so f*ck them both I say. ;-)

Anonymous said...

@Brother metak,

"resting his hand from all those face-palms", yo, Bro, hahahaha! In Yoda-lingo: "face-palm resting I am, mmmmH?"

I am embarrassed to re-read my post about troubled young men. So much of is about me, myself, yours truly, wonderful me (cringe).

But you didn't see it that way. Thanks mate. I'm humbled, brother Metak.

Anonymous said...

@Brother metak,

I followed your link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfY-SlC2XHc

Your're dead bloody right, mate-o! Brilliant!

Glissando Down Under

Anonymous said...

Here's what I think of isis, ebola, feminism, et al:

" In ancient Damascus, a servant collapsed at his master's feet and begged for a horse so that he, the servant, could flee to distant Aleppo. The master hauled the servant to his feet and demanded an explanation.

'Down there', the servant pointed, 'down there in the market place, I saw Death wandering in the aisles. When Death saw me he stood stock still and glared. He glared at me, my Lord, no-one else! Just me!' The servant collapsed again and repeated his plea for a horse so that he, the servant, could flee to distant Aleppo.

The master was about to ask another question, but it died on his lips. This servant never spake falsehood. If this servant said he'd seen Death, then he had, indeed, seen Death.

So the master called for a horse. The servant, sobbing with gratitude, leapt into the saddle and sped away.

As he listened to the receding hoof-beats, the master became more and more angry. He strode down to the market place and confronted Death in the aisles. 'Why did you glare at my servant!', he roared.

'I did not glare', Death protested. 'Although I do confess to having stared at your servant in surprise.'

The master blinked. 'Surprise?'

'Yes', Death said, 'I was surprised to see your servant here in Damascus this morning, when I have an appointment with him in Aleppo this afternoon.' "

Glissando Down Under

Spacetraveller said...

Glissando!

I didn't forget about 'la belle dame sans merci'.

Unfortunately, your own 'belle dame sans merci' is....M.

Truckloads of apologies for the next post. Tell M to pull up a chair, and come sit with me. She and I HAVE to talk!

Right now!

Forgive me for the intrusion into your private affairs, you two...

If M has been reading my posts, and if she likes my words as she says she does, then she will understand what has just upset me...
And all of a sudden, I understand WHY you remain MGHOW despite all the good things you say about her.

Tell me if I am crazy to believe what I do about you two, or not, in the next post. I am curious...


Anonymous said...

ST,

I will let her read and absorb, first.

Glissando Down Under

Anonymous said...

The downside of paradise: I had intruders last night.

No-one can get up the cliff without setting off a gazillion alerts in my room, and anyone who approaches from the other direction - overland in the dead of night across extreme terrain - has to be (a) daft (b) lost (c) trouble.

The dog warned me at around 0215 hours. I went out with a rifle and thought I could smell turned earth on the offshore breeze, very faint and distant. As I went into the trees the only sound was the dog going crazy in the house. Nothing moved. They'd be waiting to see whether I was lying low or already out looking. About 200 metres in, there was the slightest whiff of a faint sweet scent. And this, ladies and gentlemen, is where a man must face the downside of living alone and miles from anywhere. This was organized crime. It had to be. No-one else would go to this amount of trouble to plant cannibis. They'd be armed.

Another 100 metres, I stopped and heard at least four of them moving inland up the slope. I kept watch in case some had stayed behind to jump me. An hour or so later I crept down and let the dog out. I followed him with a torch, wondering whether I'd be throwing a funeral service for him in the morning or joining him in the great beyond..

He paused to sniff something by his kennel and I yanked a clump of meat away from his nose. He led me to a partially-planted plot of weed and darted back and forth with his nose to the ground. No-one there.

The people behind this, whoever they were, knew not to approach by the cliff. They knew where the dog kennel is. They knew a hidden flat spot on the hill to plant their plot. They had fore-knowledge. Not many people have ever visited me at "cottage level". Not many at all.

However... their plan went wrong. During the day, I chain my dog to his kennel outside on those rare occasions when there are people around. Only some very close family members would know the dog sleeps inside at night. If he'd been outside and someone tossed him that meat - someone he knew - he'd have been dead on the spot.

So, which one of my "troubled young men" betrayed me? After I get the word to his bros, it wont be long before I know.

Spacetraveller said...

Glissando,

Sorry to hear of this.
Hope you (and your dog) are OK!

Anonymous said...

ST,

The dog and I are OK.

I boated to Auckland a couple of nights ago, primarily to see the Wallabies vs All Blacks test match at Eden Park, but also to take care of some business ;-)

By then I already knew which one of the "troubled young men" had betrayed me. Rather than ban him, I've insisted he visit here again. The other young men are waiting for the cue from me, which means his well-being is in my hands. I'll do my best with him. A man can't do more than that, eh?

As for the crims, a problem like this is never fully resolved. I might own the land, but in their eyes, they own the cannabis they planted. In destroying it, I destroyed their property. All I can do at this stage is make sure they respect me, which they do.

Anyway, the All Blacks won in a great game! That's 2 out of 2 so far in the Four Nations series!

Are you there @brother metak? The dream goes on, setbacks are there to be overcome! Peace, my brother!

Glissando Down Under

metak said...

@ Brother Glissando

"Are you there @brother metak? The dream goes on, setbacks are there to be overcome! Peace, my brother!"

Still here... confused more than ever... but, somehow still breathing...

Please, don't go all "grown up" on him. That's the whole problem with this world we live in. This is what men do! Rebel. It's normal. What is not normal is to make cannabis illegal and make money off of it. Bastards! You know what.. this just shows you that you have new talent on your hands to work with. So, they want to plant something? Great! How 'bout you make a plan for this awesome new project? A beautiful pond with different kinds of fish, plants and then expanding it to full blown aquaponics system? Later teach them to hook up a solar panel with a battery to power up aeroponics system.. etc. You know, brother Glissando, show them that if you want to have your piece of paradise, you have to make it. Respect based on 'authority' means nothing.

"When the student is ready the teacher will appear."

Teach, my brother! ;-)

Now I'm a bit jealous, you have your own army of workers... ;-)
I would already be planning world domination at this point. ;-)

Brother Marley upstairs in weed-heaven, watch over brother Glissando and his "young troubled men". Amen.

Anonymous said...

@brother metak,

I hope I'm not responsible for your confusion, brother?

The cannabis per se is not the problem. The fact that it's illegal and run by criminal gangs - that's the problem right there.

He brought the bad guys here, in the knowledge that they would eventually camp here. They'd treat my place as their own, and they'd "own" me too if I let them. Their intention from the get-go was to make me their b*tch. This would be a great place for a criminal operation, far from the law, a powerful boat, an experienced sailor... and drugs are the least of their crimes.

They don't want just the occasional use of a patch of my land, they want the whole shebang, me included. So he really did betray me, brother. With thugs as my only neighbours, paradise would be lost. "The dream" itself was at stake!

The young man is now their b*tch, which means he too is lost. If I'm to help him, I'll have to remove him from their grip. If I succeed, I'll have to powwow with them again or they'll take retribution. He's now their property, you see. In dealing with these gangs, it's like "there never seems to be an end".

When the authorities say they can deal with these situations, they are lying. They spend much more time and money playing hubby-daddy than to mere life-threatening stuff !

If your confusion is not to do with me, brother, but something to do with the furtherance of your dream I would be VERY concerned! You must pursue that dream, my brother!

Marijuana is illegal in your neck of the woods but the police tolerate the smoking of it I think? May brother Marley watch over you too, my friend, from his puffy cloud in the sky!

Glissando

metak said...

@ B.G.

Nope, not your fault. ;-)

Sorry, somehow my stupid brain never realized the gravity of the situation you're in... it feels like my mind just packed and left! ;-) Damn it! Hypergamy & Briffault in action! ;-)

Marijuana is illegal and no the police do not tolerate the smoking of it. If they can catch a kid smoking a joint they'll happily arrest him.
Power trip & stupidity. That's what it is.

I hope you sort it all out for the best, brother.

Anonymous said...

Thanks brother.

I will sort it out, is gonna take some time, is all. I'm planning to go further up the food chain and deal with the Big Bad Overlord direct.

Brother Marley's blessing upon you, my friend!

Spacetraveller said...

Glissando,

I just noticed that this comment of yours from Aug 29, 9:02PM was accidentally deleted.

I repost it here:

DOWNSIDE > UPSIDE

I had to bang heads and take names, but I got to meet the wicked old man who presides over the gangs. We exchanged gifts. I gave him a particular seafood for which he has a passion and which few divers, and no fishermen, can catch. That earned his respect. He gave me a 30 Year Old Glenfiddich.

I told him, no promises, but some time in the future I might see fit to bring him some more of the seafood delicacy. I said it as a joke, and he did smile at this blatant "reward for good behaviour" approach. These top crims often consider it an asset to have some clean "friends". I made sure he sees me as a CLEAN asset. We shook hands on his respecting my property and staying away from the young men.

I can imagine people thinking, how can this guy deal with crims unless he is one himself? My mother managed large tracts of agro-forestry. The crims shot her livestock for eating their drug plots. It happened again and again. We learned to deal with crims direct or through the Police. There are pros and cons both ways.

I should keep the Glenfiddich as an investment, but what the heck-- It's time to ease myself into a chair, nurse my wounds, and sip the spoils of war.

To ST, my brother, to all MGTOW wherever you are: I wish you were here to join me in a toast to The Dream! Wow this scotch is good.
BROTHERS MAY WE *ALL* HAVE THE DREAM !!
(ST too, if she's still walking the walk ;-)
LOL

Glissando Down Under bro

Anonymous said...

spacetraveller said, " I have never understood this... What does he mean?"

Language.... the answer is staring you right in the face, and you refuse to see it.

I taught my sons this, as the young man up above is teaching other young men.

It is not for me to teach you, however. Find an old man you are related to, and ask him. Not many old women know this, and no young women know it at all.

Learn it, and things change.

The Navy Corpsman

Spacetraveller said...

NC,

Welcome back!
Where ya been?
;-)

At the time I asked the question I genuinely didn't know what was up with Denis. See, I was focussing on the 'men are visual, women are auditory' Truth. Which is correct, but incomplete. I Someone upthread enlightened me on the matter (Anonymous, July 25, 4:40AM).
Now I understand that the saying above perhaps pertains to the 'attraction' phase. Men become more auditory later during the 'plateau' phase of a relationship with a woman. Pleasantness helps in this phase. Karen was being tiresome and Denis couldn't stand to be around her for any sustainable period of time without getting angry/exasperated with her. The tone of her voice made him feel like he was constantly getting nagged and that he was constantly 'on trial'. I see it now. Am I correct, or at least in the right ball park?

Anonymous said...

What is language, Miss Spacetraveller? What do we use it for, how is it used, and is it different for everyone?

Or is it something we must agree upon for anything to have meaning? Can we reinvent definitions, are we allowed to change it in any way we wish?

Even animals communicate... but only humans use such a multitude of sounds, both subtle and overt, with which to build civilizations.

Karen was attempting to control, without having any implied such right to do so... but this is not the reason behind his statement about language.

I will give you this much, and no more:

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. In English, my second tongue but one with which I have a love affair, this is as close as I am able to giving it away to you. Again, find an old male relative and ask him. Perhaps an old female, if she is both smart and observant about her world.

Remember the old post about men teaching the young boys how to be men? This goes back to the hunter/gatherer days of human existence. It has ALWAYS been such. Perhaps, as some have claimed across the 'manosphere', men did not properly teach the young men things they needed to know, in this past generation.

Or, perhaps, they were prevented from doing so... actively. Perhaps the young boys did not wish to listen, but rather play video games and engage in foolish pasttimes. It does not actually matter how it happened, but rather, that it did happen.

Think about that for a second... an entire generation of young people, cut off from the wisdom of their elders, by whatever means, for whatever reasons.

Some men, and some women also, did teach, however. They taught their own children, and did not rely upon schools and the government to provide a basic grounding in human societal relationships. Humans, ALL humans, are tribal... we gravitate towards those that look, sound and think like ourselves. This is both a blessing and a curse; the blessings and the curses should be obvious by now.

But looks cannot really be changed, and thoughts become set in stone by adulthood. What is left?

Sounds. Communications.


Language.

Now go find an old man and ask him. If you're lucky, he'll tell you.

Anonymous said...

Ah crap, that was from me.

And I was absent from the internet because of ill health. It appears that some things have changed, and others have remained the same.

Truly, nothing new under the sun.

The Navy Corpsman

Spacetraveller said...

NC,

Hope you are better now. Happy New Year!

Anonymous said...

And a Happy Christmas, Merry New Year to you, Miss Spacetraveller!

I'll be better, soon. Thank you.

The Navy Corpsman