The Sanctuary

He wants to be a priest

2012-03-14T13:34:00.000-07:00

This one is for the ladies. (But you are of course welcome to chime in gentlemen :-)
Has anyone pulled this one on you?

I suppose this post really outght to be entitled 'In defence of Catholic priests' to pair off nicely with this post.
But somehow, I prefer to spin it differently this time.

I am friends with many Catholic priests, young and old. I guess it comes with the territory of being a Catholic.
Priests are people too :-)

But it is precisely this thinking on my part which could lead to all kinds of problems. I am reminded of a comment Bellita made in one of her posts ages ago, where she describes making cookies for her local Catholic priest. In this case it turns out he is diabetic and doesn't actually like/want the cookies for this reason...but I sympathise with Bellita's goodwill.

Many women, at least in traditional Catholic circles are brought up to keep in mind that they have a duty to their local clergy, not just to their immediate family. When I was small, it was not unusual to have priests over at my childhood home, for Sunday lunch or a little picnic especially as catechism classes for all the local children by the seminarians from the local 'priest school' were sometimes held at my house.
You could say I kinda grew up with priests (and nuns).

In many traditional societies, there is always a woman (young or old) whose (usually but not exclusively, unpaid) job is to look after the local priest - be a kind of housemaid for him. This is a noble job. This woman could be single or married, no matter.
Families take it in turns to host the priest, like my family did throughout my childhood.
Because otherwise, it can be a pretty lonely life for a priest, especially if he is posted to a remote place.
Yes I am aware that this arrangement went horribly wrong in many instances with the whole abuse scandal. It is not the focus of this post however.

Fast forward several years and I continue my habit of hanging around priests. It is quite the culture shock to see that one young priest I know is very good at keeping women at arms' length, quite literally. If you go to kiss him on the cheek, he will bow his head in such a way as to thwart you. I know this is automatic with him. I get it. I see it as a kind of 'b*tch shield' for priests :-)

It fascinates me. Because of course it makes me realise that priests are men too.
And these men are special in that they are called to remain celibate for life.
A nun would kiss or hug anyone, I notice. But then again a nun may not have quite the same problem as a priest.

A woman, whether she likes it or not is a 'distraction' to a man - whoever he is, priest or pauper, prince or philosopher.
Islam is obviously not oblivious to this :-)
But I am not sure shrouding women in total body cover is quite the best solution :-)
Although I think Danny would have preferred this option had it been available in the situation he describes here where he is distracted by a female patient's attire.
Whilst my priest friend is not made to suffer to this degree, at least not by me nor the women in his social circle, I understand his and other priests' predicament. At least I can imagine what it must be like for them.

I guess no-one is born a priest. I have not and will never ask, but I am sure all my priest friends would have romantic stories to tell from their pasts. It is known that Pope John Paul II had a girl he was in love with before he became a priest.
Which brings me nicely to the essence of this post.

How does a woman feel when her ex-boyfriend one day becomes the Pope?
I mean, how does one deal with the fact that your guy cheated on you with God?
I am being deliberately provocative here, of course. It's one thing to see God as the ultimate practitioner of Game, but it is another entirely to see him as a woman's rival for the affections of a man :-)

It is said that nuns are 'brides of Christ'.
But so are priests in a way. Not to see tham as 'feminine' in normal terms, but just in relation to God.

How hurtful is it for a woman to know that her man has been 'stolen' from her by God?
Is this situation livable?
I would dearly love to hear from any woman who has been in this situation. I am conscious of the fact that this might be a painful story to tell however.

But men can be 'taken away' from women in other ways, of course.

In some ways, it is 'personal'.
Like when you find out your husband is gay on your wedding night, or after ten years of marriage.
Like he died (in which case, we are back to God being 'the accused' in a way).
Like the guy you've been dating for six months turns out to be your long-lost brother.
Like your husband cheated on you and he is now making plans to leave you and stay with the other woman.

Or it could be 'general'.
Like the whole MGTOW movement :-)

OK, OK, I couldn't resist throwing that in...

:-)

The point is, how does a woman deal with her greatest fear - to be abandoned by a man, in whatever form that may take?

For that matter how does a man deal with his girlfriend leaving him to go become a nun? I am sure this is rarer than a man leaving for the priesthood.

Before I get the obvious retort, might I pre-empt by sympathising with those men whose wives suddenly become 'nuns' whilst still in the marriage, for no apparent reason.
I guess this situation is not funny either.

Pope JP II - rest in peace

Ladies: How would you feel if this was your ex-fiancé or ex-boyfriend...

This priest (Fr Alberto Cutie) of course did it the other way round :-)

I know what y'all are thinking: With looks like that and a surname like that, what was he thinking going into the priesthood in the first place? :-)

Related question for you ladies: does it ever get 'distracting' to have a young attractive priest at church? Or does it actually help the faith along nicely?

I ask because one of my aunts jokingly says that she only goes to church because the priest is 'cute'. And she is married! Ha ha :-)

The shock factor

2012-03-13T10:53:00.001-07:00

Irreverence.
This is a word that the British are familiar with.
There are certain factions of well-known British comedy which are only funny precisely because of their irreverence.
Think Benny Hill or the 'Carry On' films.
Some might be bordering on the offensive, some might be erotic, some might even be racist or sexist.
British comedy is known primarily for its naughtiness. Combined with feigned innocence, usually over the top.
These guys are kings of the double entendre.
The kind of stuff that would make your hair curl, as we say.
The kind of stuff that is forbidden, at least in polite company.
Stuff that would make your grandma put both hands to her cheeks, but smile at nonetheless.

This...

is exactly what I mean. And it is the cleanest one I could find. Barabara Windsor, Kenneth Williams, Sid James. The British Royalty of Toilet Humour.
:-)

On a related note, has anyone read the crime thrillers of British writer James Hadley Chase?
Interestingly, most of his books are written in 'American' style, and most are in fact set in the US.
JHC is a great writer. I absolutely LOVE his writing style.
It strikes me however, that perhaps the reason I love his style has something to do with the fact that he loves to 'shock'.
Which makes most of his plots so amusing.
But some just end up freaking you out on many levels. If you have ever read 'No orchids for Miss Blandish' you will know exactly what I am talking about...

Children are naturally irreverent. You know, the whole bodily accoustics thing seems to tickle their fancy. Until society trains them otherwise. And even so, girls seem to outgrow this sort of thing much faster than boys :-)
Adults who are irreverent are in three categories only:

1. They had a frontal lobe removed or damaged in some freak accident or procedure. Has anyone met a person who had a frontal lobotomy? The disinhibition is staggering to behold.

2. They are British comedians as above.

3. They are men.

Say what?
I am not kidding.
I am not one for generalising usually, but I shall have to make an exception here :-)
All men do this. Even the so-called 'nice boys'.

Every boy and man I know has done this. And every boy or man I don't know has done this.
It starts in childhood and it never quite ceases.
A couple I know has two little boys aged 5 and 3. I went to theirs for dinner once. It was early evening on a summer's day. It was bath time for the boys shortly after my arrival. Big mistake.
After their bath, both boys proceeded to run around the entire house naked determined to show Auntie Spacetraveller their 'friends'.
Mum was scandalised. And the boys knew this. I could tell by the expression on their faces. They were loving it that Mum was so embarrassed. I soon realised that it was the shock factor that they were relishing. The more Mum and I acted shocked, the more they did it and the more they howled with laughter.
These were Mum's exasperated words to the boys:
'Didn't we talk about this, boys? What did I tell you about showing your _______ to the girls?'

Ah. So it had happened before. Presumably at playschool or kindergarten.
Dad was not bothered by this stunt. He seemed proud of his mini-mes. He was enjoying this as much as his sons.
Mum couldn't stop apologising. Which amused me somewhat.

A 5 year old does that and it's amusing. A 35 year old does that and it's either 'hello alpha' or '911'.
:-)
Context, as they say is everything.

I have noticed that in the same way that women like to 'mock complain' about men they like or love, men like to 'tease' women. They really enjoy making a woman blush or wince. The more she blushes the better. Is this a form of 'negging' by any chance?
If they like a woman this may be done in good humour, as in 'Are those real?'
If they don't, it could be quite unpleasant as in 'Nice dress, my elderly aunt's got one just like it'.
And it really depends on the sense of humour of the woman in question and the nature of the relationship with the man.
Again, context is everything.
If done right :-)
If done clumsily :-(

My former boss was once trying to get me to be time-efficient. He is super talented in this. He crams more into an hour than I would manage in a day. In trying to get me to understand how to utilise my time better, he advised me to follow his example.
'Even when I am ___________ my wife, I am planning my next presentation'.

Silence.
Cringe.
Total embarrassment especially as others were well within earshot.
But I guess that was the whole point.
Blush or wince.
He and I got along great, but we were not on those kinds of terms. He was not my 'buddy'.
It was uncalled for.
This is the sort of thing that could get a man into trouble if done in the wrong context.
We are both British with suitably irreverent humour, so I did not show I was offended. But I was.
Even though I knew he meant no harm. And he is like that. Totally irreverent.
The same thing said to me by a male 'buddy' however would have been viewed in an entirely different manner.

I wondered if this 'shock factor' thing was some kind of male 'fitness' test. I now believe it is not. Because men don't do fitness tests. Again I ask - is this a form of negging? If so, why neg a woman one is not interested in romantically?
Or is it simply 'saying it as it is'.
Or 'speaking one's mind'.

Which brings me to another important point.
All the 'feminine etiquette' rules consider 'plain speaking' in a woman as a 'no-no'.
I see why.
Because it is very much a masculine trait.
Like swearing.
Not to say women don't or shouldn't swear.
But women are certainly punished more severely for it than men. Just like 'women who speak their mind' are labelled in unfavourable terms.

This 'plain speaking' trait of men can be a source of distress to women. Because of the shock factor it entails. So in this case, it is not so much blush or wince but cry :-(
On some level a woman goes courting trouble when she asks a man, 'does my bum look big in this?' because she definitely does not want to hear the brutal truth. But she doesn't want a man who will fail this test by overpedestalising her either. The clever men know when to keep their mouths shut :-)

I remember a scene in 'Sex and the city' when Carrie Bradshaw tells 'The Russian' that her friend Samantha has just been diagnosed with breast cancer.
The Russian deems it appropriate at that precise time to tell Carrie of his own female friend who had been diagnosed with breast cancer and who had subsequently died from it.
Carrie did not need to hear that story at that time. She was visibly frightened for her friend Samantha, and did not need to be reminded of the possibility that her friend might die.
Try as she might, she just couldn't get The Russian to understand this.
In the end, Carrie gave up.
The Russian was not wrong. People with cancer die all the time. But Carrie did not need the facts at that particular moment. Omission or 'bending of the truth' would have been a kinder strategy by The Russian.

I had a similar experience. I was in conversation with a male friend about a family friend's adult son who had learning difficulties and whose loving mother was hoping to find him a wife.
This is a dear family friend's son. He is practically my brother.
My male friend found nothing wrong in telling me that in his country, they would lob off my 'brother's _________s off in double quick time because he is disabled.
Fair enough. I know that happens in certain societies. But I was disproportionately hurt to hear this about my 'brother'. Perhaps illogically so, yes. But there we are. Like Carrie, I gave up. I knew I was indulging in a futile exercise :-)
I just know that I would never have had had this experience had I been talking to another woman. Unless they meant to hurt my feelings.
Plain speaking.
Brutal.
Gentlemen, please take it easy :-)

And while we are on this subject, a question: what is the explanation for this trait in men? Is 'plain speaking' just another facet of 'logical thinking'?

The Contract killers

2012-03-11T00:31:00.001-08:00

This post is not about hit-men and gangsters, I promise :-)

A common theme in The Manosphere is that 'the social contract' has been broken.
Meaning that men have always held up their end of the bargain by being men and doing what men do - i.e. building civilisation for both themselves and the collective of women and children.
But the women turned into strange hybrid creatures that aren't recognisable anymore.
And now a man has to go out there to build skyscrapers and then come home and cook his own darn dinner.

Or something to that effect.

It is no joke.
No-one is laughing.
Because the problem is really complicated.
And so the solution, if one will ever be found, will have to be equally complicated.

I tried to ask this question before in 'Dissidents of the 'Spheres' but I didn't really get clear answers.
This is all I got in answer to the question:
Who or what is the real culprit here? Who is the 'contract killer'?

Men: Well, it's not us, because in fact we are the ones who began asking the question. It can't be us, by definition - our definition.

Women: Actually, we don't have time to answer this question. We are feeding ourselves, killing our own snakes, looking after the kids and caring for 95 year old great-grandma. We are too tired for this discussion. Zzzzzzzzz.

Do women have a point?

It is not a myth that modern woman is one tired daughter of a gun.
Whether she chose it or not, that is her lot.
But she is not lazy. That is not the problem. It is not the work per se which is the problem.
The problem is that she is doing everything.

I mentioned before that the State/Employer is killing the nice girl.
Sometimes this is quite literal.

But I am not going to dwell on this side of things for now.

There is another way the State is killing nice girl.

Danny touched on this in one of his recent posts.
Three women were discussing how one of them could cash in on her ten year marriage if only she would wait it out so that she does get to the ten year barrier. Because after ten years of marriage, she could get X % of husband's earnings, including his retirement money.

No need to discuss how abominable this kind of thinking is.
But the point of this post is, can and should a woman be blamed for accepting low-hanging fruit?
Can an alcoholic be blamed for falling off the wagon if someone accidentally hands him a bottle of gin after he completes the rehab session and was dry for 4 months straight?
Is the state making 'recidivous alcoholics' of women?

If the divorce laws were not as they were, would women be quick to head for the divorce courts?

It is a well-publicised fact that Barbara Felters, ex-wife of tennis star Boris Becker flew to Florida from Germany and filed for divorce from him from Florida, after yet another one of his flings.
Why?
Because the financial reward and the custody laws were more 'woman-friendly' in Florida than in Germany and she was able to sidestep their prenuptial agreement which woud have gotten her considerably less money than what she got from the Florida petition.
She took advantage of the laws in Florida. She took the path of least resistance when she wanted to divorce her cheating husband.
Can one blame her, really? She had two sons to raise. Was she wrong to go for more money?

In any case it is one thing to be disgusted at celebrity divorce settlements because of the colossal amounts of money involved.
But what about average Mrs X? Are the amounts she is awarded in a divorce out of proportion to what is fair too? Even if there are children involved?
Some men accuse women of not using awarded child support money on the kids but on themselves.
Is this verifiable? In all fairness I never heard of a child dying of starvation whilst Mum went on a shopping spree to Rodeo Drive, but if anyone has eveidence to this effect I would be at least willing to hear it. Even if it would make me sick.

There are some people who are so principled that they will never take the easy route no matter how much the easy route is shoved in their faces.
Ramadan is a perid of fasting for Muslims, as we all know, which is daily from dawn to dusk for about a month.
But what if you live in a Nordic country where the sun won't set until close to midnight in the summer months, if at all?
In countries like this, the advice is to follow Saudi Arabian time.
And yet, there are Muslims who will endeavour to fast the entire duration of the Nordic summer day.
These are people who are saying: No-one will be permitted to soften the rules for me. If I live in Sweden, I shall fast from dawn to dusk like I would in Saudi Arabia. No-one will sugarcoat things for me. Nobody will sweeten the deal on my behalf. I feel the full pain of the bitter deal, or I don't accept the deal at all.
Masochist or honourable member of the faithful?

In related news, Muslims are in uproar at the London Olympics right now, because Ramadan coincides with the Games. This will put practising Muslim athletes at a disadvantage.
But I am sure the devout, even in this situation, will find a way.

Resisting the temptation to pick the low-lying fruit is not for everybody though.
Is there something that can be done to stop the trend of truly greedy women who want to line their pockets with the spoils of their broken marriage?

If women are to be the feminine creatures that men want, is it time for men in the mainstream to be the masculine creatures that women want in a much more widely visible way?
I am not asking for the Taliban or anything.
Just a dose of masculine authority.
If the divorce laws are so abhorent to men, why can't something be done to fix it?
There are women who find it equally abhorent that some women are giving all women a bad name, by the way. But do men have a solution that works? Or is this issue way too complicated to be resolved?
Feminism will persist unless men topple it, even if women turn their backs on it.

Here's a video I found on Christian J's blog.
In it, a father is attempting to set his daughter straight after she is disrespectful to him and her mother on Facebook.
I am sure the daughter does not realise this right now (she is 15 or so and is naturally 'challenging'. Hey, it happens :-)
But she is indeed one of the lucky ones.

The future child of this woman may not be so lucky. He or she will get intimately acquainted with the term 'father hunger' and will get the feeling that there is not a man in the world who has his or her back. At least not quite like this man is demonstrating below.

Can we get this man to sort out the divorce laws please?

If he wants to run for President, I'll vote for him*.
Because he is 'a real man'. A real father.
And Patriarchy works.
His daughter will be on the straight and narrow again in no time at all. Because she has a Dad who cares.

Why am I so particular about this issue?
Because women want and need masculine men.
And then of course they will turn around and 'complain' about them :-)
But that is a sign of affection, don't you know? I think Michelle Obama demonstrates this beautifully here.
The not-so-masculine men will simply be avoided or strung along with the LJBF line.
This is important: masculine man=adored but nonetheless complained about, the others=not even worth complaining about.
This is why learning some Game (the good kind - I do not think this includes Tucker Max antics by the way) is important for all boys and men to learn nowadays.
Because the good guys will get a chance to attract a woman who currently is being lured away from them by the alpha bad boys who happen to be kings of Game.

This man below is a good guy. He actually wants his daughter to be an upright citizen with standards.
And he is really masculine too.
Heaven.
He is living proof that sometimes one can indeed have it all :-)

Incidentally, right at the end of the video, one finds reason to laud the mother of the girl in question too. I find it so cool that she is behind Dad in his disciplining of his daughter. She is not standing in his way. Because she knows Dad is right. She knows the value of Dad's input in daughter's life, even if she and Dad are no longer together.
(Note to self: aim to be a mother like this one day).
I am sure she is a sensible woman. I am pretty sure she would not endorse a punishment which far outweighs the crime. I am sure she would be the kind of Mum who would stop Dad from going too far in his disciplinary action, if necessary.
Just a hunch.

I promised at the beginning of this post that it would not be about hit-men and gangsters...
But, with all the shooting going on in the video below, erm...I might have been too hasty with my promises :-)
(Before you watch the video, rest assured that no-one - humans nor animals were actually shot. One innocent little laptop was not so lucky though...)

* Oh wait, can't vote. Not American.
Zut alors.

Just eat your soup and let her talk

2012-03-09T00:55:00.001-08:00

The above was LL Cool J's response to the question: 'Tell me about the woman in your life'.

The interviewer burst out laughing at this answer and brought the interview to a quick close at this point.
I laughed out loud too at this answer.
Because it is oh so familiar.

The opening scene of 'Captain Corelli's Mandolin' sees a man brought in to the village doctor's house by his wife because he is 'deaf'. After a brief examination, the doctor works out the problem and duly fishes out a pea out of the man's ear. A pea, which it would appear he may have accidentally inserted into his ear from childhood.
Captain Corelli's Mandolin' is a war-film.
There are horrific scenes of death, betrayal and pain.
But by the end of this film, this man's only complaint is about the nagging of his wife. In the last scene of the film, he is practically begging the doctor to put the pea back in his ear because he can't take it anymore.

:-)

I don't know much about LL Cool J except that he is a rapper and actor.
I have never heard him rap but I have seen him in a sitcom or two years ago.
But like most men, he seems to have certainly figured out the key to a peaceful life :-)

My own musical hero Ludwig van had no such problems. Deafness, although of course is an unfortunate medical difficulty, could be, for the man looking for a silver lining to his raincloud, the perfect way of escaping some of life's little stresses.

What is it about women's chit-chat that men find so unbearable?
What is it about women's chit-chat that make men brave outside temperatures of minus twenty for hours at a time when they are not even smokers but need a desperate excuse to leave the frenzy of female conversation?

Even with 'masculine eyes' I cannot seem to get to the bottom of this one.

I do like one-word answers. Even to 'open questions'. I really do. It is reassuringly familiar. In this, I am probably one of the outliers.

But I cannot live with this all the time.
This is one big reason I have female friends :-)
One of the functions of 'the herd' is to preserve sanity :-)

There is an evolutionary benefit to a quiet man of course. Out on the hunt, if the wild deer heard you, neither you nor your family would be getting any dinner that night. In fact, if the hunted were dangerous enough to become the hunter, you might not even make it home to dinner.

I get that.

When I asked the question about why men are quiet during traumatic times, in The Quiet Man, I got decent answers that satisfied my curiosity somewhat.
"Men are stoic."
"It is not worth speaking when no-one is listening."
"It is just male nature."

I get that.

I also get that most men need a certain 'quiet time' usually after a transition from one activity to another, typically the transition from work to homelife.

I get that.

But the situation I am describing is neither 'out on the hunt', nor traumatic nor an infringement of 'quiet time'.

Take dinnertime, for instance. Which is precisely the time LL Cool J is referring to.

Is it physically painful to indulge in a little chit-chat about the day's events, or the political climate, or the economic crisis?
Or any other topic?

Or during social settings where the general theme is not sport- or work-related.

Why do men clam up?

Is there a reason other than boredom?
Is boredom ever a valid reason?
Or am I just in the wrong crowd?
It is known that a woman's 'corpus callosum', the part of the brain that connects the left and right hemispheres is much more developed than a man's, even though a man's brain is bigger in mass, corrected for body surface area.
The part that deals with language skills is also better developped in women.
Hence to say that a woman is wired to communicate is in fact a biological truism.

But is there not a design fault in the system if the talker has no audience?
There would be no need for this post if men were known to be good listeners :-)
But again the number one (number two?) complaint about men is that they do not appear to listen to or hear women.
Which is odd, because the hunter has to have a keen sense of hearing, no?

Something does not quite add up.

Is there a chance of selective hearing going on, maybe?
Or is it really the case that men are not wired to hear women at all. Just each other, i.e. other men.

Is this a cruel trick of Nature that women can only communicate effectively with each other?
Or is it a design fault that God hasn't quite gotten round to fixing yet because he is procrastinating, but 'watch this space'?
Given that 'one day' to God equals a thousand years, we might be in for a long wait...

What you don't see is the woman yapping away in the background. This man is in 'tune out' mode :-)
Where do men learn how to do the 'tune out' thing? Is this part of the 'locker room' training?

Going Dutch - the thorny issue of the Dutch Treat

2012-03-07T02:05:00.001-08:00

Confession: I love all things Dutch. The collective national height, the national mode of transport, the National Day, tulips and the colour orange all hold significance for me.

The British are known for their 'Dutch courage' :-)
'The flying Dutchman' is a great piece by Wagner, apparently.
And everyone knows that a 'Dutch coffeeshop' is anything but :-)

There is so much to celebrate about The Netherlands and the Dutch.
But it I have to say, there is one thing about the Dutch that makes me squirm with unease.

I am sure the tradition of 'going Dutch' being attributed to the Dutch is nothing more than a smear campaign, because of course this phenomenon is not restricted to the Dutch.

However, I know that this practice is actually prevalent there. It really is. It is the way of life.
But, the point of this post is not to diss a whole country. I am just interested in this specific phenomenon with the unfortunate name.

We are all confused about the right etiquette on a date. This is arguably one of the more contentious issues in the SMP.
Charming Disarray describes brilliantly her own thoughts on the issue here.

What I really like about her post is the mention of the different ways in which men and women can 'give'. A man may well pay for the expensive dinner at that Michelin star restaurant, but who is evaluating the cost of the lovely birthday party she hosts in his honour? Or the simple picnic she puts together with all her heart, just for the two of them to enjoy?

Some women are very sensitive on the issue of who pays on the first date for two main reasons:

1. They may simply be principled people and feel that a first date is nothing more than a 'look-see' and should not oblige a man to pay for both parties. Nothing to do with feminism. These women just want to be fair to a man, who, afterall may well get rejected.

In a previous thread, Bellita mentioned the need for women to look at the dating world from the point of view of a man: He could easily spend hundreds of dollars before a woman might so much as kiss him on the cheek. Is this fair on men? Or is this part and parcel of his reality that he should just accept because a woman should not be thought of as a 'commodity' unless she advertises herself as such?
Which brings me uncomfortably close to my topic of choice, 'the bang-to-buck ratio'.
(Thank you Bill :-)

Is 'being fair' in this way by women viewed as a good or a bad thing by men?

These women are probably the very same ones who will choose to decline a treat from a man on a first date if she is about to reject him. Because she can't live with herself if she accepts his treat and then bails on him.
On the other hand, she might pay for herself because she actually likes him and is therefore wanting to show goodwill in the manner described below:

2. Some women may not necessarily be wanting to 'be fair' like the category above, but do so a little grudgingly seeing how men are being treated by unscrupulous women, and as a result of this, they want to distance themslves from the whole 'golddigger' vibe.

And of course there are women who are true golddiggers and see men purely as walking cash machines and nothing else. She would rather look into his wallet than into his eyes over a romantic dinner.

But, it must be said: This 'golddigger' woman - who is often deried by both men and women alike - is sometimes just what a man appears to want. The woman who will accept his treat and make him feel like a man. The woman who is actually seen as 'feminine' because she is able to accept.
As opposed to her 'feminista' sisters who are so masculinised they want to pay for everything.

Like I said, we are all confused.
The conventional wisdom is that men should at least offer to pay. Because it is symbolic.
Symbolic of what?

Erm, dunno anymore...
Like I said, we are all....

Is there so much bad blood between men and women that even a symbolic gesture is not possible anymore?

Anyhow the focus of this post is actually not on first date confusion.
What happens when two people are established as a couple? Perhaps cohabiting or married.
Perhaps even with children.

What are the financial arrangements? Is a woman expected to still pay her way? Even if her capacity to do so is severely limited by her choice to be a stay-at-home-Mum or variation thereof?

Is there a code of conduct? Should there be a code of conduct? Or are we all content to fumble in the dark?

What do most modern men want in terms of home life and finances?

Because of the current divorce laws, do men want women who will work throughout their married lives, fully aware that this will take something away from their femininity and create exactly the kind of 'masculinised' woman they don't like...or do men want the woman who will be financially dependent on them fully accepting that in the event of a break-up she will have no alternative but to fight for as much financial assistance from him as she can get?

Are men just as afflicted by the notion of 'pie in the sky' as much as women are accused of? Do men even know what they want anymore? Or are they just as confused as women?

This is a perceived message from the modern man:
'I shall provide willingly for you and the kids, but in return, you must never pull that EPL crap on me no matter how badly I treat you.'

Or:

'You and I will share financial responsibilities for the household and kids equally, but I still want the right to be seen as 'the king' with all the conqueror's rights that come with it. Even if you have to go to work same as me, don't come home and be all bossy with me. In the home, you: little woman, me: The Big Boss. You Jane, me...forget Tarzan - me blooming King Kong!'

Fair or foul?
A tad facetious or the naked truth?
If we were to rewrite the rules, what would they be?

Film Review: Captain Corelli's Mandolin

2012-03-06T00:08:00.000-08:00

It seems I cannot find films other than war-films to illustrate lessons on male-female interactions as I see them.
This is the third war-film I have watched which deserves a fine-toothed comb.

I actually first saw this film many years ago. My understanding of the film has changed a lot in that time.
To summarise, this film (based on the book by Louis de Bernières) is set in Cephallonia, a Greek Island during World War II.
Pelagia is the highly intelligent and beautiful daughter of the local doctor, Dr. Iannis, a widower who is slightly eccentric but very much respected by everyone, especially his daughter who was virtually raised by him alone.

Pelagia is engaged to Mandras (played by the delightful Christian Bale of 'Empire of the sun' - all grown up!), a local handsome fisherman who is illiterate (which I guess is not unusual in that village at that time and is a fact which is relevant only with respect to Pelagia). Mandras is a well-respected man, but as his own widowed mother would proclaim time and time again, he 'never grew up'.

As Italy invades nearby Albania, the men of the village are urged to join the war effort. Mandras promptly does, leaving behind an increasingly exasperated Pelagia who writes him several letters and receives no reply. As becomes clear later on, the only reason he does not reply is his illiteracy, of which she was not aware. She eventually loses her love for him as is declared in her last letter to him before he returns.
Mandras returns a casualty of war despite the Greeks defeating the Italians in Albania. He is nursed back to health by Pelagia and her father.
Pelagia, who is a very principled young woman somewhat rediscovers her love for Mandras during his return stay. However, he takes the next available opportunity to disappear again leaving her for the second time.
During this time, an Italian regiment is posted on the island headed by Captain Antonio Corelli, a seemingly carefree opera-singing, beer-swigging, party animal with a talent for playing the mandolin. To make matters worse for all concerned, the Greeks of Cephallonia have to surrender to the Italians, (and they do this in a hilarious face-saving move in which they decide to surrender instead to the highest-ranking German Officer on the island instead of the Italians, their dearest enemies, making sure to let the Italians know that they would rather surrender to the German Officer's dog than to an Italian).
Captain Corelli ends up staying at the Iannis' house in exchange for medical supplies.

The inevitable happens. He and Pelagia fall in love.
A process which does not escape the notice of her father, Mandras and Mandras' mother.

But, on the advice of her father, Pelagia does the honourable thing and 'undoes' the engagement to Mandras.

The Italians and their German allies fall out when an unscrupulous German shoots at an unarmed Italian soldier during an armistice. This sees the Italians joining the Greeks in a bitter battle with the Germans which the Germans win. The Italian soldiers are taken prisoner and despite the fact that they were once allies, the Germans shoot the Italians dead.
Captain Corelli is saved by one of his troops (Carlo, more on him later) and is later found alive by Mandras who takes him to the doctor.

Corelli is nursed back to health but uncharacteristically for him, he is increasingly disillusioned by the destruction of war and leaves Cephallonia for good, helped by Mandras to escape by boat in the dead of night, for fear of the Germans.

Pelagia is devastated once again. She goes on to medical school and qualifies as a doctor. But her heartache remains.

Corelli sends her a guitar recording of the mandolin piece he had composed for her, from Italy.
And, eventually, he keeps his promise and returns to her.

(In the book, Corelli and Pelagia reunite when she is in her 60's).

Mandras
In today's SMP, perhaps Mandras would be seen as the 'beta' guy who went off and fought for his country and lost out to the irresponsible lazy 'alpha' as a result.
But I would put forward a different viewpoint.
Mandras was, before the war a typical enough fellow. Well-liked by everyone, he was clearly in love with his girl Pelagia.
But he never really had time for Pelagia. He became obsessed with the war. He became a bit of a monster. Not his fault: war does that.
But there was more to Mandras: His bad character was only unearthed as the war proceeded.
He had saved Corelli only so Pelagia would 'love him again'. Disingenuous.
He had also ordered the hanging of a friend of Pelagia's for kissing a German officer on the cheek when he promised her he would leave her a grammophone after the war. This girl wouldn't even dance with the German soldier at the local dance - she was too 'true' to her country. But a spontaneous kiss on the cheek of this guy earned her her death at the hands of Mandras who called her a 'whore' and a 'traitor'.
Pelagia dodged a bullet here.

Antonio Corelli
As Pelagia reproached him on more than one occasion, he seemed to take nothing seriously, at first glance. He and his men were always to be found on the beach partying and singing operas. She once said to him, "Why don't you take your holiday on someone else's island?"
She hated the fact that this soldier was all about partying when her own Mandras was suffering gangrene in Albania.
"What is there to sing about?" she angrily asks him.
But there was a serious side to Antonio. Pelagia only found this after she got close enough to him.

The audience of this film, much before Pelagia herself, are given a glimpse into the serious and shrewd nature of Corelli, by his "Heil Puccini" reponse to the German Captain's "Heil Hitler".
It may have seemed comical and frivolous, but one got the distinct impression that two fingers were being cleverly stuck up in the face of Nazism without the German Captain noticing.

Once, he was playing with one of the local children and Pelagia rushed to take the child away from him.
Corellli said to her, "Signora, in times of war, one has to make the most of the innocent little pleasures."
He was right of course.
Never judge a book by its cover.

Pelagia and Corelli
Pelagia was very honourable despite what appears to be disloyalty to the man to whom she was engaged.
Mandras was a bit of a fool, and played an embarrassing practical joke on her the night before he left for the war effort, in front of everyone. There were many strikes against him, I feel.

Pelagia's behaviour around the time she falls in love with Corelli is suitably irrational and illogical but also reveals a woman trying very hard to stay 'honourable'. At one point she points a (unloaded) gun at Corelli. Several times, she 'tells him off' for his behaviour (quite rightly). At the dance hosted by the Italian soldiers in an effort to appease the locals, she dances Tango with another Italian soldier to avoid dancing with Corelli and quite possibly (bizarrely enough) to make him jealous. Even though she didn't want to want him. Cognitive dissonance at its best.

Interestingly, I think Pelagia also demonstrates another golden rule about women. That women are very conscious of their public image. That trait is being lost amongst some younger women nowadays, but these are actually the outliers.
Pelagia is publically embarrassed twice - once by Mandras and once by Corelli. In Mandras' case, it was a stupid, little boy prank which should never have happened - certainly not on the eve of his departure to war. The writing on the wall was there following this prank, I feel. An immature man is the worst consort for a woman. She and her children will always suffer.
In the case of Corelli, Pelagia is publically embarrassed when Corelli tells everyone that the beautiful mandolin piece he has just played is 'Pelagia's song'. Mandras' mother is present at that gathering. Everyone knows that Pelagia is engaged to Mandras. It is humiliating and scary for Pelagia because she is beginning to realise that she is falling in love with Corelli, an enemy of her people.
But at least, in this latter case, it was a declaration of love, of sorts, by Corelli. Pelagia is actually being validated. A man had composed a beautiful piece for her. She just couldn't handle the fact that it was done publically before she had had a chance to sort out her feelings.
Therein the difference between Mandras' and Corelli's public embarrassment of Pelagia: Mandras' prank spelled the end of their marriage before it had begun, Corelli's misplaced display of love led to the consummation of said love the very next day :-)

Pelagia and her father
These two had a wonderful father-daughter relationship. The father was a very wise man whose advice to Pelagia was central to the film. He spotted the waning love for Mandras, and of course the growing love for Corelli in his daughter.
His speech about love being what happens when the 'flames die down' is so true. Pelagia was blushing throughout of course, because it's not the kind of conversation one wants to have with Dad and all...but she needed to hear it.

To be honest, I suppose one could say that Pelagia's father was biased against Mandras from the beginning. Mandras was an illiterate man. Pelagia was on her way to becoming a doctor. Her father was well aware of the 'hypergamy' instincts his daughter was likely to harbour and advised her accordingly. He also always believed that no man in the village was good eough for his daughter (what father doesn't think this of his daughter?!) and that she would end up marrying a foreigner.

When he spotted that his daughter was in love with Corelli, he said to Corelli, "When I met Pelagia's mother, she was actually betrothed to someone else...he almost killed me. I had to lay low for a while..."
Talk about aiding and abeting Corelli!

There is a superlatively moving scene towards the end of the film where she thinks she has lost him in an earthquake at the rubble of their destroyed home, only to find him safe and well nearby. One couldn't help but feel utter relief for this poor woman who seemed to be losing all the men in her life.

Carlo
Carlo was a member of Corelli's squad. It wasn't particularly apparent to me in the film but he was actually gay. He says to Pelagia at one point that he would protect her if something happened to Antonio. In fact he did more than that: he saved Antonio's life by shielding him with his body during the massacre by the Germans.
Talk about bravery and honour.

Single Mum - by choice

2012-03-04T11:04:00.001-08:00

I really cannot believe I am revisiting this topic. Because the logical thing to do would be to avoid issues that enrage me.
But alas, I claim not to be a logical creature.
Maybe I am wearing 'red' today, Grasshopper.
In any case I am definitely seeing red.
The gloves are off.

Let the rant begin.

In the post on intimacy I hinted that my personality type is often characterised by passivity, so much so that we are often mistaken for the dead. In my case this is no exaggeration.

But even I come alive when a principle is at stake.

In the post 'The sins of the Mother', I was in a subdued mood describing a phenomenon which is sad, with the full recognition on my part that some of the perpetrators of these 'sins' are largely unaware of the consequences of their actions.

In the case in hand, my reaction is very different. Because the intent here is all too clear.
Here is a woman choosing to be a bad mother even before she becomes a mother.

Single motherhood is tough. Men who abandon their children willingly are cowardly and unjust. Women who prevent ex-partners from seeing their children (for no good reason) are unfair to their children, not to talk of the ex-partner.
The point of this post is not single motherhood per se.
I daresay, given the right conditions, no woman would choose to become a single mother.
Given the right conditions.
What are these right conditions?

1. She is right in the head. Even an idiot like me knows it is very hard work being a parent. Nobody should be looking to do the whole single parent thing. It's not normal.

2. It is socially stigmatising to want to be a single parent. Note I did not say, to be a single parent. I do not believe it is right to point fingers at a general group when individual circumstances are not known.
There are many reasons why people (men or women) end up raising a child alone.

3. The state is not encouraging this phenomenon.

In Britain, it has become quite the fashion for a 16 year old girl, bored of school and living with the parents, to decide to become a 'baby mama' to get herself a new apartment and all the mod cons, paid for by you and me. I am sure that phenomenon is not unheard of in other countries too.

The scary thing is, material gain is sometimes the sole reason for her pregnancy. That, and the fact that she is looking for someone who will 'love her' unconditionally when it becomes clear that the randy 16 year old boy she is consorting with is not really in the 'love' business, despite what he says. The irony is, she herself may not know what real love is, either. She may really be as immature as she acts.

When I think of this issue, I always remember a former female boss of mine, not known for her tact or subtlety. She would read in one of those tabloids about yet another 12 year old expecting twins, and she would say something like, 'No ponies to go riding on?'
Particularly hilarious as it would appear she was completely oblivious to the fact that these urban kids did not quite live in the same world as her. Or perhaps she was being ironic, and I am the one who is missing her point...

Anyway, it came as quite the surprise to see this article referenced in one of Dalrock's posts.
An educated woman who is financially independent and who was herself raised by a single mother wants to become a single mother.

This woman's mother became a single mother not by choice, as she states early on in the article. Which makes her decision to become a single mother all the more hard to digest.
This woman is not the daughter of some narcissistic mother who wanted a 'mini-me'.
Her mother never said negative things to her about her father growing up. Even though it is clear that her father was not an ideal father.
The problem was not his large beard, as she claims. The problem goes far deeper than she lets on.
Society dies another little death each time a young woman adopts her kind of attitude.

Each to his or her own. Life is full of choices.
But hopefully, one is allowed an opinion.
Here's mine.

Do we not yet have enough evidence to suggest that it is better for children to have two loving parents rather than one, in general?
Not to say of course that children of single parents are necessarily worse off.
Everyone would agree that on the whole an abusive parent is worse than no parent. Children who have had to grow up without one parent make do, and overcome, but often not without a lot of hardship first.
The point is, given the choice, why would anyone want to deny a child something that is good for them? Deliberately.

The whole 'single by choice' thing by women and men is cool. Everyone is free to make a choice that affects them.
'Single motherhood by choice' is not cool. Because a bad decision is being made for another human being even before they have begun life.

'Single motherhood by choice' is bad motherhood. Because any woman who does not know by now that denying a child their God-given right to a father (if that father is a good enough fellow who is not abusive or dangerous) is at risk of one day becoming a bad mother. It cannot be stressed enough the importance of Father in the lives of both boys and girls. Why must people always be left to discover this the hard way?
Not enough feral kids on the streets already? Not enough damaged people to make us all sit up?

Adults who were adopted as children go through this yearning to find out their roots practically their whole lives until they get the information they need. It has been likened to the need to scratch something that is not there, ala the 'phantom limb syndrome' of amputees.

Is this what we want for our children?

This woman doesn't want to be bothered by the stresses of a relationship with a man. But she wants a child.
Is this woman even mature enough to be a mother?
What if said child becomes too difficult to live with? Will he or she be chucked out too?

She doesn't give a sensible reason to choose what she has. Her father was not the best, agreed. But should this not be the impetus for her to improve things for the next generation?
Most people who are born poor strive to do better for their children one day. Most people who grew up without a father either want to be a good father or ensure they couple up with a good father for their future children.
This woman seems to have had a great mother. This exemplary mother did the best she could so that her daughter had a great upbringing and life. Mother did so well in this task that daughter now believes that single motherhood is easy.
Unfortunately, Mother's heroic efforts are about to be nullified by a daughter who doesn't get it, who doesn't understand the sacrifices Mother made.

She just doesn't want the 'hassle' of being with a man, the possible father of her desired child.
She is proving the point that a woman essentially brought up exclusively in a matriarchy ala Kim K is at high risk of becoming a narcissist. Unless she gains insight into the problem and self-corrects. Such women are unfit for marriage because they are way too selfish, so they will try to find alternative family-building strategies, like this woman is trying to do. She sees it as her 'right' to have a child, by any means necessary. Who gives a monkeys about the needs of the child? As long as she gets what she wants, stuff the rest.
It is not her fault. We are all products of our environment afterall. But Mother cannot be held responsible for this selfish woman's decisions. If what she says about her mother is true, Mother did a great job, along with her grandmother.
But I fear daughter is showing exactly why she needed a father growing up. Pity she cannot see it herself. Let's hope she does not succeed in propagating this problem.
And this should be a lesson to voluntarily absentee fathers, and mothers who deliberately separate their kids from their fathers. This situation creates little Frankensteins.

Which conditions have gone awry in this woman's situation allowing her to unashamedly declare her abhorent intentions to the world?
All three.

Quite rightly, what incensed a lot of men in the comments section was her noble promise that she would somehow provide a 'male role model' for her future fatherless child.

Yes. Some poor man who may or may not have ties to her will be roped in to play part-time 'daddy' to her kid from a distance, at occasions and in a manner of her choosing. Just like in the movies.

In all humility, might I appeal to her better nature here, fully acknowledging the possibility that this young woman, like the rest of us may have been 'misguided' in her thinking?
That she simply needs to wake up soon and say to herself: 'Something's wrong with our modern life. Things are not supposed to be this way' like many women are doing now.

Because those who do not, ever in their lives, are the ones on the non-stop express train to Crashville. Some are in the first-class compartment paid for by feminism.

Can and will this woman get off the poisoned train?

She has a chance to prevent this 'part-time daddy' nonsense she wants so badly from becoming a reality now.

Doesn't she know that it is a last resort option that people (including her lovely, commendable mother) have to take when all other attempts to prevent this have failed? Does she really believe it is fun for a kid to have a 'part-time' father-substitute? To watch as Uncle X leaves to go home to his own children? To always feel that no-one is his/her own to keep, that every adult man he/she comes into contact with is 'borrowed'?
From what she says in her article, she should know!

You are not supposed to be choosing this option for your future children from the get-go, Dear Friend.
Uh-huh.
You go, girl.

I really must stop here before I implode.

Too late!

'Into me see'

2012-03-03T13:16:00.000-08:00

This is the quasi-onomatopoeic description of the word 'intimacy' by a wise old man I know.
Intimacy: into me see.

I think it is a brilliant description. Because it really opens up the true meaning of the word in a way I had never seen before.

I read somewhere that a woman, in deciding whether a man could be a possible candidate for her affections (in a romantic sense, that is) should ask herself one simple question:
'Can I bear to see him naked?'

Whilst I think this is wise, I also see this as only part of the equation.
They forgot to add:
'Can I bear for him to see me naked?'

Or, (as I am sure the men would be quick to point out):
'Can he bear to see me naked?'
And, it must be said, if a man is in the running, the answer to this question should obviously be 'yes' from the get-go :-)
Unless he is one of those outlying 'slow-burner' types :-)

When I was a teen I actually believed that men's idea of intimacy was a purely sexual one.
I am sure that idea came from fairly accurate perceptions of the world around me at that time.

Ask any 20 year old woman what men (her age) want and well...you see what I mean.
At 20, most women are at or close to their highest level of attraction to men (of all ages, actually) and given that a 20 year old woman is probably likely to find herself in the company of 20 year old men (who on the whole are not yet aherm, 'masters of themselves' shall we say) due to school, college, home life, job, etc, it is only fair to say that a certain perception could develop which is not necessarily true of all men.

But I was able to self-correct as I got older of course.
We are all on a perpetual journey of self-correction, I guess.

What might a man's idea of what intimacy means to a woman be?
Perhaps exactly the same as mine was.

And I would hope, that as a man matures, he too sees that women have a different version of intimacy than he may have thought at first.

There are other kinds of intimacy as we all know.

Emotional intimacy.
Spiritual intimacy.
Psychological intimacy.
Social intimacy, to name a few...

Some people see the above forms of intimacy as more 'intimate' than sex, of course.
I somehow cannot find a real life example, but a good fictional example is Julia Roberts' character in 'Pretty Woman' who refused to kiss her clients on the lips because that would be too intimate.
Yes.
Counterintuitive, for sure, given her profession.
But somehow I can understand that.
For her, it was 'just a job' afterall.
I guess not many people can feel 'intimate' at work.

As a little digression, I shall state here that it took me a long time to take a personality test. Several posts over at Bellita's have touched on personality testing.
After a little (OK, a lot!) encouragement, I finally took the plunge.
And it didn't surprise me to see that my personality type are the least likely to actually take a personality test :-)
Because we don't like to be 'figured out'. Even though we love to figure others out, in order to fulfil one very specific function of ours - our raison d'être.

We do things slowly. We do everything slowly, to the point of near-total inertia, prompting in others the need to check we are still breathing.
(This reminds me of the film 'Beethoven' - the one about the dog - where it was actually the job of one of the household's children to check every morning that Beethoven the dog hadn't died, by placing a mirror under its nose to see if it steamed up. That's how inert the dog was).
And that's how inert my personality type can get :-)
I wonder if President Coolidge had the same personality type as me?
When told of his death, writer and wisecrack of the time Dorothy Parker quipped, 'How could they tell?'
But I digress...

We are 'private' beings.
Not secretive, but definitely private.
Odd for a blogger to claim to be 'private' but I always had it in mind that no blog of mine would be about me, per se. Just general, preferably abstract ideas I find interesting or important enough to write or talk about.

Back to the topic in hand, one of the possible hold-ups in relationships is the idea that one or both partners is 'private'.

We cannot bear to be vulnerable.
We cannot bear to be 'naked' to someone else. Even in marriage.

When those 'absolutely see all' total body scanners at airports were first being proposed, I noted with great amusement how horrified some people were.
Of course I 'get' the concerns raised, and in fact I was one of those same horrified people, but I couldn't help wondering: is this a Western disease? Or is this a modern disease? Or both?

Why do we fear nudity so much?
I am no fan of naturism. Or even nudity just for the sake of nudity. (Apparently naturism and nudity are two completely different concepts). In that sense, I guess I am fairly conservative.

But, is that a problem in itself? What's the problem with a nudist beach, exactly? Why are some people so vehemently opposed to them?
I mean, I really don't think it would bother a Kalahari desert tribesman so much if he had to go through a body scanner in order to get in to the next village...
But is this because he is neither Western nor modern?

Are we too 'clothed' in our current world?
Do we have too many clothes on, figuratively speaking?
Do we seriously need to 'shed some clothes' so we can finally have some fun in our lives?

As a Brit, I know that this is a national thing for us. We are known for this 'reserve'. Some might call it 'uptight'.
Other countries I know which are also 'afflicted' by this national 'disease' are Norway, Switzerland and Germany.
Some would say all of Europe is like this. Too afraid of nakedness. Too 'square'.
Americans never seem to be tainted with this brush though :-)

I find it interesting that the word for 'privacy' in french is intimité (intimacy). The Anglo-Saxon languages feel the need to separate out these two concepts, but the Latin-based ones recognise them as one and the same. Interesting.
And telling, because culturally, these two populations are very different in their approach to many things.

There are some personality types that are much 'worse' than my own when it comes to privacy.
I know these people well :-)
Yes I am looking at you, INTJs :-)

On the other hand, paradoxically, I cannot bear people who 'let it all hang out'. Those who go on talk shows like 'Oprah' and 'Jerry Springer' and want to dish out every possible detail with no regard for their own anonymity or privacy.
I literally get hives with these people.
Honestly.
They drive me insane with their lack of 'restraint'.
I always want to run from them :-)
Even though I like them on principle. Because of their honesty.

I guess it is the extremes that I take issue with, on all of the above.

There should be a balance. Like with everything in life.
There is always a fine line.

Question is, where should the line be?
Who gets to draw the line?
And why?

Is the need for individual privacy killing intimacy?
Has it always been this way?
Or have human beings gotten more and more 'uptight' in recent years?

Friendly or fresh? Fascinating or forward?

2012-03-02T01:50:00.000-08:00

I saw this post on The Private Man which attracted my interest.
In it, TPM describes a scenario in which an elderly woman compliments his beautiful brown eyes.
He was genuinely touched by that.

I would too, if I had been in his place.
It is such a nice thing to be complimented in this way, especially by a total stranger. As a woman, I love to be validated. Much more than a man, as my sources of self-importance usually come from outside of me and are to a large extent based on my appearance rather than what I do. But I can and should learn to live without these if I don't get it (invaluable piece of wisdom from Just Visiting).

Therefore I so get it that TPM was so 'chuffed' when he was 'validated'.
But I felt uneasy about the takeaway advice to women that TPM gave, as a result of this encounter.
He was implying that it was a good thing, whatever the age of a woman, to do stuff like this.
Helen Andelin must be turning in her grave right now.

Now, several commenters on his blog already alluded to the point I am about to make.
But somehow I feel the need to add my own thoughts on this.

Many women will agree that as they get older, they become much more 'open' in the sense that they loosen up a bit. Not so uptight.
Like all toddlers go through a stage where they get all shy in the presence of strangers, although there are some girls who are naturally extrovert even from kindergarten, even they go through a 'reserved' stage.
That 'reserved' stage is maybe getting slightly lost in today's society.

But it is still there. It is perhaps manifesting itself differently from previous ages.

The Manosphere men say this:
'A woman is seeking to reject you within the first five minutes of meeting you'.

This is true, inasmuch as she puts up automatic barriers whilst she assesses whether you are friend or foe. This is normal behaviour. It is a huge part of the 'filter behaviour' I have touched on in previous posts. Nobody should be disputing its importance to women. A (young) woman without this automatic response is in trouble. Certainly in a social sense. But quite often even in a physical sense.

A woman in her sixties has 'done it all' already.
Figuratively and quite literally.
She is perhaps the most 'aggressive' she will ever be in her life, as her natural T:O (or T:E if you are American :-) is at its highest level ever.
She can compliment a man all she likes. Society won't bat an eyelid.
And she often does. She ain't shy.

A 20 year old woman is in quite a different place in her life.
She is at her most attractive in her life.
She is also at her most insecure.
She is at her lowest T:O ratio.
She, unlike her grandmother, has something to protect.
The wrong kind of attention, and she is on a train to some place she didn't want to go to.
She needs a shield to protect herself from unwanted attention.
Some Manosphere bloggers call this a 'b*tch shield'.
The 'b*tch shield' is massive when a woman is young. It gets smaller and smaller as she gets older.
At sixty, she doesn't have it anymore.
Because she doesn't really need it anymore.
With any luck she would have used it to good effect during her younger years.
Like 'fitness testing', a 'b*tch shield' is there to perform a certain function.

Is it often misused?
Yes. But how the 'b*tch shield' is applied is dependent on the level of maturity and character of the individual woman.
I am not referring here to the shield which has grown legs and has a mind of its own. That is outside the scope of this post. I am speaking here about the normal socially beneficial shield that has a useful purpose.

I wonder if the gradual loss of this 'b*tch shield' is what is termed 'external attractiveness' in this post of Andrew's. Interesting that in Andrew's definition, he chooses 'openness' as one of his criteria. Clearly, it is important to men, this 'openness'.
Is it possible for a woman to be pleasant without being too 'open'?
What about the shy, wallflower type of girl? Is she in possesion of an automatic 'b*tch shield' by virtue of her retiring nature?

If a 20 year old woman compliments a man on his beautiful brown eyes, unless that man is known to her, like a boy in school, or her brother's best friend, or someone like that, it would be considered a little 'strange' by society, and him. Certainly, if he is much older than her, it would be rather...odd. Perhaps society still judges women more than men in this type of situation, as has traditionally been the case for hundreds of years.

A 20 year old girl is supposed to be less 'forward' than a sixty year old woman.
Because of her natural lack of confidence, she often is less forward than a sixty year old woman.

She is supposed to be 'demure' for want of a better word.
Demure behaviour cannot be compatible with complimenting a (stranger) man's looks.
It is definitely not her job. No-one should expect her to do this.

Complimenting a (stranger) man on his achievements is a different thing. Like he just scored the final 3 points that won his team the coveted championship...you know, like Jeremy Lin :-)
It will lead to the same result, i.e. the man feeling good about himself, as indeed TPM did, but it is less 'fresh' for a woman to do this.

It is a very fine line for a woman to tread.
Even at forty, a woman who is too 'brazen' in her approach to men could be seen in the 'wrong' way.
Of course, she may indeed be sexually aggressive and forward. I have no doubt that this is often true, and not just in the imagination of men, but there are also certain behaviours that may give off vibes which can easily be misinterpreted.

Flirting is good.
But when there is a risk of misinterpretation, it is time to stop or do it differently.

Maybe sometimes it is best to leave it to the (older) women who really do know what they are doing. And who can live with the consequences, or at least navigate their way out of trouble.

In celebration of the female voice

2012-02-28T01:16:00.002-08:00

I did it again.
Something I swore I would never do again.
But I couldn't help myself.

I was at Mass at the cathedral of my city. The choir is always tip-top. But on this occasion, the leader outdid herself. Her singing caught me by surprise. It touched me in a way I could not believe.
After Mass, I went in search of her to say what a beautiful voice she had.
She smiled sweetly at me and said 'thank you'.
She was a much older woman than I expected from the sound of her voice. She was also very beautiful. I suspect she 'became' beautiful in my eyes because of her voice.
She regarded me with the same curiosity that I had become accustomed to when I used to compliment beautiful women wherever and whenever I saw one.
But she was gracious and seemed to appreciate my boldness.

There is something so incorrigibly beautiful about the female voice.
A lot of sopranos have won the hearts of millions with their talent. Think Maria Callas. The 'Forces Sweetheart', Dame Vera Lynn. Lynne Dawson who sang the 'Libera Me' from Verdi's Requiem at Princess Diana's funeral.

My own personal favourites are Marita Solberg, a little-known Norwegian soprano (have a look at her below singing 'Solveig's song' from Edvard Grieg's 'Peer Gynt') and Korean soprano Sumi Jo (singing Caccini's 'Ave Maria' below) and frankly, anyone who can hit the top notes of Mozart's 'The Magic flute' :-)

I suppose it is the high notes that strike a chord with me (sorry about the pun:-)
It conveys a certain purity...
Which transcends all that is earthly.

By the way, I get the same tingling sensation hearing a 'soprano' boy sing too. The careers of several male singers have been launched by their childhood high voices as boy choristers. Good examples are Anthony Way and Aled Jones. The opening scene of the film 'Empire of the sun' embodies all that is beautiful about this type of voice (see below) with the rendition of the Welsh lullaby 'Suo Gan'. There is a heartrending scene in this film where the protagonist Jim Graham spots some Japanese soldiers preparing for a kamikazi mission. He starts to sing this lullaby, which is heard by everyone at the camp. Even the ruthless Japanese officer in charge of the camp is reduced to tears on hearing this.

It has been said that the boyhood soprano voice is much purer than the adult woman's soprano voice. I forget who said that. They were some sort of expert. I am not. I just appreciate something beautiful when I see or hear it. The boy's voice might be purer because he is a child. But I find an adult woman's voice 'richer' though. Perhaps because she can convey emotion much better than a child? I dunno. It is all the same to me though - whether it is a boy or a woman or a girl or a 'castrato', if they can hit some high notes, they've got my attention :-)

I appreciate singing because I used to be in a choir myself. Although I have quite a low speaking voice, I was surprisingly soprano and not the expected mezzosoprano or contralto.
This reminds me of someone like Justin Timberlake who until he starts singing some pretty high notes in his unique falsetto voice, you just would never guess he could or would.

One of my female cousins had a scarily low speaking voice as a little girl. She was this sweet little thing, and then when she opened her mouth this deep voice would come out from seemingly nowhere. It never failed to amaze and amuse me. Now a lovely young lady, she has sadly lost that voice. But I suppose it is funny at age 3 to have an unusually deep voice. Not so funny at age 25.

That high female singing voice that soars far above our heads makes one want to reach up and 'touch it'. At least that is usually my reaction. I have the trait of 'seeing' music, so for me it makes sense to describe music in a visual way.
Superbowl 1990, Whitney Houston (RIP) comes to mind. As does her hit 'I will always love you'.
It is particularly pertinent in a religious context. Often, a piece of music such as Mozart's 'Laudate Dominum' instills in the listener a sense of awe and enchantment. I have added a fourth video below, which is a recording of a version of this piece sang by Cristina Piccardi.
How beautiful is that?

What is it about the high female voice that makes it so entrancing?
It is said that Albert Einstein once proclaimed, 'Now I know there is a God in heaven' after hearing young Yehudi Mehuhin play the violin.
That is kinda how I react to hearing some high-voiced people display their God-given talent.

And finally, who can ever forget this moment on British TV when the then 47-year old Scottish woman named Susan Boyle walked out on stage to sing 'I dreamed a dream' from the musical 'Les Misérables'?

I begin Lent by celebrating the female voice. It is truly beautiful.

Incidentally, I also love the male voice. But strangely enough not necessarily the male singing voice. Could it be related to the distinct possibility that many of my male entourage are...how shall I put this politely...erm...tone deaf? :-)

And when I do react to a beautiful male singing voice, it is (unsurprisingly) very different to my reaction to a female voice. But that's for another post.

It is said that women are generally not visual when it comes to mate selection (as least not as much as men).
Aherm... I concur.

Let's just say I am rather auditory in this regard. And I know I am not alone in this.
Confess all, ladies :-)

Den (lille) sinte gutten

2012-02-26T14:55:00.000-08:00

No I didn't forget to apply the spellchecker :-)
The above title comes from Norwegian, my favourite language.

Translation: The cross little boy. Or the Angry little boy.

Norway is a country that is fiercely proud of its cultural heritage.
Ancient Norse mythology is alive and well in modern Norway.
For the classical fans, composer Edvard Grieg and pianist Leif Ove Andsnes are kings.
For the contemporary lot, followers of the Eurovision Song contest, for example, you will know that Maria Haukass Storeng ruled the world as far as Norwegians were concerned even though she only came 5th in Belgrade in 2008, and Alexander Rybak really did rule when he won in Moscow in 2009.

Frogner Park in central Oslo is the open air gallery of Norwegian sculptor Gustav Vigeland.
There are many famous statues in Frogner Park, but the most famous one is 'The cross little boy'.
He is nicknamed 'Sinnataggen'. He is arguably Norway's favourite son.
The 'cross little boy' is the title of many an essay on cultural issues not only amongst Norwegians but around the world.

Like his Belgian brother in Brussels, he is naked, but this little guy ain't peeing. He is peeved.
Who does he remind me of?
Not who you would expect.

There are lots of angry men around.
For that matter, there are lots of angry women about too.
Both have their grievances. Some are vocal about it.

In a way, the Angry Man and the Angry Woman are chasing each other round and round an empty park.
The Angry Man is shouting at the Angry Woman: You are not woman enough!'
The Angry Woman is shouting at the Angry man: You are not man enough!'

Neither of them is wrong. But neither is totally right either.

Suppose we could somehow take away the reason they are both angry and just focus on getting them to calm down.
(Did I hear, 'dream on SpaceTraveller'?)

Never said it would be easy, but let's try. Let's all revert to childhood for one little second.

Suppose the Angry Man just followed the example of the 'cross little boy'.
Hear me out.

Suppose if instead of running around after The Angry Woman and shouting abuse at her, he just stopped in his tracks, lifted one leg off the ground and just dug his heel in.
And then just stayed like that and didn't move. For a few long minutes.

What would the Angry Woman do?

How might she react?

She might be stunned.

She too might stop running around and start to wonder what just happened.

The 'cross little boy' is a little alpha.
He is cross. And we all know it. Oh yes.

But he ain't running around. He is not throwing himself on the floor of the supermarket. That would be beta behaviour. He is literally standing his ground in no uncertain terms.
I bet you he got his way, regarding whatever he was cross about.
Without ever leaving this position.

The boy on the right has the right facial expression for this post. His facial expression, combined with the stance of the 'cross little boy' is the perfect combination.
(Somehow, the 'cross little boy' looks like he is about to cry...no, no, no, not the look he needs to project right now!)

I think in fact some men are already doing what the 'cross little boy' is doing.

The Angry men with Inner Game are just as angry as the Angry men without.
The first group just know how to use their anger effectively to get what they want.
And they do get what they want. Eventually.
The second group are running around in an empty park. Unproductively of course.

Nth wave Feminism changed womanhood into something it was never meant to be. One of these traits is the permanently angry woman.

Feminism had less of an impact on men because men as a whole did not change too much as a result of feminism.
Some just dug their heels in and continued as men (red pill).
Some got burned when their previously 'good boy' beta habits were thrown back into their faces (blue pill).
Some became ultra bad boys to survive (overdose of red pill).
Some kept the balance between alpha and beta and were the outright winners (purple pill).

But they all remained on a fairly tight and narrow spectrum.

The largest swings of the pendulum occurred on the other side of the fence.
There are some old ladies who wouldn't even recognise some female teenagers today as fellow women.
The old men don't see anything new in their grandsons.
Nothing much has changed about male behaviour, really. It is (mostly) the same as it always was.

Vigeland sure knows his own.

Question is, can or will the rest of the men who are not already doing this, handle things in a way that is...I dunno...more manly?
Where there is no leadership, there certainly will be chaos. Lack of patriarchal leadership breeds anarchy.

Feminism: A simple case of adult P-envy?

2012-02-23T05:28:00.000-08:00

Are we all suffering today because 50 years ago a few women wanted their own male appendages?

I am not a psychologist. I think that much is clear :-)
But there are certain aspects of psychology that strike a chord with me.
In today's post, I am specifically interested in developmental psychology.

I remember that in the post on MGTOW, I was baited into questions to the tune of 'do you wish you were a man' or some variation thereof, and I quipped back saying those days were long gone.

By 'those days' of course, I meant 'under age 5' kind of days.
Those days when I was fascinated by how high some of the boys in my kindergarten class could pee.
And being dismayed that I couldn't do the same :-)

Some of the more unkind men reading this might say, 'things haven't changed much, then, Spacetraveller'...
But I assure you they have!

As soon as I started sprouting strange protuberances on my own chest, I forgot all about high-pee boys.
Or rather, my interest in them changed somewhat. Let's just say I was no longer interested in how high they could pee anymore :-)

My point is, I moved on from one developmental milestone to the next, in a fairly typical fashion. I was, in this case, firmly within the Gaussian distribution.

I stopped having p-envy when puberty kicked in for me, much in the same way as a boy leaves behind his mother in his Oedipus complex when he becomes a man and seeks his own female company. In fact, p-envy ends well before puberty if I am not mistaken.

Now, I realise feminism is not as simple as all that.
It has many facets I know nothing about.
It is a bigger political animal than I give it credit for.

But I am going to concentrate on a small aspect of feminism which could explain a lot.

I was watching British boxer Amir Khan give a little 'masterclass' on boxing to two reporters who were doing a documentary on him. The reporters were male and female.
After the boxing masterclass in a gym-like setting, the two reporters were put into a boxing ring for a mock boxing match, with Amir Khan as the referee.
It was absolutely hilarious to watch.

The man was only marginally better than the woman at boxing, and one could clearly see that he was being chivalrous and allowing the woman to land punches on him for comic effect.
In fact the reason it was so funny was that her punches were so wildly out that even a blind boxer would have been able to avoid getting hit, and he, to (over)compensate, was actually getting into position in such a way that those ridiculously off-target punches would land on him.
He was not managing to get any punches in himself, because he was too busy receiving hers.

To make it even more hilarious at the end, Amir Khan declared her the winner, his explanation being that she was the only one actually landing punches. Which was technically true.

I laughed so hard, I was in physical pain at the end of this boxing 'match'.

But, after the laughter came the overwhelming sadness.

This little 'charade' I had just witnessed demonstrated in no uncertain terms what has been lost, perhaps for good, in this modern era.

Chivalry. Lighthearted banter and 'friendly fire' between the sexes.

The male reporter hadn't really been 'beaten by a girl', of course. It was plain for all to see. The two were complicit in creating this little 'act' for the entertainment of the TV audience.
The woman made a big show of 'winning'.
The guy looked suitably crestfallen and even made a little 'attempt' to appeal to Amir Khan who was having none of it: his decision was final.

Everything was made funnier by the fact that this guy was like, twice the size of the girl, and even taller and bigger than Amir Khan himself. It was like the characters in this 'charade' had been handpicked for maximum comic effect. It worked. I laughed until it hurt.

This woman was 'validated' by the guy much in the same manner my friend had ''respected" the men at the dinner party in her home. No cost to the giver. But invaluable to the receiver.
It was easy enough to do, knowing my friend. It didn't cost her anything to 'respect' the men.
It was goodnatured fun. It made a nice evening extra special.

To state the obvious, more and more, that sort of thing is getting lost in modern society.
Like Tango dancing.
Exchanges between men and women are less cordial than before, for sure.

It seems the only time there is passable civility between the sexes is when one party wants something from the other.
A man may validate a pretty stranger just so he can get her to a four-poster in double-quick time.
A 'not so nice' girl might put on her 'nice girl' face just long enough to get a man to commit, and then shortly after, this Medusa appears from nowhere.
There really is no such thing as a free lunch anymore.

Yes there was plenty wrong pre-feminism. This is why I have a healthy respect for first-wave feminism which brought me certain rights that my female ancestors from a hundred years ago would never have dreamed about.

But then things got all crazy and weird, and now both women and men are worse off.
Because today, a man in that male reporter's position would find nothing wrong in knocking out a woman half his size within two seconds of the boxing 'match'.

Some of his charming brothers might even cheer him on chanting, 'kill the b*tch!'
This very scenario unfolds all the time in The Manosphere.

The following three lines are a shameless lament of the death of decorum. I know the causes of this, but point no fingers. Ever the (not so) quiet observer, I feel I am as much part of the problem as the next guy (or girl).
A sinking ship not long ago...
The heavily pregnant women on trains and buses who can't find a seat...
The old lady who passes a line of able-bodied youngsters as she struggles up some steps with her heavy shopping.

How did we get here?
The same Manosphere has an answer for this:
Apex Fallacy.

A few women from 50 years ago saw how 'good' life was for a few men at the top of the food chain.
They perceived this 'good life' as pertaining to all men.

So they set out to get this 'good life' for themselves. At all cost.
But no-one told them that their very own natures would NOT allow them to enjoy that which was not designed for them.

Did a few grown women see how high one boy could pee on the wall?
Did a few grown women never outgrow their natural p-envy?

If so, why would I associate myself with someone who is behind me on the developmental chart?
Would that not put me in the same place as them?
I don't want to be a 5 year old again.
I enjoyed being a 5 year old. When I was 5.

Being neither bible scholar nor basher, I must say, this by St Paul appeals to me a great deal:
1 Cor 13:11: "When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things."

This little guy in Brussels is not doing too badly...

My 5 year old self would have been impressed...

Validate a woman, respect a man

2012-02-20T00:39:00.000-08:00

The mother in this family is a 'natural' at treating men and women differently. She knows how to validate a woman and respect a man.

One recent example of this comes to mind.

A dinner at a restaurant had been scheduled for a party of about 30 of us (work colleagues), including her. But unfortunately, the day before the dinner, the restaurant got flooded in a freak incident. Bizarre but true.
She, as the solo organising committee for this dinner was undeterred. With one day's notice, she singlehandedly fixed a gourmet dinner at her own house. For 30 people. At her own cost.
Admirable in itself.

But what sticks in my memory about that evening is what she did just prior to the dinner itself.

After laying out the delicious spread of various meals on the table, she made a big show of calling the men to table first. There was the usual mock protests from all the ladies, of course (all in good humour, I might add), all of us expecting the usual 'ladies first'.

The men were absolutely delighted. They were not expecting that at all.
She made up some cock-and-bull story about how she was sick and tired of the whole 'ladies first' thing and it was time the men had their turn at going first...She was clearly 'sucking up' to the men and they loved it. We the women were totally unimpressed with her :-)

At the end of the evening, the men reimbursed her for the cost of hosting the whole group at her home. They graciously paid for all the women too.

When they were leaving, I overheard one man say to her husband, "If only wife-swapping were legal in this country..."

All she had done was show a little bit of good humoured 'mock' respect to a group of men. They were more than happy to oblige with chivalrous behaviour.
Imagine what they would have done with a more serious display of respect.

Because the need for respect is hard-wired into a man. From within, in the guise of his self-worth, and from others in his entourage.

Some of the men at that party had never known a day of respect in their entire married lives.
Shame, because in fact, it is an easy thing for a woman to do. Especially if she chose her Top Spot man.

That dinner was of course no example of validation of the women, by our hostess. Our 'rights' had been taken away from us. So naturally we were seething. We would have been quite happy to do what red pill men want to do with manginas: take him to the courtyard and publicly flog him.
Until, that is, the men paid for us :-)
Until, that is, the men validated us.
There was no obligation on their part to pay for us. They just did it. Just because. They made us feel special. Like we were worth being spoiled.
Even if we did not collectively merit that, necessarily.

Here is another example of validation of a woman.
As a child, I remember being amused by my grandparents' displays of affection during visits to their home. Grandma would call Grandpa the equivalent of 'The Boss' and he would call her the equivalent of 'Babydoll'.
'Babydoll'.
She looked anything but, given that at that time she was pushing 60.
But appearance is important to a woman. Sure, she knows she is not 21 anymore. But it makes her feel important if someone tells her that, to him, she might as well be.

Women feel important for what they are, men feel important for what they do.
Those two were the best kind of role model there could ever be for us kids.
Twenty years after his death, Grandma was still singing the praises of 'The Boss'. Even though while he was alive, he was hardly an angel. And she had complaints about him a foot long. But you would never have known it unless you were part of the family.

Because she respected him and he loved her.

Women do not need to hear they are respected. They only need to feel it.
A woman's favourite three words (from a man if she is heterosexual) are 'I love you'.
It is never 'I respect you'.
Love is more important to a woman than respect when it comes to 'building' her up.
'I respect and love you' is perfect.
'I respect you', on its own is not.

A woman's source of self-importance tends to be external. She usually needs to be validated by someone else. Otherwise she feels less than desirable, less than feminine.

Many women have learned to live without this external validation. This is admirable because it is not easy to do.

A man's self-worth is always internal.
Everyone around him can tell him how great he is. If he does not believe it himself, he will never be swayed into believing it by someone else.
His own accomplishments determine how he sees himself.

From the above observations, it is easy to see why a woman is easier to encourage than a man.
All she needs to hear is, 'you can do it' and she is off and away.
A man needs to be able to tell himself he can do anything. Otherwise, he just won't do it.

From the above observations, it is easy to see why a woman can be easily led astray by a skilled pick up artist (PUA) or the wrong 'herd' of fellow women.
All she needs to hear is "you're beautiful, I love you" and the rest is history.
Or she might hear "you're not fat, sweetie, you're just 'big-boned', you are absloutely fabulous just the way you are!" and the rest is not history.
A woman can definitely be 'persuaded' into all sorts of things. This is why women make better hypnosis subjects than men.

From the above observations, it is easy to see why a woman's greatest fear is abandonment.
Someone who once validated her is no longer willing to do so. She feels she has failed as a 'people connector' which is supposed to be her best skill.

A man realising his greatest fear (cuckoldry, betrayal by a woman) suffers a masive blow to his self-image: his criteria for assessment were all wrong.
Some woman outsmarted him. Nothing more irksome to a man than losing any kind of competition, especially to a woman.

Having his own strong sense of accomplishment AKA self-worth intact, the single most important virtue a man needs from outside of himself is respect, especially coming from his own 'camp' - his own family and then secondly, from his 'competitors' - his rivals at work and play.

For a woman, the concept of 'respect' is a foreign one usually, except in the realm of womanly virtue. This is perhaps why no woman can stand to be seen as a word rhyming with 'rut'. Even if by the standards of the times, she is technically one.

She would rather be validated than respected in everything else.
A man would pick respect over validation any day.

If anyone is interested in 'evidence' (effectively, just someone else's opinion), part of my formulation of thought on this theme comes from Dr. Emerson Eggerich's book, Love and respect. I have found his theories to be true. A good summary of the book is to be found here.

When is a fitness test not a fitness test?

2012-02-17T02:34:00.000-08:00

I love playing the victim just as much as the next woman. When done within certain boundaries, it is actually quite comforting. It feels great.
But I do not expect a man to understand this.
And what's more, I would not like to see a man play the victim along with me.
I have female friends for that.
I did not know this about myself before I stepped into the Manosphere jungle.

I invite the males in my entourage to 'play the victim' with me all the time without even realising it. But now I know I would not want them to take the bait. For them to do so would be to lose serious credibility with me. I know this now.
None of them has ever taken the bait so far.
Good boys.
They are not all 'alpha'.
And yet, they are consistently men I can look up to.
Because they have never failed a fitness test of mine. At least, not this particular one.

The concept of 'fitness testing' is one that I notice is bandied about in the Manosphere a lot.
I asked myself, 'why is this?' a lot, before I began to see a few patterns.

Fitness testing is very much a part of feminine behaviour. Like 'tossing men back out into the parade', it is a necessary part of a woman's life. Femininity is all about fulfilling this function. Women who accept 'all and sundry' and do not do any fitness testing are worse off than those who do a little 'filtering'.
This is something I would not expect a man to understand, but full marks to him if he does.

In one of Bellita's posts, she recounts a Muslim man trying to convince her that her 'reward' for converting to Islam would be 'a thousand men' or something to that effect.

Bellita's response to that is typical of a woman's reaction to this: absolute horror.

That man was projecting his own standards to a woman. It doesn't work. Because men and women are different. A woman is never truly interested in more than a few men in her entire lifetime. Of those few, she must still do some filtering. There are always outliers, sure. But for now, we concentrate on the inliers.

I think life is hard for a woman these days (playing the victim :-) but I also have more sympathy for men these days (snapping out of it :-)

Why?

Life became hard for women when they had to go out there and fend for themselves in the same way that men had been doing since time immemorial.
Life became hard for women when they had to kill their own snakes and take care of baby as well. All alone.
Life became hard for women when the big ugly troll commonly known as feminism stepped into the picture.
But the big ugly troll was not content to ruin womens' lives.
In fact the big ugly troll's intended target was men.

To bring a man to his knees, you don't go for him directly. That would be the stupid strategical move.
To bring a man to the jaws of defeat, you get his woman. Gangsters know this principle well.
In this respect, so it would appear, does feminism.
Except feminism hurt women more than men in the process.

In the old days, a man would go out there and bring home the bacon.
Home to an equally hardworking woman who loved him and was suitably grateful for the bacon.
Home to male children who looked up to the hero and wanted to be just like him when they grew up.
Home to female children who wanted to snag a man just like their hero incumbent when they grew up.

Fast forward fifty years and the picture is very different.

Nowadays, a man will still go out there and get the bacon, but in order that he is not taken for a fool, he has to step into another role.

Relationships have always been a woman's domain. Nature designed it that way. Nature also aids and abets women in this role.
My grandmother knew more about men than I will ever know.
Her mother and grandmother probably knew even more than she did about men.
These women spent their whole lives learning about men.
Because their whole life depended on that knowledge.
If they didn't know men enough to choose one well, to the best of their abilities, they would literally die of starvation. Or at least, figuratively speaking.

Feminism removed this skill from women starting fifty years ago.
A woman does not have time to 'learn about men'.
For a start, she is out killing snakes.
So now, there are many more clueless women than there were sixty years ago.

A man can see now that he cannot afford to blindly follow in his grandfather's footsteps.
To do so would be to run a 'fool's errand' as someone described on a previous post.
So now men have to learn what their grandfathers never had to. All about women.

Pick Up Artistry is about understanding women and their psychology.
Know the enemy, so to speak.
The LTR/marriage-minded man has to do the same in order to avoid the traps his father fell into.

But he is up a creek without a paddle somewhat.
Because women are much more complex than men.
Stephen Hawking has finally figured this out, aged 70. And he ain't dumb :-)

So a man is more likely than a woman to make mistakes in the dating arena. It is not his fault. He is trying to scale a greasy pole.

One common mistake men make is to see everything a woman does as a 'fitness test.'

In general, men do not 'fitness test' women. They have 'frames'. He is who he is. If a woman wants to step into his frame, fine. If she doesn't like his 'frame', she is free to walk. He usually has no need to 'test' anything.
It is women who do the 'fitness testing'.
Because women have every need to.
If the 'king' is a rogue in disguise, or a weakling, she and her children are in trouble.
So she will test and test and test until she is satisfied he is the real deal.
She is supposed to.
Which is why the red pill men who have figured this out talk about fitness testing a lot.

Women don't talk about this because men traditionally do not fitness test women. (But times are changing, fast).
Moreover, because women do not realise they do it, and because they never have it done to them, they often do not even know about this until it is pointed out to them.

There are a few exceptions to a woman's 'fitness tests'.
Certain things are actually a sort of 'frame'.
Her 'non-negotiables'.
A man has to accept it or not.
She is prepared to really walk if he is not a good fit for this 'non-negotiable'.
For every woman, this 'non-negotiable' is different.
A man interested in a woman needs to know what this 'non-fitness-test' is for her.
And then acquiesce to that if it works within his frame too.
In other words, fail this one test if it is not worth losing a special woman over it.
But pass all the others.

It is not easy being a man these days (back to playing the victim, but now on behalf of 'the other side').
Because 'the other side' is not allowed to be a victim.
It's a horrible job, but someone has to do it ;-)

Before I ventured out into the Manosphere jungle, this was my idea of a fitness test.
How long ago it all seems now.
And how odd my vocabulary has become.

Gods and Goddesses

2012-02-15T16:05:00.000-08:00

All the recent talk generated from the post about religion and how it relates to masculinity and femininity reminded me of something.

That post of course concentrated on Catholicism, but that's just a function of my own familiarity with a little part of Christianity.

I was wondering if Deities in other religions had a 'gender' aspect to them, and if so, did this affect the practice of these religions in any way?

In a sense, it shouldn't matter what happens in other religions, where the point of this post is concerned.

Because one really only needs one template for discussions such as these. Unless there is something especially relevant in another religion which would render our template useless.

An example would be if someone could provide examples of a religion where one or more Deities is asexual. That would be interesting. I don't think I have ever come across something like that before.

Our template does not have to be Christianity of course.

Bellita has been educating us all lately about the Deities in Greek mythology with her posts on Heidi Klum and Emma Watson, aka Aphrodite and Artemis.

As far as I know, the Greek Gods and Goddesses (and their Roman equivalents, I might add) were certainly not shy about displaying their gender-specific traits.

In a sense, they could almost be described as the perfect fodder for a parody of male-female interaction.

These guys are us, but like a million years ago :-)

Films like 'Clash of the Titans' and 'Jason and the argonauts' absolutely fascinated me. Sadly they were really my only education about Greek mythology, until Bellita's posts.

But alas, I have to switch back to Christianity for a specific point I would like to make.

The post about God practising 'Game', albeit a joke, made me aware of my inability to escape my own female nature. This little bit of self-awareness changed my outlook on a lot of things.

It helped.

But then I realised something else.

Something which, of all the churches in christendom, is unique to Catholicism.

And that is, the role of the mother of Our Lord.

Catholics hold Our Lady in extremely high esteem.

I grew up with this sense of reverence to Our Lady, being Catholic.

I assumed it was only natural, given I was female and she was a great female role model.

But I never imagined that boys or men could see Our Lady in more or less the same way I saw her.

Catholicism is a Patriarchy. That is undeniable.

But it is also often decribed as a 'Maternal' religion. The 'Mother' religion.

There is a link here to Our Lady.

During the last decade, several Church of England members switched to Catholicism as a rebellious move against the ordination of women priests in the Anglican church.

All of a sudden, there were many more young, handsome guys at Mass than there were the previous months. It was literally raining men at my local parish.

'Keep ordaining those women,' was my silent message to the Anglican Church.

(Don't look at me like that. I like rain :-).

One of the rain droplets surprised me though. For him, it wasn't the ordination of women that had pushed him over the edge, so to speak. He was always a closet catholic born into an Anglican family, I suppose. I guess he was really an outlier.

He had converted to Catholicism because he was really looking for a religious 'Mother-figure'.

This guy had a mother. I didn't get it.

Pope John Paul II had a great love for Our Lady. I am guessing if he hadn't been born catholic, this wouldn't have changed anything. But I understand why, in his case.

His mother died when he was eight years old. He lived with his father unil he too died several years later.

Is this kind of reverence towards a female Deity the basis of 'pedestalisation' when a man falls in love with a woman?

My favourite psychologist thinks so: This is what he says on the matter:

Strange Goddesses:

"I am the Lord Thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me."

Most men have a much harder time with strange goddess than strange gods. These goddesses are strange because they pop up in a man's life as a live woman. They rise up when a man falls, falls in love. "Love" turns an ordinary woman into a goddess whether she wants that transformation or not.

He continues:

The whole psychospiritual journey of a man calls him to dance with the feminine in her many guises, be it mother, lover, his own soul, the feminine face of God. To a man, the feminine is the life force. He is brought life by his mother who nurtures and protects him when he is most vulnerable to forces that can take that life. He dances with his mother from toddler to teenager, unless she is taken from him too soon.

Mother seems the first goddess because she is the life force he came from and the life force that nurtures and protects his own life. She gives life to a child, and if the child is chronically neglected or inadvertently abandoned, the child instinctively knows she has the power to take that life away. She is the creator. She is the higher power.

Mother energy, represents the grace of the life force, freely given without asking. She can be a reflection of the nurturing, protective face of God. Mother energy flowing through a woman carries an unimaginable strength of character, willing to give until her own life force is totally depleted even to death, for the sake of her children. There is no expectation of payback here. In many ways a man's mother can be the embodiment of the feminine face of God, the face of God that exudes unconditional love and nurturing.

So, God has a feminine face, and it is your mother's face.

Charming Disarray reminded us what God himself thought of his own mother.

He couldn't say no to her.

Is this the face of God men can relate to? This feminine version?

As opposed to my masculine version?

Or would this only apply to men who belong to 'Mother' religions?

Is God Gaming Me?

2012-02-13T04:16:00.000-08:00

Charming Disarray, this one is for you.
It is a tongue-in-cheek post designed to kill two birds with one stone.

1. I feel rather playful today. (Grasshopper, I am wearing 'blue' today :-)

2. CD, I know you belong to the Faith beginning and ending with the letter 'C'.

I also know you detest with great intensity all things 'Game'.
This strangely amuses me.
But... my guilty pleasures aside, I thought to myself: how can I make this a bit more palatable to her?

The answer came to me bizzarely enough on a Sunday:
Just add 'God'.

:-)

So here we are. Game-food for the uninitiated, with a few sprinkles of 'God' as 'relish'.
Buon appetito.

I see God as a man. Masculine. Male.
Whether I am picturing the 'brimstone and fire' old dude with the long white beard in the Old Testament or the 'hippy' type fellow with the long hair and sandals in the New Testament.
Both are undeniably male. I have no other versions of God in my head, except of course the abstract versions like the roaring thunder in a fierce storm depicting 'the wrath of God' (again, Old Testament-like) or the 'still small voice' during a gentle breeze over the lake on a sunny day (?New Testament).
Both are still masculine, in my eyes.

To digress a bit, there is some music I 'see' and not hear. Some composers really know how to depict 'rage' or 'wrath' that I can 'see' - good examples are Beethoven's 'Rage over a lost penny' and Sibelius' sultry, moody violin concerto. Both seem to be innocuous on the surface, and then when you 'see' it, you feel there might be no escape, like I imagine the 'Great Wrath' to be.
On the other hand, Beethoven especially is the absolute master at creating that 'still small voice' too.
Practically all of his symphonies' second movements are so gentle, you could almost imagine hearing God speak.
Something to do with his deafness perhaps? He did afterall live in a silent world.

This masculinity of God was always the traditional view of God.
Until that is, the feminists tried to get a foothold in the Church.

There was a time when there was a drive to change 'The Lord's Prayer' into 'Our Mother, who art in heaven'...

It didn't catch on.
Not in the Catholic church, at least.

For all the Catholic Church's sins, deviation from the Patriarchy is not one of them, unless I am grossly mistaken.
Unlike many other churches in christendom, the Catholic church refused to and still refuses to ordain women as priests. It refused to accord women certain powers as demanded by secular society (read: feminists).

And yet the Catholic church, to me, is one of the most 'woman-friendly' churches there is.

Why is this?

The Catholic church, since 1970, has begun to accord some of its highest honours to women. There are now three female 'Doctors of the Church' (St Theresa ofAvila, St Catherine of Siena, St Thérèse de Lisieux - this last one is referred to as a 'Doctor of love'!) and there are many more on the list, being considered by Pope Benedict.

The Catholic Church has always placed a high importance on Our Lady. To an extent that some people outside the Catholic Church believe that Catholics 'worship' Our Lady. They therefore have confused the Church with a 'Matriarchy'.
If indeed Our Lady is a Matriarch, then it is only in the sense that she is the type who defers to the Patriarch.
She, afterall, was very quick to say "Thy will be done" when she was given the task of becoming mother to Our Lord. No easy task considering she was a young, unmarried but betrothed Jewish girl, and she lived in a society where if a woman was found to be pregnant outside of marriage, she was stoned to death, no questions asked.

According to the Catholic Church, Our Lady is the 'highest' of all the saints.
It is no secret that some Popes, like John Paul II adored her till his dying day.

I am pretty sure there will never be a woman Pope in the modern era.
But I am sure there will be no need.

Again, I wonder: why?

Do I need God to be 'female' to feel better?
Do I need to have a woman Pope to feel any more validated in this life?

Strangely, I feel the answer is 'no'.

But, alas I will never know. Because I have not experienced the above scenarios before.
But that's OK. I can live with that.

A woman does not need to be a 'leader' to be 'powerful'.
Because feminine power is an entirely different animal from male power.
It is less 'out there', but it is there, nonetheless.
You might miss it if you blink. But if you are looking for it, you see it.

Interestingly, speaking of composers above, I note there aren't that many female composers, if at all.
Why?
Afterall, there were many women authors from time immemorial.
What is the difference between the written word and a musical note?

So, because I see God as 'male', I sometimes correlate his 'behaviour' to that of men in general. This is done in jest, a kind of intellectual joke I play with myself.

If I need a prayer answered and I don't get what I want, I wonder, "Is God gaming me?"

If I ask God to intervene in my daily life and it doesn't quite happen in the way I envision, I think "Is God GHOW where I am concerned?"

If I don't seem to get an answer from him, I think, "Am I being negged?"

And then when he does do something nice for me, I secretly think, "Is he going all beta on me?"

And then he is back to alpha.

What is your end-point?

2012-02-10T01:18:00.000-08:00

The last few posts have alerted me to a problem I didn't see coming.
But in fact it is a problem which lies at the very heart of the confusion in the SMP.

Take the above question for example:
What is the end-point of the dating game?

Here we find a huge disconnect.
Some people will answer, 'to get married'.
Some will answer 'to have a lasting marriage/relationship till death do us part'.

Now, I know that there is no gender divide when it comes to the answer to that question.

But, (and don't shoot the messenger), the number one complaint by modern men against modern women is that most if not all women will give the first answer, and that they would give the second answer.
It is the basis for the question: where are all the good women?
This is what I have observed.

But why do modern men think this?
The short answer is this:
High divorce rate being increasingly instigated by women (even though women would argue that they are pushed into it by unruly men!).

Another short answer is this:
Kim Kardashian and Heidi Klum.
These women are giving the rest of us the impression that they would like to get married, but not to remain married, certainly not beyond 'the good times'. I am sure they have not set out to do this deliberatly, but there we are. We can but draw lessons from those in the public eye.
I declined to take the bait when Charming Disarray proposed/invited thoughts on Kim K. But I have changed my mind (woman's perogative and all that).
This is because Kim K is actually relevant to this post.

As is Bellita's recent post on Masculine women.

Beginning with Bellita's post, there is a discussion there about two different types of women. The so-called 'masculine woman' or 'high T' woman and the regular woman.
Interestingly, I do not personally think there is necessarily a correlation between a woman having a 'masculine' outlook on things and being physically of the appearance of a 'high T' woman with the prominent jaw, narrow hips and so on. But there may be an overlap, for sure.
I believe Michelle Obama is a 'masculine woman'. Nothing to do with her height. Notice she has strong male influences in her life pre Barack.

Commenter 'just visiting' makes some extremely insightful points on Bellita's post.
One of them is this:

"Much has been said about the high risk of long term relationships with high T women. I think that it depends on a few things. High T means higher sex drive. More than likely they have a lot of male friends (And are able to relate well to men.) and their female friends will be high T as well. Slut tells in the manosphere.
Here’s the thing, we also have a higher chance of developing that one thing the men in the sphere claim women do not possess. Honor.
As well, there’s more of a chance of developing integrity, introspection,rationality, principals, and courage. It helps to be brought up with these things, and helps if society at large encourages those things, but it’s not always necessary.
These things are the “set” switch on the hamster, as opposed to the default setting that the sphere concentrates on. When things are not going well in a marriage, we may very well stick it out by rationalizing the importance of marriage. The stability and well being of children. What our faith means to us, this too shall pass, focusing on the positive traits of a husband, having the courage to walk through the mouth of hell to retrieve him or die trying in some cases. And having the strength to deal if we lose that battle, without becoming bitter and hard."

The so-called 'masculine woman' (not the 'sex-positive' variety of course - there is a difference between a high sex drive and promiscuity) is the one most likely to give the second answer to the above question.
She is the 'good woman' the men are looking for.

But where is she?

Precisely because of her thinking, she refuses to dress like Kim K. She refuses to appear so-called 'feminine' because she is disgusted at what 'feminine women' do. She is often very principled, she may even be fiercely religious or spiritual, but none of that is getting picked up by anyone, let alone her intended target.
She is not completely right in her thinking, of course.

She has a lot to learn from the 'feminine woman'.
If only she will outwardly display her femininity which is buried under all that 'masculine thinking', and therefore become more visible to men, she will be a 'winner takes all'.

In the same way as the 'beta' man with real character can learn 'Game' to become visible to women.
These two groups of people are not visible to each other because they are missing an essential ingredient in their gameplan. They are missing the chance to get their foot in the door, so to speak.

"I was fortunate enough to acquire feminine graces growing up. My father and my maternal grandmother saw to that. "

Notice that just visiting atrributes her femininity to both a man and a woman. It is a point I made in my Blue Pill post. A woman needs both masculine and feminine influences to 'get there'.
This is one reason why fatherlessness is a crime against humanity. I make this point in The sins of the Mother.
I make it here again.

As a side argument, I note to myself that there is plenty wrong with the film 'Fireproof' in which a man attempts to win back his wife who is well on her way to becoming unfaithful to him as a result of problems within their marriage.
Whilst I find the film unrealistic because Caleb is not at all typical of men who find themselves in the situation he finds himself, I find it interesting that the advice Caleb's father gives him actually comes from Caleb's mother. But somehow, it works better for Caleb when it is delivered by Caleb's father. Caleb's father knows this, which is why he does what he does.
Interesting. I don't know why this is.

Back to Kim K, I believe the big issue with her entourage is this:
She and her sisters effectively live in a matriarchy.
I believe her biological father, Robert Kardashian was a patriarch. But he died when the girls were young. A big shame.
Enter beta Bruce Jenner.

Like Seal, this is someone you could easily mistake for an 'alpha'. He won Olympic Gold. He looks like a masculine guy.
And yet, as step-father to Kim and her sisters, he is essentially invisible. He is led around by the nose by his wife, mother to the Kardashian clan. His only way to survive is to avoid them as much as possible. He has no authority whatsoever in his own household.

This is why the girls are 'ultra feminine' but ultimately, and yet paradoxically, end up being attracted to either 'badass' alpha types (as Bellita calls them, 'sizzle without the steak' kind of men) or beta men (who on the surface, again you could easily mistake for 'alpha' if you are not discerning or mature enough - Kris Humphreys is afterall a 6ft 9 professional athlete! And yet he was 'led a dance' by 5 ft 2 Kim).
Which begs the question: Who is telling these young men that it is a good idea to marry a woman whose only claim to fame is a sex tape? It's not even Blue Pill advice. Maybe yellow pill?
But...and it must be said, since his divorce announcement, Kris Humphreys has displayed a lot of maturity for one so young, to his credit. Watch out for this kid - in a few years he will be the real deal, and more. That's my prediction for him. All the makings of a decent mature fellow are there. He just got 'caught' early on in the game. In his case, recovery is everything.

Kim K's idea of femininity is an entirely female idea of femininity. It can be toxic for a long term relationship because the 'masculine' component is missing.
But, she is the one who is more visible to a man because of this same 'feminine femininity'.

A man with real ('inner' plus 'outer') Game can tell the difference between the two - the 'complete' and the 'incomplete' femininity.
He can confirm his suspicions with a little 'fitness test' of his own, aka 'alpha behaviour' even if he is intrinsically a beta man.
Kris Humphreys did not do this apparently.
So he got 72 days of what he thought would be a lifetime's worth of marriage.

Can Kim K recover?
The answer to questions like this is always 'yes'.
But it depends.
Can she mentally or physically separate herself from her toxic herd?
Not easy in her case, as the 'herd' is also her closest family.
But it can be done.
Can she find a 'father substitute' of susbstance who can give her what just visiting got? And I don't mean a 'sugar Daddy' type.

It does bear repeating: Quality people attract each other. Non-quality people also attract each other.
It is a law of...you guessed it, Nature.
To attract a quality person, one has to become quality oneself. Whatever 'quality' means to one.
No-one is born 'quality'. One has to simply work at it.

Blue Pill advice and why we receive it

2012-02-07T10:57:00.000-08:00

The subtitle of this blog alludes to my curiosity. It is no exaggeration. I am a very curious person. Apparently it shows on my face.
During one of those leadership/management courses one gets dragged to even though they are totally irrelevant to one's job, a fellow course-goer was asked to describe me. He said this:
"She always looks like she is about to ask a question!"
To be fair to him, I did have a question in mind... "what am I doing on this course?"

My quizzical nature dictates that I get on perfectly well with two types of people in real life:
The patient types who will tolerate my constant search for answers, so basically, really old people...
And those who have already lost their sanity and therefore have a huge tolerance for humouring two-year olds going 'why' all day long...

As they say, curiosity killed the cat.
As I am thankfully non-feline with respect to my phenotype, and I am not yet dead, my curiosity persists.

My favourite question is indeed 'why'.

Whenever I receive advice, especially unsolicited advice, I like to analyse why I was given that advice.

This comment by The Navy Corpsman made me smile, because it describes my attitude to advice to a tee:
"God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to run screaming from people who give free advice."

Like many people today, I grew up with 'Blue Pill' advice.
Nowadays though, Blue Pill advice makes me see red.

In general, I have found only three reasons why people dish out Blue Pill advice:

1. Ignorance
2. Sabotage
3. Misguided good faith

The specific reason in any given case depends very much on who is giving the advice, of course.

Below is some typical Blue Pill advice and my feelings towards them.

For women
1. "Don't even think about settling down until you are out of your twenties."

This is an extremely common one. Actually, I have mixed feelings about this one. On the one hand, it sems totally illogical. Because there is such a thing as a biological clock for women.
On the other hand, many women will admit that they are just not ready for the huge responsibility marriage is, in their twenties.
I personally was a late developer. Which is a euphemism for 'slow'. Not an insult directed at self. Just an observation.
I have a lot of sympathy for both arguments. But on principle, I think it is wrong advice. Hence its appearance under 'Blue Pill advice'.

2. "You can have it all".

This one I have zero sympathy for. I think this one is the single most anger-provoking advice for young women today. Because it is patently false. And it is the reason feminism is dying a slow painful death, finally.
Because savvy young women are turning their backs on this particular lie. It was the last straw that broke the proverbial camel's back.

For men
1. "Be nice/be yourself".

Now, as the recipient of this advice myself, which I find appropriate for women, I honestly did not know that this was also advice being dished out to men.

But I was seeing the results of this advice. I just did not know what the problem was until I happened upon the Manosphere and discovered exactly why this was bad advice for men.

I have great sympahy for the male recipients of this advice. Partly because of who is most likely to give it. For many men, it is Mother, or an equivalent well-meaning female relative.

As women, we have come to expect sound advice from a trusted mother figure, especially the kind of woman I would call a 'Titus 2' woman. (An experienced, godly, wife and mother).
And, we expect equally sound advice from a father figure too, because a man knows other men best.

But somehow, it just does not seem to work out well when a mother tries to guide her son in the SMP. I really don't know why. Somehow, I have learned that a man can only really get good advice about the dating game from another man.
I find it hard to believe that a father would tell his son the above advice. But I am sure there are always exceptions to the rule. Surely this has to be a rare exception though!

Another reason this bit of advice is problematic is that, it is just incomplete.
Taken at face value, it is excellent advice. Because women actually do want 'nice'. But only in men they already find attractive, aka, 'alpha', whatever 'alpha' may mean to her.

In the interests of brevity, I shall stop here.

I am sure there is plenty more Blue Pill advice for both men and women I have left out...
Let me know if I have left out your favourite one, and please tell me the reason behind people dishing it out.

Educate a woman...

2012-02-04T17:34:00.000-08:00

Educate a man, and you educate an individual. Educate a woman, and you educate an entire nation.

I have heard the above statement before, in several guises.
Until today however, I never knew where it came from.

A quick Google search revealed the following information about the above statement, by John Kwami Esseboe Nyamidie :

This well-known saying is attributed to the Ghanaian scholar Dr. James Emmanuel Kwegyir-Aggrey (1875-1927), one of this century's greatest educators. Kwegyir-Aggrey probably used this proverb to convince African parents who were more willing to allow their male children to attend missionary schools than their daughters. Like many sayings, this one makes its point by unqualified exaggeration to capture our attention. The message here is that once we know the value of education for men in society, we should allow women to have equal access to it. Education is used here to mean knowing, through formal or informal means, what is right for the spirit, mind and body and acting upon this knowledge.

Women in general are the newborn child's primary caregivers in most societies. The paid nanny, the indulgent grandmother or an older sister are most likely to watch over the child during its first three critical years. From the womb through its early formative years the baby has more direct contact with women. It is during this time that the words, unspoken messages and expectations of the caregiving woman affect and determine the child's future destiny most. A physically abused and psychologically hurt child at this time is likely to project his or her anger on society in later life. On the other hand, a child that is surrounded by the warm embrace of loving women caregivers will most likely spread that love in his or her future dealings with others as the child grows up. Perhaps the truthfulness of this saying is best exemplified in the life of George Washington (1732-1799), the first President of the United States, who said this about his mother: "All I am I owe to my mother...I attribute all my success in life to the moral, intellectual and physical education I received from her."

A biblical parallel is Exodus" 2:9: "Pharaoh's daughter said to her, 'Take this child and nurse it for me, and I will give you your wages.' So the woman took the child and nursed it." This story of Moses shows the importance of women in raising a child. The mother of Moses protects her child from hostility, hides him in a basket and asks the infant's sister to watch from afar. The Princess saves and adopts him. These three women are epitomes of the various women that ensure the growth of any child in society. When one in the chain fails her duty, society loses the opportunity to have another Moses, another deliverer, another reformer. What is not stated but implied in this second chapter of Exodus is that the mother of Moses knows that it is right to protect her child. The sister of Moses is well brought up to obey her mother. You won't find many girls in today's world "sticking out their necks" for their little brothers. She was unafraid to suggest a nurse to the princess for her little brother. The Princess knew that it was morally right to raise this child against the Pharaoh's edict. Because the women saved this child through their knowledge of what was right and doing it (education), the people of Israel were saved from the Egyptians and God sent to humankind one of the greatest tools of education: "The Ten Commandments."

Some might see the statement as sexist. I don't.
Here's why:
It is a historical statement not to be viewed out of context. As explained in the first few sentences, it was a great way to capture the attention of many families who did not see the potential benefits the education of their girls would bring to their families.

A woman is a natural teacher. Because she is a natural communicator. She is simply wired that way. A man has to have a good reason to step into this role. Like he wants to teach his son football, or his daughter the skill of computing. Or it is his job. Women teach all the time. We don't need a reason to do it. Just like we don't need a reason to talk.

What Dr. James Emmanuel Kwegyir-Aggrey was saying was, 'let's put this natural gift of women to good use. Let's not waste a natural resource at our disposal'.

The problem is, Dr. James Emmanuel Kwegyir-Aggrey never envisaged a time in history when girls' education would come at the expense of boys' education. Like many well-intentioned men of his time, he never foresaw a time when educating boys would be seen as something in direct conflict with girls' education. To him, boys' education was a constant given. End of story.

I got into a little 'spat' with The Private Man over his post on educating women. Although I agreed that education in women was somewhat counterproductive to women in their goal to settle down with a worthy man, because it increased their 'hypergamy' instincts, I disagreed wholeheartedly with him that the solution was to stop educating women.

To me, a better solution would be to educate women more as to the importance of men in society. So not less education for women, but more.

I watched with great pride as Oprah Winfrey's first crop of girls from her Leadership Academy graduated in their cute white dresses.

These are girls who would never have had an opportunity like this in their lives had Miss Winfrey not had a dream.
A dream she later backed up with action.

Kudos to Miss Winfrey.

But I had a nagging thought in my head the whole time I was watching the graduation ceremony.

Where are the boys?
Who is educating them?

I voiced my unease to someone. Their response: don't worry about the boys. Let's concentrate on the girls.
Fair point?
Or more evidence of brazen feminism?

First wave feminism was a good thing because it sought to 'redress the balance'.
First wave feminism is the reason I can vote.
First wave feminism is the reason I can read and write.

But it morphed into something else whilst we were all asleep. A new monster emerged, determined not just to redress the balance, but to declare a state of 'superiority' of women over men.

It does not work. It is not working.
Because Nature will not allow it.

I thought about all those lovely young women in their white dresses receiving their diplomas with 'proud mama' Oprah watching over them.

I wondered to myself: In twenty years when they have conquered the world, then what?

Are they being groomed to be little mini-me's like Mama Oprah in this fashion? To conquer the world and yet at the end of it all, to be alone, or in a place they don't want to be?

I sincerely hope not.

I hope part of their studies include words like these:

You are beautiful, intelligent young women. Get an education, which is being handed to you free on a plate. Go out there and influence others, in a good way. You have the power to educate a whole nation. Take it.
But remember that your true happiness lies in forming great relationships with good men. Never forget that.

I don't hear much about educating boys in today's mainstream media.
Could it be that it really is a forgotten concept?

When I do hear something about boys and education, it is usually in the context of boys falling behind.
Why is this?
Are boys really getting thicker/dumber? Or are they not being treated as equals with the girls anymore?

It seems Bellita is reading my mind and vice versa. On the same day she published her post on education (she is a teacher), I drafted this post.

The general consensus seems to be, men don't want highly eduacted women.
I say 'false' to that. Many men do choose educated women.
But they have to know that the woman is not going to choose her career over and above him and their family.
In this day and age, an uneducated woman actually poses a risk to a man. Unless she has other sources of income, he might well wonder if she is just looking for a meal ticket?
Our grandfathers never thought like this. But then again, our grandfathers did not have the current dating milieu to contend with.

Let's educate the girls. It's a good thing. But let's not forget the boys.

She made me a better man

2012-02-03T02:09:00.000-08:00

Poor old Seal. He has turned all beta 'mushy' lately, gushing to anyone who would listen about his love for his wife and children.

It came as a total shock to me when I heard that he and Heidi Klum had split up.
This was one couple I always believed would make it to the very end.

As an eternal optimist, I hope this is not the end of 'Team Seal' though.

They renewed their wedding vows every year, they seemed in love with each other. He in particular seemed to be very expressive in the way he felt about his family.

And yet, they split.

But...was the writing on the wall all along?

I come from a family and a social group of 'quiet men'.
I too am 'quiet' in real life.
I do however talk a little bit more than the men in my entourage. Like at least one word per day more :-)

Given my background, I find that I am 'allergic' to men who 'talk too much'. I have female friends for that!
I have become used to the 'strong silent' type, so for me personally, 'quiet' is my particular hallmark of masculinity.

So, hearing Seal gush forth after the breakup of his marriage, I was not surprised to note the familiar hives starting up all over my skin.
In particular, I note the 'quietness' of Heidi Klum.
This is a role reversal I don't see very often.

So naturally, it has elicited my curiosity.

Seal is an extremely well-spoken and eloquent man (we Brits are suckers for each others' accents).
Moreover, he appears to be the very epitome of masculinity, whatever criteria you use. He has been described as 'alpha' by some men in the Manosphere, using various yardsticks.
Even the scars on his face add to this phenomenon.
Heidi Klum had said before how tall he was. Apparently he is 6ft 4 or thereabouts.

He had a hard childhood but overcame all to become one of the most famous men in the world.

So top marks for fulfilling his potential.

And yet, watching him, I was reminded of an incident with Wanda Sykes (the american comedian and actress who is so funny, one look at her and laughter is immediately induced. As the sidekick to Jane Fonda in 'Monster-in-law', for example, she is absolutely hilarious).

Sykes was being interviewed in London many years ago, and the topic of Prince Charles leaving Princess Diana for Camilla Parker-Bowles came up.

She looked straight at the camera in a way only comedians know how and said, "Chucky, yer doin' it wrong, honey, Yer doin' it wrong! Yer supposed to go from the older woman to the younger one, not the other way round, stupid!"

I still laugh out loud when I remember that.

My first instinct was to scream at Seal, "Yer doin' it wrong, brother, yer doin' it wrong!"

But no. Let him show his soft side. Let him be 'beta' as long as he chooses.
With any luck, Heidi Klum will return the favour one day and 'chase him back'.

It should be a dance of Tango.

One thing he said however, which made me think is this:

"Heidi made me a better man."

Can a woman make a man 'a better man'?
Like a man can make a woman a 'better woman'?

Does a man need a woman to make him a better man? Or is it just nice to have?

Can a man who has encountered such a woman ever let go? Is this why Seal is so helplessly 'mushy'?

It is highly publicised that when Seal met Heidi, she was pregnant with someone's baby.

Some men (and women) might find it incompehensible that he didn't run fast in the other direction.
But I don't, in this case.
Afterall, Seal was not deceived. He chose to take this woman on fully knowing she was pregnant.
This woman who 'made him a better man'.
(In any case, it would have been hard in this case to convince Seal the baby was his, had any attempt been made to deceive him. He would have had to be Michael Jackson to believe this :-)

There must have been something special about Heidi Klum.
Any suggestions?
Is it just because she is a beautiful woman? Somehow I think not. Because the world is full of beautiful women.
But I am willing to be corrected on this if indeed this is the case.

Did Seal get it horribly wrong?
Did he fail to spot a 'reluctant bride' all along?

Despite all his external 'alpha' traits, is he deep down just another 'beta' dude who just happens to be rich and famous?

A beautiful love story cut tragically short

2012-02-01T10:47:00.000-08:00

Grerp says it best on her blog which begins with: life isn't fair...

I had never heard of Sarah Burke until after her death. It seems obvious that this woman was a beautiful and wonderful human being whose life was unfortunately tragically cut short in a skiing accident. She was 29 years old.

She was training for a super-pipe event in Park City, Utah when she crashed, rupturing an artery in her brain which resulted in a cardiac arrest at the scene. Despite being airlifted to a hospital in Salt Lake City, she died 9 days later after suffering irreversible brain damage.

She was a Canadian freestyle skier who won Olympic Gold (her lifelong dream) and was Winter X Games champion 4 times as well as World Cup winner 5 times and World Champion.

She was also known for singlehandedly campaigning for the inclusion of women in the ski half-pipe discipline and for pushing for a lot of freestyle events to be included in the Winter Oympics. She succeeded. Women will participate in the half-pipe event in the Winter Games of 2014 in Sochi, Russia, a Winter Games at which Sarah Burke was widely tipped to take Gold.

In 2010, she married fellow freestyle skier Rory Bushfield.

As part of the tributes to her, a short video clip of a documentary called 'Winter' in which she had taken part with her husband Rory Bushfield was posted.

I was struck by how much love they had for each other.
The pride he has for her as the 'gold medal hopeful'.
The way she smiles at him.

I was particularly moved when they described their mutual love for the mountain. And when they both said their wish would be to die on the mountain...

My heart goes out to Rory Bushfield.

And the rest of Sarah's family.

How does one recover from a loss such as this?

May Sarah Burke (Sarah Bushfield) rest in peace.

The epitome of inner Game

2012-01-30T13:50:00.000-08:00

I recently mentioned how men can get transfixed by a beautiful woman in my post on appreciating female beauty.

Female beauty is very powerful for men.

Whilst a man's handsomeness is equally pleasant to behold, this is ultimately not that important for most women, at least not mature women. Because women are really not as visual as men. Modern living has made some women far more visual than they ought to be. This is not a good thing, because it takes them off the right path in their choice of mate. It adds to their 'immaturity'.

A display of muscles is perhaps more likely to do it for a woman. Or height. Or whatever else is the local social 'norm'.

All the above are excellent proxies of masculinity. Essential for female attraction.
But even these have their limitations.

Women can be 'transfixed' by something else where men are concerned.

It is difficult to explain in words.

It has to be felt.

I was reminded of this phenomenon when I saw an interview with actor Mark Wahlberg recently.
.
Now, this man was previously known very much as a 'bad boy'.
In the 80's he was known as 'Marky Mark', a rapper with a tendency to violence.
He had had a rough childhood and admits to being a coke-head by age 14.
He went to prison for an unprovoked racially-motivated attack when he was 16.

Today, Mark Wahlberg is a respectable husband and father of four.

That last statement is not that important in relation to what I saw in this man during the course of the interview.

It was his 'stillness' during the interview that grabbed my attention.

He seemed somehow 'untouchable'. Almost spiritual.
Watching and hearing him speak, you got the distinct impression that you would believe anything he told you. Because he seemed like he knew what he was talking about. He seemed like he had been through something.

He kept saying he was happy. Blessed even.

I believe it. It shows.

There was something about his eyes. They had an intense quality to them, as if he was trying to penetrate the psyche of his interviewer.

And yet he was strangely detached.

He seemed perfectly at ease with himself. It was like he was in some kind of impenetrable 'zone'.

I don't know if Mr Wahlberg's story that when he was in prison, a priest took him in hand and pulled him back from the brink, is what has done it for him.
I don't know if his assertion that his family give him new meaning in his life is what makes him so outstanding .

But something happened to Mark Wahlberg.
And it shows.

I have come to realise that this is in fact what Danny was referring to when he described Game thus:

"game" is simply confidence and outcome independence.

Confidence. Outcome-independence.

Simple words. But it can take a lifetime to achieve these traits.

I am sure Mark Wahlberg wouldn't care to know that someone was struck by his interview on CNN.
The guy is just living his life.

But this 'thing' he exudes is a powerful force indeed.
It is the male equivalent of female beauty.

This 'thing' which I now come to recognise as 'inner Game'.
The right kind of Game.

The kind of Game a worthy woman would respect. Not just 'outer Game', (including the concepts of 'Peacocking', escalation, etc.) which is of course important because it is what gets a man's foot in the door) but the whole package of both 'outer' and 'inner' Game.

Bellita summed it up well when she commented here:

" I think Game is great inasmuch as it helps men of substance learn to stand out from the crowd, but Game totally on its own is the sizzle without the steak. "

The 'steak' is inner Game.

It is totally hypnotic to a woman.
It commands instant respect. Acute disorientation, similar to how a man might react to a seductively beautiful woman.
It is a wonderful thing for a woman to encounter.

Because it reeks of raw, unbridled, unwavering masculinity.

Tango the dance of love

2012-01-28T10:20:00.000-08:00

A colleague of mine is very much into the Argentine Tango. She loves the sensuality and the freedom of this dance.

But alas she has a problem. It seems that some of the men in her dance class are definitely all too happy to be there, Mae West fashion.
But alas, this does not spoil her fun. She continues on her journey to master the Argentine Tango.
Good girl.

I was born with two left feet. Figuratively speaking, that is. Or should that be two right ones?

I got the rhythm an' all, but it just doesn't translate well on the dance floor, particularly in a 'classical' dance like Tango. I couldn't dance Tango to save my life. It is however on my list of 'to do' things. I thought about joining my colleague at her Argentine Tango class. I just might, one day soon.

Someone tried to teach me the Tango once. I was no good. My teacher did give up after about ten minutes. I am actually surprised the lesson lasted that long.

It was not so much the dancing itself I remember, but the lessons it taught me about the dynamics of a relationship. I am not sure if this was the intention of my teacher. Whether it was or not does not matter. What matters to me is that a lesson was handed to me free on a plate. And I took it on board.

"One step forward, one step back".
"Two steps to the side, two steps back".
"One step forward, two steps to the side and... sweep".

(For those who are unfamiliar with Tango, the sweep is where the man or the woman uses their foot to literally drag the other's foot in a direction of their choosing. It is a highly sensual move).

Each time one partner in Tango moves forward, the other has to go backwards. If one goes backwards, the other has to move forward, for the dance to go smoothly and be enjoyable.

This lesson consolidates what I know about successful relationships.

Another important rule of Tango is that the man always leads. Even if the woman is to go forward, it is because the man has indicated to her that he is about to go backwards.

In Tango, you are never alone.
There is always some contact between the dancers. Usually at shoulder level, but this can vary during the course of a dance.

It is a true dance of life.

The sins of the Mother

2012-01-23T00:55:00.000-08:00

This is arguably the most painful post I shall ever write. Because this subject delves into the greatest fears of both men and women. It is almost taboo to 'go there.'

We have all heard of the sins of the father.
Deut 5:9. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.

I am not sure the bible ever touches on the 'sins of the mother'. If it does, I stand corrected.
However, I would be surprised.

It is said that the only reason that lesbianism was never a crime in Britain (as opposed to male homosexuality) during Victorian times was that Queen Victoria simply did not believe that women could be homosexual. She did not therefore feel the need to outlaw something which did not exist.

During the Iraq war, the British press went crazy on the topic of 'weapons of mass destruction'. Several comedians picked up on this, some of them making jokes about a certain part (or two) of a woman's anatomy being 'weapons of mass destruction'.

A woman's breasts can never really be her best or worst (whichever way you look at it!) weapons of mass destruction.
In a tragic twist, it could be her motherhood.

A woman's greatest fear is abandonment. Of herself and her children. As a lot of single mothers would testify to, it is incredibly hard to raise children alone.

So a woman who finds herself in this position has to survive somehow. No matter how she got to this state of affairs.
She may have been unlucky. The man she trusted with her body betrayed that trust. She may have been irresponsible. The man she should never have gone near, she defied her innate intuition and did. She may be divorced. She may actually have conceived with another man to break up her marriage. She may have been widowed. She may have been a 'reluctant bride' and chosen 'anyone' because she wanted a child, but not the man. She may have decided to 'go it alone' right from the start and naturally or 'artificially' became a mother with a known or unknown man.

For some women, motherhood is a noble art.
Unfortunately, for some, it is a chance to have a bargaining tool at one's disposal.
Ugly.

For others, it is totally subconscious what plays out. And for yet others, it is a conscious choice to have a child, a "mini-me" to groom into the role of helper and future provider.

A man's greatest fear is betrayal by a woman. Whilst this often means betrayal by a 'mate' in the form of cuckoldry, consider this:
What if the traitor is his own mother?

The post on MGTOW produced a lively debate on the various reasons for MGTOW. Some of them were due to a man just wishing to live his own life with no disturbances from female influences, some were as a direct result of previous bad experiences with women, some were to do with the anti-male and prohibitive laws regarding fatherhood, child custody, alimony, etc.
All valid reasons.

This comment from BeijaFlor* stood out:

I'm very familiar with women's fear of abandonment. I saw it in my (single) mother's eyes, heard it in her voice, when I grew to manhood and could have struck out on my own. I stayed with her instead, but picked up the load of "breadwinner" and even bought a house for the two of us ... she died in that house, died of cancer, with her hand in mine, ten years ago. I was 48 that day, with friends that age who were grandparents. So I believe I know what it is to "man up."

No-one else had touched on this particular issue.

A lone mother sometimes depends on her child(ren) to shoulder the burden. That's to be expected to some degree. I would even argue that it is good for the child(ren) to understand how hard life can be.

But when a son is forced to take on an absent father's role, sometimes before he is emotionally ready, I find that criminal. Because it reveals a certain selfishness in the mother (which, tragically she may not even be aware of).

A son like this will pedestalise his mother. He wants to help a woman, as his male nature dictates. Especially if that woman is the one who gave him life. It may follow on from his natural Oedipus complex.
But if this woman denies him what is rightfully his, i.e. the right to make his own choices in life, follow his own dreams, live his own life, then she is doing him a great disservice.
This man will pedestalise women until one day he will wake up and realise that he was betrayed. His whole life up to that point was a lie.

And worse, the traitor is also the one he loves the most.

This is one of the rare sources of cognitive dissonance in a man. He understands women so well because he was around one a lot, more than was necessary in fact, but at the same time he is seething with rage at a wrong that was done him. Especially if there was no other man around to take him on the road to manhood. Psychologists believe that the Oedipus complex is finally resolved in a boy when, instead of childishly competing with his father for his mother, resolves to become a man, like Father. But what if there is no Father figure to allow this to happen?

This man often seeks out women, because on principle he loves women. He wants a fulfilling relationship with a woman, just as much as the next guy. But he will struggle to form meaningful relationships with them. Until that is, he finds the key to the riddle in his heart. By himself.

For him, it is not so much a mistrust of women, but an unresolved, sometimes subconscious fear.

A fear that can be entangled with an anger, tangled further with his love for Mother and his shame at feeling such rage. It may remain sealed away, bubbling inwardly like a pressure-cooker. And his efforts to seal it away could leave him sealing away his emotions - or it could erupt inside him, doing who-knows-what greater damage to his own soul.

Outwardly, this man may appear to be a 'principled mangina'. Or the worst woman-hating PUA there is. Or both. At the same time. Which will be confusing, even to him. Until he works out for himself what is going on in his soul.

And there is no guarantee that he ever will ... which could leave him endlessly wandering that dark wilderness, stripped of inward mercy, that is finally all that is left in his scarred, cankered heart.
In the end, that road can be both excruciatingly painful and at the same time headily redeeming. A man who can bounce back from this kind of trauma is the ultimate hero, because, to face one's worst fear and win is the ultimate test of life.

The daughter of a mother like this also suffers.

This woman is usually on one of two trajectories:
On the one hand, she becomes a 'son' in her drive to please Mother. She loses out on her femininity because she is 'replacing' an absent man. She is acting out the role of 'husband' without her express knowledge or consent. This woman will usually have a deep love for men, because she will have lived most of her life as one, but will struggle to form a relationship with (a masculine) one because she is, at least in her head, not feminine enough. She has been too busy playing 'husband' to another woman to know what it is to be 'wife' to a man.

On the other hand, a daughter of a lone mother could also be 'trained' by Mother to become 'strong and independent'. Never need a man! would be all she hears from infancy. They are bad for you. They will break your heart. Earn your own money, kill your own snakes, buy your own jewellery.

Mother thinks she is helping. She wants to 'save' daughter from a fate similar to hers. But she is in fact doing the opposite. Because in this mindset, daughter's worst fear will be realised.

Both these daughters have a saving grace though. Like Mother, they are also women. So they can recover more easily from the sins of Mother than their male counterparts.
One day they will wake up and reject Mother's brand of womanhood as they come into their own.
What they may suffer more from, is the absence of the mitigating influence of Father.

We all know the effects of fatherlessness, in both sexes.

Motherhood is a powerful force.
Rarely, it can be devastatingly destructive.
Strangely enough, I do not believe that this form of destructive motherhood is connected to feminism per se. Although of course it can have a perjorative effect on it.
Because feminism, with its core of rage against men and manhood, is fighting to make single motherhood the norm, and thus multiplying not only the victimisation of the children, but also the power of destructive motherhood.

Let us minimise the risk of destructive motherhood.

And let us bring back Father into the home.

*A massive humongous 'Thank You' to BeijaFlor for his help with this post.

Appreciating female beauty

2012-01-20T10:17:00.000-08:00

Code: I am doing it again: I am translating from the french 'apprécier', in the sense of 'to enjoy' or 'to like' and not in the sense of 'to be grateful for'.

I read with great interest Roissy's recent post imploring men not to let a woman's beauty affect them. At first I was alarmed. Even appalled.
I thought this was surely bad advice for men.

Because the whole point of female beauty was that it was the signal men picked up on to suggest to them her youth and therefore fertility and therefore eligibility for the mating game (unless of course, the man concerned is MGHOW).
So, if men were to find a way to ignore or lessen the impact of female beauty, they would be eliminating one of their own very important attraction triggers.
Counterproductive!
This was my initial thought.

Then after a while, I calmed down.

Here's why.

A while ago, Bellita's post What would Frankie do? touched on femininity. What was interesting about this post is that it quickly morphed into a discussion about female beauty.
Someone mentioned the french singer Alizée.

Whilst I had never heard of Alizée before, I was suitably impressed with her when I saw this video.

The first comment on the video is from a man who says, and I quote word for word, "This chick is so HOT my girlfriend just got a boner!!!!"

Whilst this was not quite my reaction, I kind of get it.
First of all, I was asking myself, "how does she do that?"
The very fluid arm and body movements are essentially feminine, and she executes them exceedingly well.
She is also a naturally beautiful woman, there is no doubt.
She is stupefying. At least at first.

(Sadly for you, gentlemen, this woman is off the market, by the way. She got married at age 19. Let's hope her husband agrees she is a 'nice girl' according to my previous criteria, and that she remains that way for life).

Even as a woman, I was struck by her beauty.

There was a time I used to compliment women who I noticed were very beautiful. Out and about, on the streets, in the shops, at college, whenever I saw an extremely beautiful woman, I would go up to her and say it. I usually got one of two reactions:

Some would be very gracious and even compliment me back.
Some would be visibly perturbed that another woman was telling them this. I could see the unease on their faces, and the suspicion of my 'orientation'.

Because of the latter reaction, I stopped doing this.
Because it felt like I was unnecesarily putting these women in a position of superiority over me. And I was not being rewarded for it.

I guess this was what Roissy was alluding to. If even I as a woman can be reduced to a virtual statue for a while, how much more a man?

Appreciating a woman's beauty can lead men to over-pedestalise a woman. A certain amount is fine, because it causes a positive feedback loop in a woman's mind when she knows a man finds her attrractive. But too much, and the attraction she has for him can be killed off.

Also, a man who can retain his composure when faced with a beautiful woman, particularly if she is used to men drooling all over her, will be seen as 'unusual' by her. As per this post, this is good for the man, because that alone gets him in her good books. Especially as his composure prevents him from being lewd.

Nothing more unpleasant for a woman, especially if she is 'well endowed' than to have a strange man stare at her chest (assuming her 'friends' are not out on open display, that is).

The man who achieves this can go to near the top of the list, if not right at the very top.
But if a longterm relationship is to come of this initial encounter, there will have to be a time when he goes through a 'beta' phase, which essentially includes some degree of pedestalisation.

The problem with being stupefied by a beautiful woman on first seeing her is that it makes a man 'beta' straight away.
It is crucial that the whole 'alpha/beta' thing starts off in the right order. It has to start with 'alpha'.

Does complimenting a woman on her beauty increase her entitlement complex?
I think this depends on the woman. For some women, that's all they have going for them, so their self-worth may be entirely based on their beauty. So for these women, perhaps it is a necessary tool.

Others know that beauty is skin-deep and fleeting, and so understand its place in their value/worth and don't over-rely on it. Such women would not have an inflated sense of self based on their beauty alone.

So Roissy is right afterall. It is surprising sometimes who ends up as an 'ally' on the journey into the unknown.

Appreciate a woman's beauty. But don't let it go to your head.

As Dannyfrom504 says, his approach to pretty women is somewhat like this:
"I often tell women, "ok, you're pretty...now what?"
That's some serious Game right there.
Even the prettiest woman will stop in her tracks with this.

The Quiet Man

2012-01-17T11:20:00.000-08:00

The following is a typical scenario:

During a divorce or separation, a woman rallies round her friends.
She tends to be very vocal, even if she is usually not very talkative. This is good for her in many ways. As in, 'a problem shared is a problem halved'. Sometimes it may not be so good for her, as in, the collective rationalisation hamster of a group of provoked women can get unbelievably out of control and become destructive rather than constructive.

The man stays 'shtumm' and goes about the cold business of sorting out the logistics. The legal proceedings, the financial paperwork. The moving of personal belongings from one residence to another.
At least on the surface.
He says nothing. He does nothing. He just ignores and avoids.

Away from absolutely everyone.
Until he can work out something in his head.
Until he rejoins his social setting as a returnee from wherever he went, or he becomes The Angry Man and then The Indifferent Man.
That's how things are. Both men and women revert to their respective natures especially during times of stress.

Neither party is 'wrong'.

But no-one is enjoying this party, so something has to change.

Otherwise men and women will drive each other literally insane.

Albert Einstein said this: 'the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results'.

So what can de done differently?

In general, it is clear that women tend to get more sympathy, from both men and women, during situations like divorce.
There are at least 3 reasons for this:

1. Women are physically and emotionally more vulnerable, at least on the face of it. To this effect, I believe it is right that support in the shape of sympathy is accorded to women.

2. Women are simply more vocal in a social setting. They advertise their needs more. Unlike a man, who is bound by concepts like 'pride' and 'stoicism' and 'honour', a woman has free rein to vent her frustrations in public for all to see. She is also an exceptional spin-doctor, because she is a great rationaliser.

Here's the crossover line between 'nice girl' and 'not so nice girl':
Even when 'not so nice' is in the wrong, and knows it, she can spin it to look like the other party is the culprit.
'Nice girl' will get all emotional too and make a scene. But it will not be as venomous and as far-reaching as the damage done by 'not so nice'. There is a big difference in attitude.

The 'nice girl' will calm down after a 'cooling down' period. She will be civil to the man again. Even if the marriage is irreparable, she will be pleasant again whether or not there are children involved. She might even 'chase' him a bit.
The 'not so nice' will go for the jugular and in fact get the carotid. She doesn't want the man back in the village ever again. She wants him dead.

Most women need a 'cooling off' period after an emotinal outburst, same as most men need 'peace time' after coming home from work.
Some will use this time well. Some will not.

3. The post-feminist world encourages mindless male-bashing.
This is a sticking point for many men, and the women who care about men.

Reasons 1 and 2 can be to some extent explained away as 'female nature'.

Reason 3 is a social 'add-on' and does not reflect female nature.
It is why men are demonised unnecessarily.

Here are examples of specific male behaviours that may be interpreted wrongly by women:

1. A beautiful woman passes by a couple and the man of the couple stares at her for 3 seconds. The woman of the couple gets offended.
This is a natural biological response, like a woman's response to a newborn baby. It need not escalate into an affair. If it does, I agree the man has crossed a line.

2. A man in a longterm marriage is denied sex on a longterm basis outside of reasonable circumstances such as illness, pregnancy, extreme life-changing events like grief and physical separation from partner . He resorts to porn, affairs or prostitution.
No need for explanation.

3. A man takes a good two minutes to answer what to a woman is a simple question.
This I agree is frustratingly difficult on a day-to-day basis. But there is actually a scientific basis for this. Rather than label as 'slow' or 'inattentive' and interrupt his thought processes, a woman would do so much better to wait for the answer.

And so on...

The point of this post is that, in keeping with human nature, we tend to hear and see what's thrown 'out there' much more than what's hidden.
That's the whole point of advertising. If you have a great product to sell, you make sure it is highly visible to your target market.

40+ years of feminism have 'advertised' the 'sins' of men to women. Even to women who weren't looking to buy.
We now know it was a case of 'false advertising' because feminism was not such a great product afterall. It has made life worse rather than better for everyone concerned.

Women can bridge the gap by taking time to gently probe and try to understand The Quiet Man instead of following the herd and beating him down.

But will the Quiet Man pipe up sometimes and tell 'his side of the story' at the time it is happening and not retreat? Is this an admission of guilt? Is this a way of getting away from a source of stress? Is this because he is being gallant? Is he simply giving a woman her 'cooling off' time? Or is it simply his Nature?'

Whatever it is, the Quiet Man appears not to help his cause. At a time he really needs to.
Self-preservation or wilful self-destruction?

Tim Tebow and the Peacock effect

2012-01-14T23:42:00.000-08:00

Continuing on the sporting theme, a female friend was waxing lyrical about Tim Tebow the other day. She especially liked his 'Tebowing'. I suggested to her that she only liked him because he was a famous athlete.

She said this:
"There are lots of famous athletes. Big deal. I like this one because he is different."

I said "yeah, sure" and we left it at that as there was no time to continue our conversation.

I think I now understand what she meant.

Peacocks are magnificent birds to watch. I think they are second only to the King of the jungle himself, the Lion, when it comes to the whole "strutting" thing.
The preening is spectacularly over the top.

Some men might see the peacock as the "dandy" of the animal kingdom, the gay guy.
Some might see him as a true alpha.
I am with the latter group.
A peacock will kill, and I repeat, kill another competitor for a peahen. He ain't gay.

Some studies suggest that the plumage of a peacock is actually nothing to do with attracting the peahen - it is more a case of warding off or intimidating other males.
In any case, a Japanese study concluded, after seven years of watching free-living peacocks, that the female is actually indifferent (read: unimpressed) to the often excessive display by the peacock.
An example of hypergamy if ever there was one!

Male sparrows and other birds are Nature's serenaders. What we know as 'birdsong' is actually a full-on male choir in action. All doing their bit to attract a female.
Although not detectable by human ears, not all birdsong is the same. I have seen phonograms proving beyond any doubt that the frequency of each birdsong is different.

Each male bird is trying to be unique.
The female birds are just there, passive. They all look alike. If they like the sound of a particular male bird, they pick him.

Same story in human terms if each gender is to follow Nature's way.

A woman does not have to be überspecial, to attract a man. She does have to be visible to him, and the better her 'assets' the better. Thereafter, he needs to know that she will keep his home, bear his children and keep him company, never betraying him (read: cuckoldry/divorce rape, etc).

Some men believe that women just like the 'bad boys'. Whilst I see this happening sometimes, it is by no means the only story.

A woman's attraction triggers are different from a man's, because they have to be. Otherwise we would all be gay. That wouldn't work for the purposes of propagating the species.
She needs to look at a man and see a king. He needs to stand out because there are many men on the parade, usually.
He has to be unique, to her.

For a woman, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man really is king.
And in the land of the one-eyed man, the two-eyed man is king. And so is the blind man.

It's the difference that counts. In the purely biological sense.
In the land of good boys, a bad boy will become 'alpha' (read: extraordinary) by default.
In the land of bad boys, Tim Tebow is king.

But alas, human beings have higher functions too, as some of you keep reminding me. Social factors do come into play too. I know that.

A woman can go wrong in two ways:
1. She is not yet mature when she makes her 'choice'. So she does choose Mr Top Spot, but her criteria for choosing him are all wrong because they are riddled with adolescent thinking. Next you know, she is on the hypergamy train to the next station.

In the old days, a woman's maturity was nailed earlier in her life.
Feminism has increased the age at which this happens in modern women. Counterproductively.

2. She is mature, but chooses someone who is not Top Spot for a variety of reasons outlined under 'The Reluctant bride'.
So a man's job in this case is to find out where he is on 'the list' if this is a woman he does care enough about that he wants to commit to. Game (the right kind, as explained by Lost and Danny) can help in this regard. This is why I personally respect Game.

The happiest woman is one who is mature and chooses Mr Top Spot as a result of her physical attraction for him combined with the clear thinking her maturity accords her.

So, if many women are being accused of choosing 'the bad boy', consider that she is most likely immature and that that bad boy made himself stand out to her immature mind. In this regard, neither that woman nor the bad boy are appealing.

What's the best strategy for the immature woman with regards to the 'bad boy'?
Avoidance.
There is a good reason girls and boys were largely 'segregated' in ancient times, until a certain age. It is also why I am in accordance with same sex education until a certain age. The goal here is to achieve the necessary maturity in both sexes, but particularly in a girl before she is exposed to the big bad world. By then, her ideas on who is worthy or not are firmly formed in her mind.

For mature women, their default position is that 'there are no good men out there' i.e. every man is a bad boy. So a 'good boy' to a mature good woman is actually a true alpha. because he stands out. The Private Man has a series of posts advising women to 'see' the good in men. I think this is good advice because it helps this process along nicely.

I think this is what my friend was talking about when she was referring to Tim Tebow as 'different'.
This is why I also think that a 'principled mangina' can be gold dust to a good mature woman if he has enough Game.

Special Request

2012-01-12T06:48:00.000-08:00

This is not a real post.

I just wanted to make a general point or two.

The first is, I am still getting a few 'you don't know what you are talking about' comments.

Whilst it does not and should not bother me (because in fact it's true to a large extent), I just wish to draw attention to the fact that it is not really helping me or anyone to get to the point where we really know what we are talking about.
Besides I never made any such bold claims in the first place. Even if I seem sure about something, it is still just an opinion.
I am no expert, just someone who wants to figure out if there is a path to a better way forward.

Because, the 'experts' (read: 'officials') are still standing around scratching their heads, so I figured it's time for the inmates to run the asylum, so to speak. I am right behind the bolder inmates before me who started this process.

Second, every other comment seems to be from an 'Anonymous'.
Again, no problem.

The special request is this:
Like many people, I am still unsure what the relative proportions of the movers and shakers in the game are.
At the last unofficial count it seems the MGTOW and the 'not so nice women' far outnumber everyone else.
It might be helpful to see, at least in our own small population sample if this is verifiable.

Would you mind adding at the end of your comment what category best describes you, (in your own opinion or that of others who know you, if you have access to that information) from the description given in the last post? Or you could make up your own category if it is missing in the last post. Sometimes it is glaringly obvious what category you are in! but sometimes I am unsure.

No matter if you are not so inclined to indulge in this little exercise. Just a suggestion. Please comment anyway.
Thanks.

I'll start:

I am Spacetraveller, and I am in category 3: 'nice girl'.
(Own opinion. Closest friends agree, others unsure).

(PS: Self-identification does not prove anything. But that's all we've got for now)

Dissidents of the 'Spheres - who exactly are they?

2012-01-11T07:58:00.000-08:00

Sports is good. Sometimes we don't particularly excel at it, but it is the participation that counts.

Sometimes we make the mistake of indulging in a sporting endeavour without fully training ourselves first.
As a result, we end up with muscle aches and pains. Because the body has been forced to use muscles, tendons, ligaments and bones that have not been tipped off for the task ahead.

I walked onto a sportsfield with my last post. I wasn't fully trained up prior.

Time for a hasty retreat.
Back to the drawing board.
To reflect on the game a bit.
Because without the rules we won't know if we are winning, or losing, or even scoring any points at all.

Here is a first draft of the description of the game as I see it, with commenters' input. It may need some polishing.

The terrain
It's pretty rough. This is no astroturf football field. Nor an indoor basketball court. No soft landings here for anyone.
This is off-piste Montblanc. During an avalanche.

As a backlash to feminism, three 'underground' online movements have sprung up.
The first is The Manosphere, where men with all kinds of issues regarding women congregate to vent their particular tales, jokes, woes, problems and solutions. Where the older men teach their younger counterparts or contemporaries the principles of Game. These sites are usually 90% male in terms of readership.

The second is what I will call the Femosphere, where older - but not exclusively - and experienced men and women teach women how to become more feminine, i.e. the best women they can be, by presenting them with beauty, comportment and behavioural tips. Here, 90% of the readers are female.

And then there is a third kind, which, for want of a better term, I will call the Mixosphere, of which this blog, HUS, Bellita, Olive and Danny (to name a few) are part and parcel, and which straddles both camps, with roughly 50-50 distribution of male and female readers.
In this sense, the Mixosphere is the offspring of both the Manosphere and the Femosphere. It is some weird form of 'lovechild' between the two parent movements.
All three groups have the same function: to improve relationships between the sexes.

The players
It is not 'Team Man' and 'Team Woman' anymore. It's becoming rapidly clear that that is a losing strategy right there. It should not be a simple case of 'The Battle of the sexes'. Not anymore.
Because that may be an unhelpful way of looking at things.

Here are some broad categories of allegiances that are forming in the SMP.

1. The MGTOW
I had to start with this group. They are vocal. They are numerous. And they don't even want to play the game anymore.
The problem for a lot of women is distinguishing this man from his brother in category 2, because they are not just brothers, they may be fraternal twins. They share an awful lot of DNA.

2. The regular Manosphere citizen
This man is hard to define. He may straddle the MGTOW group. He has 'inner Game'. He is self-assured. His ducks are all lined up. He may be married or single or in a LTR.
No matter.
He knows he can exercise his options at any point in his life, a distinct feature he shares with the MGTOW. For the non-MGTOW amongst this group, the dating game is not necessarily easy, but they are not (at least not yet) fazed by it.

2. The 'not so nice woman'
The MGTOW has a few choice words for this woman, but in the interests of decorum, we shan't go there.
These women, according to the MGTOW are also numerous. They are also vocal. And by the sounds of things, I am willing to bet my bottom dollar that they are also highly visible.
Is this woman on the field? Or is she just cheering on the alpha male?

3. The 'nice girl'
My biggest interest for the moment is in this woman.
According to the MGTOW, she does not exist.

I have an alternative theory.

I think she does exist. And what's more, the MGTOW know that. But their biggest frustration with this woman is that she is hard to find.
She is too 'hidden from view'.

She is not too visible, because she has been misinformed about what 'visibility' means.
She thinks that to dress in a feminine way equates to being a 'siren'. To her, a 'siren' is a word which rhymes with rut.
So she hides herself in unflattering attire.

Some MGTOW have also made the point that this woman is in fact, a phony.
She portrays the illusion of a 'nice girl' but as soon as she gets what she wants, i.e. her claws deeply embedded in him, she unleashes her inner devil on him.

To this I would respond that all along, a woman like this is actually in category 2.
The category 2 woman has many faces.

So, the consensus seems to be that the 'nice girl' needs to come out more. She is in the crowd but no-one is seeing her. And when she comes out, she has to stay nice. Forever.

4. The 'mangina'
This man is derided by his brothers in the Manosphere. He is viewed as a traitor of the worst kind. His brothers would gladly take him out into the courtyard and give him a public flogging.
In fact they figuratively do that to him on Manosphere blogs all the time in a way that is both agonising to watch and fascinating.

Actually, I think there are two other kinds of 'mangina' in addition to the 'clueless whipping boy' described above.
A. The first is what I would call a 'principled' mangina. He is a 'whiteknight' because he genuinely loves women and believes that defending a woman is an honourable thing to do. He may hope it will also help his cause, i.e. to get a woman, but it is not necessarily his primary motivation.
This man, to some women, is actually a true alpha, and to the right woman, he will win. Sometimes though, this man gets disappointed by the very women he is 'whiteknighting' for, and may eventually turn into the other kind of 'mangina'. This man would really benefit from Game.

B. The 'disingenuous' mangina
This man actually hates women, but pretends to build her up when in fact he is only pushing her agenda where it directly or indirectly leads to a fulfilment of his own needs. A good example of this is a PUA who appears to push the feminist agenda. He will happily 'pump and dump' the same feminist whose counterproductive (to her) ideologies he promotes.

The officials
These are the organisations that from time to time, all the above players yell (in true MacEnroe style), "You cannot be serious!" to.

They are supposed to be officiating, but at some point or other, all the players feel aggrieved by their decisions.

1. The family courts
The MGTOW have had dealings with this official. And as a result, he has had several points deducted from his scorecard. This official and his family are now officially under a metaphorical death threat.

2. The Church
All the players, even the 'not so nice' women have their own gripes about this official.
This official's problem, to many, is his inaction. He was looking the other way when the handball offence was committed in football/soccer. And worse, he won't allow the video to be played to refute or confirm the offence.

3. The State/employer
This official, along with official no. 4 is killing the 'nice girl'. She gets married and wants to honour her husband but the State won't let her change her maiden name to her married one without jumping through massive hoops.
She has a baby and wants to go part-time and she is punished. She may not yet be ready to go SAHM straightaway, and wants to do it in stages to test the waters, but she gets a knock on the head for that. She makes a rash choice, and stays at work full time. And then she struggles. And then, because she cannot handle her inner conflict very well, her feminine nature suffers. Nice girl dead.

4. Feminism
This official is not even on the pitch. In that sense, he (she?) is the most frustrating of all. The players cannot even communicate with him (her?). They have to go through all the other officials first.

5. The ballboys and girls
They are not picking up the balls anymore. Because no-one is actually playing the game. These kids are running around the court aimlessly.

Did I leave anyone out?
I am sure you will tell me.

So who are the dissidents?
Some of the players? All the officials, or just some?
Who is playing who?
And why?

MGTOW - good or bad for women?

2012-01-09T06:58:00.000-08:00

There are three phrases that strike fear into the hearts of modern marriage-minded women.
'Marriage on the decline', 'MGTOW' (Men going their own way), 'Marriage strike'.

A woman's greatest fear is abandonment. Or worse, never to have been approached in the first place.
Feminism encourages women to hide this fear.
Some do it well.
But here-in lies the problem: a fear will always remain as a fear unless it is resolved.

A quirk of Nature results in the following observations:
A man does not need a woman. He is capable of being a solitary entity his whole life, and he won't care.
His work/passion/hobby is his primary focus.

A woman needs people around her. The most efficient way to increase the entourage who share her DNA is to team up with a man. So technically, a woman needs a man.

A man's greatest physical need is sexual fulfilment (according to Dr Kevin Lehman). A man's greatest social need is his freedom.
These two needs are in direct conflict with each other. Marriage (read: a woman) satisfies one at the expense of the other.
But in the old days, men often chose marriage and hoped for the best with the other need. Sometimes it worked out well.
Other times it did not.

Then feminism separated 'woman' from 'marriage'.

All of a sudden, a man could eat his cake and have it too. A win-win situation!
Being a logical being, he did.

A woman's natural reaction to MGTOW would be something like this:
"Oh no, don't go! Stay!"

Because MGTOW reduces the number of men in her 'parade'.
Because she is a good communicator and needs people around her to communicate with.
But it is a counterproductive reaction.

Because MGTOW is a natural part of manhood. It is a form of 'Initiation'.

In some cultures in the world, initiation practices are still encouraged. Men have their obligatory journey into the forest and women have their preparation rites for womanhood.
There are still remnants of the original deal in modern culture, but usually in a religious context, such as 'Bar Mitzvah' and 'Bat Mitzvah' and 'Confirmation'.

But in the real deal, a boy on the cusp of manhood would be forcibly taken literally from his bed at night and dumped into dangerous terrain, usually by older men from the same village.

His mother and sisters would cry out, "Oh no, don't take him away" but to no avail.

Because the village elders knew that a man who had not been initiated was not a man.
He posed a risk to the whole village if he did not possess the skills of manhood. He might as well be one of the women, but without her function, either. So this man was useful to all concerned.

The women would protest, of course. But they knew thay had to let the boy go. Because, assuming he survived the rigors of initiation, he would come back a fully-fledged man, a useful member of society.
If he never came back, they would miss him. But he had not made the cut. It was a stigma for that family. They were better off in the long run without him.

There are many false imitations of initiation in today's society. Inner city gangs are a prime example.

Under feminism, many men lost their male 'elders'. Because he was taken away from them by a dominant matriarch. There was no-one to raid their homes in the middle of the night and yank them from their beds into the terrifying unknown, so necessary for the development of their sense of masculine self.

MGTOW might be one of the natural retorts to this male crisis: the lack of initiation.

The motivation for MGTOW in this present clime is certainly not for the purposes of benefiting women.

But in a roundabout way, it could be the best thing a man can do.
It could be the best demonstration of 'inner Game'.

Let the initiation begin.

The heroes will return to the village, with a lot to offer the village.
The women and children and of course the elders will be there to welcome them back to the fold.

The others will not come back.

Women only want heroes on their parade.

Know Thy Man

2012-01-08T02:18:00.000-08:00

Knowledge is power, as they say.

In the dating game, women choose, men display. That is how it has always been. That is how it will always be.
It is Nature's way.

A man is on a parade his whole life. From time to time, a woman chooses him. If she makes the right choice and is the right kind of woman, he will get off the parade and will happily stay off.

If she chooses wrong, or is the wrong kind of woman to begin with, he will get violently tossed back into the parade at some point in the future, usually stripped of his dignity, assets and children, in what is known as divorce-rape hell.
Or he may be trapped indoors but looking longingly at the parade outside because he is in a lonely, private hell.
Men are on a constant parade to as many women as possible (usually sexually), in the hope that one of them chooses him (read: will care enough about him to be his loyal, faithful lifelong mate).

Why do women choose, and not men?

Because a woman's eggs are expensive. She has a finite number bestowed on her at birth. And she loses them at a rate of one (occasionally two) a month beginning at puberty until she runs out altogether.
Men are continually renewing their supplies. In reproductive terms, their merchandise is 'cheaper' compared to a woman's.
It is simple biology. And economics.

A woman is therefore programmed to seek the highest bidder (whatever this may mean to her) for her eggs. Cue hypergamy.
She needs to be choosy.
Moreover, she gets even more choosy as she gets older.

Why?
Some men scoff at this apparently illogical phenomenon in ageing women.
This is another example of what I will call 'Masculine eye syndrome' from now on.

To a man's logical mind, an ageing woman should take what she can get, because her overall package is less and less appealing to a man. Because men are attracted to youth and beauty.
Makes sense.

But, from the female point of view, she gets choosier because her eggs are getting more expensive. There are fewer left. They are becoming rare. She needs an even higher bidder for them than ever before.
To men, this is a losing strategy.

Yes, and no.

To a marriage-minded woman in this situation, viewing herself as 'expensive' in a mindless fashion with no insight into the intricasies of the market in which she finds herself is indeed a losing strategy. Failure to understand her true value in the Sexual Market Place (SMP) combined with an inflated sense of entitlement will ensure she never succeeds in her Nature-driven goals.

To a marriage-minded woman who correctly assesses the SMP and adjusts her thinking and therefore actions to best place her in a position to allow her enough suitors to choose from, this could be the best time-period in her entire reproductive life.

Because there comes a time in a women's life when she achieves a state of equilibrium. This coincides with a time when she experiences little or no cognitive dissonance. Her youth and beauty are still intact. She feels 'ready' to take her romantic life seriously. Her maturity suddenly shines through. Her conscious mind finally catches up with her subconscious mind in her pursuit of feminine goals. There are no more inner conflicts left. Her thoughts are aligned with her actions. Her ducks are all lined up. Everything makes sense. This woman, if already feminine becomes 'super-feminine'. If not already feminine, she starts to show signs of it.

In the old days, this moment in a woman's life occurred much earlier in her life.
Nowadays, it happens a lot later.
This is one of the unintended consequences of feminism.

This woman will not be atrractive to the PUA types. Because she lacks the allure of the very young. As the french say, tant mieux! (just as well!), because in fact, this woman, at this time in her life is a very poor match for the PUA.
In fact, being with a PUA is against her best interests, and will put her right back into a state of cognitive dissonance.

For a certain kind of marriage-minded man, this is the perfect woman. For she exudes a certain kind of feminine confidence which attracts only the marriage-minded man. It is a kind of social pheromone. This confidence is not to be confused with the 'strong and independent' feminist balderdash.

Nature aids and abets this woman in her quest to do Nature's bidding.

Note: By Nature's bidding, I am not referring only to copulation of course. I mean the whole package. Nature intended copulation as a way to beget the next generation, sure.
The mission to get this process started was clearly assigned to males. The mandate appeared to be: impregnate as many women as possible in order to guarantee a steady stream of offspring.

But Nature also intended the survival of said next generation. Nature accorded this task to women. Not just by way of endowing her with nurturing qualities, but also by way of giving her strategies to keep the seemingly wayward man focussed on her and not the entire female population. This is why relationships are a woman's domain, in general.

Nature's way to aid and abet women is a double whammy approach.

1. Keep the men simple, straightforward, uncomplicated. This makes it easier for a woman to read a man than the other way round.
2. In addition, just in case 1. is not enough, Nature endows a woman with a special 'female intuition' to allow her to sniff out a man's true intentions (read: character).

A man is usually deeply honest with a woman at some point or other during their encounter. In his actions, his words, his behaviour, his thinking. There is always a clue. Of course, women do the same to men too, but most effectively after he has, first. It only works if she follows his lead.

A woman knows a man she is 'studying'. She may lie to herself following her study, but she knows. Because she has to know. Because Nature gave her that job.

But she has to be ready for the job, otherwise she will do it all wrong.

Disrespect? Or a covert display of submissiveness?

2012-01-06T02:19:00.000-08:00

Men and women.
They really do live on different planets, don't they?

If it weren't for the often tragic misunderstandings that can result from this, it would be funny.

Poor old Michelle Obama got into big trouble recently.
She offended the Manosphere crowd.
I don't know if she knows or cares though.

Now, I know that if someone feels a certain emotion, be it positive or negative, it's no good telling them otherwise. They feel what they feel.

Sexual harrassment laws use this principle, for example.
If a person feels sexually harrassed, they are.

So I am not going to tell men to not feel offended by Michelle Obama.
To do so would be to get their back up and alienate them.
I don't want that.

But, I can see something they cannot.
And I know that other women can see what I see. I have proof of this on some Manosphere blogs.
I am sure if men see what I am seeing they would rethink their position.

The situation I am referring to is this video of an interview with both the Obamas by Barbara Walters (stolen from Dalrock).

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/12/23/barack_has_no_pet_peeves_of_first_lady_michelle_my_list_is_too_long.html

In this clip, she asks Mr Obama what his biggest peeve about his wife is.
He replies: "I don't have one".
In answer to the same question, Michelle Obama replies:
"My list is too long".

This last statement caused all kinds of furore in the Manosphere.
Men from all over the globe felt 'disrespected' on behalf of Barack Obama. Many accused him of being a 'beta'.

I get it.
Michelle Obama is married to the most powerful man on Earth.
And yet, she is not happy with him.

Wrong.

One could only come to the above conclusion if one sees and hears the interview with masculine eyes and ears.

A little background check on Michelle Obama also gave me further insight into her comment.

Understand this.
(And I tried to make this point as a commenter on some Manosphere sites, but it fell on deaf ears.)

Michelle Obama is a woman best placed to respect a man.
She grew up in a home with both parents. That means she had her father around, growing up.
She asked her 6 ft 6 brother to vet Barack before she married him.
She is unlikely to have man-hating issues. She had a loving father and brother that she got on very well with in her early years.

Understand that this woman's early upbringing is rare in today's world.
Having said that, many women develop good inter-relational skills with men even in the absence of this kind of environment, but with it, a woman is well ahead of the game.

So it should not surprise anyone that this woman got to be the wife of the President of the United States of America. She was already onto a winning streak just from having the kind of home she had as a child.

Back to the interview itself, only a woman can see that Michelle's statement is the female equivalent of chimpanzee-type chest-beating.

Michelle Obama is talking to other women in this interview.
And she is bragging.

And what's more, Barack knows that.

What Michelle O is doing is saying to other women:
'My husband is such hard work..he is such a pain in the ****, but I still love him'.

That last part is important. Look how she smiles when she says "my list is too long".
Look how Barack laughs at the same time.

Michelle Obama knows women. Because she is a woman.

The best way for a woman to boast about her alpha male (if she really really loves him) to other women is to give the impression that he is 'hard work', a jerk (translation into manspeak: alpha) but despite that she still loves him! She is prepared to take his 'crap' because he is special.

In other words, she submits to his dominance of her. And she delights in it.

Because he is special. Full stop.

Mrs. Obama really would have 'disrespected' her husband if she had given the same answer as he had. If she had said something about how "nice" he was. Women all over the world would have been secretly unimpressed. Because as you all know, women don't really want plain old 'nice', at least not all the time.
Women want a mxiture of alpha and beta, in the right sequence.

Michelle Obama is boasting to other women that she got the prize bull and kept him.
She is telling us that she was never a reluctant bride.

That is the ultimate compliment to a man.
Barack was laughing for a reason.
He gets it.
What's more, he also tells us that he got the 'nice girl' who loves him, so he has no complaints.
No need to be angry on his behalf.

Men and women really are different in what they want in a relationship, how they see the world and how they think.
This couple is doing it right.
Long may their marriage last.

The reluctant bride revisited

2012-01-06T00:57:00.000-08:00

Sometimes you get an unexpected helping hand from an unexpected source.

Two of my last three posts have touched on the subject of The Reluctant bride, even though this was not meant to be the main focus of the posts.

And then I found this on Dalrock:

'The one that got away'

where a Katy Perry video showing an elderly married woman pining away for her ex-lover is shown and analysed.

This is what Dalrock advises:
This should serve as a warning to men considering marriage; check very carefully for this sort of vibe. Women often feel entitled to nurse this sort of “poor me” feeling, regardless of how good a husband you are. This is also why you need to take your potential wife’s past sexual history very seriously.

It is precisely because I am privy to female nature that I agree with Dalrock's advice to men.
But I spot a potential fatal flaw.

This is also why you need to take your potential wife’s past sexual history very seriously.

This refers to the truism that if a woman has had many sexual partners, she may be less likely to bond to any one man.
On the whole, I cosign this. But I am well aware that there are two important caveats here:

1. There are always exceptions which prove the rule.

2. Very importantly, sometimes the individual circumstances in which a woman engages in sexual activity are crucial to decipher her motives.

Some men might respond to No 2 that whatever the circumstances, the risk of potential cuckoldry remains high, as history can always repeat itself. I cannot argue with that.

What caught my attention with Dalrock's last sentence was the implication of the reverse situation.
That if the woman is a virgin, you are relatively safe.

He does not actually conclude this, but I think it is a possible assumption.

The assumption that a woman needs sex to bond with a man.

Like Dalrock's wife, I too abhor the situation where a reluctant bride forges on into marriage/longterm relationship only to destroy that relationship because she cannot get another man out of her mind.
Like Dalrock's wife, I too have seen this play out and it is not pretty to watch.

In some of the cases of this nature that I know of, the woman was a virgin at the time of marriage.

Of course it is true that the hormone oxytocin which surges into the bloodstream post copulation promotes bonding. It is indeed the same hormone which promotes attachment of mother to baby too.

But...

A woman does not have to have sex in order to bond to a man.

There is a reason this hormone is also called the 'cuddle hormone'.
Sometimes, that's all it takes. A cuddle. A kiss. A handhold. A look.

If you are having trouble believing it, consider this.
An adoptive mother can bond incredibly well with her adoptive child. She never bore that child in her own womb. And yet she can bond to that child better than the child's own biological mother.

In the old days, women were able to properly bond to their prospective husbands prior to marriage. Sex was not required to make this process happen.

I know it's only a film, but it illustrates my point.
In my post on Pearl Harbour, I state that Evelyn would most likely have gone on to become Danny's reluctant bride had he not died in the war. And yet Danny is the one she had slept with. She had never slept with Rafe, her true love.

A woman truly bonds with only an incredibly small number of men in her lifetime. Usually, there is one at the top of the list.
She does not need to have slept with him for him to get there, way up above all the rest.

Gentlemen, make sure you are at Top Spot with your woman before jumping into longterm plans with her. (I know you already do!)
Even if she is a virgin.
Especially if she is a virgin.

Unless you are happy with No 2 spot.
Which is not a fun place to be.
The bitter men from the Manosphere already know that.

It's hard to be a woman

2012-01-05T03:22:00.000-08:00

Tammy Wynette's famous song 'Stand by your man' hits it on the head.
Sometimes, it really is hard to be a woman.

I remember once, I was in an algebra class at school. I must have been around fifteen years old.
It was an all-girl school.
The teacher was a middle-aged man. A father-figure type.

One of my classmates was obviously having a bad day. I forget what her problem was, but I am willing to bet it was related to the time of month.

The class was dead quiet until she started speaking. We had a test coming up and we were trying to work hard for it.
The girl looked up at the teacher and said, "Oh sir, how I wish I was a man!"

The teacher regarded her for a moment.
Then he turned to all of us and said, "Yes sure, it's hard to be a woman. But you do not want to be a man. You are blessed in being women. Embrace it."

Now, I remember feeling stunned that a man was talking to us like this. Years later, I realised how nice and important for our feminine development that a man was telling us to enjoy womanhood.

But as we were to discover in later life, it would turn out to be hard to enjoy womanhood.
Feminism saw to that.

Women have their biological role to play in life, with all its complexities. Navigating that alone is hard enough.

In addition, many women have taken on the roll of the man too. By way of brutally exhausting careers.
Which she may not be fully equipped to perform. Think women in the Armed Forces and their physical capabilities relative to men.

All these factors collude to disrupt a woman's journey through life.

Another unintended consequence of feminism is the delay in the maturation process of the modern woman.
In previous generations, women matured much faster than men. Nature was keen to make sure that by the time she had children, she would be well equipped to care for them.
Not so anymore.
By the time a man matures nowadays, his female counterpart is still lost at sea.

But whilst a man has all the time in the world to mature, women don't.
Because there is one more Nemesis to tackle: Mother Time...

And then she seeks compassion.
But would a man show compassion?

Generally not.
At least not in the way a woman wants it.

But here is the good news.

The solution for a woman who is finding it hard to be a woman is simply to use male and female nature to her advantage.

It is a mistake to seek compassion (read: pity) from a man.
Men don't do pity.
One look at the Manosphere and that becomes clear very quickly.
It would appear on the surface that men are harsh critics. Very harsh critics.
But actually, they simply are seeing the world through masculine eyes. Naturally.
Men judge everyone including women by masculine (i.e. their own) standards.

He won't stand another man crying and feeling sorry for himself. He might soften if a woman he is attached to (mother, sister, wife, longterm girlfriend) appeals to his soft centre.

Otherwise, it is 'get up and get on with it'. End of story.

Take advantage. Let us use the harsh criticisms of the Manosphere as the first step in our Recovery Programme.
In the end, they are doing us a favour.
Even if they think otherwise.

Ladies, beware of herd mentality

2012-01-05T02:20:00.000-08:00

I was drawn to Olive's blog primarily because of her concerted effort to distance herself from negative influences which prevent her from achieving her goals in life. I am a big fan of that.

In her recent series of posts "The quest for supportive friends" she describes in vivid detail why a certain friend or other was a bad influence on her, particularly in the dating environment.

All these friends (so far) have been other women.

One thing I have learned from the godfathers of the Manosphere is the concept of Women and their herd mentality.
I had never heard of this before.

I mean, I knew vaguely of the importance of 'the herd'. In the field of immunisation, for example, the principle of herd immunity is exploited to good effect.

But with educated eyes, I soon discovered evidence of 'the herd' all around me.

Women go around in packs much more than men. In a social setting, several women will leave for the bathroom together even if one or several of them do not need to go. Men will go one at a time.

Women tend to have many friends. Most men are solitary creatures.

'The herd' serves a useful biological purpose for women. In hunter-gatherer times, women stayed together for support (mutually free babysitting needs got fulfilled, for example), communication (if all the men were out hunting who would listen to her talk all day but the other women in the community?) and emotional connectivity (ditto). It was a great opportunity also for older women to pass on advice and tips to younger women (sadly today a lost art). The system worked very well.

In modern times, we have kept up this tradition of sorts and for the most part, it works.
What woman hasn't revelled in the support and building up that only her friends can provide in the aftermath of a catastrophic event in her life (read: aka boyfriend trouble)?

I am all for 'the herd'.

Except for two things.

Firstly, as Olive explains, the herd can lead a woman so far off the beaten track she is practically out of the woods altogether.

Some women are more savvy than others. Years of feminism has resulted in women competing with each other for men and not the other way round as in previous generations. Some women play dirty. They deliberately sabotage the efforts of their sisters in the dating game.

Beware who is in your herd. Distance yourself from those who are not helping your cause. Any source of conflict with your best interests will result in a state of cognitive dissonance within you. Eliminate internal conflict.

Secondly, herd mentality in women can be used against them on a much wider scale than a few bitchy friends.

Think feminism.

The effects of feminism have been much worse on women than on men.
This is because women pass on 'messages' to each other much more effectively than men, precisely because they are good communicators. To use cell biology analogy, men could be described as distinct cells whilst women could be seen more as the 'gap junctions' or cell membranes that make cells 'stick together' and communicate effectively with one another.

As women go, so goes society.
Because feminism was so successful at getting into the mindset of women, the consequences became disproportionately widespread.
This is why feminism is not just a western disease. Even remote parts of the world are subject to its effects as long as its women are reachable by some means or other.
Paradoxically, any effective measure to reverse the effects of feminism would essentially have to rely on this same herd mentality.

Think Pick Up Artistry (PUA).

The seedier aspect of PUA exploits this potential 'flaw' in women. In both ways.
This is why concepts such as 'negging' particularly when executed in the presence of other women works so well. The woman needs to feel part of the herd - if a trait of hers which deviates from the herd's modus operandi is reproached, in front of the herd, she feels a deep sense of isolation. She does not want to be isolated, so she conforms.
A good example: 'all your friends are sleeping with guys on the first date - why won't you? What's wrong with you?'
In the other way herd mentality can be exploited, a skilled PUA understands the need to actually isolate a woman from the herd: her support mechanism needs to be eliminated if she is to be effectively manipulated.

The herd can be a useful and marvellous tool for women.
Ladies, use it to your advantage.
Beware of the risks therof.

Film Review: Pearl Harbour

2012-01-04T16:05:00.000-08:00

I seem to be stuck. On war films. Specifically Far East war films. A few days ago, I posted a review on the film Empire of the sun highlighting the specific lessons I had picked up from it.
It seems I cannot get myself out of the Far East.
This time, I shall discuss a lesson from Pearl Harbour.

Two young american men, Rafe and Danny are best friends since their boyhood. They both enrol in the Armed Forces when they get older and are transferred to Pearl Harbour. Rafe (who is undoubtedly the alpha of the two, perhaps because he is older (?)) meets a Navy nurse, Evelyn who he falls in love with. Before the two can establish their budding romance, Rafe volunteers to join the war effort in England. Whilst there, his plane gets shot down by the enemy and he plunges into the cold waters of the English channel and is presumed dead.
Danny has to break the bad news to Evelyn. She is clearly devastated. Many months pass and Danny begins to show signs of falling for her. Evelyn resists his efforts for a long time. Then one day, Danny takes her for a ride in his plane - an action which could have got him kicked out of the Air Force. On their return to the Airfield base, Danny narrowly misses being spotted. He and Evelyn have to hide in the terminal building. One thing leads to another and they become intimate for the first time.

Evelyn is still reluctant with Danny. He is clearly smitten with her and wants a relationship with her, but Evelyn is not really attracted to him. She tries to resist him but in the end he seems to be making headway with her.
Unfortunately for her, she soon discovers she is pregnant by Danny.
This, on the same day that Rafe shows up in town. Turns out he didn't die afterall. He was rescued by a french fisherman and being stuck in Occupied France, so he could not get word out that he was indeed alive.

Evelyn is happy to see him. But she is now torn between her true love, Rafe, and the father of her unborn child, Danny.
The two men unsurprisingly become enemies. But not for long. The events surrounding them collude to repair their relationship, and in the end, Rafe relinquishes Evelyn to Danny, in compliance with her wishes.
The two later volunteer on what turns out to be a suicide mission to Tokyo and Japanese-occupied China. Danny loses his life, but not before Rafe reveals to him news of his impending fatherhood.

Rafe returns to Pearl Harbour with Danny's coffin, and is greeted by a heavily pregnant Evelyn yet again devastated by loss.

The film ends with a family scene of Rafe and Evelyn and 'little Danny'.

I was thinking the other day about 'honour'. Not the negative kind, like where some traditional families kill their daughter for refusing to marry a man of her father's choice and call it an 'honour' killing.

I am talking here about the distinctive masculine concept.

Honour is a deeply masculine virtue. At least, defending honour is.

It is why men can die for their country without a moment's hesitation. It is why a boxer will keep going until he is almost comatose, rather than quit.

Speaking of which, take a look at this scene from Pearl Harbour.

Two men are in a boxing match (starting at 03:39). The smaller guy looks like he may need a doctor soon. His friend and supporter says to him at 04:59: "He slept with your Mamma, remember? Be a son of a bitch!"
The smaller guy wins the match.

'Honour' to a woman is about protecting her own dignity, in general.
I don't know any woman who sees it as her duty to protect another's honour. If those same words that were directed at the boxer were directed to a woman, the only way it would affect her would be how those words reflected on her.

A good example, however of how this sense of honour can extend to 'other' rather than 'self', is Evelyn's decision to stick with Danny when she discovers she is pregnant by him, even though it is really Rafe she loves. In this case, she is being selfless. She does the 'honourable' thing, not for Danny per se, but for her unborn child. She never truly loved Danny. She was always going to be a reluctant bride for Danny. Which makes her decision all the more heroic.

The young guy in the boxing ring won because he was protecting his mother's honour. His friend knew he would react that way. That's why he said what he said.

Defending (a woman's) honour makes a man vulnerable.
To women, it should be a beautiful thing.

(Incidentally, although not the focus of this post, the young boxer arrives at Nurse Evelyn's hospital to have his cuts sewn up (05:35). She asks him how he acquired his wounds.
There follows a little lecture on what 'Respect' means to a man.
Her comment 'Well let's hope you never have to' demonstrates how much she misses the point of what he is trying to say to her. Like so many women do, including me).

Out with the old, in with the new

2012-01-01T04:32:00.000-08:00

Goodbye 2011.

You were a wonderful year, full of light, laughter, joy and new experiences.
You were also a painful year, full of despair, anguish and tears.

Welcome 2012.

With hopeful hearts we look forward to meeting you.
Like little children we cannot wait to see your box of tricks.

Let the woman chase you

2011-12-31T12:07:00.000-08:00

I do not consider myself experienced enough in life to give anyone advice. It would result in a hilarious case of the blind leading the blind.
So I won't.

But Morgan Freeman will.
Whilst being interviewed by Piers Morgan on CNN recently, Morgan Freeman was asked in jest what the secret to his success with women was. He almost did not answer this question, preferring to tell Piers Morgan the answer after the show.
But I am glad he eventually answered the question on air.

He said, and I somewhat paraphrase:
"Don't chase women, let them chase you".

Now, I have heard this before. In several guises.
If I must box it up and label it, I would call it 'Game'.

Women have their feminine charm, men have 'Game'.

A man without Game is like the proverbial fat girl at your former school.

Thankfully both afflictions are reversible.

In all seriousness, even though the intricasies of Game are hard to swallow (so to speak) for a woman, where it is used with decorum, I do believe it is necessary for a man.
Not just 'nice to have'.
Necessary.

Grandma (not specifically mine, but you get the idea) says fondly of Grandpa:
"He chased me until I caught him".

Everyone laughs when she says this, even for the millionth time at yet another Christmas dinner.

And then years later, someone asks out of the blue, 'what did she mean, exactly?'

To illustrate what Gradma meant, let me opine that women who divorce their husbands don't say what Grandma said. At least not with fondness. Ever.

Here's why.

Back to Grandma's young days, and good old Grandpa, hormones raging, spots a girl (who eventually became Grandma) that he liked. He went after her like his life depended on it.
Everything was great. He and Grandma were like, floating on clouds and everything. But Grandma, being a 'good girl' was notably more reserved than Grandpa.

Then he did that really annoying thing that almost all men do. He withdrew a little.
Grandma was devastated. She began to show more affection to Grandpa in the hope of winning him back.
She showed she was vulnerable too, much the same as he had right at the beginning of their relationship when he was infatuated.
It takes a while, but Grandpa decides this is the girl for him afterall. He may have chased other girls in the meantime, but in the end, he chooses Grandma.

Grandpa may be a natural 'alpha'. He may be a 'beta'. No one really knows. But it doesn't matter. Because in his pursuit of Grandma he is in turn alpha (when he first encounters Grandma) then beta (when he falls hopelessly in love with her), then alpha again (when he disappears for a few weeks/months/years), and so on. In the era of Grandpa that second alpha stage nicely coincides with the war.

In scenario two, imagine that when Grandpa withdrew, Grandma showed no particular signs of distress. She couldn't be bothered if he was alive or dead.

Note: what I am describing here is to be distinguished from self-preservation/hurt/anger/self-respect on Grandma's part.
I am specifically talking here about a complete lack of interest in the whereabouts of Grandpa during the time he is AWOL.
We would hope that Grandpa would see the light and walk away for good.

Some men don't.
They pursue a reluctant woman and she becomes a reluctant bride.

This is the woman who seven years down the line will declare she is 'not happy'.
Some men in the manosphere know this phrase very well.
This phrase precedes real pain. The destruction of a family. Loss of financial control. Pain. More pain. Yet more pain.

It is not her fault.
A woman should feel unequivocally excited about marrying a man. If not, her disdain for him will come back and haunt him.
This disdain stems from another example of cognitive dissonance. I gave one example in a previous post here.

A woman does not do well with cognitive dissonance. It tears her apart. First. Then everyone else around her.

Women are more complicated than men. We have to be. We have a lot more to lose if we are easy to read.
The nature of womanhood (being receptive in nature) is such that it is in our best interests to be selective. That's a good thing in my humble opinion.

I firmly believe that biology does dictate that in the end, it is the woman who chooses.
I believe there is a good bio-social reason for this.
Women are the 'relationship experts' as one wise old man I know puts it.
A man is preoccupied with his work all his life. That is the source of his self-significance.
A woman will take some time out to obsess about her relationships, and I don't just mean the romantic ones. Women are 'connectors' and 'communicators' by nature. That is the true source of our self-significance.
In terms of relationships, a woman's vested interest is to keep a man she has already attracted. It is important she chooses right, because she has to care enough to work harder on the relationship than he would. Because in fact he won't. It is not his natural domain.
This is why a relationship is never really over until the woman decides it is over.
The female-driven sky high modern day divorce rate proves this point.

Grandpa thought he chose Grandma, but Grandma in fact chose him by physically atracting him. Grandpa didn't know what hit him. Years later, his level of insight into the whole episode would remain, 'well, there was something about that girl.'

A woman will have many men after her during the course of her reproductive life. She will be truly attracted to only a few.
A man will be after many women in his lifetime. The smart man will settle down with the one who, on a primordial level, demonstrates to him enough indicators of interest, like displays of loyalty, and a certain deference which he will interpret as 'respect'.

So if a man's withdrawal leaves a woman breathing a sigh of relief as opposed to crying into her cornflakes, she is in fact fulfilling an important and natural function: eliminating him from her 'list of interest'. A woman spends most of her life performing this function. It is a necessary part of womanhood, though it needn't be executed in a harsh manner. Much like hypergamy and emotionality, it's female nature.
And no, she won't change her mind.
Unless she has a secret agenda compelling her to overrule her ambivalence towards him and grit her teeth on the long walk to the altar.
Like her fertility is waning and she desperately wants a child, but not the man.
Like during his absence she got pregnant by the man she really wanted but who rejected her.
Like she got tired of being the only single one at her married friends' parties.
Like he is rich and famous and she is thinking, well this can't hurt. (Monaco anyone?)

At some point, despite her complicated nature, even the hardest woman to read becomes like an open book. To the man she truly loves.
She will do a little chasing. OK, a lot of chasing.
I really have to point out here that I am not referring to sexual chasing. That's masculine, actually. The chasing I am referring to may include sexual chasing of course, but it is a lot more than that.

Game allows this 'female chasing' to happen. A man needs it to distinguish which woman to rule in, or out, as the case may be.
A man's worst mistake in life is to marry a reluctant bride.
Don't be that guy.

The smart woman will only do this chasing, though, if she has absolutely no doubt in her mind that the man concerned has feelings for her beyond the physical.
Men are simple in comparison to women. In addition, women are naturally blessed with 'female intuition'. So a woman's success in figuring this out in her man is easier than the other way round.

Male nature being what it is, every man, on some level is a reluctant groom. But his reluctance does not bear nearly as much significance on the longterm success of the relationship as bridal reluctance does. Not even close.

I make the point again: relationships are a woman's domain. She initiates it and she can terminate it if she so desires. But it is in her best interests not to.

So, to conclude, Morgan Freeman is right. To be successful with a woman longterm, gentlemen, and by that I mean if you want a woman who will love you till your dying day, let her chase you a bit. It is good for you, and her.

The curious case of the much older multiply-divorced man and the younger woman

2011-12-30T12:23:00.001-08:00

Kelsey Grammer. Donald Trump. Boris Becker. My boss. An older man you know.

Women marry up. With regard to age, height and in all likelihood social status. I know this.You know this.
But I did not know what it was called until quite recently.
Hypergamy.

Sounds like a disease.
Sometimes it is.

There are several facets to hypergamy. In its simplest form it denotes a woman simply wanting what Nature prescribes. A man capable of physically and economically protecting her. And her children.
And she in turn stays with him and adds colour to his 'black and white' world.

When it works well, it is beautiful.

When it doesn't, we get all kinds of permutations.

There is a coupling I have never been able to 'get'. This is the older man who has had a string of failed marriages/relationships and usually many children behind him, who pairs up with a younger often childless woman in her thirties.

In all the above cases, the man is usually rich and powerful (an alpha). He is known to have had liaisons with many women, all usually increasingly younger versions of the last one.

I am not referring to the average man who is once or twice divorced and simply marries a third woman. I really mean multiply-divorced men or those known to have had multiple relationships.

What is notable about these men is the desire to keep on having children with the new woman. And despite often expensive, bitter divorces behind them, these men are very much open to yet another marriage.

The women they marry also have traits in common.

She is usually not very young. Just young enough to be still fertile. More often than not, she is not sexually-naïve. She is no Maria von Trapp. But importantly, she is definitely not a promiscuous woman either. She has enough life experiences that she is never immature.
She is usually very atrractive and feminine. And usually also accomplished in her chosen field but is never what you might refer to as a 'career queen'.
She may have had quite a few previous relationships of her own, but she has never previously married and is usually childless.
She does want children. And the man knows this. And usually, he does not object. In fact, he welcomes this feature in her.
Sometimes, she will only entertain his interest in her on condition that parenthood is on the cards. He acquiesces without a fuss.

This coupling fascinates me. I honestly do not know why. Any comments and thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

Film Review: Empire of the sun

2011-12-30T05:38:00.000-08:00

The film 'Empire of the sun' is one of my favourite films ever. Over the years I have watched it over and over again.

However, I watched it again recently, and suddenly, I saw it differently. I saw the same old film but with new eyes.

It is the autobiographical story of British writer JG Ballad which recounts his experiences as a young British choirboy caught up in World War II in the Far East. Jamie Graham, the young boy, born and bred in China lives a life of privilege typical of westerners abroad, of that era. Following the Pearl Habour attack, the Japanese invade China. Jamie's world is turned upside down, and in the ensuing chaos somehow gets separated from his parents and has to fend for himself until he is reunited with them at the end of the war.

The film chronicles his adventures along the way and his rite of passage into manhood.
From spoiled dentally-indulged warplane-mad choirboy (Jamie's rendition of the Welsh lullaby 'Suo Gan' is a running musical theme throughout the film) to a toughened-up traumatised survivor, Jamie 'sees it all' during the hardships of war.

He runs into two Americans named Frank and Baisie who take him under their wing and shape his journey into manhood. Baisie (an alpha if ever there was one!) especially, teaches Jamie (who he renames 'Jim') what it is to be a man.

Whilst I love the process of the initiation of Jim into manhood, I could not help but notice little gems of male-female interaction which have helped shape my understanding of the different but complimentary traits which men and women possess and which should be celebrated.
It is of note that the film is set in a time-period where men were still 'men' and women were still 'women'.
I wonder how differently things could have turned out if this film had been set in today's world?

Example 1: Women beautify, men provide
From 04:15, we see Jamie's mother playing the piano while Jamie is outside talking to his father about the war, and luck.
At 05:23 his father replies, in response to Jamie's comment, 'We are awfully lucky, aren't we, living here and having everything' with "The funny thing is, the harder I work, the luckier we get."

I somehow got the impression that Jamie's father did not really intend that comment as a reproach to Jamie at all. It is a wistful remark at no-one in particular.
He had done his job well. He was providing abundantly for his piano-playing wife and his son. The more he worked, the more they got. End of story. No fuss.

This family was so well-off that one could almost say that aside from giving birth to Jamie, Jamie's mother was no longer particularly useful. (OK, I am being absurdly obtuse here purely for effect). There were servants to perform every task, afterall.

But no. She was the one creating beautiful piano music in the background. Her domain may be grand beacuse of her husband's hard work, but it is also made beautiful by her.
Essential, if Jamie's father was to continue to work harder without a fuss.

Example 2: Women are emotional, men are rational
From 03:40 onwards, one can see Jamie's mother is clearly getting flustered by the commotion going on around her. She loses her temper when Jamie wouldn't sit still, because he is adding to her agitation. Jamie's father is in full protection mode here. See how he calms her down without a word.

There are few benefits of feminism, to both men and women. However, many women have achieved a state of reduced display of excessive emotionality purely because it is not well tolerated in certain environments, such as at work. It is arguably a good thing.
It is however a distinct feature of the female nature to act the way Jamie's mother does in this clip.
In this particular example, it does not serve a useful purpose, but there are times when it does.

Example 3: Women sometimes need protection from themselves
That same rationality which allows Jamie's father to protect his family in a dangerous period of their lives can also literally save their lives.
In this clip (08:37), a different woman implores her husband to tell the Japanese soldiers 'who we are' in the vain hope that somehow, these guys, who in all likelihood did not even speak english would somehow exempt this couple from whatever horror they were about to unleash on them and everybody else.
The man rightly 'got it' that so much as speaking up could get him and his wife killed in an instant.

Female intuition is a great gift. I don't always possess it, but when I have it, it works wonders for me.
But in certain cases, a woman's intuition can be superseded by a man's common sense.

Example 4: Just how important is 'respect' to a man?
Jamie is certainly taken through his paces en route to becoming a man.
At one point it becomes clear that he is now too old to stay with the Victors. He is now in puberty and is beginning to spy on the couple at night.
But will he simply get a transfer to the American mens' dorm? Oh no, not so simple.
First he has to prove that he is 'worthy'. In a cruel suicide mission hashed out by Baisie and co, Jamie is tasked with setting up pheasant traps at the edge of the camp in order for Jamie to earn a place with the other men. With a mighty stroke of good fortune, Jamie passes this test in flying colours.

He mistakenly believes that in so doing, he has also earned the right to be included in Baisie's eventual escape plan.
Baisie does escape. But without keeping his promise to Jamie to keep him in the loop.

After the war, Baisie comes back for Jamie. But by this time, Jamie has become a man without Baisie there holding his hand. When Baisie attempts to sugarcoat his way back into his good books, just look at how Jamie reacts.
That look at 03:37 says: 'Get your hands off me. I am a man now, not a boy anymore. As a boy, I worshipped the ground you walked on. Now, you are just another guy. I will treat you as such'.
Some might say that Jamie's reaction is more to do with the fact that Baisie just killed his Japanese boyhood friend, a friend who had previously saved his life.
I am not so sure. I really do believe his reaction is simply to do with his perception of a lack of respect by Baisie.
We women have our own version of this. It is never quite like this though.
Just different.

Example 5: Women are nurturers, men are onlookers
In the final scene, Jamie is finally reunited with his parents. He has been through hunger, murder, misery, mental instability, disease and pain.

He does not even look like the same Jamie we see at the beginning of the film.
His mother spots him.

Jamie really needs the feminine in his life right now. He has spent some rough months with men. He himself is now a man.
When he finally re-encounters his parents he does not even see his father.

I think this is one thing a woman simply cannot lose. It is the last bastion of femininity. Not even 40+ years of feminism has been able to wrench this away from women.
Sometimes it can be very well concealed. But when the occasion calls for it, I don't know many women who would be unable to do this.

(From 08:05 in the last clip)

Long live the differences between men and women.

In defence of Catholic nuns

2011-12-29T06:44:00.000-08:00

Disclaimer: I am catholic. I like nuns. My views on this post are therefore heavily biased in their favour.

I would go out on a limb and declare that at some point in the life of many catholic women, the thought of becoming a nun crosses their mind. I might even go further and say most.

I would know. I would be one of the most.

Risk factors of the above affliction include:
1. Being raised catholic (obviously).
2. Going to catholic school, especially convent school.
3. Being traditionally-minded.

The first two are obvious. The third might surprise some people.
For afterall, to be traditionally-minded is to aim for husband and family, not the nunnery, surely!

It has to be said: those who know, know that being a nun is remarkably similar to being a wife and mother. The two paths are in fact on the same trajectory, the only differences being in the practical details.

Come again?

Let me explain.

My former headmistress from my old convent school died this month. I remember her fondly. She was a tall and stout woman. She must have already been well into her fifties when she was headmistress at my school. She almost appeared masculine in her appearance, as I recall. She was of an order which was not required to wear a veil or habit, so her visible short, greying hair added to her androgenous appearance. She even had one of those masculine first names, like Sr Ambrose (not her real name).
However, she was surprisingly soft-spoken for such an imposing figure.
But when she barked at you, you knew it. It was not a pretty sight to behold. Thankfully, her barks were rare.

She could also be one of the gentlest people I have ever known. She knew just what to say to you if you had a problem. She knew exactly how to get a girl to maximise her talents whatever those talents were. Some of the best mantras and phrases of motivation I have hung onto in life came from her. She was deeply spiritual and you could feel her desire to bring out the very best out of every girl that passed through her school. It went beyond a teaching vocation. I felt 'mothered' by her and all the other nuns at my school. I always wondered how women who had never been physical mothers could excel at 'mothering' so well.

They say the one who has to learn a trick is the one who beats the 'natural'. No-one 'trains' to become a wife, at least not in the modern era. Finishing schools, home economics classes, relationship courses and good mothers/grandmothers/aunts/sisters set women well onto a nice path to success in the marriage jungle, but it is not a strict entry criterion.

A lawyer friend of mine went deeper into religious life than I ever dared. Law school is a breeze compared to 'nun school', I hear.

But then again, to become a bride of Christ should entail being taken to task. It is, afterall, not an easy life.

People who mock nuns have either had a personal bad experience with a particular nun or group of nuns (I agree there are bad nuns just as much as there are bad people everywhere) or have a gripe against the catholic church in general, of which nuns are a ubiquitous and visible reminder.

Most people (women in particular) who have been taught by nuns would agree that it was a positive experience for them overall. Even if individual bad experiences can be recalled.

A friend of mine whose kindergarten teacher was a nun has been unable to sever the bond over forty years later, and seemingly can never venture too far from the old lady who remains the only contender for the title 'mother-substitute'.

An old man I know who was not even catholic, being fully aware of the reputation of nuns for being overly strict and possibly even slightly sadistic insisted on all his daughters being sent to catholic schools, just so they could be raised by nuns.

For there is no better teacher for a girl on how to be a good wife and mother, than a nun, this man had told himself. He was no fool.

Mother Teresa was known to many simply as 'mother'.

A traditionally-minded catholic girl who wants to be a wife and mother and who has been in contact with nuns will know that, amongst others, nuns are a wonderful role-model for the task ahead.

Who better to emulate than a bride of Christ, afterall.

Stay at home mothering is the way forward

2011-12-28T10:58:00.000-08:00

All said and done, the best thing a human being can have is to be brought up in a home with a father who provides and protects and a mother who beautifies and nurtures.
This, amongst other needs such as a spiritual belief system and the perception of validation by the people around him or her is an important ingredient for a fulfilled and happy life.

However, as we all know, it is not that simple. Life can get very complicated especially where it ought to be simple.
Most men provide in some form or another. If they are not providing for a family of their own (and I include here adopted children, not just biological), they are providing for someone else's in the context of cuckoldry, weird cultural traditions and taxation.
It is becoming more and more common nowadays however to come across men who simply refuse to work, or if they do, simply refuse to share their resources with anyone else. The causes of this is multifactorial: painful divorce battles siring deep resentment, lifelong bachelorhood, immaturity of mind, to name but a few.
The purpose of this post is not to point fingers, but to elucidate where a solution might be found.

Continuing on the theme of 'the teacher appears when the student is ready', another surprising (to me) trend of recent years is the number of young women (mostly newly married with babies/young children, but increasingly also single with or without children) who are leaving the workforce in droves in pursuit of a better quality of life for themselves and their children, or in the case of those not yet (or ever to be) parents, for themselves.
Why surprising? Well, around 40 years ago, women were told they could 'have it all'. They swallowed the dogma, and have been trying to prove it ever since. What started out as an attempt (hmm, was it ever as innocent as all that?) to better the lives of 'downtrodden' women ended up as a cynically contrived effort to take Mother out of the home thereby destroying the Family, which happens to be the bedrock of society.
It is pleasantly surprising (to me) that many women of today, who instead of finding an improvement of their mothers' lives over their grandmothers', saw a decline and took note. And acted on their God-given intuition which told them that they had been sold a turkey and it wasn't Christmas.

I have had a successful career for many years. It has brought me many rewards, including one of the needs mentioned above: a spiritual awareness. I often wondered if, when the time was right, I could make the transition to become the kind of wife and mother I would need to be, to give my future children the best thing as I see it, as defined above?
Or would I cling to the (self-directed) rewards of my career and in so doing destroy my God-appointed destiny to live life as a woman with all that this entails? And run the risk of becoming another 'man-substitute' who will work till she drops, and in some form or another pay for other people's children?

Apparently, I was not the only one thinking such thoughts. The happiest women I know are the ones who 'threw in the towel' as far as careers were concerned, in favour of pursuits more 'natural' to their being. The timing of this 'detour' does not seem to be the deciding factor on where one ends up on the 'happiness spectrum', but my guess would be that if it happened at a time before a woman's fertility window had closed, and therefore gave her the chance of achieving all that is attainable in the realm of womanhood, the chances of and the degree of satisfaction would be maximised. Just a guess.

I recently decided to look up a friend I had not seen for over a decade. When I knew her, she was aiming high in a high-flying career. She had recently gotten married. Twelve years later and several children later, she is a Stay At Home Mother (SAHM) and very happy, albeit no doubt stressed. Note I did not say she was now no longer (gainfully) employed. She is in fact working harder than when I knew her over ten years ago. Not only do her children and husband take up much of her time, she is also in a profession which is perfectly in sync with her child-oriented responsibilities.

I have no doubt that she went through the cognitive dissonance stage where the inner conflict (career vs family) was killing her very soul. Unlike so many women, she (eventually) yielded to the greater good and gave up the personal/financial/psychological/social/mental rewards her work brought her in favour of what would be best for her family and herself as a unit. Personally, I am meeting women like this almost everyday of my life nowadays.
When the student is ready...

In contrast, the 'what not to do' models are omnipresent in my field of vision too. The seriously messed up and selfishly stubborn women (and interestingly, these are the very ones who could afford to do the right thing by their husbands and children, because they are not hard-up single mothers with no choice in the matter) who doggedly carry on working in insane conditions even when it is beyond clear to everyone concerned that this situation is not working for, well...everyone concerned. Why? Because they need to feel that they are contributing something to the world other than the ability to push out babies.
Yes. Need. We didn't just swallow the hype, we actually believed it.
What a shame.
How tragic for our society that young women do not know that their greatest work is that in the home. I include myself in this category bar the last few months.

If there is one thing I have learned in the last few months, it is this: Men are simple, and reactionary.

If most women would stay at home to care for their husbands and children, most men would go out and work. Because that is how Nature designed things.
Of course, to avoid disappointment and a failed relationship, most women who would want to stay at home to care for potential husbands and potential children would select a man who already knows how to and does go out and work.
And then most children would get the 'best thing in life' as I described it above.
Which really is a need.

If it were not a need, we would not be seeing the rise in feral kids quite to the same degree as we do.

It really could be that simple.

Male and female He created them

2011-12-27T07:33:00.000-08:00

Children. To observe them is to observe Nature at its best. There is no better substitute.

When you are ready to learn something the teacher suddenly appears, they say.
As a woman in her thirties, and who wants children, I notice children more and more. I study them intensely. Sometimes without realising I am doing it. Then I wake up at midnight with a jolt and say almost out loud: 'So that's what he was trying to communicate when he cried and hugged the cat' referring to little Johnny's seemingly inexplicable behaviour last Sunday afternoon at the park.

A good friend has one son and two daughters ranging from ages 3 to 7.
I spent a whole day with the family recently. It was a real eye opener.

I learned that men really are simple. And women are diverse and adaptable.
Or rather, I already knew the above. I simply had it confirmed in a no-nonsense kind of way.
It was like I had been in a long nap and just woke up.

The youngest daughter is an independent child. At 3, she rules the family. Even 6 foot Dad is afraid of her. She tells big brother and big sister what to do. And they defer to her.
The only one she has not yet managed to wrap around her little finger is Mum. Because she is just like Mum. Her word is law. If you cross her, you are in big trouble, no matter who you are.

The middle child is a truly feminine 'girly' type. She is the quiet one. The nurturing one. The one who will instinctively bring you a a glass of water if she detects your lips are dry. She is the one playing with the doll, affectionately cuddling it and caring for it. She is the one who will wear the pink T-shirt with the word 'princess' on it. She is also the one you know will feel the most pain if her family were to fall apart (God forbid). And yet, you also know she will be the one to try her best to put the pieces together again.

The boy who is also the eldest is just like Dad. He is simple. Feed him, clothe him, praise his efforts and he will like you. Disrespect him and he will ignore you.
At 7, he knows he is male. His mother and sisters are different from him. He already identifies with Dad. Mum will tell you he started this process well before his 7 years.

I always thought children were children until they were adults. Sure, it is clear that boys are boys and girls are girls. We have all heard the term 'boys will be boys' for example. But just how deeply ingrained our gender impacts on our personality was lost on me until I watched these three children I have known for over a year, for a few hours.

I used to worry that the youngest child would turn out to be a 'strong independent' kind of 'feminista' woman. Until I realised I was wrong. She was just as 'feminine' as her sister. Both girls represented all that is worthy of praise in being a woman. They represent different spectra of the same scale. Whilst one is overtly feminine with all the softness, vulnerability and giving on display, the other exhibits the firmness, toughness and strength of mind that is equally necessary in the arsenal of any young woman, not just the modern woman, for that matter. These qualities existed in our grandmothers too. Just as much as the other more 'overtly feminine' qualities.

Every woman swings between the two shades of femininity. How far swung to each extreme depends on the woman.

Men on the other hand are solidly stable. No swings to the right or left of any scale. He is what he is. Masculine. That's it.

This is why 40+ years of feminism has only succeeded in making women unhappy. The swings to the extremes of the scale have been exaggerated to compensate for the unexpected changes in the Sexual Market Place (SMP).
Men on the other hand have simply remained the same. Because it is in their nature to remain constant. Unchangeable. Simple.

To understand your (natural) self, just watch a child of the same gender for a while. To understand the interplay between the sexes watch how children of both genders interact with one another and with adults.

Childhood is indeed Nature's playground.