The tragedy of St.Valentine's Day

It is not really clear to me why this is, but it seems to be very much the case:
Introverted people are often perceived not to have feelings. To be devoid of emotion.


So when once in a blue moon, an introverted person shows some emotion, everyone gets a surprise. :-)
Yes, the problem is, when Mr.or Ms. Introversion decides to let rip, it is usually akin to a volcanic eruption. :-)


I remember when I was a child, a teacher at school asked me, 'why are you Catholic?'
Given that it was a Catholic school, I felt justified in answering, 'cos everyone around me is'.
Looking back, that was quite a lame answer.


Why a religion?
Nowadays, in accordance with my new-found Red Pill faith, I would answer differently:


'Religion provides a good infrastructure for 'reframing'.'
'Cos this is one of the skills of life. One we all badly need in this modern world, I believe.


Over the course of blogging, I have come to notice that some commenters take on certain personas which is unique to them, and forge a relationship with the blogger based on this unique persona. It is quite an entertaining phenomenon. :-)
I notice this sort of interaction between blogger and commenter on almost every blog I visit, so I know this is of course not unique to this blog.


Speaking of commenters, I would just like to say that newcomer Mortan has brought me many great insights via his visit to the MGTOW post. In particular, his words about the phenomenon that is 'contentment' has prompted me to look into this further. I was going to post about this...


But as is usual with me, I got distraced by a comment from someone else.
This someone else is 'Live Free or Die'.


LFOD has, I think, assumed the role of 'court jester' here. My reaction to his comments tend to range from something between 'yeah, whatever, mate' in response to his boundary-pushing hyperbole, to 'oh no, he didn't just say that!' in response to his more outlandishly outrageous posts (Answer being, of course, yes he did just say that). :-)


Exchanging friendly fire is good for the soul, or something to that effect. :-)
I welcome commenters like LFOD, because I realise that I learn a lot from them. Not to talk of incredibly entertaining.


This latest comment, however, from LFOD, unleashed an emotion in me that I did not really expect to feel.


"Happy MGTOW Day everyone!

No dinners bought today.
No jewelry bought today.
No flowers bought today.
No chocolate bought today.
No wine bought today.
No cards bought today.

No obligations to anyone or anything.

Live Free or Die!"


I was just about to (robot-style) respond (with my usual attitude) to him:
'Happy MGTOW Day to you too, LFOD. Enjoy.'
But something stopped me.
I thought, not this time.


This whole post is of course unsolicited.
But that's just it. No-one wants to ask for this sort of rant from a stranger. :-)


This is not personal to LFOD. In fact, from this point onwards, let's all have a frank discussion about this, only referring to LFOD where absolutely necessary.


Back to childhood...
Back to the playground:
Boy A has a scuffle with Boy B and ends up 'winning' Boy B's shirt. Boy A tries on Boy B's shirt and finds it doesn't fit. Boy A then sulks off to another child, let's say, a girl, and complains to her that Boy B's shirt doesn't fit.
She doesn't get it. To his constant reminders that he won the shirt 'fair and square', all she can say is, 'but it's not yours! Wouldn't it be better if you returned Boy B's shirt to Boy B and you just wear your own shirt?'
The girl does not get it because perhaps she is not meant to. She doesn't understand the complex rules by which Boy A and Boy B are playing.


But this girl does. Which is why she feels the raw emotion of deep sadness. In typical exaggerated hyperbole (to resort to tautology!) she would call it a tragedy.


Yes, Boy B is analogous to mainsteam media/current culture/feminism/whatever. Boy A and the girl need no introduction, I hope.


Why would anyone take on the views of someone else and whine to a third party that it does not sit well with them?
Who told LFOD that Valentine's Day is all about wining and dining a lady and bringing her flowers, chocolate and diamonds?


And more importantly, why did he buy into this harmful piece of information?
To conform?
To comply?
Because he had no other solution?


But there is always another solution.


Some people know when the are being taken for a ride. They shrug their shoulders and go along for the ride anyway. Others in the same boat have no idea what's happening...until...they finally wake up... when the vehicle they are in...crashes.


Someone won the booby prize (considering it was won from Mama Feminism, this is not a bad pun!) and now doesn't like his winnings.
Someone should give back the shirt that doesn't fit. It is not his. It will never fit.




St. Valentine's Day is a religious festival. Like Christmas, or Easter, or the feast of Ss. Peter and Paul.
It was never meant to be hijacked by our materialistic society for the gains of chocolate makers or florists.


If we buy that lie, that it is a day to give women cards or seven course meals, it is our fault for absorbing bad information.


St. Valentine was a Catholic priest who sought to take a stance against a cruel emperor who was so keen to win wars that he made it a law that no man should marry in order not to 'distract' them from fighting. Emperor Caludias wanted to make every man a MGTOW whether he liked it or not. :-)


St. Valentine knew there were men and women in his diocese who wanted to marry. So he married them, in secret. For this cime, he was imprisoned, tortured and eventually decapitated.
But before dying, he healed the (blind) daughter of one of his jailors, and his very last words were to her, in a note he signed off with the words, 'from your Valentine'.
Cue the association with romantic love. :-)




St. Valentine, much like St. Jerome must be turning over in his grave by now. He made the ultimate sacrifice to ensure that the young people of his era received one of the most enriching sacraments of life. St. Jerome warned against marriage, of course - but only for those who were not ready for it, I conclude. These two saints teach us a lot about real love, and not the 'fairies in a cloud' variety that is sold to the general public in bucket-loads on one day in mid-February.




Instead of absorbing what is routinely sold to us in the mainstream media, and then moan about it, why don't we see things for what they really are? Why don't we 're-frame'?


Why don't we stop this rot by re-framing in our own minds what is right?


What is wrong with going to a lecture on St. Valentine, on St. Valentine's Day?
What is wrong with going to Mass on St. Valentine's Day and praying that the love which St. Valentine had for his fellow man would be bestowed on us too?
What is wrong with asking a girl to 'be your Valentine' without giving her a truckload of shiny objects?
What is wrong with a woman giving a man something, no matter how small, on St. Valentine's Day?
What is wrong with a kind act towards a stranger because it is for the love of St. Valentine, on St. Valentine's Day?


Answer: nothing.




Gentlemen, feminism may have taken over in a big way, but it is still your duty to...
Civilise us!


Honestly, we implore you...
You show the way, you decide how an important feast day is to be celebrated, you lead the way.
I promise you, we women will follow.


If you fail to take the lead, we ladies are left scratching our heads and wondering where all the good men went...
:-)


Important note:
This post is not, I hope the violation of Nature that one might conclude it is. I am not telling you men what to do, really...and certainly not how to do it...I am just throwing a favourite catch-phrase of mine around...:-)
My hamster spins it thus: I am reacting emotionally to what LFOD may see as a triumphant 'throwing down of the gauntlet', but which I (being of the feminine persuasion) see oh so very differently.


I mean well though. I hope that much is clear.
Sometimes, (I think), it is better to show someone why he is not a victim, than to commiserate with his perceived victimhood. I hope this post achieves the former and not the latter.

Are feminists making God a white knight?

I was thinking about an old 'baby' of mine recently.
In my late teens he was one of a few kids I used to babysit.
He was simply adorable.

This little boy was loved by everyone. At Mass, all the old ladies would fuss over him like he was their grandchild. And younger women wanted a child like him.
So I had competition for his affections lol.

Looking back, he was probably a little 'alpha' in the making.
He was certainly unusual (no bias on my part lol).

Most people, after Mass, would spend a minute or two in quiet reflection in front of one of the statues of a saint, or Our Lady, or The Blessed Sacrament.
This kid (aged 3) would head straight for the statue of Our Lord and ask, in a loud voice, arms folded across his chest, head tilted (yes, his alpha pose!)...
"And how are you today, Sweet Jesus?"


Out of the mouths of babes...


As a teenager now, I am sure he would be upset if I reminded him of this. 'Street cred' is everything to him now, at least in front of his friends.
Unless I framed it differently of course and 'bigged up' how 'alpha' this whole episode was, to me :-)
I mean, it is pretty alpha to stand up in front of God and ask how He is, no?

Who asks God how He is?
I never asked God how He was my entire life.
I only hoped he cared how I was...
My 2 minutes in front of the statue of Our Lord was never about Him. It was all about me.


You know how dogs give you that 'begging' look when you are cooking and they can smell dinner?
This is how I must look (to God) when I am praying for my 101 things:

:-)






It is apparent from the many Bible stories that Jesus loved women. He was certainly surrounded by women wherever he went, which would be strange for the kind of figure he was - a man with no ties to a family unit and with 12 men followng him around and preaching.

The women of Jerusalem were crying for him as he was led to where he would be crucified.
Martha and Mary would invite him over for inner with their brother Lazarus.
Mary Magdalene kissed his feet.
Veronica wiped his face when it was soaked with blood.

Jesus was an alpha alright :-)
And women flocked to him.


But does God love women more than men?

As I inch my way towards drafting a post about the various aspects if feminism, I wonder if 'Christian feminism' sees women as more automatically deserving of God's love than men?

I have reason to suspect this.

The moral superiority over men that is blatantly displayed by some Christian women.
The whole 'man up' thing is perhaps a way of saying, 'I am God's Princess! You have to fulfil my needs without any effort on my part!'
The 'God forgives all' meme, which somehow only applies to women.
The 'God is my protector' idea, which somehow also means that an Earthly man who does the protecting doesn't get a cut in the 'thanks'.
And this. God has been hijacked for the feminist cause since 1982...

These scenarios may happen in subtle ways.
But mostly, they are 'in your face'.
Which is what the brash feminists do best.

I wonder how God feels about this misuse of His name?
How does He feel about being 'volunteered' as a white knight?
Without His consent...
Has anyone asked Him?

God is certainly 'alpha' in Manosphere parlance. Afterall, there are many women who call themselves 'brides of Christ', officially or not, as the case may be. That's a pretty big harem.

But the whiteknighting thing makes him look 'beta'.
Does He mind about that?


The married men who complain that they get nagged by their wives, spare a thought for God.
He gets nagged everyday by millions of single women praying for a good husband :P

This post should really have been entitled, 'Prayers for a husband the Red Pill way'.

For, in the spirit of my 'baby' above, instead of hassling God for what we want, how about a slight change of frame?

Something like this?

Dear God/Sweet Jesus,
How are you today?
My day was great, hope yours was better.
And if it wasn't, how so?
Since I can't see you or hear you or touch you, how can I make it better for someone I can see or hear or touch?
Do you have someone in mind?
I wouldn't mind at all if he happens to be tall, handsome and rich.
I won't be fussy. I'll take whatever you can give me. Besides, I heard the short, ugly and poor ones are all taken...
Anyhow, you take care of yourself.

Till next time, stay blessed.


See?
How could he say no...


Anyhow, off to say my night prayers now...

What's next?

What do we do with the evopsych stuff we have learnt after swallowing the Red Pill?

This is the question I have been asking myself a lot lately.
And it looks like I am not the only one!

At least two Manosphere bloggers that I have read have made me think more along those lines recently...

The first is TPM...
You know you've taken The Red Pill when...

I guess his list applies mostly to  men, although I certainly nodded when I saw one or two of those.
A few ladies added their own.
I nodded in agreement with those as well.

I could add a few of my own:

You know you've taken the Red Pill when...

1. You at least consider wearing 4-inch heels to the gym every time without fail, until you come to your senses and put on your trainers :-)
2. You start looking at people's hands not for evidence of piano-playing abilities but to check if they are 'high T' or not :-)
3. Anything that comes out of Hollywood instantly annoys you.
4. You get invited to a wedding and your first thought is: Have they both visited Athol's site yet?
5. Your brother says 'please' to you for the first time in his entire life and you wonder if he is turning into a massive beta on you :-)
6. You start rating everyone on the train according to SMV ranking, including yourself.
7. You feel an uncontrollable urge to cook for everyone in your vicinity.
8. You see a group of young people and you want to force-feed them The Red Pill, despite already being a pariah as a result of such tendencies.
9. You hear about a divorce and your first move is to ask if she wasn't 'happy' parrot-fashion, whatever the context you are given, Vicky Pollard style:

"Hannah and Jim are getting divorced."
"Is she unhappy?"
"It was Jim who asked for the divorce."
"Yeah but, no but, is she unhappy?"
"Jim is having an affair."
"Yeah but, no but, is she unhappy?"
"Jim moved out 5 months ago."
"Yeah but, no but, is she unhappy?"
"Jim says she got too fat after the twins were born."
"Yeah but, no but, is she unhappy?"

10. You go to church and you know exactly why there are no young men there.

It is funny how once you've taken this Pill, it pervades every area of your life.
It should come with a health warning, like all other pills :-)
Danny once said to me: 'There's no going back once you take this Pill'.
So true.
That means that unfortunately, I am stuck in this milieu for the rest of my life.
But I prefer this to Blue Pill ignorance.
*grin*

I certainly now look at women with 'masculine eyes'.
And I look at men with 'hypergamous intent'.

I now know exactly why a woman might be struggling to find or keep a mate. I am still no expert, but give me 5 minutes with her and I might have a plausible answer.
I can spot alphas and betas more readily than before. Or rather, I can spot alpha and beta 'moments' in a man.
And when I see couples, I am 'reading' their interaction like an open book.
This is all exhausting, but fun :-)
With my resolve not to watch so much TV, I have to find other ways to entertain myself somehow :-)

Maybe this is an extension of my 'synaesthesia', but I also now see everything in terms of male and female, even inanimate objects. Of course, it could also be a function of European languages having a 'gender' for everything.

To me nowadays...
A piano is feminine.
A church organ is masculine.

A sunny, blue sky day is feminine.
Stormy weather with thunder and lightning is masculine.

A lake is feminine.
A mountain is masculine.

A kiss on the cheek is feminine.
A bear hug with the potential to temporarily decrease your lung capacity is masculine.

*



I always resolved to keep away from PUAs and their message. I felt it was a bit too 'male locker room' for me.

Even though I could see why their use of evopsych theories might help them in their quest...
Even though I understood why it is vital to know certain things about women. Things I did not know about my gender, and therefore about myself. But which I am glad I know now.

They do say though that once you start down that slippery slope, it's all the way down non-stop, or something to that effect.
I knew when I made a reference to Roosh on the post about foreign women that I had gone down a slippery slope...
And now well on the way of my descent I link to another PUA.
(God help me :-).
My hamster says it's OK, though, because this PUA is British.
And he is no longer a PUA anyway. He is a 'reformed PUA' or something. (Does this exist?).

I found this post very interesting. (Do excuse the colourful language beginning with the title!)
Before encountering The Manosphere, I would have concluded that this young woman was silent the whole time because she 'loved' this man. Simple as that. Or so my hamster would have had me believe.
My hamster, though, would have led me down the wrong rabbit-hole... again.
Apparently it is not so simple, as Krauser explains (like I am a 6 year old).
Fascinating stuff!

So my question is...

What do we do with all this knowledge we have acquired?
Does a man 'prepare' himself for the day when his wife goes 'EPL' on him, because, well, AWALT?
Does a woman accept cheating from her husband because well, men are subject to The Coolidge effect?
Should all fat women just hit the gym until they are a decent size again and not be seen nor heard from in the interim?
Should betas expect to keep getting the crumbs from their alpha brothers whilst they 'alpha up'?

How do we go from 'knowledgeable' to 'profiting from said knowledge'?
This is my first 'how' question.
I think I am done with the 'whys' now :-)



The following person was lucky enough to have taken the Red Pill in infancy...
But like me, he doesn't know what to do with his education of the third kind...
Can we help him out?

 Yup!



 Still waiting for answers...

This is tough...

 Having reached the grand old age of 3, still nothing...

 They said an education would provide some answers...

 OK, so that was an outright lie...



Right now, the priority is to fnd some answers before check-out time...

:-)





Don't show 'em your vulnerable side!...and the cause-and-effect conundrum

I had cause to think about 'cause and effect' the other day (no pun intended :-).

As ever, I was forced to confront this issue as relates to the SMP in a rather precipitous manner.
It's almost as if each time I settle down and rest on my laurels, life pulls me off said laurels and hands me another new lesson on a plate.


I was discussing something of a personal (read 'relationship') nature with a female acquaintance during her visit to my home.
I was upset about something.

I didn't want to talk about it to her , but she has a way of persuading just about anyone to 'squeal'. So I did.

And in doing so, I unmasked my 'vulnerability' to her, it seems.

Amongst other behaviours that 'freaked her out' about me, I grabbed one of my 'cuddle bunnies' and gave it a big, juicy hug.
She was horrified.

Below is a summary of her case against me:

1. The very fact that I have a 'cuddle bunny' at all. According to her, past a woman's teens, 'comfort zone associates' such as 'cuddle bunnies' are illegal. Not permitted in polite society, it would appear :-)

2. The fact that I actually did hug my 'cuddle bunny' at a time of emotional stress suggested to her that I was still an adolescent.
Why does this have a familiar ring to it?
Is this a female accuser's version of 'woman up' in the manner of 'man up'?

3. And this was her advice: and hence the point of this post: When dealing with a man, never show him your vulnerable side.


This is effectively what many women are being advised to do.
By other women.



Now, points 1 and 2 are a question of taste/maturity, etc. Guilty as charged. I have a 'teddy bear equivalent', and I am in my 30s. Shameful, I know.

But, and this question is addressed primarily to the ladies...
Is this necessarily sad or twisted?
What is the alternative, if any?

Assuming I had a husband and children of say, age 6 and above: would it be reasonable to burden them with my emotional problems ala Princess Diana and Prince William?
Actually, I think not personally. My female friends and my 'cuddle bunnies' exist for that function :-)
But I welcome alternate views on this.

What disturbs me the most is point No. 3.
Am I courting controversy by addressing this?

I actually have mixed feelings about 'showing vulnerability'. I really do.
I like 'privacy' and emotional strength, aka 'stoicism'.
But I also know that 'privacy' precludes 'intimacy' as addressed in this post.
'Intimacy' can take many forms - I do not restrict myself to the more obvious forms - sexual/emotional.
Spiritual intimacy is just as important. As a Catholic, for example, you need this if you are to make a good Confession. You need spiritual intimacy with a priest to achieve this. (I really am not being 'sleazy here. This is nothing to do with my (separate) and slightly pathological problem of 'priestophilia' :-)


I do believe that even the most alpha of men has to show vulnerability at some point in his relationship with a woman.
But what about women?
Can a woman negotiate a relationship without showing some vulnerability?
I think not...

But why is it so hard to show vulnerability?
Fear of being belittled, betrayed, abandoned, exposed...
Understandable, yes.
But ...

Is there another reason behind this advice?
As ever, the 'why' is very important to me.

Why cannot I hug a teddy bear in front of a potential suitor?
Has a woman ever been dumped for this heinous crime?


Cause and effect...
Difficult topic.
Because of what is commonly known in the statistical world as confounding variables.
Peripheral issues that cloud the main issue.


If a 'nice girl' is dumped in favour of a 'rymes with rut' kind of girl, what's the most common reaction by said 'nice girl'?
Yes...
No more 'nice girl'!

Similarly for men...
No more Mr. Nice Guy!

But isn't that somehow wrong?
Isn't that 'treating the symptom' as opposed to 'treating the root cause' as someone pointed out to me recently (you know who you are: thank you for your insight into this).
Whatever happened to 'Outcome independence'?

But what is the 'root cause'?
Could there not be a 'confounding variable' that might have been confused with 'nice girl's' niceness?
For example, what if  'nice girl' is also unhygienic?
If she is dumped, is it ever helpful to blame her 'niceness'? Would it not be more appropriate to confront the real problem head-on, i.e. her body odour?
This is of course an extreme example, but I wonder if the reasons we give for 'staying in the mire' are actually problems that can easily be eradicated...

Reacting negatively to a negative situation does not a positive outcome produce.
That much is clear to me now.



In my Blue Pill days, I might have swallowed the above woman's advice piecemeal. But now, with a Red Pill attitude to life, I see that it is simply unforgivable to do this.
Unforgivable because I would be punishing my own self.


In slightly unrelated but nonetheless relevant news, a South African student recently invented a water-free bath product, similar to but not identical to sanitizers.

I admire his inventiveness and creativity (his work was inspired by a friend of his who was 'too lazy' to take a shower...um, I wonder if he was ever dumped for being a 'nice boy'?)
:-)

But water is water. Water is so much more than a cleansing agent. It is a holistic element. There is a healing quality to water that is simply missing from 'DryBath'.
My point is, if someone is too lazy to take a shower, DryBath may not in fact be the right solution for them.
If there is no water available, DryBath is nothing but a temporary solution.

Merely treating the symptom is not the answer. The root cause still exists.
Find a way to get water. Living beings need water. Not just for taking a bath.



'Don't show 'em your vulnerable side!' is an attempt to treat a symptom.
But it doesn't work, I think.
If the person giving me this advice was ever castigated for being 'vulnerable', could it just be possible that there was another hidden reason for her chastisement and not the vulnerability?
Am I being too naïve here?

For sure, her advice is wrong...at least for me.
A woman who is unable to show vulnerability (at an appropriate time of course!) is sometimes hard.

I believe it is advice like this that inspires comments like this from men:
This fom Bob Wallace:

 "They end up hostile, bitter spinsters, usually on psychiatric drugs, ending alone in apartments with a cat (cats), and blaming all their problems on men. They're hostile because of their envy of men and put men down - and they don't even know it. I've seen this several times, and it's got to the point when I run across these kind of women I tell them what their problem is."

It is a direct result of 'feminism programming'.
It is insiduous, but women absorb this 'Blue Pill advice' via a process of osmosis until this mentality is properly assimilated into their psyches. Then when the deeply ingrained dogma starts to play out, chaos ensues, or as Bob describes above, the manhate starts.


Men can help women they know and like/love who are being 'misinformed' by simply being aware that she is being 'misinformed'.
Attitudes can be changed.
For the better.
But it requires a (sometimes tedious) deprogramming of previous programming.
Remember, it is not always her fault...

"It just happened..."

I also used to believe this phrase, because I was previously not savvy enough to realise that 'nothing just happens' in this life. Good or evil, every action has a root cause.

I hope Kristin Stewart learns this one day... like I have.

What's in a name?

I have always been fascinated by names. First names interest me more, but I am also intrigued by surnames.
Etymology and onomastics are the hallmarks of my personal geekiness :-)

But perhaps there is good reason for my love of names. I have five first names.
And I gravitate towards cultures where people have multiple first names.

For example, I have a connection of sorts to Norway.
It is very unusual to meet a Norwegian who has only one first name.
Often the two or more first names are in use together at all times. The middle name is not 'in reserve' for inclusion in official documents only. Usually, the names are double-barrelled and both names are uttered each time that person is summoned.

I am known by different names by different people, naturally enough.
As such, at home I have a certain identity based on my 'home' name. At work, I have a different identity. In other situations, I have yet another one.
Quite the schizophrenic existence.
To add to this mix, my first first name is spelled and pronounced completely differently in other languages. A few people I know insist on calling me by my name in their language. I happen to like that language. And my name takes on a whole new level of sophistcation in that language. In a way that makes me swoon.
Is it me or is it getting hot in here? :-)


Occasionally I get tripped up.
I once happened upon someone at work who only knew me by my 'home' name because she only knew me when I was a small child and her family and mine were neighbours. I had a surreal almost 'out of body' experience being called by my 'home' name in an environment I did not expect this to happen in.
Weird, to say the least.

There are people who are especially careful about name-choosing for their offspring. I concur.
I am not even married (yet) but the names of all ten of my future kids have been carefully chosen :-)
OK, that last bit was a joke.
Or was it?
:-)

Speaking of baby names, I once mentioned on Bellita's blog that if I ever have a daughter, she is going to be called 'Eva'.
I am aware that name-choosing for a child is usually a shared job between two parties :-)
Or more even, if you count extended family :-)
But I might have to be restrained and my lips sealed with duct tape on this one if necessary. I find this name irrevocably enchanting.
And I have never heard of or known an Eva that I did not immediately like. I am not sure why I am so drawn to that name.


I don't really believe in 'name-ology', but people swear by it.
I do know of the importance of  a name, though. Articles like this only confirm what I have suspected for ages.

A name might just define your life. The mother of Martina Hingis the tennis player named Miss. Hingis after another well-known tennis player.
Anyone met Professor Kinder the paediatrician? I have.
I see that the sister of Steve Jobs married a guy whose surname was ...Appel :-)
Speaking of descriptive surnames, my own is very descriptive too. Like 'Smallwood' or 'Littlejohn', it is basically an adjective - an uncannily accurate one at that :-)


It is this with dismay that I regard parents who insist of calling their kids 'Jezebel', 'Her' (this is true - a Norwegian couple fought for the right to call their daughter 'Henne', meaning 'her'), the number 'four' - this gem was dreamed up by a New Zealand couple - thankfully they were overruled by the courts... and many more cringeworthy examples.

Moving on to couples, I noted in Pope Game that Pope Benedict's parents were called Joseph and Mary. It would appear that combination produced what you would expect - three holy kids (2 priests and a virtual nun!).

My next-door neighbours are a couple named Emmanuel and Emmanuelle :-)
I also know a Joseph and Josephine. Naturally, when their first son arrived, he was promptly named Joseph :-)

Poor old Lauren Bush, spare a thought for her. I am pretty sure she wasn't looking to acquire the name Lauren Lauren, but that's exactly what she got when she said 'yes' to Ralph Lauren's son.

And the poor girl whose parents thought it would be cool to call her 'Dia' when the family name was 'Rhea'.

There is a popular Swiss cheese/dish called 'raclette'. Given that it is a feminine noun, it is often referred to as 'la raclette'.
So...what to do if you are a Belgian couple called Monsieur et Madame Clette who have just had the stork deliver a female bundle of joy at your doorstep?
You call her Lara!
And forever and ever, this poor girl will be the butt of cheesy jokes at school, work, social gatherings and in the retirement home :-)

Parents: you can't choose 'em...
Just as well :-)


And what about the name switch that we ladies may or may not undergo?

I would have thought that one of the happy consequences of marriage is that a girl's name changes to that of her husband's. (Except of course if you are Lauren Bush, or Rose X about to marry Mr. Bush in which case this prospect may not be so thrilling.
:-)

But it turns out I am wrong on this.
It never astounds me how many women find it a bore or a chore to take up a man's name when there is no reason to feel awkward about the name.
Whilst I would never say to a woman, 'If you don't like his surname, don't marry the guy' (!) I can't help but wonder why the fuss.
Yes, the state does not help. I mentioned this briefly in 'Dissidents of the 'spheres'.
France is a particular offender in this regard.
It is such a painstakingly difficult process for a (professional) woman to change her maiden name to her husband's name that many simply give up. Or end up with the ridiculous situation where they have two surnames floating about and no-one knows which one is the new one versus the old one.

Some women are genuinely upset about the thwarting of this sacred symbolism. To take one's husband's name is a sign that one is part of his team afterall.
I don't think men appreciate how obsessed a woman can become about a man's surname.
But perhaps that's a good thing :-)
In the same way it is best for some women not to fully understand how men obsess about certain things (mentioning no names).

Others are more relaxed about it.
Others are nonplussed.
Others were never planning on changing their name in the first place.


I know that men (at least Red Pill ones) take this issue very seriously. That is one thing the Manosphere has equipped me with - the insight into how a man views marriage and its various symbolisms.
As a woman, I would never have guessed that not to take on a man's name when one marries him is to slap him in the face figuratively speaking.
I have just always felt it part of the whole 'romantic' thing (nevermind that it is the 'traditional' thing to do) to change one's surname on marriage. But I wasn't to know that not to do that would be viewed poorly by a man.

But I think I understand that sentiment now.


What I still cannot quite figure out is why some men take on their wife's surname. I know at least two men who have done this.
Works nicely for both of these couples. So who am I to make a fuss on their behalf?
But somehow, I have a feeling it wouldn't work for me.
My surname is interesting enough but it ain't that interesting.
If I ever get married, it's got to go.
(Sorry Dad).

:-)

Fools rush in...

Just Visiting made mention of one of the biggest double-binds for Red Pill women in today's SMP.
That is, that she risks losing sight of her femininity in her quest to understand men (where 'understanding men' is in fact compatible with her femininity in the first place!).


The specific example JV gave was in a woman's communication style.
Here is the full comment:

"As a woman who has tried to bridge that gap by training myself to speak directly, I find a new problem. Men on these forums are complaining that modern women are too direct. That we aren't feminine enough with coy, circular conversation, and don't get them started on our flirting skills. So..on some subconscious level, men are looking for that "connection" part of our communication style. Speaking directly may be fine for work, but in social setting, renders us charmless to men. Apparently."


Hmm. Women run the risk of becoming too masculine by gaining too much insight into men and their quirks.
Do men become more feminine when they figure out women's behaviours?
Strangely enough,  a resounding NO!

I don't understand why this is. Anyone care to explain?

I think it is far easier to masculinise a woman than it is to feminise a man. Yes, femininity is much more fragile than masculinity. I don't know why this is so.
But it certainly explains why feminism was successful for so long.

Anyway, here is another double-bind.
A woman's position in the SMP is determined by the men who approach her.

Also sprach der Manosphere.

I have two responses to the above statement.
I shall give both.
The short one is borrowed from a certain John McEnroe.
You cannot be serious!

:-)

The longer version follows:

I get it. It is a widespread neg thrown at all or most women.
With this in mind I am not so upset :-)
So, emotions cast aside, I will calmly evaluate the pros and cons of Manosphere wisdom on this point.

The reason I know that The Manosphere kings are in fact aware that what they are saying is not accurate (and maybe even patently false) is that they themselves know that a man's biological imperative is to pursue any woman who might interest him, at least visually, if not in other ways.

Yes, social and other constraints will prevent him from hunting down anything that is female and moves :-) but the imperative is there. Indeed, these days, it is becoming a distinct feature in women too (what did I say above about being easier to masculinise women?)
It follows that the quality of men who will pursue any one woman will be fairly broad.
The more 'masculine' or 'alpha' or 'cocky' a man is, the greater his confidence. So he will pursue the woman of his choice irrespective of the status of the woman. The greater his pride, the more likely he will chase after a woman beyond his reach (whatever his own crietria of feminine 'status' may be).
But this is a good thing. The man who believes that a particular woman is too good for him is doing the equivalent of a DIY orchidectomy. This is undoubtedly painful in a physical sense, but even worse it strips him of his own (male) identity.

At the risk of entering a male locker room unintentionally, I shall express the sentiment that a man should do whatever makes him male. I cannot tell him what to do or how to do it, because I do not share his biology. The only possible conflict I foresee is when his needs clashes with someone else's sanctity. But I trust that every man knows when he reaches a boundary. Same as a woman knows when she reaches hers. Neither may comply with their consciences, but they know.

Masculinity (unlike femininity) is to go all out and 'get it' whatever 'it' means, no?
So, it follows that  a man will hit on any woman he wants. Whether he gets her is another matter. And in fact she may actually help him a little, by giving him subliminal IOI (indicators of interest) cues to follow because she may already have set her sights on him first, (because a woman can do this sort of thing extremely discreetly if she wants :-)

Some women report (correctly as far as the reporting goes) that they are often approached by men who are 'beneath' them.
I have three gut reactions to this.

1. Yes, sometimes the woman is totally wrong about her own level of attraction and status in the SMP. I can understand that this is true and tedious for a man who has to listen to her moan.

2. The rejection of these men is sometimes rather brutal. This is unnecessary at best and crass at worst on the part of a woman, agreed.

3. Most women do not and will never understand how hard it can be for a man to achieve his goal in finding a great woman for himself, as we do not have this particular natural drive within us. So we can be dismissive of men perhaps too easily. But is this a necessarily bad thing?
To answer that question, here's another:
Would a man want a woman who did not reject him when she should have because she was feeling sorry for him?
I don't think there is a man alive who would want that. I hope I am not wrong on this.


More and more women today are feeling the need to 'chase', but even then, it is 'optional'. The drive to chase after a new mate has never been a naturally female perogative.
Of course, a woman will chase after a man she is already familiar with, or is already attracted to. That's a different imperative - the need to maintain a connection, or 'bonding' akin to 'nurturing' of an infant, both mechanisms being driven by the same hormone (oxytocin).
Sadly, this second drive is being lost in favour of the former more masculine drive - hence what the Manosphere term 'hypergamy' which differs from what mine is.

Leaving aside all the 'special snowflakes' who really are clueless as to their own SMP value, I am prepared to wager that there is not a woman alive who has not had a 'pass' made at her by a man she knew would not make the cut with her.
There is even a phrase for that:
Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

The kings of Game exploit this phrase remarkably well.
They will wait for the clumsy, inept guys to have their 5 minutes of fame with their intended female target, wait for him to disqualify himself and then move in for the kill :-)
They are waiting for the 'fool' to declare himself as such. And the woman helps them do it. When she rejects the fella.
That's what her 'b*tch shield' is for, afterall. If she doesn't get practice with the b*tch shield' she won't choose correctly when the time is right.
I agree the b*tch shield' does not have to turn b*tchy, though.


Preselection works both ways, no?
The most popular woman is the one that other men want. Or perhaps if there is such a group among men, that another woman (eg. his very own mother) has approved.

So it follows that this woman should have rejected most men before you lock eyes with her and she chooses you :-)

Having said all of the above, I however fully agree with Manosphere wisdom that the 'status' of a woman who finds herself with a man far above her worth is not really elevated at all, unless she gets him to the altar, and even so, that may still not be the case.

In short, a woman's value is never about the man she is with.

Moreover, it's not ladylike to declare that there are men chasing one that one does not want.
Things like this should be discreet, and not worn like some sort of  'badge of honour'.
This has unfortunately become a favourite sport among some women.
It is the proverbial stick they are beating men with.
Not cool.
It is crass.
Yes a woman has to reject a man she does not want.
But to do so kindly and with thoughtfulness for him re-instates his respect and general love for women, even if his ego takes a massive hit from the rejection.
No need to kick a man when he is down.

Because in fact it doesn't help a woman any if she is chased by a man she doesn't want. She is always going to reject him anyway, and that leaves her 'manless' for the moment. So why broadcast it?

A woman who broadcasts her brutal rejection of men to other men is a kind of 'marked woman'. Because of this whole brotherhood thing that men share.
The sentiment is this:
You treat my brother badly and I will punish you for that.



And they do.

Initiation and the woman in green

In the post about MGTOW, it was brought to my attention that I had got the whole 'initiation' thing wrong. This neither surprises nor perturbs me.

It just informs me that my curiosity on the subject is as yet unsated.

So, here I am turning up for 'Initiation - Round 2'. I really, really want to understand this well.

It is correct that I know next to little about initiation. I am afterall, a woman. Bellita stated a while back that some women do go into their own 'initiation'. I kind of 'get' that. It is possible that I myself have experienced this initiation or seen it in other women, but maybe I have a different name for it.

But that aside, the only other 'initiation' I am familiar with is of the monthly variety where no matter how reasonable and sane a woman might be usually, all bets are off for a few crazy days on a lunar basis :-)
OK, I exaggerate a bit for effect, but there is some truth to this.

I shan't get into why the word 'lunatic' irks me somewhat, but in related info, BeijaFlor does a brilliant job of analysing the etymology of the word hysteria.

Much of what I know about male initiation is what I gleaned from the man who wrote the following (bold annotations are mine):

"As a result of initiation, a man starts his life in the village as a boy, and he returns to the village as a man. His journey has changed who he is and what he does. A man's journey starts in community and ends in community. Yet all his relationships are changed. This new man is given a new name by his elders. His community recognizes him by a new name because he is a new person to them.

The initiated man returns with a boon, often described by his name. This boon is his newfound identity and the talents and vision he finds in his ordeal. The boon is for the renewal of the community, which can atrophy in patriarchal rigidity. His gift, as well as giving his life meaning, is also meant to transform his community. Indigenous societies waited excitedly for the new man and his boon.

If a community is not open to his gift, as happens in an elderless, modern society, his message can bring estrangement, ridicule, even danger and death. 

So, this is what is happening in the current SMP? This is why some men are not coming back (again)?

Because they came back once and all they got was 'this lousy tee-shirt' and so they left again, saying: Veni vidi verti (I came, I saw, I turned around and kept it moving)?

 Correct?

He continues:

For instance, modern societies do not particularly want mature men. Mature men are not blindly obedient.
 Society: True alphas are a threat to society. Let's shame these alphas and keep the betas toiling.
(And then the betas are not rewarded for their good behaviour by this same society).

Am I getting it right so far? Or am I missing something crucial?

It gets better:

Yet a man who has been to the other side has a certain peace that is untouched by fear of death or its counterparts, scorn and debasement. This is because he has already faced death and found deep, inner values unshaped by popular opinion.

The mark of an initiated man is a deep peace that could be described as otherworldly. This is the peace that the Bible says passes understanding. This is Yoda's 'calm.' There is a detachment that seems like despair. Actually, it is a detachment that comes from a vision that the community does not yet understand, especially a modern community."

I think I saw this in Mark Wahlberg. And I was shaken to the core by it, in a good way. It was scary but familiar.

It starts to get a little fuzzy for me here:

A mature man seems to know that a higher power, at least a higher wisdom, exists because he has experienced it. Through initiation he has learned more and more of the topography of his inner life, the terrain of the Self, the wilderness within. This is the place of the soul. He has found that soul yearns for otherworldly answers, as a boy yearns for manhood.

Indigenous people saw the wilderness as the place where their higher power, their Spirit, dwelled. Initiation not only introduced a boy to his soul, the message from his elders was that his soul was intimately connected to Spirit. Elders experienced Spirit, assumed Spirit, taught about Spirit. Part of the initiatory experience was the explanation of how their people existed through the action of Spirit. Elders always taught this spiritual context, the myth of their people. In the elder's eyes, their people were continually upheld by Spirit, as each man's life and life direction would be connected to Spirit through initiation.

I believe that a modern man going through this ordeal of transformation takes a psychospiritual journey that finds both the potential of soul identity and the existence of something sacred beyond the ego's ability to understand. This something is sacred because it has the effect of bestowing a goodness to a man's life.

It is up to every man to go on this journey alone, to find out for himself. Then he can define Spirit for himself. As a psychologist, I can talk of the steps that a man has to take to painstakingly get himself ready for the wilderness. As an elder, I can tell a man he is meant for the wilderness. As a counselor, I have observed that most every man who has struggled with ordeal has emerged with a spiritual sense. As a man, I can attest to the Spirit that dwells there.

This Spirit is not the Spirit that is automatically in a church or in a religion, though this power can also be there. This is a bigger, more powerful, more mysterious Spirit who cannot be contained by one church or one religion. This is a Spirit of paradox. This is a Spirit who seemingly doesn't go by his own rules. This is the Spirit who teaches the mystery of tranformative pain. This is a Spirit of the wilderness, without and within. This is a Spirit only accessed from deep inside every man, from his own soul. This is the Elder of the elder.

OK, I won't try to understand this bit too much.

But I can identify with this part:

The journey of manhood is a psychospiritual one that demands modern man's attention. Society's and the world's survival depends on men consciously taking up this mission toward inner wisdom and purpose. Men who do not take the journey are dangerous men...

A man, though alone, never makes the journey just for himself. Though he may not realize this while in the midst of loss or ordeal, many will need the wisdom and active courage that he finds on the other side. Many will be lost, with less of a chance for healing, because he did not risk. A man's initiation is not a luxury for himself, like the holodeck of the Enterprise, with little consequence when the game is over. People are waiting for his presence though they don't know it. Many are counting on him though they've never met him...

Initiated men and women are the last real hope that we can save the earth and the dignity of every being on her. I believe we are in the middle of a tragedy for earth and its people. And this is a tragedy of our own making. In this case, it is not only men and women and children who are being wounded, even destroyed in their spirit. The earth itself is being grievously wounded.

Is he talking about...gulp...Red Pill men and women here?

I personally feel that the village has failed the initiated man if he does NOT feel the need to return.

But that's just me.

This is where I REALLY get lost:

"Out of nowhere, in place of where the tree had stood, appeared a tall woman dressed in black from head to foot....Never before had I felt so much love... There are no words to paint what it felt like to be in the hands of the green lady in the black veil." - Malidoma Some, Of Water And The Spirit.

Initiation brings a man to a different view of all his emotional and spiritual connections, especially to his relationships with women and the feminine...

Malidoma experienced Spirit as woman in his initiation. His elders expected this epiphany. They knew because they had found her before him. This is why they laughed at him when he made up a tree story about seeing an antelope on its hind legs. He was so embarrassed at being behind the other initiates that he made up a story after fruitlessly sitting in front of the yila tree for three days. The other initiates had all seen long ago. Many elders felt because he was raised by white men, so contaminated by our Western cultural values and even literacy, that he had lost the power "to see through the veil". One of the first things Malidoma saw when his vision pierced the veil was the loving green woman.

Who exactly is this green woman who replaces a tree?

Has any man seen her?

Could this be the Face of Mercy Bellita talks about?
Why is she in green?
Is she representative of Mother Earth?

Is the point of masculine initiation an attempt to connect with the feminine, in the truest purest sense or to get as far away from it as fast as possible with the result that the feminine comes seeking the initiate in an unsolicted manner?

On a related note, I notice that some men who would fit the description of 'mature' are known for acquiring inanimate objects later in life that are promptly 'femininsed'.
By this I mean the typical 'mid-life crisis' man who acquires a boat/yacht/fast car/luxury property and lovingly describes it as 'she's a beauty'.
Is this a symbolism of sorts or just a quirk of language?

 

The Rationalisation Hamster: Crazy little sister of 'Frame'?

Any gentlemen here have a little sister? What's the verdict?
Best present Mum and Dad could give me?
Or...
Why couldn't the stork keep her?

:-)


It was only a matter of time before I was going to write about the 'rat ham'.

It is surely the most overused term in the Manosphere. There are so many references to the rat ham that it is quite the skill to navigate your way through The Manosphere minefield without accidentally stepping on one.



It does exist in a big way in most if not all women, I can vouch for this :-)
But is the 'rat ham' all that bad?
Can I even be objective about this beast being a woman myself?

Can I convince anyone that the rat ham can be a good thing?
At the risk of failing miserably, I shall try.

In the post about The lovable rogue I mentioned that some women have this knack of liking men in abundance. It seems to be a natural thing with them.
Yes I am sure it could indeed be 'natural', as can be all aspects of femininity.
And it sure helps to be around good men.
But in the absence of innate 'femininity', an entourage of good men and everything else which would enable a woman to 'see the good in men', a woman has one last piece of artillery in her armoury.
Her own imagination.

Otherwise known as her friendly Rationalisation Hamster.

Yes, it is this same animal that will enable her to believe that the heavily tattooed unemployed beach bum with the drug and alcohol problem really is husband material.
Totally self-delusional and therefore self-destructive.

As the owner of a rat ham, I can categorically state that sometimes it is a real hindrance, yes. Especially when it is fed by the wrong herd or society in general, if society is 'wrong' about a particular issue.
So sometimes it is a good thing for a woman to kill her own hamster or at least stop feeding it gourmet food. I get that.
I also understand that the Manosphere in talking about the rat ham so much is actually in the business of helping women get a very ugly monkey off their collective backs.
So in recognition of this, I do say 'Thank you'. It's nice to know the 'intent' behind every (even seemingly vicious) action.

But...and there is always a but!

If the hamster is dead, how can she rationalise that you are a lovable rogue?
There is a good and bad side to everything, no?

The question is, are men prepared to take the good with the bad, or are they wishing for the 'selective rat ham'?
Is this feasible?
Is this not 'pie in the sky'?
Does this woman with the selective hamster exist?
Can I meet her?
And if I do, I would like to know what colour Pill she is on...I don't think it would be red - it certainly won't be blue :-)

Leaving aside the 'rat ham' for now, I was thinking about a comment Bellita made under the post about Seal.
In response to my comment that Seal had felt 'privileged' that a beautiful woman like Heidi Klum wanted to be with him (nevermind that she was pregnant with another man's child at the time), Bellita made the point that the rationalisation hamster is indeed alive and well in men too.

I concluded to myself that yes, this could be so...at least in (all-)beta, supplicating type men that Seal was proving himself to be.

But somehow, I felt odd harbouring this belief.
This is where it gets all fuzzy for me.

Any help in decluttering my thoughts would be welcome.

From this point onwards, perhaps my own rat ham will be doing fancy somersaults on the ferris wheel, so bear with me :-)

Is the 'rationalisation hamster' not just a woman's (perhaps desperate) attempt to create a 'frame'?
With one important caveat perhaps.
That she is working rather 'hard' to create this 'frame'.

In other words, is a man's 'frame' something he perceives quite effortlessly, and is in many ways 'outcome independent' (he doesn't need to work so hard to maintain this frame - he either believes it or not) whereas a woman has to work hard to keep the 'frame' going and as such, her 'behaviour' regarding this 'frame' belies said effort?

In the post 'And I am not ashamed to say it', I make mention of the 'Single and happy' (mostly) female crowd and how their repeated and often loud assertions to this 'fact' make it quite suspicious that some serious work is being done to keep up the 'pretty lie'.
At some point, one really has to stop and check to see how much effort it is taking to say something.
Because too much effort implies that what is being stated may be unture, even to the speaker.

Another feminine example I have come across is in the realm of the 'reluctant bride'.
If a woman is having to convince herself/rationalise away that a particular man is the right choice, then perhaps he really is not?
And then it all comes out in the wash a few years later...
Buyer and seller beware...


Do men ever really convince themselves of something? Do they have to?
Did Seal really believe that a pregnant woman, no matter how beautiful, was the absolute best he could have?
Or did he rationalise away that despite the possible 'negative' (sure, a pregnant woman is not every man's 'negative' in the dating world, but I imagine there would not be too many takers for a currently-pregnant woman in the SMP/MMP), this woman was worth sacrificing his freedom for?

If 'frame' and the 'rat ham' are simply the different ways men and women 'perceive' and 'process' their thoughts then surely 'frame' and the rat ham share the same parentage, no?
They are brother and sister.
Except that in the male mind, 'frame' is the gold standard, and 'rat ham' to quote many a Manosphere citizen, is 'b*t sh*t crazy'.

:-)

Is this a fair assessment of an important feature of the female psyche?
Or is this the proverbial stick men are using to bash women everywhere simply because they do not like this aspect of their psychological make-up - at least when it is not working for men?

Can I even use the word 'fair' here?
Will a man respond 'deal with it' in the same way he is asked to 'deal with' a woman's hypergamy?

I have another question on this topic:
If the rat ham is sans logic, as is often the accusation lobbed at it, is 'frame' the epitome of logic?

Actually, another huge question:
If 'frame' can be taught, as in PUA technique, then does it not turn into just another form of the 'rat ham'? In which case, it doesn't deserve to be called 'frame' anymore? Because 'frame' should be something that is intrinsic to a man's thinking, and should not come from outside of him, no?
I am going here by the following definiton of 'frame':

A steadfast belief that is unshakeably entrenched in the sensory apparatus of a man. Something he perceives and both his conscious and subconscious minds are in agreement that it is indeed as is.

Is this an accurate definition?


If there were to be a debate on this issue, any suggestions as to the perspectives of the respective genders?

Would this be a good example?

Male perspective: This house believes that the rationalisation hamster is a seriously deranged evil little monster that does not deserve oxygen let alone food and water.
For: Manosphere authority on all things female.
Against: Unsurprisingly, rationalisation hamsters and their flighty owners.

Female perspective: This house believes that the rationalisation hamster is a healthy part of being a normal, well adjusted and feminine woman.
For: Planet Woman Snowflakes.
Against: All you who just don't understand...

:-)

Hillbilly or Cityboy?

I had never thought about this before.
But then I had a dialogue with a member* of this little community of The Sanctuary and he said something which became a true 'aha' moment for me.

Who is more 'masculine'? The rural man or the urban guy?
I can't believe I never considered this before!

But now that I have reflected on this, I see how important this factor is.

Gentlemen, the floor is yours of course.
Your input will be highly appreciated.

But I suspect it is the ladies' opinion on this that would appeal to my curiosity on this the most, because they are the ones deciding what is masculine to them.
Same as you get to decide who is more feminine or not among women :-)

I shall not give my own verdict. At least not yet :-)
I shall try to stay neutral as much as possible in this post.
If you think you spot a bias, it is not intended.
If however you see a generalisation or exaggeration, that is intended, to make a point :-)

Here's how I see Mr Peasant as compared to Mr Cityslicker as concerns the SMP. Let's assume both have  a similar level of education and income. And they are both happy where they are.
Correct me if I am wrong about anything.


Mr Peasant

This man is surrounded by Nature. In many ways he has no choice. Rural is Nature.
The question is, why is he in a rural area?
Was he a cityslicker who went back to his roots, or did he never leave the countryside having been brought up there?

Does the reason for being in the country change his level of masculinity? I don't know.
For the purposes of this post however, let's assume he was born and bred in the country.
Let's assume he is a farmer.

He is a traditional man. He perhaps rises with the sun and goes to sleep as soon as it gets dark.
He may have a traditional model in mind when it comes to wife and family.
He perhaps had a few girlfriends in his time, but I am guessing not many?
He is matter-of-fact and logical.
He needs a wife who can cook, clean and milk a cow.
More than Mr Cityslicker, he really needs a wife.
He is less likely to be a MGHOW.
Paradoxically, he may end up as one involuntarily because the kind of woman he is looking for is becoming rare even in rural areas.

He is usually physically fit.
At least when he is young.
Because of his work, or his hobbies.
He can afford to spend long hours quietly by himself.
He can identify every tree, every bird, every fish in the river.
He knows how Nature works.
He sees himself as part of a wider picture - Nature's picture.

His job is physically stressful and often lonely.
Occasionally he is dealt a psychological blow, like when a vet detects 'mad cow disease' in one of his flock.

Could he be a Red Pill Man?
The irony is, this man knows no other way.
He has never seen a Blue Pill in his life.
(No sniggering at the back, please).

He may not have encountered The Manosphere because he does not spend time online. But chances are, he figured out how life works long before he was out of diapers.
Because life really is simple, to this man's mind.
Men are men, and women are women.
He really does not know any other way.
He sees it in his cows and bulls.
Why not in humans?
He really is that logical.


Mr Cityslicker

This man lives right in the middle of the city and loves the buzz of city life.
He also likes the abundance of women here.
He is not short of female company.
But he is not about to settle down anytime soon.
Unlike his rural brother, perhaps he is less into the whole Nature thing.
Although he may also be physically fit because he goes to the gym religiously.

He may also be 'traditional' but Mr Cityslicker has a funny way of showing it :-)
His natural habitat is the bar scene.
He is king of Game.
He likes to play hard because his job is of the 'psychologically' stressful variety.
Urban life suits him just fine.
Because it gives him everything he wants.

Because of his knowledge of Game and the availabiliy of women where he is, Mr Cityslicker may well be fussier than Mr Rural when it comes to choosing a wife.
Even though, unless he is extremely traditionally minded, Mr Cityslicker does not really need a traditional woman like Mr Peasant does.
He has no cows to be milked.
He can cook already (part of his Game) and does not require a Martha Stewart type.
What does he really need a wife for?
He is more likely than Mr Rural to ask himself this question over and over again.
And the more he asks this question, the less likely he is to seek a wife.
But he is nonetheless not short of feminine company.
In many ways this might well be his problem.
But he will be the last to see this.
Mr Cityslicker is a man with a lot of issues to sort out.
If he can manage to sort things out, he emerges as a force to be reckoned with.
Because life for Mr Cityslicker is truly complicated.


Which one is more masculine?
Which one is going to find a wife first?
Which one will have the happier marriage?
Which one will have the longer marriage?

I honestly don't know the answer to these questions.

This post is a true 'stab in the dark'. I have no idea what I am talking about here.
OK, so what's new?
:-)



*Thanks to Lost for inspiring the seed of the idea for this post.

Ladies and gentlemen, please help ST out with your superior knowledge and experience in this matter.