Showing posts with label hypergamy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hypergamy. Show all posts
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Briffault's Law: A law on a fault of womanhood?
Someone* asked me to share my thoughts on the above law.
It is exactly the kind of topic Sensible Me would have steered clear of :-)
But Someone wanted to start this discussion going.
So in this season of goodwill, I thought I would oblige, leaving my sensible self somewhere far away from here :-)
It may not be quite the right time of year to discuss this issue.
But when is it ever right to tackle such a contentious topic?
Robert Briffault (1876-1948) was a (French? - under speculation if he was actually French or British) surgeon who became more known for his anthropological observations than his career as a doctor.
His most famous observation from his literary work 'The Mothers' which became his eponymous law was this:
"The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place."
This quote of Briffault is highly familiar, in the sense that it highlights a 'fault' of womanhood that men don't like and is often discussed by Manosphere bloggers :-)
Now, bearing in mind that I am female (and therefore perhaps automatically excluded from rational or unbiased analysis of Briffault's Law), I offer my thoughts.
(NB: I have never read 'The Mothers', nor any others of Briffault's works. I do think it may have been useful to have read his works to get a 'feel' for his line of thinking and his worldview. But alas, I lack the time and the inclination. Apologies for that).
I think Briffault is both right and wrong with his law.
Why is he right?
Yes, it was always Nature's brutally unfair intent that a woman associate herself with a man who would be of most help to her in the business of offspring-raising.
That, in my opinion is what Briffault's Law is for.
So this law, in of itself is not wrong.
Au contraire, it is a useful law. For society in general, not just women.
If more women rejected men who were clearly and unequivocally unsuited to the role they were designed for, perhaps we would not be in the mess we are in today.
There would certainly be fewer feral childern about.
Because Father would be in the home, along with Mother.
A wise person I know has this rule:
'As women go, so goes society'.
I have quoted this saying ad nauseum on this blog. Whichever way I look at it, it seems to make sense to me.
Briffault's law implies both a right and a responsibility of women.
Every good father tells his daughter: Pick a responsible man to associate with. Vet his character, his values, make sure they are compatible with what you want. If not, reject him.
Briffault's law.
Every good mother tells her daughter: Keep your wits about you when meeting and dating men. Keep your ears and eyes open, but your legs crossed. If he is not to your taste, do not invest yourself in him.
Briffault's law.
A woman may not get a 'finished product' of a man, especially when he and she are young. But she needs to see some 'potential' in terms of how he sees life, his character and his values. For some women (especially those who wish to have children), earning power of a man is also very important. I make no judgment on that, except to say that as a woman, I understand this very well. Child raising is not cheap.
But alas, money is not everything. There are some women who will gladly marry the poorest man around, but whose character is golden. A character they would wish to pass on to their children.
This is still Briffault's law at play. The woman is still seeking something.
The woman who enters into an association with a man with zero expectations of something back from him is not a wise woman, especially if she wants a family. I am sure everyone would agree with this. Low expectations is reasonable in this context :-). Zero expectations is not.
Therefore, I think Briffault's law is an accurate observation and perhaps a good assessment of how a woman should be. It fits very nicely in fact with my own views on hypergamy.
But enough of the 'rights'. Note that it is also the responsibility of a woman to find a man with the best fit to what she believes is the ideal man for her.
Therefore, in the best interpretation of the perfect 'subtitle' to Briffault's law, a woman is not allowed to marry or otherwise enter into a committed relationship with a man and then rescind her initial 'promise'.
This is where things get messy.
Briffault's law contains the following 'subtexts':
1. Past benefit provided by the male does not provide for continued or future association.
2. Any agreement where the male provides a current benefit in return for a promise of future association is null and void as soon as the male has provided the benefit (see corollary 1).
3. A promise of future benefit has limited influence on current/future association, with the influence inversely proportionate to the length of time until the benefit will be given and directly proportionate to the degree to which the female trusts the male.
Certainly, in today's feminist-boosted, legally-encouraged, spiritually-bereft culture, the above scenarios are very, very common.
This is hypergamy according to Manosphere Law!
And I would agree that this is crass womanhood.
How Briffault worked this one out in 1960 I'll never know, but he seems to have had the same foreseer's glasses as George Orwell (1984) and Aldous Huxley (Brave New World).
He was absolutely right about his predictions (actuality?).
But Briffault was also wrong.
For one, wanting something in return is a human issue.
We were all born selfish.
The person who is the eternal doormat has something wrong with him or her. It is not normal.
So, a woman may wish for a provider type. This is wired into her DNA.
A man may wish for a beautiful and young woman. This is also wired into his DNA.
:-)
Men and women want different things from each other. But each has his/her needs/wants. Therefore one might also interpret the second line of Briffault's law as applying to both men and women.
For two, it is not always true that women control everything. Clever men know how to 'lead' women, even in the domestic realm. But I won't be drawn into another long discussion about 'alpha' and 'beta' :-) It's Christmas!
Briffault's law has always existed. Kudos to Briffault for actually verbalising it for the rest of us.
In the Patriarchal society we had pre-feminism, this was 'controlled' and did not allow women to get all 'feral' with their desires.
It also incidentally enabled women to have a wider choice of 'suitable men'.
We are back to 'as women go...'.
For as women on the one hand went 'over the top' with Briffault's law, and killed the goose that was laying the golden eggs (awful pun, sorry) by being too critical of men, and then on the other hand dropping Briffault's law entirely by not vetting men they rewarded with... um... 'favours', the possibility to exercise Briffault's law at all disappeared. Almost overnight.
Women do and should control the animal family. It is the way it has always been, and was designed to be. The only difference between before and now is that, now, it is done at the expense of men rather than for the good of society as a whole.
With this important role comes some very serious responsibilties.
Ignore the responsibilities at our peril.
Umm, too late... already there....
Merry Christmas everyone!
*Thank you, Someone.
Monday, June 4, 2012
H-Y-P-E-R-G-A-M-Y. Find out what it means to me!
Out and about in the shopping centre, I kept hearing the song 'Respect' first sung by Aretha Franklin, but reproduced by many others.
The line R-E-S-P-E-C-T: Find out what it means to me! grabbed my attention, not so much for the demand for 'respect' as the 'find out what it means to me' part.
I have always been at odds with this line, by the way. By that I mean that it has always struck me as odd. Now of course I know why.
It always seemed a touch abrasive for a woman to be demanding of a man for 'respect'.
And it seemed somehow 'unfeminine' to me even before I understood what femininity meant.
Like most (feminine) women, I would rather be loved than respected.
I didn't get it that Aretha Franklin wanted 'respect'.
Unless she meant a specific form of respect which even I would demand of a man without verbalising it...
But I am getting off topic! (as usual :-)
What I applaud Aretha Franklin for in this line is the request for the chance to 'clarify'.
Male-female communication is often flawed because we have different brains.
I usually have no problems understanding other women when they speak or otherwise communicate with me (and I often communicate non-verbally with women!).
But sometimes when a man is being as clear as he thinks he is being, I am still scratching my head as to how to decipher his 'code'.
It is sometimes amusing, but more often than not, it is tragic.
At least for me.
Hypergamy is a word that is bandied about a lot in The Manosphere.
When I first came across this word, I thought it sounded like a disease.
:-)
Things haven't changed.
Because if it is indeed descriptive of how The Manosphere define it, then it is a disease that I wouldn't want.
Speaking of which...
I cannot verify the authenticity of the following story, but given the context, perhaps it should indeed be taken with not just a pinch of salt, but a bucketload.
On April 1st, an online florist company sent its customers an email offering them a choice of flowers to be delivered direct to their door for a special occasion of their choosing.
The following were on offer:
1. Narcissus sylvestris
2. Arum vulgare
3. Viola alba
4. Candida albicans
5. Viscum album
6. Narcissus jonquilla
7. Lanicera caprifolium
Only one of these is not actually a flower. And surprisingly, it was the most popular choice.
Incidentally, no-one chose either of the Narcissus species :-)
Thanks but no thanks to the Candida albicans.
But those who chose it clearly were not aware of what it was.
A bunch of florists having some fun on April Fools' Day.
But somehow I feel I cannot afford to have a laugh about what certain words mean to me.
In the course of blogging about specific issues in the SMP, it has struck me just how differently men and women see the world. The difference in perspective is really more than even I expect sometimes.
Which is not a bad thing, of course.
Men and women should be different.
Otherwise we would all be some weird form of hemaphrodite.
And that would be boring for a start. And there would be no more of us in the coming years :-)
In any case, feminism attempted to do away with said differences.
And look where that took us.
Occasionally, I feel the need to clarify something, if not to anyone else, at least to myself.
This is one such occasion.
This is how The Manosphere defines hypergamy, at least this is my understanding of its definition:
'Woman marries up, and keeps looking out for even higher status men and will trade up at the earliest opportunity that suits her, i.e. when first man is no longer of use to her'.
And this is mine:
'Woman seeks the highest status man she can get and stays with him because it is in her best interests and that of her subsequent progeny to remain a unit with said high status man'.
Both involve a woman seeing a man as bigger, stronger, taller, maybe even cleverer, etc.
The only ones in denial of this reality are those whose heads are stuck in the sand upside down.
But the similarity ends there.
The difference between my definition and The Manosphere's definition (and of course this is based on their perception, which is in turn based on their reality - so I am not blaming anyone for this) is the 'trade up' thing.
This whole 'trading up' thing: that's a relatively recent phenomenon, no? A sister of the EPL phenomenon?
And to me, it doesn't even make sense in Nature.
A woman is the audience of a male 'mating dance' of sorts where several men figuratively (and in many cases quite literally!) 'peacock' their way into her life, with or without her express and often covert help. She may not be totally passive in the whole process - and very often, she is actively complicit in the whole selection process.
Assuming she is a normal woman, with good character, a 'trade up' to a different man, after a few kids with the first man doesn't even make sense.
It is wired into most women to join forces with a man and keep him around to care for the young with her.
It is thus in the best interests of a woman to keep the connection going.
Barring serious reasons, it is against a woman's best interests to break this bond.
But, I wonder, is it even right to call it a trade up?
How many women really succeed in trading up?
Often, it is a trade sideways, or in most cases, a trade down.
Hypergamy?
No.
Folly.
If on April 1st next year I get an email saying: You have a choice between the following two diseases: Hypergamy (as The Manosphere describe it) and C. albicans...
(Um, yes, I never seem to get the kind that offers you a choice between £5m upfront and £200,000 a year for life...but my lack of electronic luck aside...)...
I would choose the latter.
In the face of two evils...
The line R-E-S-P-E-C-T: Find out what it means to me! grabbed my attention, not so much for the demand for 'respect' as the 'find out what it means to me' part.
I have always been at odds with this line, by the way. By that I mean that it has always struck me as odd. Now of course I know why.
It always seemed a touch abrasive for a woman to be demanding of a man for 'respect'.
And it seemed somehow 'unfeminine' to me even before I understood what femininity meant.
Like most (feminine) women, I would rather be loved than respected.
I didn't get it that Aretha Franklin wanted 'respect'.
Unless she meant a specific form of respect which even I would demand of a man without verbalising it...
But I am getting off topic! (as usual :-)
What I applaud Aretha Franklin for in this line is the request for the chance to 'clarify'.
Male-female communication is often flawed because we have different brains.
I usually have no problems understanding other women when they speak or otherwise communicate with me (and I often communicate non-verbally with women!).
But sometimes when a man is being as clear as he thinks he is being, I am still scratching my head as to how to decipher his 'code'.
It is sometimes amusing, but more often than not, it is tragic.
At least for me.
Hypergamy is a word that is bandied about a lot in The Manosphere.
When I first came across this word, I thought it sounded like a disease.
:-)
Things haven't changed.
Because if it is indeed descriptive of how The Manosphere define it, then it is a disease that I wouldn't want.
Speaking of which...
I cannot verify the authenticity of the following story, but given the context, perhaps it should indeed be taken with not just a pinch of salt, but a bucketload.
On April 1st, an online florist company sent its customers an email offering them a choice of flowers to be delivered direct to their door for a special occasion of their choosing.
The following were on offer:
1. Narcissus sylvestris
2. Arum vulgare
3. Viola alba
4. Candida albicans
5. Viscum album
6. Narcissus jonquilla
7. Lanicera caprifolium
Only one of these is not actually a flower. And surprisingly, it was the most popular choice.
Incidentally, no-one chose either of the Narcissus species :-)
Thanks but no thanks to the Candida albicans.
But those who chose it clearly were not aware of what it was.
A bunch of florists having some fun on April Fools' Day.
But somehow I feel I cannot afford to have a laugh about what certain words mean to me.
In the course of blogging about specific issues in the SMP, it has struck me just how differently men and women see the world. The difference in perspective is really more than even I expect sometimes.
Which is not a bad thing, of course.
Men and women should be different.
Otherwise we would all be some weird form of hemaphrodite.
And that would be boring for a start. And there would be no more of us in the coming years :-)
In any case, feminism attempted to do away with said differences.
And look where that took us.
Occasionally, I feel the need to clarify something, if not to anyone else, at least to myself.
This is one such occasion.
This is how The Manosphere defines hypergamy, at least this is my understanding of its definition:
'Woman marries up, and keeps looking out for even higher status men and will trade up at the earliest opportunity that suits her, i.e. when first man is no longer of use to her'.
And this is mine:
'Woman seeks the highest status man she can get and stays with him because it is in her best interests and that of her subsequent progeny to remain a unit with said high status man'.
Both involve a woman seeing a man as bigger, stronger, taller, maybe even cleverer, etc.
The only ones in denial of this reality are those whose heads are stuck in the sand upside down.
But the similarity ends there.
The difference between my definition and The Manosphere's definition (and of course this is based on their perception, which is in turn based on their reality - so I am not blaming anyone for this) is the 'trade up' thing.
This whole 'trading up' thing: that's a relatively recent phenomenon, no? A sister of the EPL phenomenon?
And to me, it doesn't even make sense in Nature.
A woman is the audience of a male 'mating dance' of sorts where several men figuratively (and in many cases quite literally!) 'peacock' their way into her life, with or without her express and often covert help. She may not be totally passive in the whole process - and very often, she is actively complicit in the whole selection process.
Assuming she is a normal woman, with good character, a 'trade up' to a different man, after a few kids with the first man doesn't even make sense.
It is wired into most women to join forces with a man and keep him around to care for the young with her.
It is thus in the best interests of a woman to keep the connection going.
Barring serious reasons, it is against a woman's best interests to break this bond.
But, I wonder, is it even right to call it a trade up?
How many women really succeed in trading up?
Often, it is a trade sideways, or in most cases, a trade down.
Hypergamy?
No.
Folly.
If on April 1st next year I get an email saying: You have a choice between the following two diseases: Hypergamy (as The Manosphere describe it) and C. albicans...
(Um, yes, I never seem to get the kind that offers you a choice between £5m upfront and £200,000 a year for life...but my lack of electronic luck aside...)...
I would choose the latter.
In the face of two evils...
Monday, May 21, 2012
Rich man, poor man
The gentlemen amongst us may well be unaware of the following poem. But I am sure the women will have encountered at least one version of this.
Doing a quick internet search, I couldn't believe how many versions of this there were.
This suggests to me how ingrained it is into the female psyche the need for partnering up. Little girls everywhere indulge in this little game from the moment they can speak :-)
I was no exception.
This is the version I remember:
From A.A. Milne of 'Winnie the pooh' fame:
Apparently, this version is played as some sort of 'counting game':
Rather elaborate for a 'counting game', no?
:-)
In fact, the real objective of this rhyme is one of divination or fortune telling. Whilst counting, the last word or term that corresponds to the last available counting item, eg. cherry stones, buttons, is what the future holds.
Sooo, as an example, to the question What shall my husband be? if the last button coincides with thief... then the girl has to think about how she feels about the phrase 'visiting hours'...
Why do we torture ourselves so?
In a more sinister twist (sinister, that is, from the male point of view), if the 'counting item' happens to be boys when a girl is asking the question Who shall I marry? then some poor boy is saddled with a destiny he may never have dreamed up for himself...
I remember doing this to the neighbour boy when I was about 6 years old. When I 'landed' on him during this game he went crying to his Mum and wouldn't speak to me for days afterwards...
Not exactly the kind of validation I was looking for.
:-)
I know a woman who never dates a man unless they are actual or near-millionaires. She is the walking epitome of 'hypergamy' to say the least :-)
She won't date a guy if he is not of a so-called 'glamorous' profession, i.e. doctor, lawyer, CEO of a Fortune-500 company.
The weird thing is, she has dated a lot of millionaires.
And she herself has a not-so-lucrative job.
But...she does come from a fairly well-to-do family.
This is important to her - she wants to perpetuate the 'comfortable living' she was used to growing up.
Is this a bad thing in of itself?
Or is this the sort of thing that makes a man run for the hills?
The whole point of the etiquette on dates, as I touched upon in 'Going Dutch' is really a sort of dance that men and women enact to see what 'fits' in the financial arena.
Given that an important part of the whole mating game is about provision of material goods for a 'unit', otherwise known as a family.
So, it follows that a woman has to choose the right kind of man for her, in this important aspect of her future, whatever her own earning capacity.
She may not see wealth as an important part of a LTR. Or, she may see it as priority number one.
The trick is, the man has to be in agreement with her thoughts on this.
If Ms. Golddigger encounters Mr. Money-no-object who is happy to throw money at Ms. Golddigger, then surely there is no problem?
But what happens if Mr. Rich is also Mr. Miserly?
I fell out with the woman above when she met a wealthy man and on their second date they went shopping for ingredients for a meal she had planned to cook for him. According to her, he was so miserly on the shopping trip, he wanted to buy the cheapest version of everything.
After that date, she never saw him again, despite the fact that he was a great guy in every other respect, even in her own estimation.
When I pointed out that
1. He may well have become a millionaire as a result of his frugality and
2. This was only the second date! She could have stuck it out a bit longer to 'assess' a little bit more before rejecting him
She told me I was wrong.
She was a 'princess' looking for a rich man who would shower her with money. Any hint at a miserly streak and she was out of there...
No allowance for the possibility that this man was just protecting himself from possible golddiggers.
Many men will say that they don't care what a woman's earning capacity is. If she is feminine and attractive and young enough to have a family and nurturing and compassionate, etc, they will commit to her.
Is this accurate?
Really. Is this the whole truth?
Why then are so many women having to work even when they don't wish to after kids arrive?
Is this a reflection of a particularly severe economic crisis, or men's abandonment of their traditional role whilst wishing to impose said traditional roles on women?
Can a man ever be sure that a woman really loves him and is not after his money?
Is there any way to tell other than a super-long courtship ala Prince William and Mark Zuckerberg before marrying the woman?
Seriously, are extra-long courtships the only way?
Have we all in fact lost our way?
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Educate a woman...
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.
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.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Know Thy Man
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.
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.
Friday, December 30, 2011
The curious case of the much older multiply-divorced man and the younger woman
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)