Life is a journey. The destination is death. This blog is all about the musings of a sojourner in her thirties, curious about the stops, the fellow passengers, the driver(s), the conditions of travel and the highlights and lowlights. All the while in a place of tranquility: the sanctuary.
Abramovic.
Kazanov.
Eriksson.
O' Mahoney.
Ben Laden.
Mendelssohn.
MacDonald.
Gruzinsky.
Bin Moosa.
Not to talk of
Leninskaya.
Jόnsdόttir.
Jankowska.
Petrova.
What do all these names have in common?
They are all patronymic.
They all mean 'son of' or 'daughter of' a man. Or a patriarchical community of some sort, as in the case of O'X which could mean either 'grandson of X' or 'from X village'...
In many traditional societies, a person is defined by who their father is.
In the bible for instance, a visitor is always asked... 'who is your father?'
You better have an answer to that question - otherwise, you may never gain entry into anyone's home.
Of note is the reference to 'son of X' ad nauseum in old testament books. No-one is just them. They are always 'son of' someone else...
Even Our Lord was 'son of God', or 'son of Joseph', or 'son of Man'.
He was 'son of someone'.
In keeping with Hebrew tradition.
I am intrigued that at the transfiguration, God chose to say (about Jesus): This is my son...
Why did he not just say, this is Jesus...?
His son.
Even Jesus needed a father?
Fascinating...
I love studying names.
One of my more nerdy endeavours :-)
Even in matrilineal societies (another of my pet geeky loves), patriarchy rules. You may inherit property and titles from your mother, but it is your father who gives you your identity.
Your soul.
Is it any wonder that nowadays with 50% of households with missing fathers in them, there are lost souls in ubiquitous abundance?
Who is your father?
In many ways, there was a time when it was almost always a bad thing to have this question addressed to you, as a child, if it was asked within your own social circles. It meant you had messed up somehow.
Someone wanted to know who to 'give a talking to' because you had done something wrong.
Because you had been naughty and someone wanted to know whose shame you had come to embody.
Best if you steered clear of this question :-)
But that was then.
Now, no-one asks this question.
When Miley Cyrus was making an exhibition of herself on the world stage a few weeks ago, save for a few Manosphere bloggers who were posing the question, 'Where the heck is Ray?', no-one wanted to know about the father.
I remember when Lawrence Fishburne's daughter started to go down the wrong path. He was ostensily hurt. But that's as far as public fatherly input went.
Non-entity.
Not relevant. Persona non grata.
Perhaps in Mr. Cyrus' case, this is a good thing. Afterall, he is spared some personal shame, no?
But what does this say about society in general?
This says that we accept the status quo.
That father is no longer the spiritual head of the family.
No-one need know who or where he is.
He disappeared and no-one went looking for him.
Should he come back, no-one would notice.
This is the missing question: Who is your father?
Perhaps I should give due credit to modern society.
Perhaps modern society actually understands the gravity of this question.
Which is precisely why we choose not to ask this question anymore.
Perhaps we are not as dumb as we seem :-)
Excellent.
This then, is in fact a good sign.
No-one is arguing about the sacredness of motherhood. It is plain to see how important a mother is.
But somehow we have forgotten how important a father is.
How did this happen?
And more importantly, how can we restore fatherhood to its former glory?
One of the biggest bugbears of the Manosphere is that modern women don't bond to men very well. Specifically, they don't bond well to their husbands.
I am interested in this subject.
Let's just say I am back to my curious self :-)
What's the story here? Can someone help me flesh out the salient points of bonding?
Can we debunk some of the false myths of bonding? Just for a laugh?
Why is there a complaint against women that we don't bond so well these days?
Is is a straightforward 'oxytocin overload' as a result of too much promiscuity?
That seems almost too simple to be true.
Let me explain.
Even promiscuous women feel strong bonds to their objects of affection. Um, so I hear :-)
So I don't think the problem there is with bonding per se.
But for sure, there is a problem. I concede that.
What, however is the problem?
I suppose the first question to ask is, is bonding necessary for long-term relationships or marriage?
It might seem like a stupid question to some, but I feel it is a necessary question, given the situation we find ourselves in. To get to the root of the problem, sometimes we really have to start at 'square one'.
I ask this question because the implication is that there has to be some sort of bond before marriage. And when this is missing, the marriage is doomed. This is the picture I get when I read this story:
I think Beverley Craven is an exceptionally beautiful woman. And what beautiful girls she has too! Her husband could not have been bad looking :-)
It is such a shame that her marriage has broken down.
But the reason Ms. Craven gives for her marital woes is that 'love' was missing before marriage. In this sense, she needed 'love' to bond her to her husband, and its absence made it impossible to stay with him.
Is this for real??
I don't understand. She had three children with a man she did not love?
How is that possible? Am I being naive again?
And what about the many marriages where an old parent or relative simply arranged the logistics and a man and a woman who had never met each other before found themselves married to each other. And they usually made it to 'till death do us part'.
See...I think that bonding is a dynamic process. No-one is truly bonded on day one. It slowly develops over time. In many ways, it is a retrospective diagnosis, no?
If dead people could talk, the morgue would be full of men and women declaring: 'Ah, that nag of a woman, I suppose she was my life's partner afterall', or 'that chauvinist pig I had to cook and clean for all those years, he wasn't so bad afterall...'
But...again I concede. If after sixteen years of marriage, or whatever the arbitrary time period is, if a woman feels that 'the bond' hasn't arrived yet, who am I to argue with her?
It is said that men bond better than women. I don't know what to make of this so-called 'truism' yet, but I am still 'analysing' this :-)
What is true, (to me) is that most men are certainly more respecting of a marriage bond than most women, especially modern women.
Inhererently, I have an issue with the 'truism' above because logically, it would seem more plausible that the sex with the more potent consequence of the hormone oxytocin, i.e. women, would be the one to 'bond' more.
But where things break down in my thought process is this: can one bond to many people?
A promiscuous man is not likely to bond to anyone. And certainly, the current wisdom is that neither can a promiscuous woman.
But what is confusing for me is that the latter statement is not true.
A promiscuous woman is not good 'wife material' but it seems to be a matter not related to her bonding ability, I find. Am I confounding hidden variables perhaps?
Here is a question:
Is this woman more or less likely to be a good wife one day?
She is quite abnormally bonded to her cuddle bunny. So she has what one would call 'oxytocin overload', lol.
Now don't get me wrong: I am not equating her problem with a promiscuous woman. The source of the oxytocin clearly counts :-)
But the question is, could she still live a normal life with a man one day? Is her oxytocin all used up on that lamb, or is there plenty more where that came from?
Indulge me.
I am in an intellectual muddle about this, as usual. But I think I could get to the truth of the matter with your help.
After 45 years of marriage, this is how Frank reacts to Marie's accusation that he doesn't love her in 'Everybody loves Raymond'. (Response exaggerated for effect :-) but you get the idea...
Men and women's idea of 'bonding' are clearly different!
From time to time, I get asked what I think of Game.
I have never really shied away from admitting that I am a fan of Game.
But I think there is a paradox regarding Game which is important to tease out.
Sorry for seeing paradoxes everywhere I look these days, but this one is actually a cool one.
Truth! ;-)
I believe that what we call 'Game' is actually not new at all.
It must be as old as the hills.
Afterall, men must have always had to have something that distinguishes them one from another.
Until very recently, the plan was that men actively displayed to women, and women passively stood by and chose the best men off the parade. If she didn't like him, she tossed him back to the parade.
This doesn't sound so great where men are concerned, because this picture depicts men as some sort of 'performing monkey' (to use Prince Charles' 'favourite' expression when describing the role of the Royals on 'walkabouts' :-)
That is, until you consider that underneath all that 'legit script' that society adopts because it is aesthetically pleasing for women to think of it that way...
Underneath all of that, individual women are actually privately aggressivley sending out signals to the man of their choice, and publicly picking him after he 'displays' along with the rest of mankind, and it looks like he was 'chosen' after a democratic process...
Kind of like advertising for a job vacancy when you have already picked a candidate for the job :-)
We women know this more than men...
And the men who know this about women are not surprised :-)
The phenomenon of 'he chased me until I caught him' is a phenomenon that men who understand women know very well. I touch on it a little here.
But then, the above script has been flipped in the last few decades.
What we have now, is a bit strange, in the sense that no-one really knows if they are coming or going.
It is confusing to say the least.
Whilst 'Game' of old' was the preserve of only a select few, (because most men who wanted and who took the conventional route (i.e. job, marriage, kids) did not really need much 'strategy' to attract and keep a wife beyond 'be a good provider' and a few tricks to make himself stand out from the crowd), 'Game of new' is now essential for men to know much more about women than their fathers did, because of the 'flipping of the script'.
I think this has immense benefits for men. Knowledge about anything is never wasted.
This has benefits for women too (indirectly). Men who are knowledgeable about women are always more attractive to women than men who are not. Which is precisely why the Game practitioners of old (the Don Juans and the Casanovas) were never short of female company.
(Now, whether the female company or the Don Juan were of suitable quality is a topic for another day...)
Howevere, the point here is that these men were attractive to all or most women, even to the 'taken' women.
Now I think my next point is the crux of this post:
The only thing preventing the Don Juans from capturing all or most of the women of their social circle...was the restraint of the uncaptured women themselves.
These Don Juans were indeed capable of taking the woman of every single man in their social circles. But the social constraints of the day kept the women in check.
What I refer to as 'Game' so far, is outer Game. The peacocking, the escalation, kino-ing, etc.
We have discussed here before the difference between Inner and Outer Game. Bellita's comment of 'sizzle without the steak' still takes the biscuit when this ditinction needs to be made :-)
As it does now.
If a man needs to Game a woman for a relationship, then I assume he has to have some inner Game in addition to the outer stuff.
In addition, he also needs a woman who will respond to his Game, ie. a woman with Girl Game of her own.
This is one reason I like Danny's blog, because it is inclusive of women. As are many (and perhaps increasingly so?) Manosphere blogs.
One sex cannot win in isolation.
One reason feminism is a failing movement is that it isolates women from men ideologically, in their heads. We can all see the conséquences of that....
For 'Game' to work, women really need to be on board.
It would seem so pointless to Game a woman to within inches of her life everyday for a few years, and the minute you stop, she is no longer yours. Because she was never on board in the first place.
No, it would be better to have a woman who in many ways is in agreement with the principles of Game, such that her own 'Girl Game' is aligned with male Game and thus complements him perfectly, achieving compatibility for both of them.
It therefore helps if women are on board with what men are doing (Game) and understand what it is for, and why men need it.
The best reaction I have ever come across by a woman to Game is that of a Bulgarian woman on Stingray's blog who said (I believe fondly) of the rise of PUA culture in her city that it was amusing to her.
I really believe that the best reaction a woman has, to anything a man does, is amusement. Even if it is just PUA culture.
I am of course not advocating that a women respond to PUA Game. Not at all!
Humour is an important way of avoiding resentment or contempt.
Note feminists have zero humour. Note the permanent snark on the face on the woman on Danny's video. This woman is amused by nothng and no-one.
Notice how a woman's amusement of men's antics (yep, we love 'em) is on a parallel with 'bemused mastery' so beloved of the so-called 'alpha male'.
On that same post by Stingray, a male commenter also stated how women's antics amused him.
Game is great. It is fun (when used in the right way for the right means - and that is of course defined by personal boundaries) and it provides an opportunity for the lines of attraction and compatibility to be drawn and negotiated. It makes the 'mating dance' entertaining for all (again I stress if both sexes do it right and no-one gets hurt by the other's 'Game').
Men have always been easily susceptible to female 'Game' because most women were born with innate Girl Game and retained it till death and some even refined it to stratospheric levels (we have all seen the pros 'work' a room full of men - honestly, it is mesmerising to see these women at work - they can literally have men of all ages eating from their hand - amazing to watch them).
Sadly, just when masses of men are practising Game (which was previously the preserve of a select few), a switch has been flipped in the target audience that makes them largely unresponsive to it.
So women need to be responsive to Game for men to succeed.
It therefore follows that some of the seedier aspects of Game may need to be 'tempered' or adjusted to the woman in question, in order not to turn her off. She must be responsive to game - the object is not to run her off...but I am sure most men know how to do this 'tempering'... Or do they? (Rhetorical question!) :-)
And waddayaknow - a woman who is responsive to Game...is inadvertently practising Girl Game of her own!
Funny how simple that is...
This Danny was chosen long before this scene, LOL!!
Sometimes we get lessons free on a plate.
Even when we least expect it.
And sometimes that lesson comes from a very sad place indeed.
The Sandy Hook massacre really touched the rest of the world. It doesn't matter who you are, where you are, what you are, when you hear a story like this one, you can't help but feel something.
Especially at a time like this.
Losing a child has been described as the worst thing that can happen to a human being.
One doesn't need to be a parent to 'get' this.
It was never going to be 'routine' to have to bury your own child.
The lesson I learned from this tragic event in our recent history is surprisingly nothing to do with the gun debate. As a Brit, I come from a country that is not as 'gun friendly' as America.
But I actually now live in a country with the same gun laws as America. Except there is nowhere near the litany of tragedies that America has, over in Switzerland. It may not be the about the guns per se...
No, the lesson I learned is that there are many more good people around than we think.
I am therefore really proud that I never forget the (minority) of good women still around, despite my dismay with the greater majority who are not up to scratch (which includes myself, of course).
When there are stories about brave men who protect women to the extent that they sometimes lose their lives in the process, we are awed and respectful of these men.
Stories circulate on Manosphere blogs about how courageous they are.
I agree wholeheartedly. These men show us all their glory and honour, even in death.
But one thing puzzles me with these stories.
Not by any means a universal phenomenon, but I notice some men use these stories as a way to chastise women in a sweeeping manner.
"See? We men protect you lasses. You are not worth protecting anymore. In any case, you wouldn't protect me in a similar situation..."
A woman was never meant to protect a man in a physical sense. There are many other ways a woman can be of use to a man. Yes, women are not being what they should be to men these days. I know that. But the accusation that women would not seek to protect a man in a physically dangerous situation is tantamount to a woman berating a man for not wanting to give birth. It does not make sense.
The Sandy Hook teachers demonstrated to me the natural order of things.
Men protect women.
Women protect children.
Not to say that there are no exceptions to this rule. Occasionally, one hears of a woman saving a man's life, or a 5 year old boy saving his diabetic mother's life by calling an ambulance when she slips into a coma...
I am pretty sure that not all of those six brave teachers who died last week were mothers.
But they still did the maternal thing.
Those of them who were mothers did not stop to think about their own children, but those children who were under their care in the here and now. Those kids became their kids in that fateful moment of danger.
At least two of these teachers were found with their bodies shielding at least one child from the rain of bullets that hailed around them.
Those women were just as brave as the men who risk their lives for others in high profile as well as low profile cases.
In all humility, these people, irrespective of gender who perform these heroic acts deserve our utmost respect. Whether it is because they are 'doing their job' or just volunteering their services when it is called for without thinking twice, it is still bravery.
I would just hope that I would do the same if called upon to do so.
But of course, I will never know until I am in that situation...
There is no argument that men are the physical 'pillars of strength' that protect all of society. This is one good reason every man deserves respect. Just for being a man. (I mean this).
But let us not forget the women who are just as courageous and will not shirk from protecting those more vulnerable/weaker than them.
And let us not forget the good women who continue to inspire men to be men, without demanding anything or defining their masculinity for them. But simply by virtue of retaining their femininity.
The long hard climb out of the cesspit will not be possible without these women.
Don't you just love it :-)
It is what keeps us all sane.
Here is my little ode to humour, the saviour of mankind.
I take this opportunity also to apologise for depressing everyone with my run of misery-inducing posts lately. Separation and divorce are not the easiest topics to deal with at the best of times, and certainly not in the run up to Christmas.
I hope this present post lightens up the atmosphere a bit round here, in this supposedly joyful Advent-tide.
Without further ado, let's have a laugh....British style!
Yes, the Brits are well-known for their sense of humour :-)
This is what I love most about being British.
We are known to laugh, even in the face of adversity. Sometimes, our humour is unacceptably irreverent. But it is usually innocent fun.
Speaking of innocent fun, I think we have all learned this week that sometimes even 'innocent' fun can be very unfunny.
When it is done at the expense of others.
In the case I refer to, the intended target turned out not to be the eventual victim.
Funny is only truly funny if no-one gets hurt.
When I was very young (under ten), I used to read Readers Digest a lot. Both my parents were avid fans, and I kind of inherited this 'fandom'. There was a section, 'Laughter the best medicine', which I thoroughly enjoyed reading, and it rapidly became the only section I would read :-)
Not to get all scientific on you, but laughter is indeed a booster of health and well-being, due to its ability to induce the release of various hormones and neurotransmitters, which contribute to general health, much like exercise produces endorphine (pain-relieving and general 'feel-good') substances.
I believe that a permanent loss of humour is a dangerous thing. It could be a one-way ticket to the abyss.
Here are a few things that make me laugh.
What are yours?
Let's share! And have a jolly good laugh in the process :-)
1. Anyone with a french accent
This has to be my number one, given where I live!
Now, some say I have developed a french accent too, but since I don't perceive it myself, it doesn't count :-)
There are many different accents in Switzerland, since it is a multi-lingual country.
But none makes me laugh more than the french one.
Know what I mean? That heavy, difficult to understand french accent that Agatha Christie's Poirot (Belgian) is known for and which is parodied in the popular British comedy 'Allo allo'. Where you wish they would speak French rather than English because you know you will understand them better :-)
Sometimes it could be described as 'sexy' depending on who is speaking (cough Thierry Henry, cough!) but it is still funny.
It is not just the accent either. Sometines it is just the idioms involved.
One of my bosses has a heavy french accent.
And for some reason he refuses to use the word 'very' when he speaks English. So when I am being chastised (erm, which is often, lol), I often hear 'bad bad bad' rather than 'very bad'.
Strangely enough, when I am being chastised in french, he uses the word très. I don't get it.
2. Offended cats
Now, let's be clear. To you Manosphere chaps, let it be known that I don't own a cat :-)
At least not yet :-)
How did this come to happen anyway, that a woman with multiple cats in old age became such a symbol of derision in The Manosphere?
May I digress for a minute here?
Thanks!
I was reading with great interest the life story of Patrick Moore who died recently at age 89. As an astronomer, he was my childhood hero (my handle is 'Spacetraveller' for a reason!).
I was surprised and saddened by the reason for his lifelong bacherlorhood. His one and only love was brutally taken away from him during the war.
And (unusually for a man, I think), he had cats...I always associate men with dogs for some reason...
Anyhow, has anyone come across a cat who is offended?
I have offended more than one cat in my lifetime, it seems. Friends' and relatives' cats.
Let me tell you that a cat who is offended by something you have done can be very...belligerent.
They give you a look which is almost like this. but not quite:
And then you get the head flick. And the turning away and walking off from you, sulking.
It's absolutely hilarious!
And cats can hold a grudge for days.
It's like they have PMT or something :-)
I can relate, lol.
3. Men!
Hahahahahha!
Men do make me laugh. In a good way.
There is a reason I adore our resident funnyman, Metak.
And I think it is the same reason Danny our Maestro Game coach is such a success when it comes to the ladeeez.
It boils down to their humour.
I think it is fair to say that women like to laugh. Hence many women state that they like a man who can make them laugh.
Of course men like to laugh too. But I think they like it better if they provide a laugh. Gentlemen, am I right here, or off the mark?
To this end, I think, in general, men make better comedians than women. (Wait, do I only think this because I am a woman?)
However, there are many exceptions to this rule. Some very funny comedians are women, of course. I think Dawn French, Joanna Lumley and Jo Brand are three good (British) examples. I am sure others could name a few more. I find Joan Rivers quite funny myself. Anyone agree?
On Stingray' blog somewhere I once replied to a Bulgarian woman who stated that she found the young PUAs in her town highly amusing. I indicated to her that I found all (or at least most) men to be amusing.
A man replied to me that he found women amusing too!
I thought that was so nice to hear :-)
Is this a general sentiment among men?
Now, perhaps to a lot of Manosphere men, this may be far from the truth in our current clime. But what about the other (shall we say....um...'Manosphere-neutral') men here?
Do women make you laugh? In a good way or not?
4. Very old ladies
This is a peculiar one for me, and I am not sure how to explain it.
Wizened old ladies really amuse me. Again in a good way. I am not sure if it is the way they seem to dismiss or ignore social norms and etiquette, or if it is the fact that they look almost like 'little girls' again because they are reduced in size in their old age...I really don't know. I only report their effect on me.
I once popped into a church for Mass in a town I happened to be passing through and in which I knew no-one.
The church was by no means full.
And yet, an old lady (she was at least 80) came and sat so close to me that had she sat any closer, it would have been illegal. There was plenty of space on the pew! Any other person would have given me my due of at least 10 cm of 'space'. Not this lady.
The whole episode cracked me up, and I couldn't concentrate on the Mass.
Furthermore, everyone around us noticed this breech of personal space too, and I could hear the ensuing sniggers.
Why oh why do I always attract such people at Mass?
5. Little boys
The film 'Jerry Maguire' was a 'chick magnet'. Yes, true.
But don't you ever believe it was because of Tom Cruise or his 'You complete me' line.
No!
This is the reason women all over the world were falling over themselves to get to a cinema:
:-)
Is it the relatively large head or the spiky hair?
Dunno.
And this is him today by the way :-)
I find little boys very entertaining indeed. All children I know, or even don't know, irrespective of gender, somehow seem to Game me, which is a slight source of worry for me, because I feel I may not succeed in establishing the right kind of authority as a parent one day. But some people on that thread reassured me that I have nothing to worry about - thank you for that assurance! :-)
For now though, I am mercilessly gamed by little boys in this age-group. But they also make me laugh with their antics.
Whether it is showing me their, um 'friends' as these two brothers did, or teaching me how to work an i-phone, these little chaps are certainly a law unto themselves, aren't they?
JV, I am sure you may have one or two stories to share on this front!
The son of a friend of mine, when he was around 3 or 4, suddenly grasped the concept of money and 'value', and promptly exerted his new-found knowledge on Auntie Spacetraveller in a way only little boys can.
Out of the blue one day, as I leaned in for my customary peck on the cheek, I was denied access.
Yes.
Little rascal had worked out that it could get quite lucrative offering kisses to his Mum's female friends :-)
So now, Auntie Spacetraveller had to cough up some dough before she could get a kiss...
Well I never.
2 years ago, I was changing his nappy (diaper).
And now I had to pay up to pucker up :)
Can you believe this?! Or in Cockney rhyme, can you Adam and Eve this?!
Blimey! It's bad enough with the whole MGTOW thing. Now, it's LBGTOW too!
:-)
Well now he is almost a teenager. And dear old Auntie Spacetraveller will never again get a kiss out of him.
Even if she offers to pay :-)
No, no! Before you start sending me the phone number of your therapist, I don't mean that kind of help :-)
It is more a literary kind of help.
I am searching for a word.
And so far, my cerebral 'Google' says, 'No results found'.
So I seek your help.
I have recently taken a step or two back from this blog.
Whilst I could use laziness/'busy, busy busy' as my excuse, this would not be the whole truth.
I have been doing what Danny asked me to do almost a year ago.
Which is to spend less time blogging and more time perusing other people's blogs.
This
1. Gives my blogging cortex a rest.
2. Gives me material to blog about.
3. Helps me establish that I am part of a blogging community and not an island.
Ahem!
That's the last time I listen to a man...
Just kidding, Maestro :-)
Me getting into a bit of trouble was not your fault :-) But thanks for saying that if you coulda, you woulda sat me down and given me some advice as to how to proceed...i.e. with caution, lol.
And your blogpost earlier today reminds me of an encounter with my big brother when I was about 5.
I got erm...beaten up by a boy of about 6 (yup, little ST got beat). I had no fighting skills, and even though I was bigger than him, the boy beat me up good.
I went crying to my big brother later.
Sympathy? Are you joking me?
This was my big brother's response:
"You allowed yourself to get beaten by a boy smaller than you? For sure, you deserved to get beat!"
My brother was treating me as though I were a boy. Always has, always will.
At least now I can have a sense of humour about it.
And after dusting myself from the latest clash with the Titans, in which my hamster got shot at point blank range, said hamster is now fully resuscitated and is ready to do business again, and I am back with you with a smile :-)
And to those men who are opponents of The Manosphere who would no doubt say the same thing my brother said and start off by saying, "What did we tell you about playing with those boys...?"
:-)
I know, I know, I got no right to come crying to you...
Joking aside, I want to do 2 things with this post:
1. Outline certain lessons I learned from my interaction with people on that post at TPM's.
(And I promise, no more rants from me. I got their message and I am cool with everybody involved. Honest. If you detect a rant, tell me and I shall give my hamster a slap).
2. And this will spill into the next post on this blog, where I shed some light on why I think JV's contribution to that post is important, even if not to the men on that post.
(Now, whilst it is no secret that I rather like JV (no homo), this is not the reason I supported one or two of her comments on that post about M3. I shall do my best to explain it as clearly as possible...).
Well, I told you I was slow...
The thought to bring the topics of interest (to me) that occurred to me when I read M3's post should have passed through my mind much earlier than it did.
In many ways I forgot I have a blog! I was so used to being a 'commenter' lately :-)
I like to make parallels between male and female 'ways'. I have previously done this with the hamster and 'frame' using the 'brother-sister' analogy.
I am about to do it again.
One of the lessons I learned on my recent brush with the Manosphere law is that sometimes, even good intentions from a woman can be viewed as BAD BAD BAD by a man. This can be so frustrating for a woman. But in the same way as women cannot expect men to act like a woman, I guess I can only expect a man to act like a man.
I, like most women will soak up empathy whenever and wherever I can get it :-)
This is closely linked, I think, to (in a nice way) our tendency towards what I call 'Perpetual Victim Complex' (PVC). Not all women have this problem, but I think the majority do. Now, what one does with this complex is up to the individual woman. I know some women, for instance, who only use their PVC not for themselves, but for others :-)
But some men (and definitely not all) prefer to stew in their own pain and exclude everyone from it. I guess this is part of the 'Quiet Man' phenomenon, although I must say, I have never encountered a man in real life, 'Quiet Man' or not, who didn't make it known that he appreciated genuine empathy when it was offered.
So this episode on TPM was 'virgin territory' for me.
The man is so deeply buried in his problems that he refuses any displays of affection. Even from a woman who is standing well outside of his 'cave' (like miles away) and waving a white flag and not offering anything remotely resembling 'help'.
To the man, all of that is 'noise'....? (Yes, someone used that word).
Anyone know how to better define this phenomenon in one or two words?
I was thinking...maybe 'leave-me-alone!' complex' or even 'stay away from me!' phenomenon, but that's more than two words...
Well, it helps to know. Lesson learned.
If the point of this blog is to understand a bit better about men, then here is a lesson from the College of Manhood. (Oh, I was so tempted to say 'University of Man', but they are no longer with us...).
And...very importantly, I think it is wise to know a particular man's tendencies when it comes to this.
As I found out, the men at TPM were polarised on this 'empathy' issue, some refusing it (which is fine) and some welcoming it (which is fine). But the problem was, I was not to know who wanted what, so I was like a reed in the wind...
Luckily, M3 himself was a 'yes please, I'll take it' kind of man in this respect.
Phew!
I think it would be a shame for a woman to provide it when it is not wanted, and to not have it handy when it is needed.
The Manosphere view this as a predominantly female disease. I don't.
It cannot be.
Whenever we encounter a situation, we judge it by making it 'about us'.
Case in point: many men responded to M3's post by starting off saying something like.
'Man, this is so what I went through...'
'God, this is so familiar...'
The only reason they are not judged for their reaction is that their reaction is identical to M3's (or similar enough) and therefore deemed acceptable, on a forum that deals with men's issues. Which is fair enough. I get that.
M3 gave a wonderful analogy to explain why he thought (as JV and I did) that it is indeed possible to empathise with someone even if you don't have an identical experience as them.
"Very few people on this planet had someone they’re related to die on 9-11. But for a day, the whole world stopped. Empathy brought the planet to a halt."
As someone who was neither anywhere New York nor knew someone who was, how can I 'make this about me'?
Easy. Find something similar that I can relate to.
IRA bombings in London, for example...
I HAVE to first make it about me, in my head, before I can relate.
If I can't, I'm done. It won't be possible to relate. If I tried to, it would come across as fake. Which would be clear for all to see.
JV and I tried to do that. Solipsism, yes. But necessary solipsism in this case.
I provided an example of a good woman who couldn't get a commitment from a man she loved.
PVW, you are right, I didn't make this analogy tight enough, and the picture you provide on Danny's blog is exactly what I would have said, if I had had a chance to.
But as you can see, it would have been the wrong time and place :-)
JV gave two examples, bless her :-)
The first one really ruffled feathers.
It was the example of a bad woman who was suffering the consequences from one too many 'pump and dumps'.
The unfortunate thing about this was that many commenters made the assumption that JV was equating M3's situation with this female situation. I know she wasn't - like me before her on that post, she was simply saying that the way these women feel is similar to how M3 felt, and not that the path that took those women to where they were presently is similar to how M3 got to where he was - but it is a hard case to argue, especially when the issue of 'choice' came up.
So in fact I saw a reason to abandon this analogy.
The second analogy is much more apt.
For two reasons:
Because it is more an appropriate analogy for JV to have used, because it was her experience. Which means it is the best analogy she could use to help her see M3 as 'fellow sufferer'.
I shall go more into that analogy in Part 2. Because I think there are other aspects to it that deserve to go under the microscope.
With this solipsism in mind, I can now say that this suggestion by someone, cannot work, for the target audience intended:
A woman who wants to understand it better can imagine how she’d feel like if * Men stopped paying attention to her *To get any sex, she has to ask 100 men before one says yes, and a lot of rejections are brutal. Some express disgust. *Guys she likes fuck anyone but her *She is constantly horny like during ovulation, just constantly.
This would not work because women simply do not live this experience. If to understand M3, a woman used this strategy, it would be no more than an intellectual exercise. It would NOT take her to the place of pain that she needs to go to (that is still nowhere near M3's place of pain, granted - but is better than nothing).
I agree better with that same commenter's statement (elsewhere):
"Using parallells to understand how someone might feel is the only way we can understand anything. Were they asking you to imagine a color you’ve never seen before? Of course you can only imagine something with things you already know about/experienced."
Solipsism. We need it. All of us. And it ain't a bad thing if used correctly.
I had meant to write about something else this week.
But a number of recurring themes kept distracting me.
And I realise now that the one thing in common with all these themes is...motherhood.
This post should really be called 'Motherhood: the good, the bad and the ugly'.
Or rather, 'Motherhood:the beautiful, the sad, and the downright confusing'.
No-one is surprised to hear that a major part of femininity is being a wife and mother. If women are honest, this is what they seek, even without the social pressures.
It is an innate thing, and is stronger than the need (of men) to become a husband and father, evidently :-)
And this is why it is so frustrating for me to hear women who have jumped eagerly on the feminist bandwagon proclaiming that they are so jolly happy being single and childless when the reverse is true. It is deeply upsetting for me to witness people trying very hard to lie to themselves. It should be OK to wish for something. No-one should be brainwashed into believing what they should or should not want.
Because I know that those who actually are happy to be single and childless, are not trying to convince anyone that they are. They simply go about their lives in a quiet manner, and only defend their stance when challenged.
But I mustn't get distracted.
I addressed motherhood before, where I painted a pretty bleak picture of obviously bad, sad and complex motherhood, with the caveat of course, that we all know pretty well what bad fatherhood looks like, because we are fed this image in a never-ending campaign against fatherhood - for who's benefit, I am not entirely sure.
But anyway, must not get distracted again.
In two directly opposing 'verdicts' of the children, I present to you, the saint and the (d)evil.
First the saint:
This woman refers to her mother as My saint Mamma :-)
(Which I guess could also be translated as 'my holy Mamma', but I do believe she intends the first meaning).
But then again, not many of us have mothers who have actually been canonised as saints by the Catholic Church (even if we feel they deserve that accolade anyway :-). So she is in a unique position, and her amusing and endearing way of talking about her mother is perfectly justified.
Dr. Gianna Emanuella Molla would not be alive at all if her mother Saint (also Dr.) Gianna Beretta Molla hadn't opted to exchange her life for hers. It was a simple choice in that sense. Despite her doctor colleagues' advice, she went ahead with her high risk pregnancy and lost her life as a result.
Her (youngest) daughter, who never knew her, as she died soon after her birth in 1962, is her biggest fan. As are her other children who of course lost their mother as young children.
She has an unusually high-pitched voice for a 50 year old :-)
(I am not sure there are videos of her speaking english, although I am pretty sure she does speak english).
It is obvious that The Church agrees with her that her mother is a saint.
But I am slightly uneasy about this one, and have been for a long time: The elevation of one child (albeit unborn) over all the other children and spouse (not to talk of self, which happens to be responsible for all the already born children) seems a bit...not correct, no?
But I can see why St. Gianna Molla is a saint nonetheless.
As is this Australian woman:
However I feel about the dilemma St. Gianna Molla undoubtedly faced with bravery, it has to be said that at least she is a thousand times better than this woman, whose own 10 year old child refers to her as 'evil'.
This should never be a word that a child uses to describe his mother.
And yet, and in increasing numbers, I am coming across many comments by Manosphere denizens (and they are not the only ones!) who have nothing but disdain for their mothers.
And it is the same disdain that dissatisfied men have for women in general. One would presume that their own mothers would be 'immune', right?
Apparently not so fast.
I choose not to post the comments here, because they really are filled with 'choice' words that make one uneasy when it is known that someone's mother is the subject thereof.
Other than the more usual complaint that their mothers 'divorce-raped' their (beta) (sorry Bob!) fathers, these men also have a new complaint that I am only now beginning to get wind of:
One man's complaint could be summarised thus:
'My (expletive) mother wanted me to 'man up and marry a single mother'.
Now, this complaint is different from the usual 'man up' one. Because at least that is an (albeit thinly veiled) attempt by mothers to get their sons to produce grandchildren for them. I understand this completely, although I also of course 'get' the frustration that this elicits in the young person.
If it is any consolation, we women have to face this on a daily basis too :-)
But what I don't understand (and clearly neither does the man who makes this bitter complaint against his Mum) is how a mother would not only be happy with seeing her son commit to a woman who already has a child or children by another man (and it certainly is not rare, this phenomenon - just ask Queen Sonia of Norway), but is actively pushing her (unwilling) son into such a situation.
It really does not make sense to me.
And I can see why the son feels his mother does not have his best interests at heart. If the woman who should love you the most does not have your back, you are truly doomed.
Interestingly enough, I don't think I would necessarily feel the same way if my father wanted me to marry a man with children.
Sure, that wouldn't be my first choice of marriage partner, but I imagine there's a real difference in judging this sort of situation by the different genders.
I would however feel as this man did, if my father encouraged a PUA to 'pump and dump' me.
So perhaps this is the kind of equivalent level of betrayal, that this man feels from his mother.
Seen from this angle, I can very much feel his pain.
It is deeply worrying to me that the reputation of motherhood has sunk this low. It used to be that motherhood was sacred.
Now I am not so sure it has the same 'sparkle' it used to.
Respect seems to have flown out the window quite a bit. Thrown out, seemingly by mothers themselves.
Is this a new phenomenon?
Am I imagining this?
I sure hope so...
But something tells me I am not.
It is bad enough that women are getting such bad press in the SMP from men.
It is infinitely worse that these same men are not impressed with their mothers.
In ten years' time, that ten year old who described his mother as 'evil' will be encountering women as romantic partners. How tragic that his experience so far with women has been less than sterling.
And sadly, the growing army of single mothers who are giving themselves medals for being 'brave' will be forced to look at themselves hard in the mirror when their children who would undoubtedly have harder lives than would have been the case fail to be impressed at their 'bravery' and question their choices instead.
Elevating child over spouse/'partner' is not the way (unless of course you are St. Gianna Molla).
After this 'rule number one', with respect to said child, having their best interest at heart always, should be 'rule number two'.
Everything else is just icing on the cake.
Is this a good way to go about things?
Or is this the rambling of a deluded soul who doesn't understand motherhood? :-)
Don't be kind on this post.
Educate me.
Especially if you are a mother, but not exclusively.
Honestly, until I hit The Manosphere (heh) this expression, to me, meant 'running out of energy' during an endurance race.
But as I have learned along the way here, nothing uttered in The Manosphere is quite what one is used to :-)
But that's OK. It's nice to acquire new vocabulary :-)
I am, as it happens familiar with 'hitting the wall'. No, not that one, the sports-related one!
Mind you, with regard to 'the other one', my cruel male relatives swing between 'you got there years ago' to 'maybe one or two more years to go' depending on how long it's been since I cooked dinner :-)
And my lovely female friends say I have at least another ten years minimum irrespective of my views on who is more attractive - Jen or Angelina.
See? Sometimes, we women can be truly loyal to one another. Unconditionally. Especially when our collective hamsters get together.
In return, I give all my female friends fifteen years minimum. I am generous like that :-)
I am particularly interested in 'The Wall' not because I am at or close to it, but because, let's face it, every woman will get there, some quicker than others. And, as they say, offence is the best form of defence. Or was it the other way round?
Anyhow, the big question today is, how best to tackle the approach of The Great Wall?
I would like as many people's advice on this as possible. Old and young, male and female, prince or pauper...
But...whilst I know that men have their own wall, I am (as is often the case on this blog) at least for now, only interested in the female wall. However, if anyone feels inclined to discuss the male wall, of course feel free!
I came to a stark realisation recently, which I will share, to gain some insight into my own psyche.
I recently hit the wall in an endurance sport. Unusually for me, I actually trained adequately for this one, rather than launch into it and 'hope for the best'.
And yet, I still hit the wall, big time, which was psychologically crushing...but there we are.
But, what was more intiguing to me, was that in my bid to keep myself going, this was the song I had in my mind, to 'psych' myself up.
Now, I have always been a fan of this group, but I can't believe that this song, of all their songs, was the one I was thinking of, to haul myself out of my 'hitting the wall' moment:
Hahahahahahahahahaha!
There is nothing even remotely feminine about this song. Although I must say, the one female character represented in it is probably as feminine as an 'urban chick' can get. And she is hilariously 'over the top'. As are her male counterparts.
In short, the implied gratuitous violence in this video is so over-exaggerated that it is funny.
Now, don't get me wrong.
Prior to 'Pump it!' I did try this:
But it didn't work for me :-(
I needed a different frame of mind than Julie Andrews could offer me...
And herein lies the connecting link between the two types of 'hitting the wall'.
In the sports version, it is almost as if I was only ever going to respond to something more 'masculine' in order to get through.
The lyrics of 'Pump it!' are, to me, undeniably masculine.
But they worked for me :-)
'Girls in white dresses with blue satin sashes' wouldn't cut it when I was grappling for something to hang onto to prevent imminent descent into the abyss of sporting failure...
Something most women fear is the masculinisation of their bodies when they get to a certain age.
I remember it was quite the fashion in the 90s for Brit comedies like 'Birds of a feather' to openly poke fun at older Greek ladies with beards for example...
But this is not a phenomenon limited to Greek octogenarians. I am sure this happens to all racial groups, but of course some are hairier than others...
So a woman become less feminine and more masculine as she 'hits the wall'.
That's biology.
And she loses her once pristine looks.
That's cruelty :-)
I know some incredibly feminine women in their 80s and beyond. And no facial hair in sight :-)
What's different about these women?
Are there any tips for women approaching or at 'The Wall'?
Please be kind, gentlemen :-)
Shall we categorise these into 3 groups?
a. Physical
b. Social (and could include tips on how to dress, behave, etc)
c. Inner self (which I think could be most important).
I think 'hitting the wall' is a very important time in a woman's life. Her inner self could be the deciding factor as to whether or not she has been a 'success' or a 'failure', whatever her definitions of these might be.
What should a woman's inner mental state be like, at the time of wall-hitting?
I don't think one need be a woman in the process of hitting the wall, to answer this question.
It is one of those issues that need to be considered well before one arrives there.
One need not be a woman at all, I would add.
Certain things are universal. This might be one of them.
Not to be morbid, but it's like talking about ...death.
I am not sure why I am thinking death...but perhaps this is the right season...All Saints and All Souls are right round the corner.
Or Hallowe'en to the Americans among us :-)
Whilst I don't equate 'hitting the wall' with physical death, I am sure to the woman who experiences it, it is some sort of petite mort or 'little death' as the French would say.
It is a metaphorical exit from the SMP for some (not all) women because men are visual. For a woman who does not wish to exit the SMP, it must be painful.
And there are women who do not seem to realise that they hit the wall sometime back.
It is even more painful to witness this.
I am becoming more and more aware that the term 'age gracefully' died when feminism was born.
Nothing demonstrates this more than recent photos of some ageing female Hollywood stars.
This is why I beseech thee to be kind. Treat this as you would treat the topic of death...
With reverence.
Please...
But...inasmuch as I really don't want to show some of the worst photos of this 'hitting the wall fast and hard' phenomenon (it really is that painful to see), I think I know one lady who is really a lady. She is one of several ladies who I think deserve a dignified chapeau (hat tip).
I have always liked her. She always commands respect. If I look like her at her age, I would be happy:
Dame Judi Dench, with Daniel Craig at the recent 'Skyfall' première in London
Another one is this woman:
Dame Helen Mirren
They have this in common: They are both post-wall women, but their clear dignity makes one forget that more readily...
Any tips for the rest of us to make us more like these two?
I recently made a commitment to myself.
Aherm...I don't mean I married myself in this manner :-)
Everyone who says TV is a waste of time is right.
In an increasingly TV-free state, I have time for other things.
And what's more, I can plan better what to do, and when.
And unlike watching TV, which dictates what programmes you watch (if one allows this), you can pick a movie once in a while and watch it online.
I had heard about the film 'Guess who's coming to dinner' a long time ago.
But strangely enough, I had never watched it.
I put that right, finally.
And to my surprise, this film is pure Manosphere Gold!
Honestly, it has so many lessons, I decided to dissect it with a Manosphere scalpel to see what I could find.
Well, to be completely honest, I watched this film already knowing the plot.
Black man meets white girl and wants to marry her in a short space of time.
Hilarity (um, being ironic) ensues at girl's home .
And (importantly for a woman, like me), love conquers all.
In other words, what you fellas would call 'emotional porn'.
Which is 'chick crack' to me :-)
But no! Au contraire, this film is so much more than that!
At least my hamster says so :-)
The biggest take-away I got from this film was... how so differently men and women view the world.
And for me, the second biggest take-away is...how to be a good wife.
Which is relevant to me, and women my age.
There are two GREAT examples of wifehood in this film.
The two mothers here are exemplary in the way they deal with their husbands in this stressful period.
In this way, this film is somewhat of a 'wife manual' even though it is not intended to be.
But then again, the film was shot in 1967.
Good wives were ten a penny, I think.
Another reason to boycott modern TV and films. The correct 'guides' for us ladies of today are just plain missing in the modern works of Hollywood.
With very few exceptions, a modern day lass who wants to have anything resembling a fulfilling life as a wife would do well to stay away from planet Hollywood and all its produce...
Anyhow, without further ado, for those who have never seen this film, here is a brief summary (with a little detour into politics):
In this film review, I am not so much interested in the racial aspect, although I accept that it is impossible to ignore this component as it is indeed the whole point of the film!
But my perspective is thus:
A white man, albeit 'liberal' is struggling to come to terms with his daughter (23 years old, and in this case she might as well be 15 - this girl is so naïve even I am worried for her :-) meeting and wanting to marry a man she hardly knows. She met him 10 days ago. And she has decided she wants to marry him come what may.
The fact that he is a kind, mature, top doctor who is handsome and quietly confident to boot is one mitigating factor, but the elephant in the room is glaringly obvious - he is black. And in 1967, it wasn't a 'smart' move for a woman in Joanna Drayton's position (i.e. white) to be in.
So Dad is concerned. And especially so as he is being forced to take a decision in a hurry. First it was 24 hours' notice, then this gets whittled down to 4 hours.
He's thinking: "This is not fair and somebody's got to pay for this!"
As his good friend Monsignor Ryan points out to him, he is being made to face his true self. He is well-known as a liberal pro-civil rights kind of guy, and who (as his wife Christina also reminds him) has raised his daughter to see all people as equal, something she literally does when she brings home a black man :-)
The father of Dr. Prentice is equally concerned and ticked off! Here he is, a black man suffering in the era of apartheid, who produces a son who gets to be a doctor at the World Health Organisation headquarters in Geneva.
The last thing he wants to see is his son slapping him in the face figuratively speaking, by marrying a white woman. "How dare he do this to me?", he is thinking.
"I made sacrifices for him, and so did his mother (she refused to buy herself a new coat and would rather wear a worn tattered coat) just so that he could get an education.
And how does he repay us?
He gets with a white girl..."
The mothers have a totally different take on this situation as one would expect.
After the initial shock (in the video above one can see Mrs. Drayton's - interesting trivia that Christina and Joanna Drayton are played by real-life aunt and niece Katharine Hepburn and Katharine Houghton), they are quick to get behind their respective children, as I would expect.
But...apart from one act of defiance by Mrs. Drayton, both mothers take a very dignified path to 'converting' their husbands to the enlightened path of 'lurrrve'.
In this regard, I think...Mrs. Prentice for the win. She gets round Mr. Drayton in an unbelievably (if not a bit 'manipulative') way. Insinuating that Mr. Drayton couldn't remember his own distant past days of youthful passion was perhaps a bit below the belt, so to speak, but it was the comment that he took the most offence at, and which pushed him to make that fine speech he did at the end of the film :-)
"I may not be a young stud anymore. But don't ever tell me I can't remember what it was like..."
I paraphrase here, but I am guessing this is what is going through his mind...
His wife Christina, meanwhile, took the path of least resistance. She just got the old priest (watered down with suitable amounts of whisky no less) to do her dirty work for her.
Classic :-)
Other than the display of clever wifely intervention, I was impressed by what I see as evidence that Manosphere mentality is unbelievably accurate, in this film.
1. When Dr. Prentice calls his father to tell him about the fabulous new girl he met, his father only wants to know...
1. her age, and is suitably impressed with his son that she is 23 (he is 37) - I have isses with this age gap, but then again, I would...I am a little over the age of 23 (aherm!) and ...
2. Is she hot? (Um, I mean...is she pretty?)
John Prentice's father is an upstanding citizen who is at least 60 years old. And all he wants to know about his future daughter-in-law (in the interests of his son's happiness) is ...is she young and pretty.
That should tell me something.
And it did.
Lesson learned.
In many ways, this little point reminds me of a scene in Eddie Murphy's 'Coming to America', another film noted for its hilarity if not for its false premises about the world we live in:-)
Moving on...
I was generally fascinated (but not surprised) by Tilly the black housekeeper's reaction to John.
Now, as background, it is noteworthy to point out that she joined the Drayton household the year before Joanna was born. This means, she would have had a huge part to play in Joanna's upbringing. Joanna would be like a daughter to her.
So any man would be 'the enemy' as far as she was concerned, with respect to Joanna's future happiness.
In addition, she was most likely living proof that life was hard for a black person. So she would not have wanted Joanna, by association with John (or her children by virtue of being half black) to suffer this fate. So even though she was black herself, her maternal instincts for Joanna would have overidden any kind of solidarity she could have had with John.
There was also the possiblility of a kind of 'Stockholm syndrome' that was commonly displayed by black slaves and servants in America's slave trade history, that is perhaps too complicated to go into in an already long post, but which I am sure was a particular ailment of Tilly's.
This would explain the scenes 0:16:25 - 0:16:47 and 0:55:16 - 0:56:20 in the video below.
And to cap it all, she makes the common (female) mistake of projecting: "And you are not even that goodlooking!"
No Tilly, you got it wrong! Even if John had not been handsome, (and erm...dear God he was :-) good looks alone would not have been what drew Joanna to him...
His medical degrees and the confidence arising thereof may have something to do with it though...
The Manosphere for the win, for drumming this point home to both men and women. It certainly removes a lot of stress from the dating game once this simple principle is understood, I think.
Now, the next point I make is perhaps a little unfair...
But this point actually confuses me a little.
I was stunned by Joanna's naïvety. I think even shocked may be the better word to describe it.
On the one hand, whilst I expected a 23 year old woman from 1967 to be somewhat naïve, what surprised me was her seemingly exaggerated child-like and woefully immature state.
Is this a true picture of 1967?
Can the older readers among us confirm this?
This is a sticking point for me. Sure, 23 is young, by today's standards, for marriage.
But in 1967, she was practically an old maid by that age :-)
And yet, I feel Joanna was not a good candidate for marriage. At least not yet.
She had to be 'led' in everything.
Note that her lack of intimacy with John was because of John's restraint, for example, something which her mother, I am sure, particularly liked John for.
She was 'hard work' in the same way a child is.
She saw nothing 'wrong' in inviting John's parents over to dinner even though John himself was reluctant about this (with good reason).
She thought nothing of drastically reducing her 'thinking time' over her impending marriage by deciding to fly out to Geneva with John the same night rather than waiting the previously agreed-upon 2 weeks.
She thought her kids would all end up President of the US, as John informed her father.
In other words, Joanna was really a child still.
And she was lucky to have met John who was mature and confident.
But by jolly, he would have had a hard task 'saving her from herself' their whole married life until she matured a bit...
I think as time went on in the course of this one day in the film, John was beginning to see what he was walking into :-)
Mr. Drayton's speech (from around 1:34:00 to the end) is pure Mansophere mantra.
His reference to his wife's 'lack of reason' stemming from her romantic notions made me chuckle...
Where oh where had I heard that before...
:-)
The full film is below. Well worth a viewing if you have a couple of hours to kill...
If I hadn't made a certain assumption, my 'eureka' moment would have come a lot earlier than this, and this post would have been written perhaps 6 months ago.
What was my 'fatal' assumption?
That I knew the difference between the above two words.
Sadly, I did not.
But knowledge of this (important) difference could have saved me a tear or two :-)
I hate to look up English words in a dictionary. Because it is an admission that I don't know my own language well enough. Ridiculous, I know.
But, (and I am sure the multilingual among us will confirm this bizarre belief system) this is in fact a great coping mechanism for me. Having the 'assurance' (even if it is false) that I am 'done' with one language 'frees' me up to tackle the next. I have had to do this all my life. So my hamster has had an awful lot of practice dismissing words in English that I actually don't yet understand, in favour of foreign words I am actually yet to encounter at all...
But how paradoxical that foreign words improve my English :-)
It's a kind of linguistic equivalent of the Red Pill, so to speak.
My city's cathedral has different language Masses. I usually stick to French, of course, it being the local language where I am. But last Sunday, I got flummoxed by an unexpected (at least by me) event.
The Bishop was in town. No-one told me he was coming.
So when I rolled in for my usual Mass, it was quite the surprise to find the church full (um, it appears there are people who will only go to Mass when the Bishop is around, lol) and the old Mass still going on at the time when my Mass should have begun.
Due to logistic issues I ended up having to go to an Italian Mass. Which is fine.
During the Mass, I was suddenly interested in the word 'pietà'.
As in: Signore pietà (Lord have mercy). Cristo pietà (Christ have mercy). Signore pietà (Lord have mercy).
I wondered if in Italian, the word 'pietà' which I assumed meant 'pity' was the correct translation for the word 'mercy' in English, in the way 'intimité' translates into 'privacy' in French.
(Um, OK, I should have been paying attention to proceedings at Mass rather than having an intellectual debate with myself as to the etymology of the word 'mercy', but we all know that I am not normal :-)
So I looked up 'pietà' when I got home.
It means both 'pity' and 'mercy' in Italian.
Hm. This made me think about something.
Then PVW sealed it for me by commenting thus, in response to my previous post about Sandra Fluke (bold type mine):
"On the other hand, I was bothered by Limbaugh's handling of this, especially as you said, he has some bones in his closet as well. In his attempts to fuel support for his side, he garnered a whole lot of support for hers. He could have done the same, but in a different manner."
I hear all the time from certain women that 'men are cruel'.
I don't disagree, because to female ears, men can be incredibly harsh. As harsh as....us :-)
One need only peruse Manosphere blogs to find evidence of 'harshness'. At least to female sensitivities.
I am beginning to work out why it is that I lose converts to 'Manospheristianity' when I encounter Blue Pill women who I feel could learn a trick or two courtesy of The Manosphere.
I have learned that I am rather tactless in dealing with such women.
One thing about The Red Pill is that it needs to be ingested and digested... slowly. I forget that sometimes.
I ram it down someone's throat and then I am surprised if I am not invited to their next party:-)
So now I try to be more gentle, at least towards women.
There is a reason women like validation. It softens the rough edges of life for us.
One cannot and should not treat a woman as one would a man.
I think this might be where Limbaugh made a mistake.
He 'attacked' Fluke with the worst word possible when dealing with a woman. Slut!
Hell hath no fury like a woman labelled a slut...
Even if 'technically' her behaviour may be construed as that of one.
She will unleash all kinds of unpleasantness on the utterer of that word, aided and abeted by her hamster.
Now, I am not saying that shaming is a bad tactic per se.
But public shaming combined with humiliation combined with choice words that make women see red, is perhaps a failing strategy when it comes to 'correcting' women.
I think I 'get' this now.
Limbaugh showed neither pity nor mercy.
And it is increasingly dawning on me that most men don't do mercy, but if pushed, they might show pity.
Che?
I looked both these words up in English:
Pity:
n.pl.pit·ies
1. Sympathy and sorrow aroused by the misfortune or
suffering of another.
2. A matter of regret: It's a
pity she can't attend the reception.
Mercy:
n.pl.mer·cies
1. Compassionate treatment, especially of those under
one's power; clemency.
2. A disposition to be kind and forgiving: a heart full of mercy.
3. Something for which to be thankful; a blessing:
It was a mercy that no one was hurt.
4. Alleviation of distress; relief: Taking in the refugees was an act of
mercy.
Mercy is so much more than pity. Pity is just more or less an acknowledgment of another's pain. No more than that.
Mercy involves going an extra mile after you have felt the pity. Definition number 4 is particularly apt. Removing the pain of the pitied from him or her is consistent with showing mercy.
Pity is well within the range of emotions of a man. Given that men's emotions are usually short and 'strategic' as in celebrating a victory (triumph), delving into the depths of despair (sadness), expressing displeasure (anger) and experiencing ecstasy (um...) pity from a man is also necessarily short and sweet.
NB: Allevaiting pain of course comes naturally to a man as well. I am not suggesting otherwise. But perhaps it is not immediately preceded by the emotion of 'being moved to pity' in a way that women can be 'moved', emotionally. A man could do untold acts of kindness, but this could be compartmentalised and distinct from emotion, for instance, as an act of duty or honour?
Women on the other hand are quite capable of both pity and mercy, as we are endowed with a wider range of emotions. (Some choose not to explore both ends of this spectrum but most can :-)
But!
When men accuse women of being 'cruel' or 'harsh', it is, I think, because a woman has dished out 'pity' where 'mercy' was required.
Pity from a woman must be incredibly startling for a man. That's what he dispenses.
He does not expect that from a woman. Especially not one he loves and who he expects to love him back.
I am quite sure that women know the difference between pity and mercy, instinctively. Even if we cannot verbalise it.
Therefore, (and perhaps men believe this erroneously - I am not quite sure, please correct me here) 'pity' from a woman where 'mercy' would have been more appropriate feels like contempt to the man. And he might therefore feel insulted, his masculinity 'tainted' in some way.
I am also sure, by the way, that some women deliberately show contemptuous pity when they are upset with a man. Because they are reacting emotionally, and all gloves are off...
Perhaps a man expects mercy from women. All women. But he knows he can only get pity from another man.
One of the best ever posts I have come across was when Bellita said 'Our Lady implores all women to be like her - a face of mercy.' I think that's a great motto for all women, Catholic or not. I won't forget this post of hers.
Notice Bellita did not say 'a face of pity'.
I don't really know what that would look like, but I am sure I wouldn't like it if I saw it on a woman. And I daresay, most men wouldn't, either.
I know of women called 'Mercy'.
I never heard of a woman called 'Pity'.
And at least in English, when we say at Mass 'Lord have mercy' or 'Lord have pity on us', we mean, in both instances, have mercy. I am pretty sure of that.
Because although God is 'male', (if we must describe Him in human terms), He is capable of even typically 'female' emotions or sentiments.
The following statement is hard to make. But I think it is necessary as part of so called Red Pill wisdom.
Women should not expect mercy from a man. That is a woman's emotion. It's like asking for a man to 'nurture'. Not going to happen.
Sometimes, even pity may be lacking. Just ask Sandra Fluke.
It is not because the man is a bad man per se. It is because he is a man. Full stop.
His function does not include 'mercy'.
This is the nature of men. It just is, no?
Would we want them any other way??
The only ones who would answer 'yes' to this question are those who want the fearless protection a man offers, as well as 'mercy'. Yes. Santa Claus really does exist :-)
Elisabeth Laurier, in this scene from 'Firelight' is getting 'hives' from Charles Godwin's overindulgence of his daughter Louisa.
When she says "feel for her Mr.Godwin, but don't pity her", she has made the classic mistake I made, by confusing pity with mercy, as per the dictionary definitions above, and she actually means, "pity her but don't show her mercy".
In other words, "accept that she is going to hurt because you are going off to work, but do walk away from her nonetheless. Acknowledge and go. Don't try to take away her pain. She doesn't need that right now. She's a spoiled brat who needs a different parenting style from now on."
I think women want and need mercy from men, because women have it in them to dispense this when needed and they know of its value.
But unfortunately, men can only do pity at best, and even so, the receiving woman has to be a blood relative or 'the chosen one' :-)
Some women have realised this, and know that the only 'man' who can do 'mercy' is God.
Hence the whole 'I am a daughter of God' phenomenon so fiercely characteristic of a certain brand of 'Churchianity'.
Men see 'mercy' as a crucial part of femininity. 'Mercy' includes forgiveness and compassion.
Enter the male locker room...complete with locker room parlance: If I mess up, will she show some compassion? If I f*** up, will she forgive me?
They don't know what shape this takes, because it doesn't come naturally to them.
But they delight in it when they see it in a woman.
This may sound like a very simple question.
Like, one that a child might ask. A slow one at that.
But as I am finding out, nothing in this world is simple. At least not anymore.
I ask again: what is a woman for?
Perhaps the ladies who have been married may be best placed to answer this question for me.
Of course, I would be pleased to hear the opinions of any men who wish to help me out with my 'explain it like I am a 6 year old' type question.
:-)
I ask this in all seriousness.
I want to clear something up in my mind once and for all...
The inspiration for this post came from...work.
At work, things break down once in a while. Nothing to do with me :-)
We have to call in engineers to fix the problem.
It is always a hilarious occasion for me for several reasons.
(Another of my guilty pleasures).
The first is that for some bizarre reason, their presence always reminds me of this ad:
Which is odd, because our engineers look nothing like this hunk.
Rotten luck :-)
The other reason is that when they arrive, my male colleagues ask the guys relevant intelligent questions.
The women pick up random tools from their boxes and ask, 'what's this for'?
OK, I speak for myself here.
Occasionally, my question turns out to be a good question.
Although my function is not in a technical capacity, it helps me to understand what I do better if I understand a little bit of the engineering side.
More often than not though, the tool I thought was unfamiliar and really 'high tech' just turns out to be a spanner or something.
Um.
Yes.
*facepalm X2*
But the point is, everything has a use.
I have never felt the need to ask this question: 'What's a man for?'
Ever.
Because it is pretty clear to me what men do.
I do not think anything's changed for centuries.
Men have built civilisation and continue to do so. No doubt on that one.
But, now I am not so sure what women are for.
Its a bit confusing, actually.
Because according to what I see around, and also what I read on Manosphere blogs, it is not clear ...
Now, I include myself here of course.
I am going to forget everything society tells us about what a woman is for, just for a minute whilst I listen to what our little community has to say on this matter.
And I am thinking aloud here. These thoughts are mostly unedited and may appear 'sexist' at first glance. But I don't believe they should be, at least at second glance.
A man who comments here (you know who you are!) recently said this to me:
And I paraphrase:
A man only needs 4 things from a woman (in no particular order):
(And I am guessing by this he meant, if he is to commit and therefore give up his freedom to one woman): Food, Faithfulness (i.e. loyalty and respect all rolled into one), Family (this means children) and ...there was fourth 'F' too...
Do the men here concur?
If so, why are women being systematically trained to reject these attributes?
Whilst men are still expected to be...men?
There may be a gross mismatch here...
Food
In a recent conversation with a male friend, I was informed that it is no longer expected in society that a woman cook for her family.
He had an eerily neutral (and therefore scary) facial expression as he said this to me.
It was scary to me because I thought it was something that ought to be a joke.
But unfortunately it wasn't.
This particular man had come to accept this situation as a status quo in his country.
And his lack of reaction to this made my hair stand on end for some inexplicable reason.
But is this situation even feasible longterm?
Can a family live on microwave dinners or restarant food for years on end with no adverse consequences?
Where did childhood obesity come from?
Whose responsibility is it to ensure that everyone eats a nutrional home-cooked meal?
In some communities, if a girl cannot cook a meal independently past the age of 12, she is considered a failure whatever her future career aspirations might be.
Fact.
In some communities, a new bride can be returned to her family of origin if it is discovered she cannot cook.
Fact.
Sure, both of these examples are not from 'Western' society. These communities are considered 'backward' in many ways.
But...do they have a point?
Who is best placed to cater to the gastronomic needs of a growing family?
It's a woman, no?
I think there are many reasons for this.
I am sure the married women here will chime in here, but cooking for a family is not a simple matter of putting ingredients together in a pot, on a fire.
It is an act which has other unseen consequences.
They do say that the family that eats together stays together (or was it prays together? I forget :-)
Family eating time is about 'family time'. In the hustle and bustle of daily life, even if both parties work, someone has to coordinate 'eating time'.
Maybe this is heresy, but I think as a married woman, I would feel some level of shame if this were not me.
There is a biological drive in women to do this sort of thing.
Feminism tries to drive this out of us, but it is nonetheless there.
It is like the female drive to create things of beauty. A man's bachelor pad may be 'minimalist' until a woman moves in...
Cake decoration is another example. We are not content just to have an edible cake. It should look nice too.
Women are supposed to be decorative too, no?
In settings where men are men and women are women, men wear suits, usually all of one colour.
:-)
And ladies wear a variety of colours and fabrics. Like at weddings.
This is normal.
Faithfulness
I understand now when men go on and on about high 'N' and how it translates into a diminished ability to bond with subsequent men in their lives.
I think I see this play out quite a lot in the modern hook-up culture.
But I also think that a woman can be faithful even with a high 'N'. Many women from previous generations were. And they weren't all virgins at marriage, I am pretty sure.
But I guess it is one of those things that would be hard to demonstrate to a man.
He either has to believe in her, or go for a long 'trial period'. I think more and more, the latter option is becoming the strategy of choice. So commitment is delayed...
Is this good or bad?
Family
If I am not mistaken, an important reason why a man might choose not to GHOW would be if he wanted children...
The best person to carry children is a young, fertile woman.
But what if the young fertile woman doesn't want to carry children even when she is in a positon to, i.e. is in a committed relationship, and all things being equal, has no other biological impediments?
But, in fact, there are usually bioloical impediments.
It takes a while for a woman who has been on The Pill to become fertile again once she stops taking The Pill. Like years, in some cases.
Some women never recover their fertility.
The Pill is also potentially fatal. This is rare, but not negligible.
And if it is true that 90% of Catholic women are on The Pill, then I would expect a higher percentage of non-Catholic women to be on it.
That's a lot of women who are preventing what their bodies are designed for...
Then there are the social constraints:
Work, hobbies, financial matters...
Yes, some of these are male-driven or at least jointly driven by both parties.
A man who says to his wife: 'We are not having children for five years after we marry until I have X job, or X amount of money coming in every month...'
This same man, if his wish to have children is not fulfilled by his wife, if her acquiescing to his will leads to problems later, will have no problem finding another who could give him children.
But it is usually a woman's choice. It is her body, afterall. And this is not a bad thing...
But...as with everything in life, there should be limits. Everyone has their 'place' where they draw their own line...
The last F is self-explanatory.
But why do so many fail at this....er... marital obligation? Including all that comes before - such as simply being attractive to the one who matters?
There has to be a universal reason.
I don't think 'life got in the way' is an acceptable answer.
There has to be a better answer than that.
I would love to hear it.
Now, I ask this particular question specifically with the woman who had no problem complying before commitment, in mind.
What happened?
Why is this scenario so common?
If a woman cannot provide each of, at least some of the above, is a man to be blamed if he doesn't take her on?
Manosphere men are trained to think, on encountering a woman: 'What does she bring to the table?'
That is the same question as 'What is a woman for', no?
My thoughts:
If there is anything interfering with 'what a woman is for', it should be sought out and eliminated by that woman, such that the woman can function as a woman.
You know, like the 'if your eye causes you to sin, take it out' bible verse.
But this may be a bit drastic, I admit :-)
Perhaps my thoughts here could induce seizures in people who are used to hearing things like this:
It's about me and my life. (Nevermind the needs of the family).
I didn't spend ten years in college and post grad to become a housewife.
Barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen was for my grandma's time. I am way better than that.
He and I should be equals...in everything...
What did my grandma and her friends fight for when they burned their bras? So that I could end up as some man's slave?
Why are we so hell-bent on defeminising ourselves?
Who told us that men wanted men as wives and girlfriends?
Why do we take every opportunity to take a pill or put on a gadget that will enable our advancement in masculine ways and matters?
Why are we trained to see men as oppressors and adversaries?
Why are we constantly being bombarded with the message that to be what a woman was intended for is demeaning in some way?
Does it help any?
