The missing question

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?

Re-inventing the wheel

I thought the sartorial excellence displayed in this video had gone somewhere to die.
Never to be resurrected again.
Ever.
:-)

But it seems I was wrong.


These trousers are back with a vengeance.
With a few modifications.

For example, only a certain type of shoe goes with it.

 

 

Ladies' version...

 

 

:-)


As part of my 'homework' on feminism, I wondered if there has truly been a matriarchal society.

Yes, there were the Amazons, and other communities with the same all-female blueprint...but did these societies really prosper?


There are lots of matrilineal societies in the world, in which the feminine holds a great deal of power. But these societies are not matriarchal as such, except where there is also a Patriarch, in which case the Matriarch is Queen to the Patriarch's King.
And these societies continue to prosper quite nicely till today.


If third wave (Third Reich?) feminism seeks to create a mariarchy of the modern world, are there not enough lessons in history to dissuade it?

Or perhaps I missed something.

I really need someone to point out  a truly matriarchal socety that prospered for more than a century, and whose legacy still exists today.

It would be nice to know, in order to adjust my thinking on why third wave feminism is bound to fail unless its metamorphosis into fourth wave feminism (which I am told is a whole new beast with society-friendly properties :-) is swift and decisive.


It looks like we are stuck with the word 'feminism' in any case.

Whether or not we are referring to 'the good kind' or 'the bad kind' of feminism, one big question remains:

Can we ever re-invent the wheel?

Hasn't it ...um.... all been done before?

The Contract killers

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

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

Or something to that effect.

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

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

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

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

Do women have a point?

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

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

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

There is another way the State is killing nice girl.

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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


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


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

Is God Gaming Me?

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

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

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

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

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

:-)

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Why is this?

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

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

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

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

Again, I wonder: why?

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

Strangely, I feel the answer is 'no'.

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

And then he is back to alpha.

What is your end-point?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As is Bellita's recent post on Masculine women.

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

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

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

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

But where is she?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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