Hillbilly or Cityboy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Mr Peasant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Mr Cityslicker

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

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

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


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

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

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



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

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

The divinity of Man

Or, the divinity of humanity.

Since we are still more or less in Eastertide, this is perhaps an appropriate time for a post like this.

Catholic catechism engraves the above phrase into your mind from when you reach the age of reason (age 7) till your death.
It's not quite beaten into you, but close :-)

So, it's not something any Catholic should forget.
But alas, we do. At least I do.

So it is with great surprise that I was reminded of this by a woman who is in fact an atheist, or so she claims.
This woman was spectacularly intriguing, to say the least.
Watching a 1984 interview of hers, I was stupefied by her kindly face and her patient answers and rapport with her interviewer (who was a young man).

The woman in question was Swiss adventurer, sportswoman and writer Ella Maillart.
I have no idea why I had never heard of this woman before.
At the time of that interview, she would have been 81. She died in 1997.

Born to a french-speaking Swiss father and a Danish mother in Geneva, she and a friend skied the Alps and sailed the lake of Geneva every winter and summer respectively.
She was known to drive from Geneva to Afghanistan in 1939 (wow!) and was a true daredevil, to say the least.
She was captain of the Swiss national women's hockey team, and participated in the 1924 Olympics in sailing.
I don't think she ever married, or had children (at least I cannot find evidence to support this, except that in the interview I saw of her, she was wearing what seemed like a wedding ring).

She was by no means a 'traditional' woman.
For someone born in 1903, let's just say she was a bit of  a 'free spirit'.
Understatement of the year :-)

Ella Maillart is described as a feminist.
I can see why.
Here is a woman who never followed what was on the script. She never became the 'pregnant and barefoot wife' she was supposed to become. Apparently, she got too much of her father's adventurous spirit :-)

I have a slight problem with this labelling of Ella Maillart but I shall drop this angle, because in fact she is not the main focus of this post.

Something she said in her interview, is.

She ended up in India on a 'search for the truth' and spent three months in some temple with some holy men/gurus who were her spiritual advisors. They gave her heavy-duty spiritual books to read and she lived the life of a 'monk' (her own words) for all that time, learning from these holy men. She says with humour and humility that it took her 3 whole months to 'get it', i.e. the 'truth', which was what she was looking for, when it took most other people a few days.
She claims she did not believe in God. She was a bona fide atheist.
God was un mot vide, to her. An empty word.

And yet, Ella Maillart said this more than once in her interview:

Human beings have a divinity within them which is a reflection of God's image in them.

She went on to write several books on this topic, and to my eternal shame, I have never read any of them, yet.
But I shall. I am sure I will learn something from them.

This is where I get all philosophical on you :-)

Ella Maillart's words made me think of human beings as a whole.
Our failings, our joys, our sorrows, our fears, our pains, our successes and our challenges.

With all of these, we are still a reflecion of our Creator.
That's deep.

So, if each of us is a reflection of God, then we are all co-creators of each other, really.
Makes sense.
We reap what we sow. We create and destroy.
One of the laws of Nature is, every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
Everything we do affects someone, somewhere.
Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but someday.
Maybe not here, maybe not there, but somewhere.

And everything that is happening now, is simply another event in the chain reaction that happened long before we were born.
We can swing that chain reaction in any way we want, while we are capable.
We can choose to do good, in which case we align ourselves with God's good Nature, or we do bad in a conscious way, in which case we deviate from His innate Nature and hurt ourselves  and others in the process.

Not a bad catechism lesson from an atheist.
And a feminist to boot.


The above are my thoughts as inspired by Ella Maillart.
But it appears I am not the only one waxing lyrical about philosophy round these parts.
Shortly after I drafted this post, I came across this comment from BeijaFlor regarding this post of his about 'closure'.


"There is a system of religious philosophy – often labeled “gnosticism” – that sees us as immortal beings, splinters of the Godhead if you will, who live out our lives on Earth in order to experience life as a mortal being; to learn from its pains, its struggles, its inequity, and all its “wrongnesses,” up to and including death. Some versions of this belief system hold that we come straight into this life, all unwitting, from our previous death. Some hold that we spend most of our existence as spiritual beings in a spiritual plane of existence, parallel to Earth, and that we map out the lesson-plan of each Earthly life before we cross over from “the other side” and take up our new life. It’s a matter that is outside the realm of this physical universe, and so it’s impervious to scientific proof. But I find it comforting, and I have had experiences in this life that convince me to trust this belief."

Holy schmoly, that's profound!

Ella Maillart and BeijaFlor are probably kindred spirits.
Interesting that the other thing they have in common is sailing.
Does sailing do this to you? :-)
Any other sailors out there? Do you share these views on the 'Godhead' and His image as reflected in human beings?
Is this one of the symptoms of 'sea sickness'?
Just kidding...

All I wanna know is, is Rasana a sailor too?
He said this recently:
"There is a point to blaming the dead. Shall I meet them after death, I'm giving them a whack, even if we're all part of the same Godhead/matterium such that I feel the pain too."

:-)

Formal Catholic Catechism for me began at age 7 just before First Confession and First Holy Communion and ended at age 8 just before Confirmation.

After that, it was kinda like, 'yer on yer own now, kid!'.

I exaggerate...but let's just say I am no expert on philosophy.

Bellita once said she was religious but not spiritual. I thought spirituality was a big part of religion and therefore found Bellita's comment incomprehensible. I am still confused.
Is all this what we call 'karma'? Is 'karma' a necessary part of religion or is it more like 'stand-alone'?
Ella Maillart has passed on, God rest her soul.

BeijaFlor is thankfully still with us.
I hope he enlightens us with his expertise on this matter. He has previously shared with us that he trained as a spiritual counselor.
This stuff intrigues me.
And it is increasingly clear that I need some education on it.
Please spill the beans, BeijaFlor.
I am curious.

The special snowflake

Re the women of The Manosphere:

"...We get accused of playing special snowflake..."

This comment by Just Visiting made me think more ardently about something I had been reflecting on for a while anyway.

It is indeed something I too have noticed about the Manosphere.

If I got a penny for each time I have had to defend womanhood in general by declaring NAWALT, I would be a seriously rich gal by now :-)

Re the 'special snowflake thing, I think this is a good example of what I will call the 'Trust me' syndrome.

There are some people who automatically clam up when someone begins their statement with 'Trust me'...

I know people who would run away holding their head in their hands whenever someone says to them, 'Trust me, I'm a doctor', or 'Trust me, I am ....(insert your own platitutude).

Such people are immediately programmed to switch off or not trust. Kinda like a reflex defence mechanism.

I think most men (and admittedly a lot of women too) are like this.

Men are not swayed by words as much as women. They live by the principle that no-one need advertise what they are. In other words, a real special snowflake is the one who is not saying she is :-)

You got it - another paradox!

They will look for evidence that she is a special snowflake by her actions. Women should do this too, but tend to be rather behind the men when it comes to this perhaps. I think It doesn't come so naturally to women because women are naturally more trusting than men - until experience teaches otherwise of course. Men are born, it seems, with a healthy dose of skepticism. I think they do let it slip occasionally just long enough to trust a woman they will eventually marry and it is kind of 'luck of the draw' if they get it right or not...

:-)

A man is programmed to look for evidence of 'special' in a woman, because he does not need to see a woman as special initially to get attracted to her because beauty (his attraction trigger) is in fact not unique, I have now realised. There are many beautiful women in the world.

A woman has to see a man as unique enough to be atrracted. For a man, no. Most women are attractive, physically. (But this is perhaps changing with a new phenomenon which I can't possible go into in this post - loaded with dynamite and I am not ready to be shot to bits for something that's not quite totally relevant to this post anyway. I shall stay out of this trap for now :-)

A man is on the lookout for the special snowfake in a woman as soon as his infatuation has worn off. That is, he is now in a position to test her mettle to see if she is a good fit for him (By this time, usually, a woman has already finished with her assessment of him - because if she is LTR-minded at least, she would have been looking for things that make him unique straightaway).

As they say, everyone is a legend in their own lunchtime.

We are all unique, at least to ourselves.

So even if a man ain't listening,a woman might still  shout from the rooftops (figuratively speaking of course) that she is SPECIAL, DAMMIT!

Clearly counterproductive and illogical, given what we know about men, but there we are...

Some women appear to do exactly this. In some men's eyes, at least. And there's nothing fiigurative about it. It is sadly all too literal.

Train wreck of a show when such women are 'sacrificed' on the altar of Manosphere Church.

Fair or fowl?

Like 'playing the victim', there is something comforting about a woman telling (certainly herself, but others too) that she is 'special'. Is this a femininity thing? I was never like this in the heyday of my tomboy phase :-)

Is this a necessary part of being a woman?

Or am I looking for an excuse to endorse 'attitude' in a woman when there is no need for this type of thinking?

Are men using this 'soft neg' as a way of browbeating women into submission? Or is this a harmless tease in the manner described in 'The shock factor'?

I am not knocking this Manosphere theme. There are some women who are far too entitled for their own good. Come to think of it, so are some men, but this post will focus on women since we are 'the accused' right now :-)

I agree it would be helpful for women to curb this tendency. I totally agree this is where the 'rationalisation hamster' can get out of hand and go into fatal overdrive.

But as usual, to make a point, people often pick the extreme cases. Fair enough - it is hard to be subtle and make an important point all at the same time.

I get that.

But is it ever helpful for a woman to stop telling herself she is special?

I think not.

The only problem is, whatever one tells oneself tends to be revealed in one's attitude :-)

Shame, because it would be great to have the required high self esteem without the apparent arrogance that comes with telling all and sundry that one is 'special'.

In all seriousness I can see how a woman who is too arrogant can be a turn off to men.

I think it's like how a man could be seen as a 'lovable rogue' but a woman is never a 'lovable b*tch'.

Like how a man can be irreverent and easily forgiven - a woman tries to do the same and she is heavily penalised - in most cases.

In each case, it is the audience that counts.

I will find an irreverent woman or man funny. I am not sure a man would find an irreverent woman funny, at least not in a way that benefits her.

I remember when Portuguese football (soccer) manager Jose Mourinho first got appointed as manager to Chelsea football club in London.

He was immediately making waves with his cocky 'I am 'The Special One' mantra. It was funny.

Was it funny because he is a man?

Somehow, a woman doing the same thing would be seen in a different light, if we are all honest about it.

I have to add here that in Mourinho's case, he was in fact justified in his attitude, because he really was special. He went on to lead several clubs to football glory. So he clearly knew what he was doing :-)

But what happens when a woman tells herself she is special?

With regards to the SMP, two things can happen.

1. She believes rightly or wrongly that she deserves better, based on her own self-assessment.

This only works against her if she has grossly overestimated her own worth.

But I think it is intrinsicallly good for a woman to feel good about her own worth. Wthout this 'feel good factor' bad things will happen to her. Low self worth is usually followed by evidence to prove the low self worth. And actually, the man she picks is automatically disrespected.

Why?

Because she is telling that man that she is low-value, and she is picking him.

Do men want to be with a low value woman? I guess not. Do men wnat to be with a woman who believes she is low value? Same answer - I guess not.

A high value woman is an asset. To herself and any man she picks. Because it is the ultimate respect to a man to get a woman who he believes and also just as importantly who the woman herself believes to be super.

The problem is when the high-value woman is so 'great' she cannot find anyone 'great' enough for her. Pie in the sky stuff.

Bad.

2. She believes (usually wrongly) that all or most men are not just less than she is, but are less than they actually are. This is a whole other animal, and very different from 'I am special'. This is now hypergamy on steroids.

Needless to say, this is what makes men seethe. I can understand this somehow.

The special,snowflake...

The Manosphere is not wrong about this.

But it is not completely right either.

The 'special snowflake' is every woman. And it is a product of 'the hamster'. It can be good or bad, loud or quiet, depending on the woman. It can be real or imagined, depending on the criteria the man is using.

But the irony is that most women are really 'the same', to most men, and it is men who have to be unique in order for 'the special snowflake' to be attracted to him in the first place.

It is the man who has to 'peacock'.

But he never says he is 'special'.

He prefers to show he is special.

He knows he is special and doesn't care who agrees or disagrees.

He is as he is. Take it or leave it.

Because he was born with, or acquired truckloads of confidence from somewhere. Err, can't think where :-)

And he can't stand a woman who says she is special.

Whether or not she actually is.

Bitter red pill for women to swallow.

But there we are.

C'est la vie.

Pope Game

Awww, I LOVE Pope Benedict!

Erm, is it inappropriate to declare this in public??
Is this my irreverent Brit side coming out?
:-)

I think if God is the ultimate Game practitioner then Pope Benedict is his ultimate wingman.

Our very own Pope Ben.
AKA Joseph Ratzinger Jr.
I think he's so cute. Just like Danny's Paw-paw.


It's getting to that time in the Church's calendar when we will be seeing more and more of Pope Benedict. Recently back from Cuba and Mexico, he will be leading us into Holy week beginning on Palm/Passion Sunday.

Like most people of my generation, Pope John Paul II is the only other Pope I have known in my lifetime. He was the longest serving (modern) Pope.
He so happens to have been a very likeable character. Young and old easily identified with him. Wherever he went, he was an instant star. He had something that even Pope Ben doesn't have. I can't give it a name. Perhaps the thing that comes closest is charisma?
Yes he came under a lot of criticism for the whole abuse thing. I am not sure of the ins and outs of these, but I suspect all popes had/have this cross to bear on behalf of their more deviant subordinates, aka predatory priests.


Pope Ben is more 'quiet' than Pope John Paul II, in my humble estimation. He was an academic, an intellectual. Not really at home 'on stage'. But he does his best. He has to, because he is 'on stage' whether he likes it or not.

My hypergamy is not limited to the SMP/MMP.
I grew up with priests.
Ordinary priests.
The ultimate priest is the Pope.
Let's just say I am hopelessly susceptible to 'Pope Game'.
If the Pope in question is tall, handsome, famous (everyone knows the Pope, right?), earns more than me (not difficult - the Catholic Church is arguably the richest empire in the world), speaks several languages, travels a lot, has a fancy house (St. Peter's in Rome is not a pauper's abode), has a fancy car (the Popemobile has got to be the coolest car in the world - even if its top speed is 5 km/hour LOL) and is Catholic (um, the Pope is Catholic, right?), he's got my attention :-)
Except...he's taken.
By God.
(The ultimate pre-selection :-)
Zut alors.

Most Popes are usually really old by the time they start their popedom, but I am sure if one did a poll on young women (Catholic or otherwise), one would find that there are at least some who have major 'crushes' on them. Religious hypergamy at its very best :-)
Or maybe I just need help.

Has anyone been in the tower at the Vatican? I have, twice in the last 3 years. The second time, I and all the other lucky tourists spotted Pope Ben taking a stroll in his magnificent gardens during his daily evening Rosary time.
Considering my 'feelings', I kinda felt like a stalker. Aherm, this can't be good :-)

Every Pope has a team of ceremonial 'guards' of young men who 'guard' them. They are known as the Pontifical Swiss Guards.
Catholic boys in Switzerland have the option of doing this instead of the usual National Service (which is obligatory for all boys in Switzerland, bar a medical reason).

I love their uniform:

If I have a son who comes of age in Pope Benedict's lifetime, he is getting conscripted into this army. No questions asked. Nevermind that I am not in fact Swiss. I might have to beg, borrow or steal a swiss passport for him.

Pope Benedict was born in 1927. At 78, he became one of the oldest Popes in history. Apparently he attempted to 'retire' from the priesthood three times by the time he was 75, due to health reasons (stroke) and the desire to return to his academic lifestyle and write books. But he was denied three times. To add insult to injury, they elected him Pope three years later :-)

I am not sure how widely known the following story is, but it is indeed true.
His father Joseph Ratzinger  Sr. was a police officer who apparently wasn't getting too much luck with the ladies. (What's new, eh boys?)

To help his situation, he put an ad in the local paper specifying that he needed a wife who could cook and clean. Only one woman answered.
So not too many takers for poor ole Ratzinger then. I can't really explain this. Perhaps he wasn't an attractive prospect? But why not? As a police officer he would have been a very good prospect in any generation, no?
Or is it that 'personal ads' in the paper were frowned upon in the 1920's?
Dunno.

Anyway, that woman was Maria Peintner. She got the job :-)

Pope Benedict was the youngest of their three children.
Big brother Georg is also a priest. Big sister Maria never married and managed Pope Benedict's household until her death in 1991. In this manner she fulfilled the role I describe here.


So, Papa and Mama Ratzinger produced two priests and a virtual nun.
Interesting.

I don't know how long we will have our Pope Ben for. He himself has (worryingly) predicted a short reign as Pope due to his health problems. I hope he is wrong.
After seven years he is fast filling the big shoes left behind by John Paul II.
That is no mean feat.
John Paul II was a hard act to follow.


Seven years ago to the day, I, like millions all over the world, was pacing up and down and biting my nails anxiously as I waited for the white smoke to come out of the chimney of the Sistine Chapel and to hear the words 'Habemus Papam!'
And then, all I wanted to know was, who was going to be our new Pope?
Would I like him?
Would he be as cool as JP II?
Would he lead The Church well?
I needn't have worried.
The rest, as they say, is history.

Unlike in the secular world where we all vote for who we want as the leader of our respective countries, (except of course those unlucky enough to live under a dictatorship), a new Pope is always a 'surprise' :-)
Sometimes a nice surprise, as in the case of Pope Ben, sometimes a not-so-nice surprise - not mentioning any names :-)
So I pray and hope that Pope Benedict will be with us for a long long time.

I always wanted to be a one-Pope girl.
But failing that, I would be happy with 'two-Pope' girl.
Hey, just trying to keep the number low :-)
And I hope Pope Ben obliges me by staying alive.



Benedict/Benedictus/Benoit/Benedetto.
Indeed he is blessed.
Viva il Papa!

 Aww, crying for his predecessor JP II.

See? He is not just 'alpha'. He's got a sensitive side too :-)

Dominus vobiscum!

Happy Easter to all.

...And I am not ashamed to say it!

There is something odd going on...

Forgive me if I have just 'twigged' onto this phenomenon.
It is one of those things that creep up on you. Very slowly.


My attention was brought starkly onto this trend by a conversation I had with a relative stranger recently.
The content of the conversation is irrelevant as it happens.
But it refreshed my memory on the fact that I have never heard a man say 'I am (insert less than desired trait) and proud'.
At least not using these exact words.

This is God's honest truth.
I have never heard an unemployed man say 'I am unemployed and proud'.
Or 'I did somethind outrageous and I am not ashamed to say it'.
Never.
Which surprises me strangely.

But, it appears to be all the rage for women to say things like this.
'I am a b*tch and proud'.
It is even a popular 'Jerry Springer' type talkshow title.

Why is this?

It is not so much the behaviour that interests me as the 'buzz-word' that gets flung about in association with said behaviour.
I am interested as to the background of this relatively new sighting in the world of womanhood.
Since I live there, it is useful for me to know not just the regular neighbours, but also any visitors, welcome or not.

Where did this whole catchphrase come from?
Not every woman does this, of course.
In fact, I dare say, it is just a minority.
But this minority is highly vocal and ubiquitous, giving the distinct impression that this disposition is the fashion on planet Woman.
It is not. And it should not be.

Women are becoming more and more encouraged to promote certain bad behaviours in a way that seems to far supersede any such trend in men.
Is this a public relations move?
And who is pushing those buttons?
I ask this because I heard that in certain 'reality' TV shows, people are goaded into misbehaving in ways that are not typical for them purely to boost ratings. These 'guinea pigs' later regret having participated in a public self-humiliating exercise.

Quite how I got to waste a whole thirty minutes of my life on this programme, I'll never know, but I watched a documentary about British teenagers on holiday abroad...(note to self: big mistake - don't do this again).

The personalities featured were the 15-20 year old crowd. Gregarious bunch, nice kids.
But what I couldn't help noticing was that whilst the boys (mostly) appeared to be ashamed of some of the stuff they were getting up to (one boy even joked that he hoped his mother would not see the programme), most of the girls (except one) were intent on outdoing each other on who was the 'baddest'. In typical 'Jersey Shore' fashion, they were vying with each other to see who could rack up the most 'numbers', with particular emphasis on beating the boys at this game.
Fair enough, nothing wrong with a bit of 'competition', I rationalised.
Except that when it came to doing something relatively positive, somehow the competitive spirit seemd to disappear amongst the girls.
What's more, the phrase 'And I am not ashamed' seemed to crop up more often than was warranted.
It seems to me that this was the 'fix-all' phrase that these girls were using to exculpate themselves from self-introspection.
I am not saying the boys were angels. But at least they had the semblance of shame about them.
This was totally missing in most of the girls.

This is a striking and somewhat worrying trend among young women.
Because whatever we say to ourselves becomes our mantra.
Self-talk, I have noticed, is rather powerful.
If one exculpates oneself of something which does require correcting, one never arrives at the required self-correction phase. Because one's mind is derailed by the self-talk of the exculpation.

I have noticed that it is increasingly prevalent that a woman 'comes out' and declares that she had an affair with such and such a prominent (famous) man X years ago 'and she is not ashamed of it' disregarding completely the feelings of said man's wife, children and other associates (who cares about the man himself in this context - no sympathy from me).
What is interesting is that said man is usually suitably humble about his misdeeds - is this just a 'show' for the cameras, I wonder? What someone I know would call 'crocodile tears'?


"I am a (negative trait) and proud..."
Are these female words?
I doubt it. My grandmother and her friends never used those words except when they were referring to something actually positive.



These words were packaged, wrapped up and delivered to the modern woman by a beast by the name of ...you guessed it...feminism.
These words were dressed up as empowerment. Just like the whole sex-positive thing.


Thanks but no thanks.
Women today can do without that kind of empowerment.
Real empowerment is a good thing for women. There are lots of good women out there fighting for empowerment for other (less privileged) women in positive ways. Hijacking the word 'empowerment' is equivalent to muddying the waters these great women are working so hard to clean up. It is not fair on them.


Just last night, I found another example of this phenomenon. I wasn't even looking for corroboration of my previous observations, but these gems seem to come my way whether I like it or not.
Nadya Suleman is the woman who gave birth to octuplets in 2009, having previously had 6 children. Although not directly relevant to this post, her background might be of interest:
Married in 1996 at age 20, she first started IVF at age 21 (I don't know why, and am inclined to believe it was for a medical reason). Husband appears not to have been in agreement with the conceptions of the 6 children who resulted from this treatment, none of whom are biologically his. At the time of the birth of the octuplets, Ms Suleman was a single (divorced) Mum with 6 kids. The reason she gives for undergoing the treatment resulting in the octuplets is that she did not want the eggs from her previous 'harvest' to be destroyed. (Fair point, I believe in the sanctity of life too, even if we are talking about unfertilised eggs at this point).

But I digress.
Suleman recently posed nude for a women's magazine.
Yes I agree that the fourteen kids need to be fed somehow.
But I am sure there are other ways to feed a family.
Each to his own however.

What I find fascinating is those words again...right there at 1.28 in this video:
I have no particular opinions on her actions. Until I have 14 kids, I guess I cannot touch her decisions/actions.
I am however interested in those words...'I am not ashamed of it'. It's like this is the new script for the theatricals of woman-ville.

Here is the video.


Women are being aided and abetted into self-destruction by this alternative view of 'empowerment'.
I discuss it here because it may be one of the strongest factors holding some women back.
Herd mentality at its worst.
The women who are enabling their friends in non-productive behaviours are doing them a disservice. It may be inadvertent, I don't know. But it sure ain't helping.

My grandmother's generation did not feel the need to be like this. And yet they were by all accounts very powerful women. What has gone wrong?

I honestly do not believe in shaming someone publicly. (But I accept that my opinion (if negative about them) would appear to do just that. That is however not the intent).
But I really admire those who do the self-shaming thing all by themselves. So I don't have to do it for them :-)

Is this abnormal?
Why do I appreciate introspection in someone else so much?
And why do I shirk from people who have zero introspection?
Is this part of the whole Red Pill/masculine woman mindset?
Or am I just a mea culpa junkie because I am Catholic?
I dunno.


If as a woman, you know within yourself that you are way too heavy for your own health, admit that to yourself and make plans to change things. For your health. No-one is saying you should beat yourself about the head with a stick. That is unproductive too.
But don't listen to your fat friends who want you to remain as fat as they are. Remember that sometimes 'the herd' is not your friend.

If as a woman, you would really like to be in a relationship with a good man but as yet, you haven't got there, don't jump on the 'single by choice and proud' bandwagon and make a loud noise about how you really love the single life.
It's called self-deception. It leads to cognitive dissonance.
I am not saying to get all depressed about it either. That would be unhelpful.
But develop a mindset that will help you get to what you really want.

If as a woman, you have any other not-so-positive-trait/event you yourself have had the insight to recognise as such, either accept it as such, or if at all possible, if you feel there is a chance it can be rectified, do that.
There is nothing empowering about rationalising something bad into something admirable. It does not work, at least not in the long run.


Having said all of the above, I would however be the first to declare that making the best of whatever situation one finds oneself in, is one of the best policies of life.
But this should not mean celebrating with forced vigour a negative and making it seem like it is a positive.
That's called 'false advertising'. It is disingenuous and is easily spotted by the discerning.


I do believe that the rationalisation hamster can be a good thing for women, despite what some Manosphere bloggers say.
Afterall, without it, a woman would never be able to 'turn a blind eye' to some of the atrocities that men commit that are quite unforgivable.
Oh yes, the 'rationalsation hamster' can be your friend, gentlemen :-) Don't knock it.
It is what can allow a woman to be a woman, forgiving, compassionate.

But this same rationalisation hamster should not be used by a woman to enable herself to wade in the mire of self-delusion in the false guise of 'empowerment'.

Film Review: Mandingo

When I first saw this film, it was in the context of a history lesson of sorts, notably Black history, and specifically, Slave Trade history.

When I saw it again recently, this time with my Manosphere goggles on, it surprised me how full of lessons on the male-female dynamics it contained.
I missed all that the first time round.

'Mandingo' is set on Falconhurst, a run-down plantation in the Deep South during the hey-day of the slave trade.
The owner is Warren Maxwell, a widower with rheumatism and a fiery temper (at least against abolitionists) and he lives there with his son Hammond, who limps following a childhood accident where he was stomped on the knee by a pony.

If the overriding wrongs of slavery can be set aside for the purposes of focusing on the point of this review, then Hammond Maxwell is the ultimate 'good guy'.

In fact, even in the context of the slave trade, he was amazingly principled.
Except for one or two misdemeanors on his part, he is a conscientious fellow who is a free agent in the sense that he never allowed himself to be swayed by anyone's moral compass but his own. And he was morally sound, at least far more than the people around him.

The Maxwells' household consisted of Lucrezia Borgia, a Mandingo slave woman (the chief cook, and as was not unusual at that time, virtual mother to Hammond, I suspect even before his real mother died), Big Pearl, the daughter of Lucrezia Borgia,  Agamemnon the chief house slave and a few other slaves including children.

Warren's favourite topic of conversation was the 'Mandingo' - a specific tribe of slave (who hail from modern day Sierra Leone) who were known for their 'strong genes', which meant more money for any slave master who had one. The male Mandingos were prized because they made unbeatable wrestlers.

Hammond, unmarried at the start of the film had an eye for slave women, particularly virgin ones. But unlike his peers, he actually liked (loved?) these women.

He fell in love with one, Ellen when he and a friend paid a visit to a ranch belonging to a family friend and he and his friend were presented with two slave women for the night.
Ellen, the virgin of the two girls noticed immediately that Hammond was 'different' from other white men, and consented to be with Hammond, who gave her the choice to stay or leave.

Maxwell Senior is getting old and starts pressuring Hammond to get a wife and produce an heir for the plantation.
Around this time, Hammond's cousin Charles pays a visit, and it becomes a foregone conclusion that Hammond would marry Charles' sister, Blanche.

This duly happens rather quickly. Blanche certainly plays her cards right.

It wasn't until the wedding night that Hammond discovers she is not a virgin.
Being an expert on virgins, he could tell.
At first Blanche denied this.
But she never regained the love nor respect of Hammond.
Towards the end of the film she confesses that she and her brother Charles were up to things they shouldn't have. In her defence, she said it happened when she was 13. (Statutory rape, then).

Hammond never forgot Ellen, his slave lover.
Following the disappointment of his wedding night, he goes in search for her, buys her and takes her home with him, along with Mede, a prize fighter of a slave man who is 100% Mandingo, and as it happens who becomes the pride of Warren and the whole of Falconhurst plantation.

Blanche is aware of her husband's penchant for black women. When Ellen is bought, she asks Hammond if she is 'for the Mandingo'. Hammond simply replies, "No she ain't".
Here starts the (one-way) rivalry between the two women.

Hammond ignores his wife and spends all his nights with his beloved Ellen. He continuously reassures her that he will never sell her or their children.
When she gets pregnant, he promises her (at her request) that their child will be a free person, not a slave.

Unfortunately that child never got born.
In a fit of jealousy, Blanche attacks Ellen with a whip and she miscarries.
The rage of a woman scorned...
Warren is told of the incident by Lucrezia Borgia. To protect Blanche, Warren instructs Ellen not to tell Hammond about Blanche's misdeed.

Warren becomes increasingly worried that his son and his wife are not getting on with the business of producing an heir for him. He has no idea why Hammond is ignoring his wife.
Of course Hammond never tells his father why he is cold towards his wife. Is this to protect her, or is he simply content to forget she exists and console himself with his slave mistress?
In a classic Manosphere-type 'advice to a woman', Warren instructs her to do whatever it takes to atract and keep Hammond. She retorts that there is nothing she can do to make her husband love her - that he is only attracted to the 'dirty wenches' who do 'dirty' things with men.
Disingenuous. Blanche knows exactly why her husband is rejecting her.
But she would rather make herself seem like a 'good girl' in relation to 'those other women who are dirty' to someone she knows does not know her own dirty little secret.

(Warning: the first 2 minutes of the following video shows a gruesome wrestling match - might be offensive or unwatchable to some).

Things come to a head when Hammond and Warren return from a trip with winnings from yet another wrestling win by Mede the Mandingo who by this time has become something of a friend to Hammond  (so much so that he refuses to sell Mede even when pressured into doing so by his father and others prepared to pay colossal sums for the Mandingo).
With the winnings, Warren buys ruby earrings together with matching necklace and gives them to Hammond to give to his wife as a present.

Egged on by his father, Hammond grudgingly gives the ruby necklace to his wife Blanche (what a contrast with the way in which he gives Ellen the ruby earrings!), following which his father locks them together in their room to 'get on with things' after he rebukes Blanche for drinking too much and neglecting her appearance. Blanche is happy when her husband obliges his father and things seem to be looking up for her.

Her happiness is short-lived, however. When she spots Ellen wearing the ruby earrings, she knows Hammond must have given them to her. Her rage against him leads to her fatal confession about who her previous 'suitor' was.

Warren is dismayed at his son for his stupidity re the ruby jewelry. But Hammond is unrepentant.

When Hammond goes away to slave market, Blanche (desperate for some..aherm...male attention, and in revenge for her husband's open affection for Ellen) calls for Mede to come to her room. She is drunk. The other slaves are aware what is about to happen and try to save Mede from his fate, but to no avail.
Blanche blackmails him into doing what she wants. He is in a classic no-win situation.

When Blanche gives birth to a mixed race baby boy nine months later, Hammond is stunned and outraged.
A man betrayed...twice. First to learn his 'virgin bride' is anything but, and then to learn his son and heir is also anything but.

Cuckoldry. A man's greatest fear...
Blanche is a woman hell-bent on punishing her husband for 'abandoning' her, i.e. making her realise her own worst fear.

The baby is sadly killed by the doctor and his midwife wife to spare Hammond the embarrassment. But Hammond nonetheless discovers the truth. He decides to poison Blanche - and does.
Does the punishment fit the crime? Certainly not, but Hammond was in freefall at this point.
And then he goes in search of Mede his slave friend, wielding a gun. This time, not even his beloved Ellen can stop him.

The final scene is excruciating and brutal.
Mede and Agamemnon finally have the courage to speak up in an attempt to reason with Hammond, who (perhaps understandably) has taken temporary leave of his senses, with disastrous results.
He only wakes up to himself when he is faced with the lifeless body of his father prone on the ground before him.

I must say that I feel Hammond let himself down in this scene. He already knew (and should have known anyway!) that Mede woud never have touched his wife unless he was tricked or manipulated into doing it. When his father, seeing him prepare the poison he would later use to kill her suggsted that Blanche could have been raped by Mede, Hammond knew this was not the case.
But his rage (against his wife?) led him to attack Mede who was clearly the innocent party.



Blanche
I am pretty sure Blanche could have saved her marriage to Hammond if only she had been a woman of good character and some intelligence. Afterall, I am sure there were many non-virgin brides in her day who managed to have longlasting good marriages. The point I am trying to make here is that she was not actually a very nice person to begin with, so I suspect that even if she had been virginal at the time of her marriage, she would still have been in the same position.
Unlike Ellen, who was a slave and therefore was never going to be in a position to marry Hammond, Blanche was already his wife. With a bit of effort on her part, he could have been 'persuaded' to at least share his time equally between her and Ellen. Blanche however, had taken to drinking, and as her father-in law noted, was letting her appearance go. The really sad part is, Blanche had a lot of potential. She was good-looking, and when she did try, she actually managed to get Hammond 'into her'. But her efforts were too sparse. She repeatedly failed in her role as 'relationship expert'.
Ellen on the other hand was always presentable, even though she was a slave woman. When Hammond presents the ruby earrings to her 'to prettify her', he quickly adds 'not that you need prettifying'.

There is no way to be definite about this of course, but it is quite possible that Hammond would never have gone as far as seeking out Ellen and actually buying her to ensure she would remain his forever, if he hadn't been so disappointed with his wife.
He was so keen to forget his new wife that he went in search of Ellen on the way home from the honeymoon! Blanche knew she was in trouble from then on...
As Lucrezia Borgia later explained to Warren and Hammond, Blanche had 'called for' Mede several times. This implies that she was sending a definite message to Hammond. It seems she really wanted to get pregnant by Mede. To teach her husband a lesson. To humiliate him. Kinda like, what you can do, I can do better...'If you're gonna mess about with the slaves, so will I'.
But what a way to teach one's husband a lesson!
I am sure there are much better ways...



Hammond
Hammond was a good guy in many ways. He was fair, except for right at the end when his wounded manly pride dictated his uncharacteristic behaviour.
It was his habit to 'deflower' the virgin girls amongst the slaves of his father which was (of course abominably) perhaps the culture of the day. But it is noteworthy that he treated all these girls with kindness and gentleness such that none of them felt the need to flee from him, as they often did with the other men. I am not sure how the film makers manage to convince the audience that somehow these women were not being (technically) raped. But somehow they manage it. Sensitive topic so I shall stay away from now on.
He did not share his father's anti-abolition views and was courteous to slaves unless he felt he was being 'disrespected' - for example when he caught Agamemnon reading with other slaves behind his back, and even with Ellen when she first asked him if their (unborn) son could go free and he sensed possible dissent on her part.

Hammond's 'habit' meant that he had the pick of any slave woman he wanted, but that meant he was sexually unacquainted with white women until he married (and in fact as was the custom of the day, he should have been unacquainted with any woman until marriage!).
Technically, that should not have been a problem.
Except that there was the 'conventional wisdom' in place that the white ladies were 'ladies in the bedroom' and the 'wenches' were 'dirty in bed', so Hammond was expecting this to play out in his own life.
Well that never quite transpired.
He is so principled that when it becomes clear that his wife is not 'respectable', he and a friend end up in a brothel, but Hammond cannot bring himself to break his vows - at least not straightaway.
When eventually he does, it is only with his beloved Ellen.

At one point, Blanche is so desperate for his affections that she literally 'jumps him' much to his surprise (did not expect that from a 'white lady' - not even one to whom he was married!).
Had he not written her off, I am sure her advances would have been very welcome indeed. But sadly this was not the case.

Hammond ends up treating Ellen more like a wife than Blanche. He was gentle and affectionate with her, and her needs were a priority for him.



Warren
Maxwell Senior is not particularly likeable at the start of the film. He is a grumpy old racist and loudmouthed man.
But he is undeniably a good father.
And, as it turns out, a good father-in-law.
If only Blanche had listened to him for more than five minutes, she could have made her marriage work.
Warren, I suspect liked Ellen (although sometimes he had a funny way of showing it). He, like Hammond was gentle and kind to her. But his first duty was to Blanche, as she was the legitimate wife of his son, so he protected her by lying for her during the miscarriage incident.
He was keen to see his son's marriage work.
When Blanche accuses Hammond of liking 'dirty' women, Warren's reply is to the tune of 'you will also do 'dirty things' if that's what it takes to keep him'. Talk about straightforward marriage counselling!

Warren has a great relationship with Lucrezia Borgia. She is as much the matriarch of the household as he is the patriarch. In many ways, she was a good wife-substitute for him following the death of his wife. And I suppose a mother-figure to Hammond. Both men respect her.
When Lucrezia Borgia, on first meeting Blanche, exclaims, 'Ever since Mrs Maxwell died I have been looking forward to a new mistress', my first thought was, 'Oh yes, why didn't Maxwell Senior remarry?'
Until I realised there was no need. Lucrezia Borgia was already said mistress of the household. All but in name.



Ellen
Ellen is the sweet and shy slavegirl who steals the heart of Hammond. Unlike Blanche she really gets to know Hammond and what makes him tick.
She cannot have a real rivalry with Blanche in this menage à trois because she is a slave and therefore has no socially relevant power, but she demonstrates backhanded cattiness that all women when faced with competition and given the slightest chance will exhibit.
After Hammond gives her the ruby earrings, she wears them when she is serving dinner, knowing Blanche will see them. That was the extent to which she could wield her power over Blanche and she didn't hesitate to use it. It was efective.
She was also feminine in a way Blanche was not. So she had Hammond eating out of her hand from more or less Day 1. She may have been the underdog in the race for Hammond's affections, but she definitely came out the outright winner.


Mede
Poor Mede. I do have some sympathy for him. But not too much.
He was in a very unfortunate position, yes.
And, to make matters worse, I also think (and I say this with all humility) he was a bit of a simpleton.
Three episodes convince me of his lack of higher intellect.

1. Once, he was asked to chase down a runaway slave by the name of Cisero. When Mede finally catches up with Cisero, he is pleased with himself. Cisero rebukes him, explaining that he was just a lapdog for his white masters. Mede seemed oblivious to this.
2. When he wrestles and kills Topaz, another slave, in a brutal wrestling match, again he is pleased with himself (but in all fairness he did show some introspection after this match). Agamemnon has to remind him of his 'puppet' status. Again, Mede needs reminding that pleasing his white masters is not necessarily something to be proud of.
3. For me, the following is the worst one. When he was asked to go to Blanche's room, surely he knew what was about to happen?! Sure, it is quite possible that he felt he had no choice but to follow orders...but I am positive he could have found a way to get out of the terrible dilemma he was about to face.
He could have arranged to 'disappear' from the plantation, he could have feigned an illness, anything!
But poor old Mede walked right into the trap that had been laid for him by Blanche.

His saving grace comes at the very end of the film where he scrapes together the shreds of masculinity he posseses and challenges Hammond's judgment for the very first time.
Too little too late, perhaps?




This film is tainted with the historical context of slavery, of course, so it is quite difficult to be objective about any message it sends, no matter how unrelated to slavery it seems.
Scenes in which Warren and friends dispute that the slaves have souls, where someone suggests that Warren place his rheumatism-ravaged feet on a little black boy to transfer his rheumatism into him, and the discussion between Warren and Hammond where the latter informs the former that Mede is in fact the son of Lucrezia Borgia (but no-one else on the plantation knew because he was sold at birth) and therefore giving Big Pearl to him as his 'wife' would constitute incest but who cares, they are just slaves anyway, and the cruel way in which babies were snatched away from their mothers and sold are all particularly cringeworthy and unwatchable at times.

But I find the male-female dynamics between Hammond and his women remarkedly representative of some of today's SMP issues.
It is afterall, a classic human story.

This post is already too long, but just a quick rundown on the specific Manosphere issues the film throws at me:

1. Men seeking 'foreign' women if the women in their country/culture/race/religion/social circle are not deemed suitable. Although Ellen was stricly speaking not truly 'foreign' to Hammond, she was not in his 'approved' social circle.
Parallels with 'mail order brides' because western men think western women are not 'feminine' enough?
Parallels with black men seeking non-black women because they think black women are not 'feminine' enough?
Is any man happy with his own race/culture woman nowadays?
:-)

2. Men have a problem with a woman's 'high number'. In the era of this film, 'one' was deemed a high number, so Blanche paid a high price for it. Because it is perceived that a high number leads to...

3. Betrayal/cuckoldry. A man's worst nightmare. In a man's mind, are 2. and 3. really connected? In this film, is Blanche's lack of virginity the cause of her cheating? Would she not have cheated if she had been a virgin? Can a man ever forgive this sin? Hammond did not.
4. An older man really can be a girl's best teacher when it comes to her relatonship issues, same as he can be for young men. Blanche had both a father and a brother (not sure if her mother was alive). Unfortunately she got the wrong kind of 'brotherly love' which turned out to be a tragedy for her.
When she lets herself go after feeling abandoned by Hammond, it's her father-in-law who teaches her how to be a good woman/wife - a role one would expect from an older woman, eg. her own mother.
Parallels with the Manosphere 'Woman up' theme?

5. A woman blames a man or men in general for her failings in the love department. Blanche does this very well. "It's all Hammond's fault!", she exclaims. "He likes those 'dirty wenches!"
Fair point or patent lack of introspection on her part? (This has to be the most rhetorical question of this post!)

6. The following point is the most subtle of all...
When Hammod learns of Ellen's miscarriage, he is of course sad too. Afterall it's his baby too. But he does not sit and talk through the ins and outs of how she is feeling, etc. Even though he loves her. Her best female friend would have done just that though, because as a woman she would have known that Ellen would have needed that kind of 'therapy'. Hammod gives her her present and hopes it will cheer her up. Ellen does cheer up.
I can't help wondering if a modern woman's response of 'I just miscarried and you think ruby earrings will fix this' is a real slap in the face to a man who is genuinely showing love but in a 'masculine way' which comes across  as 'clumsy' to a female mind. Do modern women expect men to be like women? And also for them to be men at the same time? Pie in the sky?

Reminds me of a song by British boy band 'Blur' called 'Girls and boys'.
The chorus goes something like this:
"Girls who are boys
Who like boys to be girls
Who do boys like they're girls
Who do girls like they're boys..."

Don't know about you, but my head is spining from the confusion :-)

Ellen of course was in no position to be haughty, as a slave woman, but she still could have been. It seems it is just part of her personality to be 'humble'.
Is this a missing part of modern womanhood as perceived by men?
Are men expecting too much of modern woman? Ditto pie in the sky?

And the world dies another little death

It is rare to find a 'role model' younger than you.
But I did just that recently.

Albeit in sad cirumstances.
Similar to Sarah Burke, this young lady is no longer with us.

Why do we only hear about these beautiful people after they are no longer here?
And yet we are bombarded with the likes of  Kim K and 'Jersey Shore' every single minute of the day...

Something does not compute.
Something's not right.

Samantha Wopat is the subject of this post.
According to this artice and this one she was a 19 year old college volleyball player.
At 6 ft 1, she and identical twin Carly were imposing figures I would imagine.
They were both also academically gifted and were studying engineering.

The cause of her death was not disclosed.

What a loss to a twin, a family, a community, a nation, a world.

May she rest in peace.

Somehow it is hard to say this about someone who was only 19. Nineteen-year olds are not supposed to be 'resting'. That's for old people.

Somewhere, somehow a great guy lost his future wife.
I am reminded of something Bellita once said on another post:
"My husband was aborted before he was even born."


I sure do hope there is a higher purpose at work when things like this happen.